Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
It is not spending which puts Singapore at the top of the PISA rankings but the fact it only recruits the brightest graduates as teachers and has a focus on educational excellence.
They're not my figures, they are from the World Bank. So you acknowledge that Singapore's government spending on secondary education per pupil is 50% higher than ours? Incidentally, I don't doubt that cultural factors are also at work. I just object to your sloppy arguments and abuse of statistics, like when you proclaim that Singapore spends less on education than we do when even a cursory reference to the facts will demonstrate that the opposite is actually the case.
According to these figures in 2017 the UK spent 5% of its gdp on education compared to only 2.9% spent by Singapore in the same decade, yet Singapore still topped the PISA rankings https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS
The PISA rankings are for secondary school outcomes so secondary spending per pupil is what should matter. The UK has a higher fertility rate so more kids. And we have a big tertiary sector.
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
Wind up the EU Wind up Remoaners Wind up the Woke Wind up Sturgeon
That plan for government from a facsimile of the Tory party in full.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
Wind up the EU Wind up Remoaners Wind up the Woke Wind up Sturgeon
That plan for government from a facsimile of the Tory party in full.
None of whom will vote Tory.
What then does NS do? Moan and complain? So what, as far as BJ goes
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Or indeed a bairn. Though Bovington might be safer - less risk of confusion of objectives. (If you are staying over, there is of course the Wareham/Swanage railway, and Corfe Castle, and Kimmeridge if he likes fossils - a museum and aquarium if the tide is high).
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
The American habit of acting to wind up your opponents rather than in the interest of good government has little to commend it.
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Bovington is awesome. If you are in North Devon then there is small but good collection near Barnestaple at Cobbaton.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
Wind up the EU Wind up Remoaners Wind up the Woke Wind up Sturgeon
That plan for government from a facsimile of the Tory party in full.
None of whom will vote Tory.
What then does NS do? Moan and complain? So what, as far as BJ goes
It's not so much her as the Scots, who loathe Mr Johnson to a degree that continues to amaze me. An elderly relative, normally the most conservative (small c) and Unionist (in the Scots sense), was utterly horrified at the idea of Boris Johnson as PM: "he's a clown!". This sort of behaviour won't help dispel that notion.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
Wind up the EU Wind up Remoaners Wind up the Woke Wind up Sturgeon
That plan for government from a facsimile of the Tory party in full.
None of whom will vote Tory.
What then does NS do? Moan and complain? So what, as far as BJ goes
Fair enough, you're right, all the moaning and complaining and lawsuits from you Trumpsters certainly achieved the square root of fckall.
At the moment looks like neither CDU/CSU-Green or CDU/SPD will get a majority so the FDP will have to be brought in as well.
I can see CDU/CSU-FDP-SPD happening considering CDU/CSU-FDP-Green (Jamaica) talks collapsed last time.
Despite @HYUFD's rather dismissive approach, the German election is of significance as the Germans have the economic and arguably political leadership of the EU, which continues to exist.
It seems Laschet is Continuity Merkel but the truth is both the Union and the SPD are heading for disastrous results.
The growth in support for both the FDP and especially the Greens suggests there is a desire to move away from the traditional duopoly. It may also be Linke fall out of the Bundestag.
It seems improbable the FDP and Greens will sit round the same table and with AfD not a viable coalition option, you have the CDU/FDP (39%) on one side and the Greens/SPD (36%) on the other. Both are well short of a majority so the post-election horse trading will be fascinating whatever "Mr Snoozefest" from Epping might suggest.
I'd also point out what people say before an election and what they do after an election are rarely one and the same.
Absolutely beautiful evening down here in East Kent. Most welcome and unexpected.
On topic, for as long as SKS and the whole of the rest of the divided rag tag opposition to Johnson and his band of merry chancers fail to compete at the policy level, and confine their opposition to expressing various degrees of hatred of the PM, this bet is nailed on.
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Or indeed a bairn. Though Bovington might be safer - less risk of confusion of objectives. (If you are staying over, there is of course the Wareham/Swanage railway, and Corfe Castle, and Kimmeridge if he likes fossils - a museum and aquarium if the tide is high).
I know that area well - we lived near Southampton for a few years. Although I must admit the nodding donkeys at Kimmeridge (or Clavell's Tower) were of more interest to me than fossils. The young 'un would heartily disagree. Then there are the destroyed tanks visible from the clifftop path across the ranges.
We once went for a walk across the ranges, and saw Brocken Spectres and Adders within a few hundred metres.
Iranian-backed forces are believed to have seized an oil tanker in the Gulf off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, three maritime security sources said, after Britain's maritime trade agency reported a "potential hijack" in the area on Tuesday.
...
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), in a warning notice based on a third party source, had earlier reported a "potential hijack" and advised ships to exercise extreme caution due to an incident around 60 nautical miles east of the UAE's Fujairah emirate.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Or indeed a bairn. Though Bovington might be safer - less risk of confusion of objectives. (If you are staying over, there is of course the Wareham/Swanage railway, and Corfe Castle, and Kimmeridge if he likes fossils - a museum and aquarium if the tide is high).
