That seems to me pretty impressive, and neatly combines left- and right-wing doctrine in a rather Blairite way - free centralised health system and competition for delivery. The pandemic is not yet subsiding, and there is also a controversy about lack of priority for the West Bank, though the Palestinian Authority is making its own efforts and hasn't formally requested help. But overall - so far so good.
Interesting article for Labour Friends of Israel members - not fans of Netanyahu but on this occasion positive. They've gone about it quite differently to the rest of us.
Israel’s success thus far derives from a number of factors. Its small 9 million population is spread across just 21,000 sq km, which has assisted with the logistical challenges of transporting the Pfizer vaccine.
But the country isn’t just benefiting from its compact geography. Israel’s free healthcare system, which provides universal coverage, has also risen competently to the challenge. Israelis receive their care through four national networks which are required to take any citizen but which receive their funding from the state on the basis of the number of members they have. This competition, which helps hold down costs, has led to heavy investment in preventative medicine and digitisation. Each of the four networks are now competing to prove it can most efficiently get shots in the arms of its members. Vaccination slots are thus being offered seven days a week, with drive-in centres allowing Israelis to receive a jab without leaving their cars.
Digitisation and a central patient database are spurring the effort and initially helped the most vulnerable to be easily prioritised, identified and contacted. “We immediately set up a data system that identified which people to summon as a first priority, who was second priority, and who could wait. The whole thing took 10 minutes,” the chief executive of the Meuhedet health management organisation, Sigal Regev Rosenberg, told the Times of Israel this week.
While, like other countries, the country has prioritised those most vulnerable to serious illness from covid, it has also shown a high degree of flexibility and a typically Israeli disregard for rigid rules. Vaccinations centres are, for instance, inoculating younger Israelis who show up at the end of the day when unused doses might otherwise be thrown away. At the same time, Israeli experts are said to have proved adept at extracting more doses from each vial than they had originally expected to.
Logistically, the rollout has also been smooth, with key parts of the operation – including the use of pharmaceutical company Teva’s storage facilities, whose freezers can hold five million doses – ready by November. When the first shipment of vaccines arrived in December, they were placed in pizza-box size containers, which each held 100 doses, and sprinted to more than 400 clinics around the country.
Money has played a part too. Calculating that the economic and social cost of a prolonged lockdown were far outweighed by the advantage of speeding up vaccine deliveries, the Israeli government has proved willing to pay both Pfizer and Moderna considerably over the odds. Israel, the Kan public broadcaster reported on Monday, is paying $47 per person per vaccination – or £23.50 per dose – to the two drug companies. By contrast, the US is thought to be paying Pfizer $19.50 per dose while the EU is paying $14.76. Moderna vaccine prices are thought to be $15 per dose for the US and $18 per dose for the EU. The total cost – $333m – Israel is expected to pay for its vaccination programme is estimated to be roughly equivalent to the hit the economy receives for every two days of the current lockdown.
But the deal Israel struck with Pfizer isn’t just about money. In return for its shipments, the government has promised the drugs giant to feed it a supply of data about side-effects, efficacy and time to develop antibodies which will be broken down by segments including age, gender and preexisting conditions. “The country basically acts as a large, real-world lab for manufacturers and the rest of the world,” one analyst has suggested.
Thanks Nick. A lesson on the relative merits, and costs, of lockdown.
One suggestion a (Lab-supporting) economist friend of mine made earlier last year was to pay people 1.5x their salary to isolate if told to. We will wait to see the analysis of the whole thing but I've got to believe that this would have saved lives and money if implemented.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
When it's the Scottish trawler bosses and the P and J you better start listening if you are a ScoTory MP/MSP worried about his/her seat.
That is in effect actually only David Duguid, no other Scottish Tory MP or Scottish Tory constituency MSP has a major Scottish fishing port in their constituency
Trump deserves all he gets but if Biden loses the House in 2022 the chances of a resolution for impeachment must be high.
The mistake of Democrats is not this, it was the first impeachment which was foolish.
Yes, it was very foolish indeed. It is, sadly, true that Trump's unfounded claims that the 2020 election was 'stolen' were given political cover by the Dems' highly exaggerated claims that the 2016 election was rigged. (That's not to say the two were equivalent, of course).
We heard similar here over the Brexit vote too, of course.
We all need to learn to better accept election results that go against us, however painful.
That seems to me pretty impressive, and neatly combines left- and right-wing doctrine in a rather Blairite way - free centralised health system and competition for delivery. The pandemic is not yet subsiding, and there is also a controversy about lack of priority for the West Bank, though the Palestinian Authority is making its own efforts and hasn't formally requested help. But overall - so far so good.
Yes, very interesting, especially the bit about the structure of their health system, which I didn't know anything about.
Unfortunately, I can't see us reforming the NHS in that way!
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
Does NOT compute.
Ever heard of the term "sea change"?
The lesson from Trump emerging stronger from the first impeachment is this is politically stupid from the democrats. There’s people pleased he’s out of power in a few hours you are forcing into voting for him. That’s politically stupid, smart politics is to build a coalition on your side even if it means patience.
Anyone who stands there saying we must act with this haste or he will get away with it really are just not smart enough at politics, Let time, investigations, money draining from GOP PACs, power draining from Trump and his court do your work for you, concentrate on priorities, installing Biden’s government and hitting ground running on COVID and economy. The headlines Dems really need is how Trump is disrupting orderly handover and what that actually means.
That was BEFORE the Trumpsky Putch. This is now. THAT's what I mean re: sea change.
"All changed utterly: a terrible beauty is born"
Act in haste, regret at leisure. I stand by my post, this is a mistake.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Hahaha, the shapes you contort yourself into when you're wrong about something, it's truly bewitching. You are the intellectual circus freak of this place.
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
If you are an very independent, highly intelligent, rich person why would you go into politics when to be successful you either have to to back the party leadership at all times or the views of the party membership at all times, that was the point
Dishy Rishi decided to.
