JAKARTA, June 17 (Reuters) - More than 350 doctors and medical workers have caught COVID-19 in Indonesia despite being vaccinated with Sinovac and dozens have been hospitalised, officials said, as concerns grow about the efficacy of some vaccines against more infectious variants.
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
The maybe one answer is to return to offering state scholarships to private schools?
Or maybe all schools should be independent? And each child comes with a "voucher" that can be spent with the school.
How does that work here? There is only one school within 12 miles. No car (and the up to 3 hours a day free time to drive them a potential 35 miles each way on rural roads), no choice. So a policy for the wealthy, urban elite as ever.
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
The maybe one answer is to return to offering state scholarships to private schools?
Or maybe all schools should be independent? And each child comes with a "voucher" that can be spent with the school.
How does that work here? There is only one school within 12 miles. No car (and the up to 3 hours a day free time to drive them a potential 35 miles each way on rural roads), no choice. So a policy for the wealthy, urban elite as ever.
How will they be worse off than currently?
It seems odd to say "oh, because the countryside can't have it, towns and cities can't have it". Applied broadly, that would mean no London Underground.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Prompted by your post, I've just had a quick look. Five minutes or so of adverts, then Dan Wooton talking about "Greatest Britons" – none of whom seem to be both British and great. Nothing on the by-election.
It's not supposed to be a news channel seems to be the standard retort. So what is it then?
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
Peter Fleet ( the Tory candidate in Chesham) is 6 feet 9 inches. If he wins I would assume he will overtake Daniel Kawczynski, who is a mere 6 feet 8.5 inches as the tallest MP (presumably in history).
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
Unilever are woke on steroids. Also Ben and Jerry's pre acquisition were very right on
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
Both Magnum and Ben & Jerry's are part of Unilever.
EDIT - An angry crowd has been thrown out of Wycombe Leisure Centre as results for the first unitary elections continue to come in.
The BFP's Local Democracy Reporter Rory Butler is at the count and videoed the events as they unfolded.
He tweeted: "Mob ejected from Wycombe Leisure Centre just now. Election count disrupted.
"Large group of men tried to break into hall. Security blocked doors.
"Talk of a “posse”. Anger, fear, confusion. More to follow."
In the video, a group of men can be seen angrily arguing before they walk out of the leisure centre.
Our reporter also spoke to someone at the scene and said at least 20 men in cars tried to "storm" the Wycombe elections, with a spokesman saying the behaviour was "completely unacceptable".
Buckinghamshire Council said in a statement: "There was an incident at the Wycombe Leisure Centre count earlier.
"Police were called and things are under control. The count continues for the remaining wards and parishes."
Thames Valley Police has been contacted for more details.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
The maybe one answer is to return to offering state scholarships to private schools?
Or maybe all schools should be independent? And each child comes with a "voucher" that can be spent with the school.
Well that's a more radical upheaval, but I like it in principle.
It was quite striking when we moved from sending our daughters to nursery to sending them to primary school that suddenly you weren't seen as a customer any more. At best, you're 'part of the school community' - at worst, you're an afterthought. The head at my youngest daughter's infant school is an amazing man - never have I met anyone so dedicated to the education and well-being of the children in his care. The head at the junior school's priorities are, in order 1) the wellbeing of the teachers, 2) the wellbeing of the pupils, 3) the education of the pupils. Other schools might prioritise exactly what parents want, or they might prioritise whatever weird little hobbyhorse the head has. But you don't, in practice, get a choice. All the schools are full so if your local school doesn't suit you you can't just decide to go elsewhere. That is, of course, the main practical issue with your voucher suggestion. You would need schools to have sufficient places that it was possible, at least in principle, to move schools to one which suited your needs better. And it would mean that good schools would drive out bad. But if it could be done, wonderful. It works ok with nurseries. And it leads to a situation where you can choose a nursery which is right for you and where different nurseries fulfil different niches. No one sane is suggesting that nurseries ought to be controlled by the state and that you can only go to the one that the state allocates you a place at.
If you were designing a situation from scratch, this would probably be it. As it is, the upheaval in moving from the current situation to an idealised one is so great it probably places it in the 'too difficult' box.
Other dull trivia Peter Fleet was the losing Tory candidate in Southampton Itchen in 1997. A rather unusual 24 gap between attempts to get into Parliament.
If he is successful he’ll become the 5th Tory to have lost in Southampton Itchen to be a sitting member of Parliament - Royston Smith, Christopher Chope, Flick Drummond and Caroline Noakes. I’d say that’s probably a record too.
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
The maybe one answer is to return to offering state scholarships to private schools?
Or maybe all schools should be independent? And each child comes with a "voucher" that can be spent with the school.
How does that work here? There is only one school within 12 miles. No car (and the up to 3 hours a day free time to drive them a potential 35 miles each way on rural roads), no choice. So a policy for the wealthy, urban elite as ever.
How will they be worse off than currently?