I know that area well - we lived near Southampton for a few years. Although I must admit the nodding donkeys at Kimmeridge (or Clavell's Tower) were of more interest to me than fossils. The young 'un would heartily disagree. Then there are the destroyed tanks visible from the clifftop path across the ranges.
We once went for a walk across the ranges, and saw Brocken Spectres and Adders within a few hundred metres.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
We’re all going to get it at some point now. The question is merely how badly.
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
This is where linkies would help. Secondary school is just below half of a child's education (and that depends on the educational system run in a country). What about spending on primary schools?
I used to naively thing that comparing education systems between schools, yet alone countries, was easy. Now I've got a kid in school, I can see it's fraught with difficulties.
I'd prefer to look at the functional illiteracy and innumeracy levels of a country: kids we are failing at a much younger age.
You could also use those figures to argue that Singapore's spending is much more inefficient. The UK spends half as much and still doesn't do too badly. Success isn't gauged on how much money you spend.
Something Blair and Labour's pitiful cries of 'education, education, education' failed to understand ...
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
This is why all the screeches about the evils of private schools are just ideological rubbish. Parents with the resources to send their kids to public school will just use that money to give their kids other advantages.
We need to spend money on the potential parents the education system has missed, preferably before they become parents.
They aren't screeches, it's a sober assessment of a situation whereby affluent people purchasing educational advantage for their children feeds inequality. And it's only ideological in the sense that it's making a value judgement, placing a reduction in inequality above the right of affluent parents to purchase that advantage. The fact that a wealthy family background well still be an advantage is no argument for not reducing this advantage.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
"Experts have also warned that the vast majority of transmission occurs between household contacts and close friends, so the chance of picking up a case from a stranger or casual acquaintance is tiny.
Imperial College London estimated that the risk of catching an infection at home was about 20 per cent, compared to 5.9 per cent through social contact with friends and family and 1.2 per cent through a casual contact."
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Early electric trains such as the Class 503 (from 1938!).
"Experts have also warned that the vast majority of transmission occurs between household contacts and close friends, so the chance of picking up a case from a stranger or casual acquaintance is tiny.
Imperial College London estimated that the risk of catching an infection at home was about 20 per cent, compared to 5.9 per cent through social contact with friends and family and 1.2 per cent through a casual contact."
"Experts have also warned that the vast majority of transmission occurs between household contacts and close friends, so the chance of picking up a case from a stranger or casual acquaintance is tiny.
Imperial College London estimated that the risk of catching an infection at home was about 20 per cent, compared to 5.9 per cent through social contact with friends and family and 1.2 per cent through a casual contact."
Telegraph
Its like spending hours in a confined space with somebody day in, day out is riskier than briefly meeting somebody.... also large numbers of people are still WFH, so again not like they are in the office 40hrs a week.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Thanks. You have spotted that these people do not exist, and I was deliberately wasting everyone's time.
What species do you belong to, and are they significantly better at it?
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
This is where linkies would help. Secondary school is just below half of a child's education (and that depends on the educational system run in a country). What about spending on primary schools?
I used to naively thing that comparing education systems between schools, yet alone countries, was easy. Now I've got a kid in school, I can see it's fraught with difficulties.
I'd prefer to look at the functional illiteracy and innumeracy levels of a country: kids we are failing at a much younger age.
You could also use those figures to argue that Singapore's spending is much more inefficient. The UK spends half as much and still doesn't do too badly. Success isn't gauged on how much money you spend.
Something Blair and Labour's pitiful cries of 'education, education, education' failed to understand ...
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
This is why all the screeches about the evils of private schools are just ideological rubbish. Parents with the resources to send their kids to public school will just use that money to give their kids other advantages.
We need to spend money on the potential parents the education system has missed, preferably before they become parents.
They aren't screeches, it's a sober assessment of a situation whereby affluent people purchasing educational advantage for their children feeds inequality. And it's only ideological in the sense that it's making a value judgement, placing a reduction in inequality above the right of affluent parents to purchase that advantage. The fact that a wealthy family background well still be an advantage is no argument for not reducing this advantage.
The rest of your post I agree with.
It's not in the least bit sober. You're looking at it from an ideological viewpoint, not one of what results you want to get. You've decided that private schools are evil, and you want to abolish them whatever the end result of that may be (and I doubt it would be positive).
In addition, not all private schools are evil. For all the talk of Eton, mot private schools are less privileged affairs. For instance, I went to a Woodard Foundation school. https://woodardschools.co.uk/ where many pupils were local and many were subsidised.
Forgive me for asking (and you don't need to reply), but are you a parent? Having my own kid enter the educational system has opened my eyes to the advantages some kids have compared to others.
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Early electric trains such as the Class 503 (from 1938!).
Never heard of it so I had to look it up while dinner cooks. I didn't know they were still being used to transport unfortunate Wirralers in 1985!
Quite a lot of money involved if that Panther is operational, £10m+. I've read reports that the poor old pensioner is a little..er..over enthusiastic for the political period from which his collection emanates, which might explain the German government going in strong.