Power is your answer.
If it can get David Mellor laid just think what it can do for others.
Sunak backed May and voted for the WA 3 times, then backed Boris and has stayed ultra loyal
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
The impeachment is going to happen, conviction in the senate is unlikely.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs.
The average Joe on main street thinks impeachment means the whole process completing resulting in a successful removal from office. It's the Senate trial and vote that matters.
Any idiot with a majority can initiate an impeachment in the House, and increasingly they do.
Interesting article for Labour Friends of Israel members - not fans of Netanyahu but on this occasion positive. They've gone about it quite differently to the rest of us.
Israel’s success thus far derives from a number of factors. Its small 9 million population is spread across just 21,000 sq km, which has assisted with the logistical challenges of transporting the Pfizer vaccine.
But the country isn’t just benefiting from its compact geography. Israel’s free healthcare system, which provides universal coverage, has also risen competently to the challenge. Israelis receive their care through four national networks which are required to take any citizen but which receive their funding from the state on the basis of the number of members they have. This competition, which helps hold down costs, has led to heavy investment in preventative medicine and digitisation. Each of the four networks are now competing to prove it can most efficiently get shots in the arms of its members. Vaccination slots are thus being offered seven days a week, with drive-in centres allowing Israelis to receive a jab without leaving their cars.
Digitisation and a central patient database are spurring the effort and initially helped the most vulnerable to be easily prioritised, identified and contacted. “We immediately set up a data system that identified which people to summon as a first priority, who was second priority, and who could wait. The whole thing took 10 minutes,” the chief executive of the Meuhedet health management organisation, Sigal Regev Rosenberg, told the Times of Israel this week.
That sounds like a very interesting model.
Yes it's very clever. From what I hear, I like it.
While, like other countries, the country has prioritised those most vulnerable to serious illness from covid, it has also shown a high degree of flexibility and a typically Israeli disregard for rigid rules. Vaccinations centres are, for instance, inoculating younger Israelis who show up at the end of the day when unused doses might otherwise be thrown away. At the same time, Israeli experts are said to have proved adept at extracting more doses from each vial than they had originally expected to.
Logistically, the rollout has also been smooth, with key parts of the operation – including the use of pharmaceutical company Teva’s storage facilities, whose freezers can hold five million doses – ready by November. When the first shipment of vaccines arrived in December, they were placed in pizza-box size containers, which each held 100 doses, and sprinted to more than 400 clinics around the country.
Money has played a part too. Calculating that the economic and social cost of a prolonged lockdown were far outweighed by the advantage of speeding up vaccine deliveries, the Israeli government has proved willing to pay both Pfizer and Moderna considerably over the odds. Israel, the Kan public broadcaster reported on Monday, is paying $47 per person per vaccination – or £23.50 per dose – to the two drug companies. By contrast, the US is thought to be paying Pfizer $19.50 per dose while the EU is paying $14.76. Moderna vaccine prices are thought to be $15 per dose for the US and $18 per dose for the EU. The total cost – $333m – Israel is expected to pay for its vaccination programme is estimated to be roughly equivalent to the hit the economy receives for every two days of the current lockdown.
But the deal Israel struck with Pfizer isn’t just about money. In return for its shipments, the government has promised the drugs giant to feed it a supply of data about side-effects, efficacy and time to develop antibodies which will be broken down by segments including age, gender and preexisting conditions. “The country basically acts as a large, real-world lab for manufacturers and the rest of the world,” one analyst has suggested.
Thanks Nick. A lesson on the relative merits, and costs, of lockdown.
One suggestion a (Lab-supporting) economist friend of mine made earlier last year was to pay people 1.5x their salary to isolate if told to. We will wait to see the analysis of the whole thing but I've got to believe that this would have saved lives and money if implemented.
They are just relying on the same grounds they've used as an excuse to pardon people in the past.
It's nonsense, but it's all they've got.
Nonsense. I’ve been watching it and GOP have been coming out with some good points.
Why has it gone straight to the floor and not properly investigated. That’s a strong argument. What about incendiary language Democrat politicians have used? Does inflammatory inciteful remarks mean different things from different lips?
The Trump hating spectacles need to come off, it needs to be played straight. It’s not.
I was commenting on the tweet's comment, I'm not watching the debate, so you need to not be so defensive. They only listed one point, so that was all I commented on. You are obviously upset and distraught as you did not notice that. Had it listed more defenses I would have commented on those.
As for those points, the second one is classic distraction and absolute bloody nonsense - other people doing bad things doesn't excuse the person being looked into here, and his inflammatory remarks led up to and were at an event where he then told them to go to congress and do something, and that context matters a lot particularly given the aftermath.
On the first one, that may well be a good point, although what does a proper investigation mean in this context when the facts are very straightforward and the remarks and subsequent events cannot be disputed as they are on camera? How long do you (sorry, the GOP) think would be appropriate?
And if the issue is about process, why also comments about impeachment being divisive in itself, as the former does not preclude impeachment for his actions.
You calling a clear case of hypocrisy bloody nonsense? 🙂
Yes it's nonsense, because X being a hypocrite using inflammatory language at some point, has no bearing on whether Y used inflammatory language in a specific point for specific political purposes to incite a mob which caused the deaths of several people as they sought to disrupt constitutional proceedings.
X could be a total hypocrite, but Y could still be guilty of the specific charges.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
The impeachment is going to happen, conviction in the senate is unlikely.
Always required a few too many Republicans to look likely, HYUFD's point about Senators having more leeway to take a long term view notwithstanding. Needs Mitch and the gang, but there's so many reasons it's easier for them to stay schtum.
As I pointed out earlier there are 20 Republican Senators who have have terms that last 6 full years. The question is how many of them will vote alongside Mitch.
The interesting thing will be if Mitch passes it forward this week - if he does it's because he knows the votes are there to convict.