It seems odd to say "oh, because the countryside can't have it, towns and cities can't have it". Applied broadly, that would mean no London Underground.
Because it would be yet another advantage that big cities, with literally a hundred choices, would have over towns, with maybe a half a dozen, would have over well to do rural areas, with one or two very good schools would have over poor backwaters, which take what there is. It would entrench regional and urban/rural inequality. The very opposite of the stated government agenda. A "London Challenge" for areas without choice would be better. So long as education is treated as a market, then the wealthy win.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Prompted by your post, I've just had a quick look. Five minutes or so of adverts, then Dan Wooton talking about "Greatest Britons" – none of whom seem to be both British and great. Nothing on the by-election.
It's not supposed to be a news channel seems to be the standard retort. So what is it then?
It's one more contribution to shifting the centre of political debate in the UK further to the right. The right realise that political arguments are won over decades and GB News can make a contribution to influencing public opinion.
The left doesn't seem to have the same commitment to the long-term political struggle. One reason why there's always the same obsession with tactical voting at every general election - always looking no further than the next day.
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
You are confusing scholarships with bursaries. In general: scholarships aren't means-tested and are small; bursaries are means-tested and range all the way up to full-fees awards.
As for the 67% at Oxford and Cambridge who didn't attend private schools, it's not as if they're typically sons and daughters of barrow boys. Many are well-off and owe their success at (and at the end of their time at) state schools to family connections and wealth (which in some cases bought private tutoring). Oxford and Cambridge universities both love the "% from state schools" metric and it's best not to accept it as the main measure if trying to dent what is basically caste nepotism (involving more than one caste ofc) however politely it may be framed in terms of a percentage.
Peter Fleet ( the Tory candidate in Chesham) is 6 feet 9 inches. If he wins I would assume he will overtake Daniel Kawczynski, who is a mere 6 feet 8.5 inches as the tallest MP (presumably in history).
So long as that isn't the only thing he seeks to outdo him in.
Total Cases-No 1 in Europe New Cases-No 1 in Europe Total Deaths-No 1 in Europe New Deaths-No 5 in Europe
Maybe Dom knows what he's talking about?
No.5 in Europe is pretty good going. We are the second largest country.
(Assuming - of course - that neither Turkey or Russia is considerd as being in Europe. And assuming, of course, that both countries Covid numbers can be trusted.
Also, France, Italy and the UK all have pretty similar populations.)
Andy Holmes @AndyHolmesMedia · 2m Turnout is 52.2 percent here in #CheshamAndAmershambyelection which is roughly 20 percent lower than the average in this seat. 38,009 votes in total to count.
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
The maybe one answer is to return to offering state scholarships to private schools?
Or maybe all schools should be independent? And each child comes with a "voucher" that can be spent with the school.
How does that work here? There is only one school within 12 miles. No car (and the up to 3 hours a day free time to drive them a potential 35 miles each way on rural roads), no choice. So a policy for the wealthy, urban elite as ever.
How will they be worse off than currently?
It seems odd to say "oh, because the countryside can't have it, towns and cities can't have it". Applied broadly, that would mean no London Underground.
Because it would be yet another advantage that big cities, with literally a hundred choices, would have over towns, with maybe a half a dozen, would have over well to do rural areas, with one or two very good schools would have over poor backwaters, which take what there is. It would entrench regional and urban/rural inequality. The very opposite of the stated government agenda. A "London Challenge" for areas without choice would be better. So long as education is treated as a market, then the wealthy win.
You're still going for a levelling down agenda: if it doesn't work for the countryside, then it shouldn't be tried.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
Andy Holmes @AndyHolmesMedia · 2m Turnout is 52.2 percent here in #CheshamAndAmershambyelection which is roughly 20 percent lower than the average in this seat. 38,009 votes in total to count.
So... I had forecast that the Conservatives would lose a third of their vote, dropping to 20,000.
Based on that turnout number, I'd reckon the Conservatives are a little lower: say 18-19,000, with the LDs on 16-17,000.
Andy Holmes @AndyHolmesMedia · 2m Turnout is 52.2 percent here in #CheshamAndAmershambyelection which is roughly 20 percent lower than the average in this seat. 38,009 votes in total to count.
So... I had forecast that the Conservatives would lose a third of their vote, dropping to 20,000.
Based on that turnout number, I'd reckon the Conservatives are a little lower: say 18-19,000, with the LDs on 16-17,000.
Prepared to lay another £30 @4.8 if yr interested - on bfx
Ben and Jerry's wokism pre-dates 'woke' itself. It is integral to their identity as a company. Without it, they would not be Ben and Jerry's.
That is not to say that I agree with their politics: on many issues, I do not. But there would be no raison d'être for them without their political and social views.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
What I don't like about Ben & Jerry's is that when someone calls them out on their bullshit they always reply with something stupid like "you're arguing with ice cream" it's such a dick move because they know they have no way to actually engage with anyone who disagrees with them without looking completey stupid.