I took the little 'un to IWM Duxford today. He wasn't that interested in the planes, but he loved the tanks in the land warfare section. I think a visit to Bovington might be in order ...
Check before you go, as they often drive a tank or two around the arena even if it is not a special weekend or the very busy Tankfest. Last time we were in Dorset my friends collected us from Soton and we stopped at Bovington as much for a break and lunch as anything - but (slightly to my syrprise) ended up staying a couple of hours: we got a Leopard and a Sherman performing as a bonus. One of the friends asked if they might possibly have a Kettenkrad (which he had read about in a Charles Stross SF novel) and was absolutely overjoyed to see this halftrack motorbike.
I love Bovington. I once took my dad, who I never thought was into tanks, and he was absolutely overjoyed at the place. Lots of stories came out, like post-war army surplus sales when he was a kid in Ascot Drive in Derby, when a vast area was filled with (for example) unused tank engines. I cannot remember the details, but one lorry manufacturer bought thousands of Rolls Royce aero engines for use in lorries, and they were awful. Brilliant aero engines, terrible vehicle ones.
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Early electric trains such as the Class 503 (from 1938!).
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners
Is that the second or the third time you've cut and pasted that today? One loses count.
It's SG policy to have a referendum once the pandemic is under control. And that programme was "Published 25th Apr 2021", obiter dicta in an interview with the co-convener, not the Party as a whole.
Yes but only a legal one which this Tory government will refuse.
They are not pressing Sturgeon to hold a wildcat referendum and declare UDI as Salmond and Alba would so nothing for London to worry about
Yes, but your definition of a Wildcat referendum and Sturgeon's definition of a wildcat referendum are different
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
This is where linkies would help. Secondary school is just below half of a child's education (and that depends on the educational system run in a country). What about spending on primary schools?
I used to naively thing that comparing education systems between schools, yet alone countries, was easy. Now I've got a kid in school, I can see it's fraught with difficulties.
I'd prefer to look at the functional illiteracy and innumeracy levels of a country: kids we are failing at a much younger age.
You could also use those figures to argue that Singapore's spending is much more inefficient. The UK spends half as much and still doesn't do too badly. Success isn't gauged on how much money you spend.
Something Blair and Labour's pitiful cries of 'education, education, education' failed to understand ...
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
This is why all the screeches about the evils of private schools are just ideological rubbish. Parents with the resources to send their kids to public school will just use that money to give their kids other advantages.
We need to spend money on the potential parents the education system has missed, preferably before they become parents.
They aren't screeches, it's a sober assessment of a situation whereby affluent people purchasing educational advantage for their children feeds inequality. And it's only ideological in the sense that it's making a value judgement, placing a reduction in inequality above the right of affluent parents to purchase that advantage. The fact that a wealthy family background well still be an advantage is no argument for not reducing this advantage.
The rest of your post I agree with.
It's not in the least bit sober. You're looking at it from an ideological viewpoint, not one of what results you want to get. You've decided that private schools are evil, and you want to abolish them whatever the end result of that may be (and I doubt it would be positive).
In addition, not all private schools are evil. For all the talk of Eton, mot private schools are less privileged affairs. For instance, I went to a Woodard Foundation school. https://woodardschools.co.uk/ where many pupils were local and many were subsidised.
Forgive me for asking (and you don't need to reply), but are you a parent? Having my own kid enter the educational system has opened my eyes to the advantages some kids have compared to others.
It would also unfairly affect parental choice. My wife and I did plenty of research on education and determined the Montessori approach was the most rigorous* and achieved the best results. However the Department of Education has decided from upon high that the lack of technology in Montessori schools means they should not be brought into the state system. So without private schools we would have to along with an education approach we believe is inferior.
*I am talking here about proper MMI certified schools, not the fluffy crap that just puts "Montessori" in the name.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Thanks. You have spotted that these people do not exist, and I was deliberately wasting everyone's time.
What species do you belong to, and are they significantly better at it?
I say: "tiny tiny share". You repeat what I say as: "do not exist".
There is no point debating people who can't even repeat what I am saying accurately.
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
This is where linkies would help. Secondary school is just below half of a child's education (and that depends on the educational system run in a country). What about spending on primary schools?
I used to naively thing that comparing education systems between schools, yet alone countries, was easy. Now I've got a kid in school, I can see it's fraught with difficulties.
I'd prefer to look at the functional illiteracy and innumeracy levels of a country: kids we are failing at a much younger age.
You could also use those figures to argue that Singapore's spending is much more inefficient. The UK spends half as much and still doesn't do too badly. Success isn't gauged on how much money you spend.
Something Blair and Labour's pitiful cries of 'education, education, education' failed to understand ...
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
This is why all the screeches about the evils of private schools are just ideological rubbish. Parents with the resources to send their kids to public school will just use that money to give their kids other advantages.
We need to spend money on the potential parents the education system has missed, preferably before they become parents.