Starmer had a very good PMQs today. Unfortunately for him, it's the FSM bit that's made the Six O'Clock News.
He should have gone for the jugular on COVID and accused the government of having blood on its hands.
Yes, I think it's time Starmer took the gloves off.
Our current death rate is terrible - worse than the USA taking population size into account. Given that the largest rise in cases only started at the end of December, I suspect we will be recording 2-3,000 a day, if not more, before the end of the month. We will certainly reach 100,000 Covid deaths before the end of the month: only the USA, Brazil, Mexico and India have so far reached this milestone, and of course they are all much larger.
Great progress, so far, on vaccines. But for an advanced nation, an appalling death toll and death rate. I don't think the opposition is critical enough on this, perhaps because it appears unseemly and rather macabre to go on about people dying. But it needs to be said: our record is really poor. Italy and Belgium being even worse on deaths per million is not a defence.
Interesting article for Labour Friends of Israel members - not fans of Netanyahu but on this occasion positive. They've gone about it quite differently to the rest of us.
Israel’s success thus far derives from a number of factors. Its small 9 million population is spread across just 21,000 sq km, which has assisted with the logistical challenges of transporting the Pfizer vaccine.
But the country isn’t just benefiting from its compact geography. Israel’s free healthcare system, which provides universal coverage, has also risen competently to the challenge. Israelis receive their care through four national networks which are required to take any citizen but which receive their funding from the state on the basis of the number of members they have. This competition, which helps hold down costs, has led to heavy investment in preventative medicine and digitisation. Each of the four networks are now competing to prove it can most efficiently get shots in the arms of its members. Vaccination slots are thus being offered seven days a week, with drive-in centres allowing Israelis to receive a jab without leaving their cars.
Digitisation and a central patient database are spurring the effort and initially helped the most vulnerable to be easily prioritised, identified and contacted. “We immediately set up a data system that identified which people to summon as a first priority, who was second priority, and who could wait. The whole thing took 10 minutes,” the chief executive of the Meuhedet health management organisation, Sigal Regev Rosenberg, told the Times of Israel this week.
I suspect Israel has one of the greatest proportions of its population of any country on Earth able to administer jabs, with its national service obligations.
While, like other countries, the country has prioritised those most vulnerable to serious illness from covid, it has also shown a high degree of flexibility and a typically Israeli disregard for rigid rules. Vaccinations centres are, for instance, inoculating younger Israelis who show up at the end of the day when unused doses might otherwise be thrown away. At the same time, Israeli experts are said to have proved adept at extracting more doses from each vial than they had originally expected to.
Logistically, the rollout has also been smooth, with key parts of the operation – including the use of pharmaceutical company Teva’s storage facilities, whose freezers can hold five million doses – ready by November. When the first shipment of vaccines arrived in December, they were placed in pizza-box size containers, which each held 100 doses, and sprinted to more than 400 clinics around the country.
Money has played a part too. Calculating that the economic and social cost of a prolonged lockdown were far outweighed by the advantage of speeding up vaccine deliveries, the Israeli government has proved willing to pay both Pfizer and Moderna considerably over the odds. Israel, the Kan public broadcaster reported on Monday, is paying $47 per person per vaccination – or £23.50 per dose – to the two drug companies. By contrast, the US is thought to be paying Pfizer $19.50 per dose while the EU is paying $14.76. Moderna vaccine prices are thought to be $15 per dose for the US and $18 per dose for the EU. The total cost – $333m – Israel is expected to pay for its vaccination programme is estimated to be roughly equivalent to the hit the economy receives for every two days of the current lockdown.
But the deal Israel struck with Pfizer isn’t just about money. In return for its shipments, the government has promised the drugs giant to feed it a supply of data about side-effects, efficacy and time to develop antibodies which will be broken down by segments including age, gender and preexisting conditions. “The country basically acts as a large, real-world lab for manufacturers and the rest of the world,” one analyst has suggested.
Thanks Nick. A lesson on the relative merits, and costs, of lockdown.
One suggestion a (Lab-supporting) economist friend of mine made earlier last year was to pay people 1.5x their salary to isolate if told to. We will wait to see the analysis of the whole thing but I've got to believe that this would have saved lives and money if implemented.
1.5x is an incentive to go get Covid though.
Prisoner's dilemma type decision there - but it needs to be equal or so to working otherwise the incentive is to go back to work.
Separately we know someone who intentionally broke quarantine slightly early (had Covid but were still slightly ill but not infectious) due to rumours (false) of overtime being available the following week. So it's possible that just paying 100% is not enough.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
Dems have a majority so it will pass tonight.
The Senate is the main event and the question is whether the house will send it straight away or wait.
In the House most of the Reps seem to be trying to keep onside with Trump and his supporters. The Rep senators may have more freedom of thought.
Everyone in the house is up for election every 2 years. The senators are older (More potential retirees) and terms are 6 years, which is a good while in politics so the calculations are a bit different. Rubio won't vote for removal, he has a similar calculation to a house GOP member.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
I suspect team Trump know who the guilty are anyway, irrespective of whether they vote to convict, so challenges will happen anyway. One can understand that if Senators and Representatives want themselves and their family members seeing next Christmas, they won't vote to convict. It is a terrible state of affairs.
The sooner Trump is in an orange jumpsuit, the sooner life returns to normal. That is not to say it won't be brutal between now and then.
I am not sure you understand the gravity of what happened last week.
Its always funny when rabid leftists claim to have the inside track on the motivations of their bitter opponents.
It's funny when people on left or right act as though it is odd for people on one side to speculate or pronounce on the views of their opponents. It's often noted on here that many people who would never vote Labour give advice on what Labour should do for instance.
That's not partisan specific behaviour, it's just how people are.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
Dems have a majority so it will pass tonight.
The Senate is the main event and the question is whether the house will send it straight away or wait.