I've chosen not to buy their ice cream and I tend to stick to Waitrose 1 as it's really very good. When we're allowed to go to Switzerland it will be Mövenpick. I recommend it to everyone who goes to Switzerland, it's the god of ice cream.
Total Cases-No 1 in Europe New Cases-No 1 in Europe Total Deaths-No 1 in Europe New Deaths-No 5 in Europe
Maybe Dom knows what he's talking about?
1 - apart from France, of course. But this stat is pretty meaningless, because it depends on the amount of testing being done. I think the UK does rather more than anyone else. #positive tests <> #actual cases. Also the UK is of course one of the largest countries - per capita is a much more sensible measure. 2 - see above. The UK is doing far, far more testing. I very much doubt the UK has the most cases. Otherwise we would have the most deaths. See also the point about per capita 3 - a) Again, the per capita issue. The UK is kind of upper-mid-table per capita. We are a big country, we'd expect to have a lot of deaths. b) in any case, these statistics are a long way from being comparable, because of different ways of recording the data. Excess deaths is a much better measure, by which we are also mid-table ish. c) Even if the stats were recorded identically, it's very difficult to make comparisons. Has the SW had far fewer deaths than the NW because the SW has managed it better? Or is it down to issues like population density, general health, housing occupancy levels, climate (possibly), employment, etc? Of course it's the latter. And so it is between countries. d) A pedant notes that even in raw deaths, the UK is no longer No 1 (Russia says hello.) 4) a) Again, PER CAPITA. The third largest country has the fifth largest number of new deaths isn't particularly lamentable. b) Nor is it, as far as I can see, accurate. There's loads of European countries getting more than the UK of actual deaths, regardless of per capita.
Certainly agree that Dom was right about politicians and civil servants being woefully innumerate though.
I'm sure you know all this of course and are just trolling
The percentage of state school pupils at Oxbridge is now about right ie 2/3, the same as the percentage of top A grade A Levels that go to state school pupils
The 7% of pupils in who are in the private sector get 33% of the Oxbridge places.
Do you think people entering private education are that much brighter than those entering the state sector, to the extent that they are six times more likely to get an Oxbridge place?
That's misleading. Perhaps one third of places at private schools will come from people on scholarships, and they are likely to be quite bright (on average).
The maybe one answer is to return to offering state scholarships to private schools?
Or maybe all schools should be independent? And each child comes with a "voucher" that can be spent with the school.
How does that work here? There is only one school within 12 miles. No car (and the up to 3 hours a day free time to drive them a potential 35 miles each way on rural roads), no choice. So a policy for the wealthy, urban elite as ever.
How will they be worse off than currently?
It seems odd to say "oh, because the countryside can't have it, towns and cities can't have it". Applied broadly, that would mean no London Underground.
Because it would be yet another advantage that big cities, with literally a hundred choices, would have over towns, with maybe a half a dozen, would have over well to do rural areas, with one or two very good schools would have over poor backwaters, which take what there is. It would entrench regional and urban/rural inequality. The very opposite of the stated government agenda. A "London Challenge" for areas without choice would be better. So long as education is treated as a market, then the wealthy win.
You're still going for a levelling down agenda: if it doesn't work for the countryside, then it shouldn't be tried.
I can see we aren't going to agree. Nor convince the other. For me, education, and, in particular, Secondary education, is a perfect market fallacy. Creating more distortions than it solves. I will bid you good night with best wishes.
They should be limited by law to taking no more than 7% from private schools.
Why?
Surely they should get the best, most able, students they can, irrespective of their background.
No, they should take the students with the best potential.
That's a fair point.
And I benefited from that. I was from a middling comprehensive, with average grades (well, not average, obviously, but nor did I have 15 A*s at GCSE and predicted 5 A*s at A Level).
But I was articulate and they felt I had the potential to perform.
When I was there, there was a positive correlation between those Colleges that took the greatest number of people from State schools (and yes, Trinity was number one there) and the proportion of Firsts.
"Greatest number" but what about the percentage, given that Trinity has more undergraduates than any other Cambridge college?
Colleges should be deprived of the right to admit. The whole college system should be dumped. Turn them into halls of residence with randomised membership every term or year from among that portion of students who wish to live in a hall of residence in the first place. Seize their assets and fund their remaining undergraduate services - which would mostly be accommodation and board - centrally. Aside from anything else, think of how much money is wasted by all the duplication of functions at the moment. More importantly, who wants to encourage loyalty to institutions? Contrary to reactionary myth, that always cuts against the encouragement of independence of thought.
As for admission, let it be run by departments using a numerus clausus and ban interviews. Tricky edge cases? Don't let the department know the school name.
They should be limited by law to taking no more than 7% from private schools.
Why?
Surely they should get the best, most able, students they can, irrespective of their background.
No, they should take the students with the best potential.
That's a fair point.
And I benefited from that. I was from a middling comprehensive, with average grades (well, not average, obviously, but nor did I have 15 A*s at GCSE and predicted 5 A*s at A Level).