They aren't screeches, it's a sober assessment of a situation whereby affluent people purchasing educational advantage for their children feeds inequality. And it's only ideological in the sense that it's making a value judgement, placing a reduction in inequality above the right of affluent parents to purchase that advantage. The fact that a wealthy family background well still be an advantage is no argument for not reducing this advantage.
The rest of your post I agree with.
It's not in the least bit sober. You're looking at it from an ideological viewpoint, not one of what results you want to get. You've decided that private schools are evil, and you want to abolish them whatever the end result of that may be (and I doubt it would be positive).
In addition, not all private schools are evil. For all the talk of Eton, mot private schools are less privileged affairs. For instance, I went to a Woodard Foundation school. https://woodardschools.co.uk/ where many pupils were local and many were subsidised.
Forgive me for asking (and you don't need to reply), but are you a parent? Having my own kid enter the educational system has opened my eyes to the advantages some kids have compared to others.
Yes I am a parent.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
I see Piers Moron is still berating Olympic medalists who didn't win....he is morphing into his mate Donald Trump.
Teddy was a far better President:
“ It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Is there anyone on here who doesn't think the government wouldn't be immediately better if Sunak replaced Johnson?
I think perhaps that I do. Boris is awful in many ways, but he sort of tells us he's awful. He also knows that he doesn't know. He's giving us a warts-and-all PM-ship.
Now this obviously sounds bad, but when you think about it all PMs are likely to be awful - they're arrival in office is pretty random from an ability point of view. Cummings peripherally observed such a thing. So Boris is crap, but he sort of admits that.
I think Boris is proving himself as a good PM.
(Sunak - he's got the old-fashioned, pre-Boris, ideas)
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Thanks. You have spotted that these people do not exist, and I was deliberately wasting everyone's time.
What species do you belong to, and are they significantly better at it?
I say: "tiny tiny share". You repeat what I say as: "do not exist".
There is no point debating people who can't even repeat what I am saying accurately.
No, because it is implicit in what I said that a number of people I know, let's call it n1, went to Goodwood, and a greater-than one number, let's call this n2, came back with covid. Now how can n2 be a "tiny tiny share" of n1 unless n1 is converging on the total attendance at Goodwood this year, given that the record ever is about 100,000, presumably, in the nature of things, 95% of them not being from Devon?
You read "Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers" in a really shit pop sci article in the Daily Mail and thought you'd give it an outing, didn't you? It must be embarrassing being you.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
"Experts have also warned that the vast majority of transmission occurs between household contacts and close friends, so the chance of picking up a case from a stranger or casual acquaintance is tiny.
Imperial College London estimated that the risk of catching an infection at home was about 20 per cent, compared to 5.9 per cent through social contact with friends and family and 1.2 per cent through a casual contact."
Telegraph
That's one of those things which sounds impressive until you think about it. And then you realise it's not. After all, how does the infection get into the household in the first place?
British Cycling performance director Stephen Park also confirmed they were one of "several" teams to call for the Danes to be penalised for the use of illegal equipment in Monday's qualifying session.
Park said that at a meeting of teams before Tuesday's cycling session, the UCI confirmed the equipment could not be used for the rest of the competition but indicated there would be no retroactive punishment, despite rules saying a team should face elimination in such circumstances.
I’ve noticed that the officiating has been very lenient at the Olympics.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Hey Skip, d'ye know what else Scotland voted to remain part of?
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Given the originally claimed efficacy figure of c. 95% and the numbers now double vaxxed, you'd absolutely expect a few million double vacced people to get a bit of a sniffle (and in rare cases a bit more) and it shouldn't be a cause for alarm - there was never any suggestion this was 100% protection.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Given the originally claimed efficacy figure of c. 95% and the numbers now double vaxxed, you'd absolutely expect a few million double vacced people to get a bit of a sniffle (and in rare cases a bit more) and it shouldn't be a cause for alarm - there was never any suggestion this was 100% protection.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
That punchline works for anyone moaning about any government policy they don't like. Lockdowns were elective dictatorship - a majority are in favour of removing what would be unargued human rights so it's imposed on 100% of people. But that's not a line of argument which tends to make many converts.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
That punchline works for anyone moaning about any government policy they don't like. Lockdowns were elective dictatorship - a majority are in favour of removing what would be unargued human rights so it's imposed on 100% of people. But that's not a line of argument which tends to make many converts.
To a point - and that is certainly what Mr Hogg was warning about. My specific point is about regions and nations where the vote is sharply against the government. Whilst the government is duly elected, in the region / nation in question they do not agree and have voted accordingly.
We either have elected and empowered regions and nations where Westminster respects their mandate and the will of the people, or we do not.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Hey Skip, d'ye know what else Scotland voted to remain part of?
Well - convince a majority of your countrymen that they should leave us and attempt to join the EU and start from there......
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
The relevant demos is the UK without distinction. The people of Scotland were offered an opt out of that demos and thought better of it by a comfortable margin.
Back on topic for a minute. I don't expect a radical direction change from Sunak. It isn't about that - people voted and you should get what you vote for. What I hope he would bring is competence and integrity. Having met him and his team it is the least I would expect.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Not sure the Scots want independence
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
The relevant demos is the UK without distinction. The people of Scotland were offered an opt out of that demos and thought better of it by a comfortable margin.