In the House most of the Reps seem to be trying to keep onside with Trump and his supporters. The Rep senators may have more freedom of thought.
Everyone in the house is up for election every 2 years. The senators are older (More potential retirees) and terms are 6 years, which is a good while in politics so the calculations are a bit different. Rubio won't vote for removal, he has a similar calculation to a house GOP member.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
Dems have a majority so it will pass tonight.
The Senate is the main event and the question is whether the house will send it straight away or wait.
In the House most of the Reps seem to be trying to keep onside with Trump and his supporters. The Rep senators may have more freedom of thought.
Everyone in the house is up for election every 2 years. The senators are older and terms are 6 years, which is a good while in politics so the calculations are a bit different. Rubio won't vote for removal, he has a similar calculation to a house GOP member.
Equally there will be GOP members whose terms finish in 2022 / 24 and may vote to convict because they are retiring.
It's going to be tight so the interesting question is will Mitch run with it or leave it until after next week and the inauguration.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
We're calling for a total and complete shutdown of seafood leaving the United Kingdom until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
'Fresh seafood exports from Scotland to EU halted until 18 January'
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Hahaha, the shapes you contort yourself into when you're wrong about something, it's truly bewitching. You are the intellectual circus freak of this place.
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
If you are an very independent, highly intelligent, rich person why would you go into politics when to be successful you either have to to back the party leadership at all times or the views of the party membership at all times, that was the point
Dishy Rishi decided to.
Power is your answer.
If it can get David Mellor laid just think what it can do for others.
Sunak backed May and voted for the WA 3 times, then backed Boris and has stayed ultra loyal
I know. I'm answering why rich successful people go into politics. Rishi did and towed the party line. You asked why would they.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
While, like other countries, the country has prioritised those most vulnerable to serious illness from covid, it has also shown a high degree of flexibility and a typically Israeli disregard for rigid rules. Vaccinations centres are, for instance, inoculating younger Israelis who show up at the end of the day when unused doses might otherwise be thrown away. At the same time, Israeli experts are said to have proved adept at extracting more doses from each vial than they had originally expected to.
Logistically, the rollout has also been smooth, with key parts of the operation – including the use of pharmaceutical company Teva’s storage facilities, whose freezers can hold five million doses – ready by November. When the first shipment of vaccines arrived in December, they were placed in pizza-box size containers, which each held 100 doses, and sprinted to more than 400 clinics around the country.
Money has played a part too. Calculating that the economic and social cost of a prolonged lockdown were far outweighed by the advantage of speeding up vaccine deliveries, the Israeli government has proved willing to pay both Pfizer and Moderna considerably over the odds. Israel, the Kan public broadcaster reported on Monday, is paying $47 per person per vaccination – or £23.50 per dose – to the two drug companies. By contrast, the US is thought to be paying Pfizer $19.50 per dose while the EU is paying $14.76. Moderna vaccine prices are thought to be $15 per dose for the US and $18 per dose for the EU. The total cost – $333m – Israel is expected to pay for its vaccination programme is estimated to be roughly equivalent to the hit the economy receives for every two days of the current lockdown.
But the deal Israel struck with Pfizer isn’t just about money. In return for its shipments, the government has promised the drugs giant to feed it a supply of data about side-effects, efficacy and time to develop antibodies which will be broken down by segments including age, gender and preexisting conditions. “The country basically acts as a large, real-world lab for manufacturers and the rest of the world,” one analyst has suggested.
Thanks Nick. A lesson on the relative merits, and costs, of lockdown.
One suggestion a (Lab-supporting) economist friend of mine made earlier last year was to pay people 1.5x their salary to isolate if told to. We will wait to see the analysis of the whole thing but I've got to believe that this would have saved lives and money if implemented.
1.5x is an incentive to go get Covid though.
Well yes but they would I'm sure be edge cases and actually so what in the grand scheme of things.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
I suspect team Trump know who the guilty are anyway, irrespective of whether they vote to convict, so challenges will happen anyway. One can understand that if Senators and Representatives want themselves and their family members seeing next Christmas, they won't vote to convict. It is a terrible state of affairs.
The sooner Trump is in an orange jumpsuit, the sooner life returns to normal. That is not to say it won't be brutal between now and then.
I am not sure you understand the gravity of what happened last week.
+1. The goal of the GOP should be to ensure the price for complicity is so high that the 'Trump primary challenges' are a thing of the past.
Big corporate money is going to treat Trumpsters like lepers. Trump will not put his own money, if he has any left by then, into a single primary.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
The impeachment is going to happen, conviction in the senate is unlikely.
Always required a few too many Republicans to look likely, HYUFD's point about Senators having more leeway to take a long term view notwithstanding. Needs Mitch and the gang, but there's so many reasons it's easier for them to stay schtum.
If Republicans vote to impeach their own President, a President still supported by a big chunk of their base, I would suggest that is a very very serious event.
As I have said previously, its not really a two party system any more. Its the Democrats and a completely shattered right. You can go into the reasons why all you like, but the polls show it graphically.
The Republicans are in no fit state to oppose from the right now, or in the foreseeable future. And one of these fine days, the world is going to work that out.
Starmer had a very good PMQs today. Unfortunately for him, it's the FSM bit that's made the Six O'Clock News.
He should have gone for the jugular on COVID and accused the government of having blood on its hands.
Yes, I think it's time Starmer took the gloves off.
Our current death rate is terrible - worse than the USA taking population size into account. Given that the largest rise in cases only started at the end of December, I suspect we will be recording 2-3,000 a day, if not more, before the end of the month. We will certainly reach 100,000 Covid deaths before the end of the month: only the USA, Brazil, Mexico and India have so far reached this milestone, and of course they are all much larger.
Great progress, so far, on vaccines. But for an advanced nation, an appalling death toll and death rate. I don't think the opposition is critical enough on this, perhaps because it appears unseemly and rather macabre to go on about people dying. But it needs to be said: our record is really poor. Italy and Belgium being even worse on deaths per million is not a defence.