But I was articulate and they felt I had the potential to perform.
When I was there, there was a positive correlation between those Colleges that took the greatest number of people from State schools (and yes, Trinity was number one there) and the proportion of Firsts.
"Greatest number" but what about the percentage, given that Trinity has more undergraduates than any other Cambridge college?
Colleges should be deprived of the right to admit. The whole college system should be dumped. Turn them into halls of residence with randomised membership every term or year from among that portion of students who wish to live in a hall of residence in the first place. Seize their assets and fund their remaining undergraduate services - which would mostly be accommodation and board - centrally. Aside from anything else, think of how much money is wasted by all the duplication of functions at the moment. More importantly, who wants to encourage loyalty to institutions? Contrary to reactionary myth, that always cuts against the encouragement of independence of thought.
As for admission, let it be run by departments using a numerus clausus and ban interviews. Tricky edge cases? Don't let the department know the school name.
As a general rule, people should be allowed to do what they want, subject to certain conditions.
I think the Oxbridge Colleges compete to offer the best education and experience they can to students. They compete to attract talent.
I personally think that institutions competing to attract people is a good thing.
They should be limited by law to taking no more than 7% from private schools.
Why?
Surely they should get the best, most able, students they can, irrespective of their background.
No, they should take the students with the best potential.
That's a fair point.
And I benefited from that. I was from a middling comprehensive, with average grades (well, not average, obviously, but nor did I have 15 A*s at GCSE and predicted 5 A*s at A Level).
But I was articulate and they felt I had the potential to perform.
When I was there, there was a positive correlation between those Colleges that took the greatest number of people from State schools (and yes, Trinity was number one there) and the proportion of Firsts.
"Greatest number" but what about the percentage, given that Trinity has more undergraduates than any other Cambridge college?
Colleges should be deprived of the right to admit. The whole college system should be dumped. Turn them into halls of residence with randomised membership every term or year from among that portion of students who wish to live in a hall of residence in the first place. Seize their assets and fund their remaining undergraduate services - which would mostly be accommodation and board - centrally. Aside from anything else, think of how much money is wasted by all the duplication of functions at the moment. More importantly, who wants to encourage loyalty to institutions? Contrary to reactionary myth, that always cuts against the encouragement of independence of thought.
As for admission, let it be run by departments using a numerus clausus and ban interviews. Tricky edge cases? Don't let the department know the school name.
Half the problem would be solved if the university was forced to use a numerus clausus for admissions, and if as a consequence the role of the "admissions tutor" went the way of the lamplighter. Widening access could be addressed by the state independently of the university. Now that would be a good use of the seized college funds.
Ben and Jerry's wokism pre-dates 'woke' itself. It is integral to their identity as a company. Without it, they would not be Ben and Jerry's.
That is not to say that I agree with their politics: on many issues, I do not. But there would be no raison d'être for them without their political and social views.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben and Jerry's can't see a woke bandwagon without jumping on board. I've no idea why, they sell ice-cream, which I don't think is a particularly political commodity. I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle. Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
In the end Unilever wins!
Each time you lick a peace pop, you are contributing to world peace.
IF we can move on from the byelection riot that did NOT break out . . .
Will the fact that it was a rainy day in C&A benefit the Lib Dems over the Tories? My guess is, yes, because IF there's any intensity gap, the Conservatives are on the short end of the stick at the moment.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Prompted by your post, I've just had a quick look. Five minutes or so of adverts, then Dan Wooton talking about "Greatest Britons" – none of whom seem to be both British and great. Nothing on the by-election.
It's not supposed to be a news channel seems to be the standard retort. So what is it then?
IF we can move on from the byelection riot that did NOT break out . . .
Will the fact that it was a rainy day in C&A benefit the Lib Dems over the Tories? My guess is, yes, because IF there's any intensity gap, the Conservatives are on the short end of the stick at the moment.
IF we can move on from the byelection riot that did NOT break out . . .
Will the fact that it was a rainy day in C&A benefit the Lib Dems over the Tories? My guess is, yes, because IF there's any intensity gap, the Conservatives are on the short end of the stick at the moment.
But the riot DID break out.
Just not tonight..
"I predict a riot, I predict a riot". PM : "Captain Hindsight."
IF we can move on from the byelection riot that did NOT break out . . .
Will the fact that it was a rainy day in C&A benefit the Lib Dems over the Tories? My guess is, yes, because IF there's any intensity gap, the Conservatives are on the short end of the stick at the moment.
Was it a rainy day? Rain may have been forecast but did it fall? Royal Ascot was dry, against expectations.
Total Cases-No 1 in Europe New Cases-No 1 in Europe Total Deaths-No 1 in Europe New Deaths-No 5 in Europe
Maybe Dom knows what he's talking about?