The referendum was should Scotland leave the UK. Having voted no Scotland still has a separate government with clearly defined powers. Are you saying that having voted no the majority (England) gets to toss those powers and that government aside?
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Not sure the Scots want independence
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence
Absolutely correct Big G. Notwithstanding all the froth of the cybernats on here, in the real world Scotland will not vote for independence - keep dreaming SNP!!
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Thanks, but I think you're really off-track.
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Not sure the Scots want independence
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence
Absolutely correct Big G. Notwithstanding all the froth of the cybernats on here, in the real world Scotland will not vote for independence - keep dreaming SNP!!
I have lived with independence demands from the Nationalists since I moved to Berwick on Tweed in 1954 and throughout those 67 years they have sought independence no matter whether they are in the EU or not
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
Well Kate Middleton (aka Duchess of Cambridge) has been pushing quite hard on early years development and what parents can do. See
She has a substantial following amongst 20-something and 30-something Mums (people who listen to the Happy Mum Happy Baby podcast where she talked about this stuff https://play.acast.com/s/happymumhappybaby/theduchessofcambridgeontheearlyyears), so we shall find out in a decade's time whether initiatives like this start to make a difference.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PM
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Given the originally claimed efficacy figure of c. 95% and the numbers now double vaxxed, you'd absolutely expect a few million double vacced people to get a bit of a sniffle (and in rare cases a bit more) and it shouldn't be a cause for alarm - there was never any suggestion this was 100% protection.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
The relevant demos is the UK without distinction. The people of Scotland were offered an opt out of that demos and thought better of it by a comfortable margin.
The referendum was should Scotland leave the UK. Having voted no Scotland still has a separate government with clearly defined powers. Are you saying that having voted no the majority (England) gets to toss those powers and that government aside?
Scotland voted to stay in the UK knowing full well that it was the UK government that would have the power to decide whether to ever allow it another legal independence referendum again.
Just the same as if England had a Tory majority in 2024 but there was a majority across the UK of Labour, SNP and LD MPs you would have to accept Starmer would become PM of the UK. Personally I would prefer an English Parliament too but we are one United Kingdom
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Not sure the Scots want independence
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence
I don't think we do want independence. But that isn't the same as not wanting to do things differently to the rest of the UK.
Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Guess who on the declining case and admission numbers a nightclub in Lincoln....
The UK govt once again shows that it strongly believes in reproducibility in science by refusing to act on strong evidence from so many other countries. We must see every mistake reproduced in the UK to be absolutely sure we aren't exceptional. And still not correct these.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PM
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
I thought he became Chancellor because he had less self-respect than Javid.
Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
If you've got some fresh, exciting observations on Brexit or Covid or BJ, knock yersel oot.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PM
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
I thought he became Chancellor because he had less self-respect than Javid.
Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
More importantly, the SNP aren’t quite ready to have another go so we’re not at a stage where the UK government has to decide what to do.
But I agree that discussions about Scotland are probably the most boring on this site.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
The relevant demos is the UK without distinction. The people of Scotland were offered an opt out of that demos and thought better of it by a comfortable margin.
The referendum was should Scotland leave the UK. Having voted no Scotland still has a separate government with clearly defined powers. Are you saying that having voted no the majority (England) gets to toss those powers and that government aside?
Scotland voted to stay in the UK knowing full well that it was the UK government that would have the power to decide whether to ever allow it another legal independence referendum again.
Just the same as if England had a Tory majority in 2024 but there was a majority across the UK of Labour, SNP and LD MPs you would have to accept Starmer would become PM of the UK. Personally I would prefer an English Parliament too but we are one United Kingdom
Blimey, a Scotland post from you that isn't your usual bombastic crap. "An English Parliament" is the elephant missing from the room. The United Kingdom no longer works as a democratic entity, and the heart of that is the missing English parliament.
Instead of the Clown making comments about wanting to scrap devolution he should be trying to extend it. Give democracy to England, all 4 nations have parliaments allowing their people to make their own decisions.
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Not sure the Scots want independence
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence
I don't think we do want independence. But that isn't the same as not wanting to do things differently to the rest of the UK.
I do not dispute devolution and of course Scots Law is entirely separate
However, if you think Brexit is difficult Scots Independence is Brexit on steriods
The uncertainty over the years needed to achieve independence would see Scotland frozen out of International investment, with much of it being diverted to Northern England and the English border counties
Also do not underestimate the huge UK Scots family ties that would be disrupted and the idea Sturgeon is now suggesting a hard border would go down like a lead balloon with those ties
NEW: ‘I look forward to meeting you soon.’ @BorisJohnson declines @NicolaSturgeon’s invitation for a meeting during his imminent visit to Scotland. But says he wants a ‘structured forum’ so devolved admins can work with UK govt.
Education starts at home. If parents do not have the means to help their children learn, then their kids are at an automatic disadvantage. That doesn't mean they cannot overcome that disadvantage; it just means they will find it harder.