The UK record is really poor & I agree it is unseemly to be arguing about deaths.
I do though think Labour would be on much stronger ground if they had done (& were doing) a really good job in Wales.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
When it's the Scottish trawler bosses and the P and J you better start listening if you are a ScoTory MP/MSP worried about his/her seat.
That is in effect actually only David Duguid, no other Scottish Tory MP or Scottish Tory constituency MSP has a major Scottish fishing port in their constituency
Douglas Ross in Moray?! He's got am important fishing component in his area. And that's just one, before you startt counting the list MSPs - mor eimportant for Tories anyway.
The doctrine of "piss off if you didn't vote for us" is not going to garner enough votes to win next time, either.
Also - it's not just the fisherfolk who will vote against Torydom if they think the Brexit has been betrayed. Pasrtly those dependent on the fishing industry (including wider sectors such as housing and food) and partly their sympathisers in the elderly retirees for instance. I'm very interested to see what happens with the party - whatever it's called - now that Michelle Ballantyne has joined. I'd be very surprised if Eyemouth and its hinterland vote Tory if the currtent situation is not alleviated.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
Dems have a majority so it will pass tonight.
The Senate is the main event and the question is whether the house will send it straight away or wait.
In the House most of the Reps seem to be trying to keep onside with Trump and his supporters. The Rep senators may have more freedom of thought.
Everyone in the house is up for election every 2 years. The senators are older (More potential retirees) and terms are 6 years, which is a good while in politics so the calculations are a bit different. Rubio won't vote for removal, he has a similar calculation to a house GOP member.
If he has a spine he should.
Indeed, this is of prime constitutional importance. Anyone who puts personal ambition ahead of that is automatically self-disqualifying for the office. Even if the vote is dangerous. Especially if the vote is dangerous. It is the dangerous votes that require people of good moral fibre the most.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
Looking forward to your links to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermen's association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shellfish exporter 'a' newspaper serving the area with the largest part of the UK fishing sector who are supportive of the great deal for fishing.
One of each will be fine.
So you were referring to them all then. Well hats off for getting round them all, epecially in this weather.
One suggestion a (Lab-supporting) economist friend of mine made earlier last year was to pay people 1.5x their salary to isolate if told to. We will wait to see the analysis of the whole thing but I've got to believe that this would have saved lives and money if implemented.
Yes, I agree, and still would. If there are MPs reading this, please consider raising it.
My post was partly just for interest, but also to make the point that with a pandemic we really need to start with "What works" and put aside our general preferences for systems of governance, national pride and liking for particular governments. If we're serious about it being a crisis - and if this isn't, what would it take? - then we should accept that what might be best in normal life may be superseded in this case. Like most in Labour Friends of Israel, I've very little time for Netanyahu, but one can't argue with success on this. In the same, I hope that those on the right who might be suspicious of left-wing economists in general will give that suggestion fair consideration.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
And my guess is that if the Dems accepted the unity offer and went down the censure route, they would find that when it came to it most of the Reps weren’t on board for voting for it.
Trump deserves all he gets but if Biden loses the House in 2022 the chances of a resolution for impeachment must be high.
The mistake of Democrats is not this, it was the first impeachment which was foolish.
Yes, it was very foolish indeed. It is, sadly, true that Trump's unfounded claims that the 2020 election was 'stolen' were given political cover by the Dems' highly exaggerated claims that the 2016 election was rigged. (That's not to say the two were equivalent, of course).
If the Republicans do gain control of the House in 22 and keep the Senate, then almost certainly there will be an in-depth investigation into the election. A lot re Biden being impeached will probably depend on how much comes out about Hunter Biden and what links there are to JB.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
No it doesn't. Forgiveness doesn't have anything to do with the recipient.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
I suspect team Trump know who the guilty are anyway, irrespective of whether they vote to convict, so challenges will happen anyway. One can understand that if Senators and Representatives want themselves and their family members seeing next Christmas, they won't vote to convict. It is a terrible state of affairs.
The sooner Trump is in an orange jumpsuit, the sooner life returns to normal. That is not to say it won't be brutal between now and then.
I am not sure you understand the gravity of what happened last week.
The GOP was happy enough to go along with Trump's madness when it meant them getting loads of federal society judges on benches and so forth.
Trump deserves all he gets but if Biden loses the House in 2022 the chances of a resolution for impeachment must be high.
The mistake of Democrats is not this, it was the first impeachment which was foolish.
Yes, it was very foolish indeed. It is, sadly, true that Trump's unfounded claims that the 2020 election was 'stolen' were given political cover by the Dems' highly exaggerated claims that the 2016 election was rigged. (That's not to say the two were equivalent, of course).
If the Republicans do gain control of the House in 22 and keep the Senate, then almost certainly there will be an in-depth investigation into the election. A lot re Biden being impeached will probably depend on how much comes out about Hunter Biden and what links there are to JB.
If there was anything juicy to "come out" about Hunter Biden, it would have come out by now.
Trump deserves all he gets but if Biden loses the House in 2022 the chances of a resolution for impeachment must be high.
The mistake of Democrats is not this, it was the first impeachment which was foolish.
Yes, it was very foolish indeed. It is, sadly, true that Trump's unfounded claims that the 2020 election was 'stolen' were given political cover by the Dems' highly exaggerated claims that the 2016 election was rigged. (That's not to say the two were equivalent, of course).
If the Republicans do gain control of the House in 22 and keep the Senate, then almost certainly there will be an in-depth investigation into the election. A lot re Biden being impeached will probably depend on how much comes out about Hunter Biden and what links there are to JB.
If there was anything juicy to "come out" about Hunter Biden, it would have come out by now.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
And my guess is that if the Dems accepted the unity offer and went down the censure route, they would find that when it came to it most of the Reps weren’t on board for voting for it.