1 - apart from France, of course. But this stat is pretty meaningless, because it depends on the amount of testing being done. I think the UK does rather more than anyone else. #positive tests <> #actual cases. Also the UK is of course one of the largest countries - per capita is a much more sensible measure. 2 - see above. The UK is doing far, far more testing. I very much doubt the UK has the most cases. Otherwise we would have the most deaths. See also the point about per capita 3 - a) Again, the per capita issue. The UK is kind of upper-mid-table per capita. We are a big country, we'd expect to have a lot of deaths. b) in any case, these statistics are a long way from being comparable, because of different ways of recording the data. Excess deaths is a much better measure, by which we are also mid-table ish. c) Even if the stats were recorded identically, it's very difficult to make comparisons. Has the SW had far fewer deaths than the NW because the SW has managed it better? Or is it down to issues like population density, general health, housing occupancy levels, climate (possibly), employment, etc? Of course it's the latter. And so it is between countries. d) A pedant notes that even in raw deaths, the UK is no longer No 1 (Russia says hello.) 4) a) Again, PER CAPITA. The third largest country has the fifth largest number of new deaths isn't particularly lamentable. b) Nor is it, as far as I can see, accurate. There's loads of European countries getting more than the UK of actual deaths, regardless of per capita.
Certainly agree that Dom was right about politicians and civil servants being woefully innumerate though.
I'm sure you know all this of course and are just trolling
Not trolling but keen that Johnson and his government is exposed as being one of the most useless and malign in recent history.
Looking at pictures of the C&A count, am struck by similarities and differences compared with election counts in my own bailiwick, King County WA.
Main difference is much greater reliance on technology at King Co Elections. This stems from two factors, complexity of ballot (for general elections in KC everything from President to sewer district tax levy) and size of electorate (1.5 million registered voters in KC)
Main similarity is with staff, with diverse group of workers diligently laboring at processing, sorting and counting ballots in a methodical, careful way, supervised by more senior managers and observed by media, party and candidate representatives - and candidates themselves.
IF we can move on from the byelection riot that did NOT break out . . .
Will the fact that it was a rainy day in C&A benefit the Lib Dems over the Tories? My guess is, yes, because IF there's any intensity gap, the Conservatives are on the short end of the stick at the moment.
Was it a rainy day? Rain may have been forecast but did it fall? Royal Ascot was dry, against expectations.
Blog said it was a rainy day. And picks of candidates & supporters canvassing seem to confirm that, looked damp to drippy.
posted on C&A live blog from editor of Bucks Free Press -
It’s late BUT I understand that’s the lowest turnout % this seat has ever seen. Yes, it’s a by-election and lower turnout was expected but this continues the narrative of the Tories base staying home. Watch this space
posted on C&A live blog from editor of Bucks Free Press -
It’s late BUT I understand that’s the lowest turnout % this seat has ever seen. Yes, it’s a by-election and lower turnout was expected but this continues the narrative of the Tories base staying home. Watch this space
At the referendum in 2016 C&A had the highest turnout of all 650 parliamentary constituencies
C& A live blog - Our reporter Rory at Chesham Leisure Centre for the count tells us everyone is taking a short break from duties for something to eat and drink, so no major updates expected imminently!
Rory Butler - It’s a hot and stuffy one tonight at the #CheshamAndAmersham by-election, and while the count continues I’m half tempted to get a few lengths in to cool down
posted on C&A live blog from editor of Bucks Free Press -
It’s late BUT I understand that’s the lowest turnout % this seat has ever seen. Yes, it’s a by-election and lower turnout was expected but this continues the narrative of the Tories base staying home. Watch this space
No, it just continues the narrative of low turnouts at by-elections.
Politico.com - ‘Alito was just pissed’: Trump’s Supreme Court breaks down along surprising lines Thursday’s decisions laid bare an emerging rift within the court’s conservative majority.
The key fault line in the Supreme Court that Donald Trump built is not the ideological clash between right and left — it’s the increasingly acrimonious conflict within the court’s now-dominant conservative wing.
Those rifts burst wide open on Thursday with two of the highest-profile decisions of the court’s current term. In both the big cases — involving Obamacare and a Catholic group refusing to vet same-sex couples as foster parents in Philadelphia — conservative justices unleashed sharp attacks that seemed aimed at their fellow GOP appointees for failing to grapple with the core issues the cases presented. . . .
Leading the charge from the right in both cases Thursday was Justice Samuel Alito, who penned caustic opinions taking his colleagues to task for issuing narrow rulings that seemed to him to be aimed at defusing political tensions rather than interpreting the law.
“After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I,” Alito wrote in the foster-care case, notwithstanding the Catholic charity’s unanimous victory. . . .
While Alito observed the court’s traditional decorum by railing at “the majority,” there was little doubt his criticism was aimed primarily at Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the pivotal vote to uphold Obamacare nine years ago and voted Thursday to leave the law intact by concluding that the Republican-led states seeking to overturn it lacked legal standing to sue.