Well Kate Middleton (aka Duchess of Cambridge) has been pushing quite hard on early years development and what parents can do. See
She has a substantial following amongst 20-something and 30-something Mums (people who listen to the Happy Mum Happy Baby podcast where she talked about this stuff https://play.acast.com/s/happymumhappybaby/theduchessofcambridgeontheearlyyears), so we shall find out in a decade's time whether initiatives like this start to make a difference.
I am massively in favour of this sort of thing. As I've said many times passim, many kids grow up in homes that have no books. Just imagine how difficult that makes some things for them (and thankfully, many thrive despite this).
However: IMV many things (e.g. baby sensory) aren't much use to the baby. They are great for parents, though. I'd like to think of myself as educated and knowledgeable, but when we had our kid (I was 41), I was effing clueless about what to do - I don't think I had ever even held a baby before, and our families were a long way away. Being in a social situation where I could chat to people was a great help.
Also, I loved the National Childcare Trust meetings we went to whilst Mrs J was pregnant. We're still friends with all of the group.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.
Is there a rule that this site has to have at least one futile, circular argument about Scottish independence every single day?
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
I take your point. I just get amused when people try to deny the facts. A 4th election win for the SNP. On a record turnout. With a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected. Whilst I make no claims for whether or not people would vote for independence in a 2nd referendum, they have clearly and comfortably elected a Holyrood supporting that referendum.
These are the facts. It is simply adding. Trying to claim this isn't true is why we go round in these circles...
Interesting to see the UK Prime Minister treating the Scottish First Minister as though she were the Mayor of Manchester or the leader of Surrey County Council.
I'm not sure it's helpful but no doubt it plays well in some circles.
I don't see the disadvantage. It won't change many minds one way or another in Scotland I would imagine. And it winds up NS.
There has been a strong tendency in the UK government under both Cameron and May to pussy foot around Sturgeon and try to give her her way where possible in the slightly bizarre thought that this would keep her quiet. Under Boris that has changed. She is not invited to COP26 even although it is in Glasgow. He is not interested in giving her a photoshot with him at Bute House. She wanted to have a "greenport" instead of a freeport in Scotland. She was told to get lost. There is more UK government advertising on local Scottish radio. His response to a demand for a further referendum has so far been blunt.
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
Nevertheless, she was elected in Scotland. He wasn't.
He was elected in the United Kingdom - which Scotland voted to remain part of.
Whilst that is true, telling Scotland that they need to suck it up isn't a good way to promote the union. The challenge for Shagger is that he is trying to build a centralised control system where his magnificence will permeate into all things.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
You make ridiculous points poorly. Can I declare my house an independent state?
Why is it ridiculous? Scotland has just re-elected a 4th term SNP government on a record turnout with a record majority of pro-independence MSPs. Not my choice, I campaigned for the LibDems, but it is the "settled will" up here.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
The relevant demos is the UK without distinction. The people of Scotland were offered an opt out of that demos and thought better of it by a comfortable margin.
The referendum was should Scotland leave the UK. Having voted no Scotland still has a separate government with clearly defined powers. Are you saying that having voted no the majority (England) gets to toss those powers and that government aside?
Scotland voted to stay in the UK knowing full well that it was the UK government that would have the power to decide whether to ever allow it another legal independence referendum again.
Just the same as if England had a Tory majority in 2024 but there was a majority across the UK of Labour, SNP and LD MPs you would have to accept Starmer would become PM of the UK. Personally I would prefer an English Parliament too but we are one United Kingdom
Blimey, a Scotland post from you that isn't your usual bombastic crap. "An English Parliament" is the elephant missing from the room. The United Kingdom no longer works as a democratic entity, and the heart of that is the missing English parliament.
Instead of the Clown making comments about wanting to scrap devolution he should be trying to extend it. Give democracy to England, all 4 nations have parliaments allowing their people to make their own decisions.
I agree. The constituent parts should be given greater levels of autonomy, but there should also be a bicameral approach to the passing of laws that originate in the regional parliaments, which would give the MPs at Westminster something to do, and the House of Lords could be scrapped.
Oh and while we are at it, lets have a directly elected PM/Uk and directly elected first ministers. There we are. Constitution sorted! It'll never happen of course.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.
Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.
So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role
I don’t think you can say it’s because he is Chancellor he’s a strong candidate to be PM
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
I thought he became Chancellor because he had less self-respect than Javid.
That was certainly the suggestion when Javid refused to have Number 10 dictate and had to resign. And yet here we are with Sunak - does he look like Number 10 are dictating? Sunak did the obvious. CofE is 2nd Lord of the Treasury, a huge role with its own power base, and he has absolutely maximised that power. Javid - had he sufficient imagination - could have done so.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.
Well, since you'd have to immediately expand state school provision considerably to account for the private pupils, I'd argue it'd cause an immediate downward trend.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Given the originally claimed efficacy figure of c. 95% and the numbers now double vaxxed, you'd absolutely expect a few million double vacced people to get a bit of a sniffle (and in rare cases a bit more) and it shouldn't be a cause for alarm - there was never any suggestion this was 100% protection.