But there would have been more and it would have given the impression of a GOP that was split. They have gone for all, when they should have been satisfied with 50%.
Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
Drive past a road closed sign into an overflowing ford thinking they could cross it.
22 people deployed to rescue these idiots. For pity's sake.
At least the lockdown has led to a (slight) reduction in the number of people getting stuck on the causeway at Holy Island (Lindisfarne) because they can't read a sign that tells them when to cross.
Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
And my guess is that if the Dems accepted the unity offer and went down the censure route, they would find that when it came to it most of the Reps weren’t on board for voting for it.
But there would have been more and it would have given the impression of a GOP that was split. They have gone for all, when they should have been satisfied with 50%.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
And my guess is that if the Dems accepted the unity offer and went down the censure route, they would find that when it came to it most of the Reps weren’t on board for voting for it.
But there would have been more and it would have given the impression of a GOP that was split. They have gone for all, when they should have been satisfied with 50%.
that does depend on what happens in the senate.
The Reps have the risk that what will turn into a massive investigation and inquiry throws up some uncomfortable material including possible contact between the rioters and members of Congress.
Congresspeople were, after all, those who came close to being attacked, or even killed. You can’t blame them for feeling strongly about it.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
I agree. I'm STEM but not very STEMY.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
I agree. I'm STEM but not very STEMY.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
And my guess is that if the Dems accepted the unity offer and went down the censure route, they would find that when it came to it most of the Reps weren’t on board for voting for it.
But there would have been more and it would have given the impression of a GOP that was split. They have gone for all, when they should have been satisfied with 50%.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
To be fair, the Rep leader did, and conceded the election was fair, and indicated he was still up for a censure motion on Trump. But the speeches from his troops that preceded suggest this is tactics rather than sincerity.
I meant acknowledgement from the person in question. Whilst some in Congress may have behaved poorly in the eyes of others, their actions are not the ones being looked at in this process. How can one forgive Trump by not seeking his punishment when he does not see any problem with anything he has done, never mind accept any responsibility for what happened?
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
And my guess is that if the Dems accepted the unity offer and went down the censure route, they would find that when it came to it most of the Reps weren’t on board for voting for it.
But there would have been more and it would have given the impression of a GOP that was split. They have gone for all, when they should have been satisfied with 50%.
that does depend on what happens in the senate.
The Reps have the risk that what will turn into a massive investigation and inquiry throws up some uncomfortable material including possible contact between the rioters and members of Congress.
Congresspeople were, after all, those who came close to being attacked, or even killed. You can’t blame them for feeling strongly about it.
True, and all understand, but from a purely political standpoint and long-term thinking, censure was a better option.
@Richard_Nabavi had a very good point earlier that we are now in a cycle of impeachments and allegations of rigged votes. I'm not sure what will break that any time soon.
This system they have of one person in each party - presumably some sort of whip - deciding who speaks, when, and for how long, is somewhat strange, and gives the parties a lot of scope for managing or even silencing rebels on their own side.
One of the representatives has just been given thirty seconds to speak by their own side, which is having a laugh.
The back and forth between the chair and the two organisers allocating time here and there is also a procedure that wastes a lot of time.
Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....
I suspect he will, just not now. Bearing in mind a major ally of Biden suggested a longer period of process last week there may be a certain amount of manouvering.
After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.
No it doesn't. Forgiveness doesn't have anything to do with the recipient.
Well you're a better person than I am. In politics, I don't see why forgiveness should be granted to those who do not recognise their responsibility in negative events.
If someone thinks Trump acted in a manner worthy of impeachment, why should they forgive him? Bear in mind it isn't even actually forgiveness people are being asked to provide, but simply not ensuring consequences for Trump's actions.
So ok, forgiveness doesn't require acknowledgement of wrongdoing. But if someone wants to escape consequences for their actions, then acknowledgement at the least seems reasonable.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
I agree. I'm STEM but not very STEMY.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
Yes. Also science answers only how (including why in the sense of causation). Not what or why (in the sense of telos).
PS While I agree that those other questions cannot be answered universally (i.e. one answer good for everyone), some can be answered to the satisfaction of the enquirer. I, for instance, am happy that I have adequate answers on all matters metaphysical - adequate for me, anyways.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
I agree. I'm STEM but not very STEMY.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
The impeachment is going to happen, conviction in the senate is unlikely.
Always required a few too many Republicans to look likely, HYUFD's point about Senators having more leeway to take a long term view notwithstanding. Needs Mitch and the gang, but there's so many reasons it's easier for them to stay schtum.
As I pointed out earlier there are 20 Republican Senators who have have terms that last 6 full years. The question is how many of them will vote alongside Mitch.
The interesting thing will be if Mitch passes it forward this week - if he does it's because he knows the votes are there to convict.
Mitch is the guy who had to filibuster his own bill because he couldn't count.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
When it's the Scottish trawler bosses and the P and J you better start listening if you are a ScoTory MP/MSP worried about his/her seat.
That is in effect actually only David Duguid, no other Scottish Tory MP or Scottish Tory constituency MSP has a major Scottish fishing port in their constituency
Douglas Ross in Moray?! He's got am important fishing component in his area. And that's just one, before you startt counting the list MSPs - mor eimportant for Tories anyway.
The doctrine of "piss off if you didn't vote for us" is not going to garner enough votes to win next time, either.
Also - it's not just the fisherfolk who will vote against Torydom if they think the Brexit has been betrayed. Pasrtly those dependent on the fishing industry (including wider sectors such as housing and food) and partly their sympathisers in the elderly retirees for instance. I'm very interested to see what happens with the party - whatever it's called - now that Michelle Ballantyne has joined. I'd be very surprised if Eyemouth and its hinterland vote Tory if the currtent situation is not alleviated.