In the latest Obamacare case, the chief justice left authorship of the majority opinion to the court’s longest-serving justice, Stephen Breyer, but the result was vintage Roberts: a largely-technical, 7-2 decision finding a lack of standing for the states and individuals challenging the law, while pushing aside more fundamental questions about the law’s constitutionality.
Roberts was the author of the opinion the court issued Thursday finding very narrow grounds to strike down Philadelphia’s ban on Catholic Social Services due to its policy against vetting same-sex couples for foster care. . . . .
C&A live blog - Candidates gather to assess the validity of any spoilt ballot papers received tonight
I love the fact that we are getting excited commentary from an American. You're very welcome to join in our obsession with the minutiae of British Politics, of course, and the perspectives from elsewhere arealways interesting. But I bet there aren't many Americans eagerly awaiting the result of a by-election in Buckinghamshire.
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben & Jerry's, that plunky independent hippy ice cream maker from Vermont....owned and operated by the giant multi-national UniLever, and for the UK made in a mega plant in Israel? That Ben & Jerry's?
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben & Jerry's, that plunky independent hippy ice cream maker from Vermont....owned and operated by the giant multi-national UniLever, and for the UK made in a mega plant in Israel? That Ben & Jerry's?
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben & Jerry's, that plunky independent hippy ice cream maker from Vermont....owned and operated by the giant multi-national UniLever, and for the UK made in a mega plant in Israel? That Ben & Jerry's?
Ben & Jerry's was around for a goodly while in the USA before they sold to UniLever, and are famous as the hippy ice cream. Plenty of very conservative people love the stuff, with the view that at least goddamn commie hippies are good for SOMETHING!
EDIT - PLUS a fair number of progressives think that Ben & Jerry's has been too corporate for a long time.
Keep in mind that B&J is quintessentially (at this juncture anyway) quintessentially Vermont.
Or somebody is ramping the market, hoping people will think someone knows something.
One of the two.
Very different seats of course, but if the Tories are struggling in C&A, then the 3.5 available at Ladbrokes for Labour to win B&S looks attractive. (Better odds may be available elsewhere - I just cite this as an indication)
C&A live blog - Rory Butler: Been sworn against revealing my source for this (suffice to say they’re in opposition) but looking over the trays tonight, they said: “I think the @LibDems have won the #CheshamAndAmersham by-election.” The yellow tray on the main table from this vantage is packed!
IKEA have u-turned on GB News. So has the Open University. I expect the others will fall in line soon enough. It will just be Ben and Jerry's but it's shit ice cream anyway.
Ben & Jerry's, that plunky independent hippy ice cream maker from Vermont....owned and operated by the giant multi-national UniLever, and for the UK made in a mega plant in Israel? That Ben & Jerry's?
Ben & Jerry's was around for a goodly while in the USA before they sold to UniLever, and are famous as the hippy ice cream. Plenty of very conservative people love the stuff, with the view that at least goddamn commie hippies are good for SOMETHING!
EDIT - PLUS a fair number of progressives think that Ben & Jerry's has been too corporate for a long time.
Keep in mind that B&J is quintessentially (at this juncture anyway) quintessentially Vermont.
I went to the original factory in Vermont prior to UniLever take over. It was a nice afternoon out.
But UniLever owned companies taking ethical stands over channels that "spread hate" (which in GB News case is BS, its best described at the moment as amateur hour moan-athons)....not sure they have a leg to stand on over some of the dodgy operational practices, clamp down on striking union workers, and eco disasters....
C&A live blog - Candidates gather to assess the validity of any spoilt ballot papers received tonight
I love the fact that we are getting excited commentary from an American. You're very welcome to join in our obsession with the minutiae of British Politics, of course, and the perspectives from elsewhere arealways interesting. But I bet there aren't many Americans eagerly awaiting the result of a by-election in Buckinghamshire.
Reckon you are right about that! But a good UK by-election is truly an art form - Brit kabuki.
Or somebody is ramping the market, hoping people will think someone knows something.
One of the two.
Very different seats of course, but if the Tories are struggling in C&A, then the 3.5 available at Ladbrokes for Labour to win B&S looks attractive. (Better odds may be available elsewhere - I just cite this as an indication)
Indeed. There is a proportion who simply love to vote for the winners. To prove themselves right. I don't get it at all But they do exist. Even to false recall.
Comments
JAKARTA, June 17 (Reuters) - More than 350 doctors and medical workers have caught COVID-19 in Indonesia despite being vaccinated with Sinovac and dozens have been hospitalised, officials said, as concerns grow about the efficacy of some vaccines against more infectious variants.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hundreds-indonesian-doctors-contract-covid-19-despite-vaccination-dozens-2021-06-17/
So a policy for the wealthy, urban elite as ever.
It seems odd to say "oh, because the countryside can't have it, towns and cities can't have it". Applied broadly, that would mean no London Underground.
So what is it then?