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education. (runs for cover)
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
Are those stats right?
Roughly speaking Uk government spending is about 50% of GDP, so if we are spending 20% of gdp we are spending 40% of the government budget. Yes there will be extra around the edges for private sector etc but that analysis doesn’t pass the sniff test
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education. (runs for cover)
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.
Not hedged it yet - difficult when market is thin and it would tie up cash. Could back others I guess. Starmer I guess?
Yes, I'd do that in your position. But you like to ride things, Stocky, don't you?
I try to ignore prior bets and look afresh at markets each time. Nothing is jumping out at me at the moment. If I thought Sunak was too lowly priced and there was sufficient liquidity to bet then I'd lay him - but that - in my mind - would be unconnected to the previous long-shot bet.
Yep
This guy knows how to bet.
Non-pros pay attention.
I’m not sure that’s right though. Yes it’s a good discipline in analysing bets separately but you also need to consider the overall shape of the book, risk profile and total exposure
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Given you have no control over systems overseas (in the thought experiment where you, terrifyingly, have control on this island) how much relative educational & economic performance are you willing to sacrifice for more egalitarianism? Or is it a panacea and closing the best schools will also improve the overall average?
It's not levelling down or up. It's levelling. But probably you'd see a net uplift since there'd be more potential realized.
But Kinabulu, if you're not smart enough to have a rich daddy then how much potential have you really got?
I should perhaps mention that many kids going to private schools don't have 'rich' parents. Many are on scholarships or subsidised, and many parents scrimp and save to send their kids to the school.
Public service announcement: a lot of double-vaxxed and in at least one case previously infected fun lovers from Devon who went to Goodwood, have come back with covid.
Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers. Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID. And most that are have no more than a bad cold.
Given the originally claimed efficacy figure of c. 95% and the numbers now double vaxxed, you'd absolutely expect a few million double vacced people to get a bit of a sniffle (and in rare cases a bit more) and it shouldn't be a cause for alarm - there was never any suggestion this was 100% protection.
What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.
However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.
(Hint, he wasn't.)
If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.
I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.
The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.
Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.
That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.
Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?
Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?
"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.
The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.
It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.
At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.
I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.
That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.
Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.
Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?
I don't need one.
I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.
Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."
Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.
And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.
It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.
Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.
Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.
I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.
For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.
They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.
They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.
So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat
That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.
No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.
The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want. I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.
The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.
Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity
You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case. Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.
Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.
So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.
Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.
I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.
We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them. You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.
Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now
That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score. Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.
Are those stats right?
Roughly speaking Uk government spending is about 50% of GDP, so if we are spending 20% of gdp we are spending 40% of the government budget. Yes there will be extra around the edges for private sector etc but that analysis doesn’t pass the sniff test
Please read what I wrote again Charles old bean, you have completely misunderstood it. Must try harder!
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
Okay, let's put it this way. You want a change. What is the output of that change? What is the end result you want?
That's a very fair and clarifying question. Where have you been all my life?
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
Very well put. I find it bewildering that anyone would object to this argument, although I guess the privileged will always seek to maintain their privilege.
If you find it bewildering, perhaps you should have got a better education. (runs for cover)
Try not to trip over your silver spoon while you're running, old chap.
LOL. I rather think you're off aim there. I prescribe attendance at a CCF course.
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.
Comments
Is this worth a look? Never been:
https://www.muckleburgh.co.uk/
I've walked past Muckleburgh several times, once close enough to see a tank moving, but never went in. The North Norfolk Railway held more immediate interest.
There's a decision for any red-blooded man: steam trains or tanks?
Wind up Remoaners
Wind up the Woke
Wind up Sturgeon
That plan for government from a facsimile of the Tory party in full.
I can see CDU/CSU-FDP-SPD happening considering CDU/CSU-FDP-Green (Jamaica) talks collapsed last time.
What then does NS do? Moan and complain? So what, as far as BJ goes
https://twitter.com/BBCKasraNaji/status/1422609481507254279?s=20
That's Fujairah in the UAE.....
It seems Laschet is Continuity Merkel but the truth is both the Union and the SPD are heading for disastrous results.
The growth in support for both the FDP and especially the Greens suggests there is a desire to move away from the traditional duopoly. It may also be Linke fall out of the Bundestag.
It seems improbable the FDP and Greens will sit round the same table and with AfD not a viable coalition option, you have the CDU/FDP (39%) on one side and the Greens/SPD (36%) on the other. Both are well short of a majority so the post-election horse trading will be fascinating whatever "Mr Snoozefest" from Epping might suggest.
I'd also point out what people say before an election and what they do after an election are rarely one and the same.
On topic, for as long as SKS and the whole of the rest of the divided rag tag opposition to Johnson and his band of merry chancers fail to compete at the policy level, and confine their opposition to expressing various degrees of hatred of the PM, this bet is nailed on.
Then there are the destroyed tanks visible from the clifftop path across the ranges.
We once went for a walk across the ranges, and saw Brocken Spectres and Adders within a few hundred metres.