Been a couple of opinion pieces on how Farage’s Reform UK mob can take a chunk out of the SCons. Apparently the lad himself is coming up to campaign before the May election, presumably he’ll be avoiding Remoaner Central Edinburgh this time.
Drive past a road closed sign into an overflowing ford thinking they could cross it.
22 people deployed to rescue these idiots. For pity's sake.
At least the lockdown has led to a (slight) reduction in the number of people getting stuck on the causeway at Holy Island (Lindisfarne) because they can't read a sign that tells them when to cross.
Do you know why the car park was blocked off? Often stopped there on the way down the A1.
I've witnessed a few idiots even in the short time I've been sat there.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
I agree. I'm STEM but not very STEMY.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
I agree. I'm STEM but not very STEMY.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
What is free will?
A mirage? A post-facto justification for our actions?
Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
The betting has swung away from an early departure. Yes 14 No 1.07
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
When it's the Scottish trawler bosses and the P and J you better start listening if you are a ScoTory MP/MSP worried about his/her seat.
That is in effect actually only David Duguid, no other Scottish Tory MP or Scottish Tory constituency MSP has a major Scottish fishing port in their constituency
Douglas Ross in Moray?! He's got am important fishing component in his area. And that's just one, before you startt counting the list MSPs - mor eimportant for Tories anyway.
The doctrine of "piss off if you didn't vote for us" is not going to garner enough votes to win next time, either.
Also - it's not just the fisherfolk who will vote against Torydom if they think the Brexit has been betrayed. Pasrtly those dependent on the fishing industry (including wider sectors such as housing and food) and partly their sympathisers in the elderly retirees for instance. I'm very interested to see what happens with the party - whatever it's called - now that Michelle Ballantyne has joined. I'd be very surprised if Eyemouth and its hinterland vote Tory if the currtent situation is not alleviated.
Been a couple of opinion pieces on how Farage’s Reform UK mob can take a chunk out of the SCons. Apparently the lad himself is coming up to campaign before the May election, presumably he’ll be avoiding Remoaner Central Edinburgh this time.
Anything surprising in them?
I would be very surprised if Mr F doesn't go to Eyemouth. Nice and convenient for the border if the Labour types try to drive him out of Scotland again. Edit: but no pubs this time for him to take refuge, so great hardship.
Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....
Yes but not early. Post Biden's inauguration.
A post-inauguration impeachment trial could be smart politics by McConnell. Allows him to serve his revenge on Trump cold, allows him to eat up some of the Democrats legislative time, allows him to excise the Trump cancer from the GOP.
If you are an very independent, highly intelligent, rich person why would you go into politics when to be successful you either have to to back the party leadership at all times or the views of the party membership at all times, that was the point
I always think that commentators often underestimate the idea of being satisfied to be part of a movement that one agrees with. Paxman's book "The Politicians" expresses the same view - what's in it for the successful?
When I was elected in 1997 I was earning over £100K in an interesting career as a senior manager for a nice company in a pleasant environment, but it didn't seem to me that I was actually doing anything that would help make society better. By capturing a marginal seat and making centre-left government that much easier, I felt I was doing something more useful. Being personally successful - a Cabinet Minister or something - would have been nice, but not a necessary feature. I've never had the slightest regret about the change.
Obviously one can disagree about what a better society might be, but I think people overestimate the extent to which being in politics is only about your own career - and that's true of many on both right and left. It'd be fairer to say that the wish to be re-elected, the wish to be influential and the wish to support the movement get tangled up so the original good intention gets blurred - but it doesn't, usually, disappear. Otherwise, how does one explain people who knock themselves out for a cause, perhaps acting as unpaid town councillors, without earning anything at all (not even much respect - friends tend to think they're weird)?
Drive past a road closed sign into an overflowing ford thinking they could cross it.
22 people deployed to rescue these idiots. For pity's sake.
At least the lockdown has led to a (slight) reduction in the number of people getting stuck on the causeway at Holy Island (Lindisfarne) because they can't read a sign that tells them when to cross.
Do you know why the car park was blocked off? Often stopped there on the way down the A1.
I've witnessed a few idiots even in the short time I've been sat there.
No idea, sorry.
One of my mates used to be on the lifeboat crew, and they were constantly having to rescue folk, I was all for instigating an escalating series of fines based on exactly how reckless the people had been.
After an hour and thirty five minutes, there is still fifty five minutes of debating time left between the parties. The requirement to go via the whip before every speech is sure wasting a lot of time.
Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.
Comments
The Senate is the main event and the question is whether the house will send it straight away or wait.
In the House most of the Reps seem to be trying to keep onside with Trump and his supporters. The Rep senators may have more freedom of thought.
One suggestion a (Lab-supporting) economist friend of mine made earlier last year was to pay people 1.5x their salary to isolate if told to. We will wait to see the analysis of the whole thing but I've got to believe that this would have saved lives and money if implemented.
We all need to learn to better accept election results that go against us, however painful.
Unfortunately, I can't see us reforming the NHS in that way!
“There are more troops deployed in Washington DC than Iraq and Afghanistan combined”.
Well, he did promise to “bring the troops home”!
The average Joe on main street thinks impeachment means the whole process completing resulting in a successful removal from office. It's the Senate trial and vote that matters.
Any idiot with a majority can initiate an impeachment in the House, and increasingly they do.
X could be a total hypocrite, but Y could still be guilty of the specific charges.
Our current death rate is terrible - worse than the USA taking population size into account. Given that the largest rise in cases only started at the end of December, I suspect we will be recording 2-3,000 a day, if not more, before the end of the month. We will certainly reach 100,000 Covid deaths before the end of the month: only the USA, Brazil, Mexico and India have so far reached this milestone, and of course they are all much larger.
Great progress, so far, on vaccines. But for an advanced nation, an appalling death toll and death rate. I don't think the opposition is critical enough on this, perhaps because it appears unseemly and rather macabre to go on about people dying. But it needs to be said: our record is really poor. Italy and Belgium being even worse on deaths per million is not a defence.