I deliberately don't buy it because of this, and I suspect I'm not alone - their political activism probably does more harm than good to their sales. Whichever side you pick on the culture wars, you will get a stronger negative reaction than a positive one - no one will be buying Ben and Jerry's instead of Magnums because of their woke stance, but some people won't buy Ben and Jerry's on principle.
Meanwhile nobody avoids buying Magnums out of political principle, because the brand's owners are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves.
Total Cases-No 1 in Europe
New Cases-No 1 in Europe
Total Deaths-No 1 in Europe
New Deaths-No 5 in Europe
Maybe Dom knows what he's talking about?
It was quite striking when we moved from sending our daughters to nursery to sending them to primary school that suddenly you weren't seen as a customer any more. At best, you're 'part of the school community' - at worst, you're an afterthought. The head at my youngest daughter's infant school is an amazing man - never have I met anyone so dedicated to the education and well-being of the children in his care. The head at the junior school's priorities are, in order 1) the wellbeing of the teachers, 2) the wellbeing of the pupils, 3) the education of the pupils. Other schools might prioritise exactly what parents want, or they might prioritise whatever weird little hobbyhorse the head has.
But you don't, in practice, get a choice. All the schools are full so if your local school doesn't suit you you can't just decide to go elsewhere. That is, of course, the main practical issue with your voucher suggestion. You would need schools to have sufficient places that it was possible, at least in principle, to move schools to one which suited your needs better. And it would mean that good schools would drive out bad.
But if it could be done, wonderful. It works ok with nurseries. And it leads to a situation where you can choose a nursery which is right for you and where different nurseries fulfil different niches. No one sane is suggesting that nurseries ought to be controlled by the state and that you can only go to the one that the state allocates you a place at.
If you were designing a situation from scratch, this would probably be it. As it is, the upheaval in moving from the current situation to an idealised one is so great it probably places it in the 'too difficult' box.
If he is successful he’ll become the 5th Tory to have lost in Southampton Itchen to be a sitting member of Parliament - Royston Smith, Christopher Chope, Flick Drummond and Caroline Noakes. I’d say that’s probably a record too.
It would entrench regional and urban/rural inequality. The very opposite of the stated government agenda.
A "London Challenge" for areas without choice would be better.
So long as education is treated as a market, then the wealthy win.
The left doesn't seem to have the same commitment to the long-term political struggle. One reason why there's always the same obsession with tactical voting at every general election - always looking no further than the next day.
I have no inside info, so small stakes
As for the 67% at Oxford and Cambridge who didn't attend private schools, it's not as if they're typically sons and daughters of barrow boys. Many are well-off and owe their success at (and at the end of their time at) state schools to family connections and wealth (which in some cases bought private tutoring). Oxford and Cambridge universities both love the "% from state schools" metric and it's best not to accept it as the main measure if trying to dent what is basically caste nepotism (involving more than one caste ofc) however politely it may be framed in terms of a percentage.
Also, France, Italy and the UK all have pretty similar populations.)
@AndyHolmesMedia
·
2m
Turnout is 52.2 percent here in #CheshamAndAmershambyelection which is roughly 20 percent lower than the average in this seat. 38,009 votes in total to count.
Based on that turnout number, I'd reckon the Conservatives are a little lower: say 18-19,000, with the LDs on 16-17,000.
Vast majority of people get over it rather quickly, enough is enough, we can't swap our freedom to save every single life.
Blame the Chinese government.
That is not to say that I agree with their politics: on many issues, I do not. But there would be no raison d'être for them without their political and social views.
I've chosen not to buy their ice cream and I tend to stick to Waitrose 1 as it's really very good. When we're allowed to go to Switzerland it will be Mövenpick. I recommend it to everyone who goes to Switzerland, it's the god of ice cream.
Laid the lds for £35 @ ~4.8
Off to sleep
2 - see above. The UK is doing far, far more testing. I very much doubt the UK has the most cases. Otherwise we would have the most deaths. See also the point about per capita
3 - a) Again, the per capita issue. The UK is kind of upper-mid-table per capita. We are a big country, we'd expect to have a lot of deaths.
b) in any case, these statistics are a long way from being comparable, because of different ways of recording the data. Excess deaths is a much better measure, by which we are also mid-table ish.
c) Even if the stats were recorded identically, it's very difficult to make comparisons. Has the SW had far fewer deaths than the NW because the SW has managed it better? Or is it down to issues like population density, general health, housing occupancy levels, climate (possibly), employment, etc? Of course it's the latter. And so it is between countries.
d) A pedant notes that even in raw deaths, the UK is no longer No 1 (Russia says hello.)
4) a) Again, PER CAPITA. The third largest country has the fifth largest number of new deaths isn't particularly lamentable.
b) Nor is it, as far as I can see, accurate. There's loads of European countries getting more than the UK of actual deaths, regardless of per capita.
Certainly agree that Dom was right about politicians and civil servants being woefully innumerate though.
I'm sure you know all this of course and are just trolling
For me, education, and, in particular, Secondary education, is a perfect market fallacy. Creating more distortions than it solves.
I will bid you good night with best wishes.
Colleges should be deprived of the right to admit. The whole college system should be dumped. Turn them into halls of residence with randomised membership every term or year from among that portion of students who wish to live in a hall of residence in the first place. Seize their assets and fund their remaining undergraduate services - which would mostly be accommodation and board - centrally. Aside from anything else, think of how much money is wasted by all the duplication of functions at the moment. More importantly, who wants to encourage loyalty to institutions? Contrary to reactionary myth, that always cuts against the encouragement of independence of thought.
As for admission, let it be run by departments using a numerus clausus and ban interviews. Tricky edge cases? Don't let the department know the school name.
I think the Oxbridge Colleges compete to offer the best education and experience they can to students. They compete to attract talent.
I personally think that institutions competing to attract people is a good thing.
Will the fact that it was a rainy day in C&A benefit the Lib Dems over the Tories? My guess is, yes, because IF there's any intensity gap, the Conservatives are on the short end of the stick at the moment.
GRN: 46.1% (+29.3)
LAB: 39.7% (-12.8)
CON: 12.6% (-0.8)
LDEM: 1.6% (-5.1)
Green GAIN from Labour.
Just not tonight..
PM : "Captain Hindsight."
LDs last matched @4.3
Main difference is much greater reliance on technology at King Co Elections. This stems from two factors, complexity of ballot (for general elections in KC everything from President to sewer district tax levy) and size of electorate (1.5 million registered voters in KC)
Main similarity is with staff, with diverse group of workers diligently laboring at processing, sorting and counting ballots in a methodical, careful way, supervised by more senior managers and observed by media, party and candidate representatives - and candidates themselves.
My hat is off to all of you tonight!
Oh, and Davey too.
It’s late BUT I understand that’s the lowest turnout % this seat has ever seen. Yes, it’s a by-election and lower turnout was expected but this continues the narrative of the Tories base staying home. Watch this space
the >£700k traded should have made for a lively Inplay market, but no
Rory Butler - It’s a hot and stuffy one tonight at the #CheshamAndAmersham by-election, and while the count continues I’m half tempted to get a few lengths in to cool down
I’m going to go with a 1500 margin.
If the LDs win, or the tories win by fewer than 1.5k, then it was a bad bet. More than 1.5k then I got value.
What do pb’ers recon?
Any guesses on the Tory margin?
Edit now evens
Someone’s confident
Politico.com - ‘Alito was just pissed’: Trump’s Supreme Court breaks down along surprising lines
Thursday’s decisions laid bare an emerging rift within the court’s conservative majority.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/17/alito-supreme-court-trump-495121
The key fault line in the Supreme Court that Donald Trump built is not the ideological clash between right and left — it’s the increasingly acrimonious conflict within the court’s now-dominant conservative wing.
Those rifts burst wide open on Thursday with two of the highest-profile decisions of the court’s current term. In both the big cases — involving Obamacare and a Catholic group refusing to vet same-sex couples as foster parents in Philadelphia — conservative justices unleashed sharp attacks that seemed aimed at their fellow GOP appointees for failing to grapple with the core issues the cases presented. . . .
Leading the charge from the right in both cases Thursday was Justice Samuel Alito, who penned caustic opinions taking his colleagues to task for issuing narrow rulings that seemed to him to be aimed at defusing political tensions rather than interpreting the law.
“After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I,” Alito wrote in the foster-care case, notwithstanding the Catholic charity’s unanimous victory. . . .
While Alito observed the court’s traditional decorum by railing at “the majority,” there was little doubt his criticism was aimed primarily at Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the pivotal vote to uphold Obamacare nine years ago and voted Thursday to leave the law intact by concluding that the Republican-led states seeking to overturn it lacked legal standing to sue.
In the latest Obamacare case, the chief justice left authorship of the majority opinion to the court’s longest-serving justice, Stephen Breyer, but the result was vintage Roberts: a largely-technical, 7-2 decision finding a lack of standing for the states and individuals challenging the law, while pushing aside more fundamental questions about the law’s constitutionality.
Roberts was the author of the opinion the court issued Thursday finding very narrow grounds to strike down Philadelphia’s ban on Catholic Social Services due to its policy against vetting same-sex couples for foster care. . . . .
LD odds on!!!!!!!
One of the two.
EDIT - PLUS a fair number of progressives think that Ben & Jerry's has been too corporate for a long time.
Keep in mind that B&J is quintessentially (at this juncture anyway) quintessentially Vermont.
But UniLever owned companies taking ethical stands over channels that "spread hate" (which in GB News case is BS, its best described at the moment as amateur hour moan-athons)....not sure they have a leg to stand on over some of the dodgy operational practices, clamp down on striking union workers, and eco disasters....
With that my focus turns to England Scotland!
Con 1.8
LD 1.2
LD 1.02
They think it's all over. Last chance to hedge!