Separately we know someone who intentionally broke quarantine slightly early (had Covid but were still slightly ill but not infectious) due to rumours (false) of overtime being available the following week. So it's possible that just paying 100% is not enough.
Rubio won't vote for removal, he has a similar calculation to a house GOP member.
The sooner Trump is in an orange jumpsuit, the sooner life returns to normal. That is not to say it won't be brutal between now and then.
I am not sure you understand the gravity of what happened last week.
That's not partisan specific behaviour, it's just how people are.
It's going to be tight so the interesting question is will Mitch run with it or leave it until after next week and the inauguration.
Dickheads.
'Fresh seafood exports from Scotland to EU halted until 18 January'
https://tinyurl.com/yxew89od
Big corporate money is going to treat Trumpsters like lepers. Trump will not put his own money, if he has any left by then, into a single primary.
As I have said previously, its not really a two party system any more. Its the Democrats and a completely shattered right. You can go into the reasons why all you like, but the polls show it graphically.
The Republicans are in no fit state to oppose from the right now, or in the foreseeable future. And one of these fine days, the world is going to work that out.
Drive past a road closed sign into an overflowing ford thinking they could cross it.
I do though think Labour would be on much stronger ground if they had done (& were doing) a really good job in Wales.
Even were the Dems inclined to forgive - and obviously they are not even if Trump were contrite, it's hardly in their interests to go easy - forgiveness has not been sought in order to allow everyone to move on.
CNN suggests five others have said before the debate that they will vote in favour.
The doctrine of "piss off if you didn't vote for us" is not going to garner enough votes to win next time, either.
Also - it's not just the fisherfolk who will vote against Torydom if they think the Brexit has been betrayed. Pasrtly those dependent on the fishing industry (including wider sectors such as housing and food) and partly their sympathisers in the elderly retirees for instance. I'm very interested to see what happens with the party - whatever it's called - now that Michelle Ballantyne has joined. I'd be very surprised if Eyemouth and its hinterland vote Tory if the currtent situation is not alleviated.
My post was partly just for interest, but also to make the point that with a pandemic we really need to start with "What works" and put aside our general preferences for systems of governance, national pride and liking for particular governments. If we're serious about it being a crisis - and if this isn't, what would it take? - then we should accept that what might be best in normal life may be superseded in this case. Like most in Labour Friends of Israel, I've very little time for Netanyahu, but one can't argue with success on this. In the same, I hope that those on the right who might be suspicious of left-wing economists in general will give that suggestion fair consideration.
https://twitter.com/Alain_Tolhurst/status/1349408520949686281
It will also be noticed by the Republican Senators when they come to their vote.
An ex colleague had quite the shock when they wrote their car off after being *slightly* over the limit.
They still have a breakdown when they see adverts from Admiral.
At least the lockdown has led to a (slight) reduction in the number of people getting stuck on the causeway at Holy Island (Lindisfarne) because they can't read a sign that tells them when to cross.
The Reps have the risk that what will turn into a massive investigation and inquiry throws up some uncomfortable material including possible contact between the rioters and members of Congress.
Congresspeople were, after all, those who came close to being attacked, or even killed. You can’t blame them for feeling strongly about it.
But what I'd say is that although science cannot answer every question, the questions that it cannot answer cannot be answered.
Or - science does not have all the answers but it does have the ONLY answers.
Where answers = definitive ones to questions starting how and why.
@Richard_Nabavi had a very good point earlier that we are now in a cycle of impeachments and allegations of rigged votes. I'm not sure what will break that any time soon.
One of the representatives has just been given thirty seconds to speak by their own side, which is having a laugh.
The back and forth between the chair and the two organisers allocating time here and there is also a procedure that wastes a lot of time.
I am dead. He has killed me.
If someone thinks Trump acted in a manner worthy of impeachment, why should they forgive him? Bear in mind it isn't even actually forgiveness people are being asked to provide, but simply not ensuring consequences for Trump's actions.
So ok, forgiveness doesn't require acknowledgement of wrongdoing. But if someone wants to escape consequences for their actions, then acknowledgement at the least seems reasonable.
PS While I agree that those other questions cannot be answered universally (i.e. one answer good for everyone), some can be answered to the satisfaction of the enquirer. I, for instance, am happy that I have adequate answers on all matters metaphysical - adequate for me, anyways.
I've witnessed a few idiots even in the short time I've been sat there.
Yes 14
No 1.07
I would be very surprised if Mr F doesn't go to Eyemouth. Nice and convenient for the border if the Labour types try to drive him out of Scotland again. Edit: but no pubs this time for him to take refuge, so great hardship.
A post-inauguration impeachment trial could be smart politics by McConnell. Allows him to serve his revenge on Trump cold, allows him to eat up some of the Democrats legislative time, allows him to excise the Trump cancer from the GOP.
When I was elected in 1997 I was earning over £100K in an interesting career as a senior manager for a nice company in a pleasant environment, but it didn't seem to me that I was actually doing anything that would help make society better. By capturing a marginal seat and making centre-left government that much easier, I felt I was doing something more useful. Being personally successful - a Cabinet Minister or something - would have been nice, but not a necessary feature. I've never had the slightest regret about the change.
Obviously one can disagree about what a better society might be, but I think people overestimate the extent to which being in politics is only about your own career - and that's true of many on both right and left. It'd be fairer to say that the wish to be re-elected, the wish to be influential and the wish to support the movement get tangled up so the original good intention gets blurred - but it doesn't, usually, disappear. Otherwise, how does one explain people who knock themselves out for a cause, perhaps acting as unpaid town councillors, without earning anything at all (not even much respect - friends tend to think they're weird)?
One of my mates used to be on the lifeboat crew, and they were constantly having to rescue folk, I was all for instigating an escalating series of fines based on exactly how reckless the people had been.