Incidentally, for anyone interested in that area, Ian West's website is fantastic:
https://wessexcoastgeology.soton.ac.uk/
Including 'Burning Cliff'. A cliff that burns.
https://wessexcoastgeology.soton.ac.uk/kimfire.htm
...
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), in a warning notice based on a third party source, had earlier reported a "potential hijack" and advised ships to exercise extreme caution due to an incident around 60 nautical miles east of the UAE's Fujairah emirate.
https://www.reuters.com/world/report-attack-under-way-off-uae-coast-ukmto-2021-08-03/
Imperial College London estimated that the risk of catching an infection at home was about 20 per cent, compared to 5.9 per cent through social contact with friends and family and 1.2 per cent through a casual contact."
Telegraph
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/209673/covid-19-spread-different-social-settings-imperial/
What species do you belong to, and are they significantly better at it?
In addition, not all private schools are evil. For all the talk of Eton, mot private schools are less privileged affairs. For instance, I went to a Woodard Foundation school. https://woodardschools.co.uk/ where many pupils were local and many were subsidised.
Forgive me for asking (and you don't need to reply), but are you a parent? Having my own kid enter the educational system has opened my eyes to the advantages some kids have compared to others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxPZcqm1_dE
Boris has worked out that playing nice with Nicola is playing on her terms. He isn't minded to.
*I am talking here about proper MMI certified schools, not the fluffy crap that just puts "Montessori" in the name.
There is no point debating people who can't even repeat what I am saying accurately.
https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1137772/Iran-hijacks-Panama-flagged-tanker-Asphalt-Princess
It is sober. It's not an extreme position. The fact it is painted as such says a great deal about how relaxed we are about privilege and inequality.
No I haven't decided all private schools are evil. Or indeed any of them. I have no personal criticism of those who use private schools or personal prejudice against those who went to one.
Some of my best friends ... 🙂
But my strong and considered view is that they contribute significantly to our imo far too unequal society. Since I'm egalitarian inclined I'd like to see this addressed. Call that ideology if you like. It's not a dirty word in my book. You need some otherwise you're just flapping around with anecdote and tinker.
“ It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Now this obviously sounds bad, but when you think about it all PMs are likely to be awful - they're arrival in office is pretty random from an ability point of view. Cummings peripherally observed such a thing. So Boris is crap, but he sort of admits that.
I think Boris is proving himself as a good PM.
(Sunak - he's got the old-fashioned, pre-Boris, ideas)
You read "Humans are incredibly bad at assessing numbers" in a really shit pop sci article in the Daily Mail and thought you'd give it an outing, didn't you? It must be embarrassing being you.
British Cycling performance director Stephen Park also confirmed they were one of "several" teams to call for the Danes to be penalised for the use of illegal equipment in Monday's qualifying session.
Park said that at a meeting of teams before Tuesday's cycling session, the UCI confirmed the equipment could not be used for the rest of the competition but indicated there would be no retroactive punishment, despite rules saying a team should face elimination in such circumstances.
I’ve noticed that the officiating has been very lenient at the Olympics.
Like Thatcher before him, he can't stand the idea that in places people actively vote for the other option. So instead of accepting that the democratic will is different in places, like Thatcher he wants to abolish democracy. London votes against me? Scrap the GLC! Scotland votes against me, scrap devolution!
It is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship, the tyranny of the masses.
It's protection from *severe* delta where it scores more highly. So "Only a tiny tiny share of double vaccinated people are getting COVID" (note *getting* not *being hospitalised by* or anything) is the most eye popping piffle imaginable.
The output is a society where the link between parental bank balance and life prospects is significantly weaker than it is today.
I think an egalitarian education system would contribute greatly to that. And I think the private schools are a serious impediment to creating an egalitarian education system.
I define an egalitarian education system as one where a similar - and high - standard of schooling is available to all children. It will never be perfectly achievable but this should be the goal.
We either have elected and empowered regions and nations where Westminster respects their mandate and the will of the people, or we do not.
If England - because the Westminster government was elected with its big majority in England - is to dictate to Scotland and overrule the votes of the people of Scotland then what is the point in democracy? Same with all the other places where people vote for the opposite of Johnson and his circus.
Certainly there has been a move against over the last few months, but then the Scots are canny and sensible and while the SNP are the preferred government I know within our family there are those who support the SNP but not independence
People send kids to private school because they think it will give their kids better results and/or prospects in life than sending them to their local state school. It costs them money to do so. In the absence of private school, that money will be spent in other ways to achieve the same aim. everything from home schooling to tutoring. results will still strongly depend on bank balance. Even after-school clubs are an issue.
As an example, we're in a fortunate position where Mrs J earns enough for me not to have to work. This meant I can focus much more on the little 'un, which has proved particularly invaluable during lockdown. How would your egalitarian system make up for that? Or the fact that I could purchase a subscription to Twinkl and other websites during lockdown to help us out (I know a couple of other parents who could not afford it). My son has many more opportunities to do tings because I have a car and can drive - hence our trip to Duxford today. One of his friends does not have such opportunities.
A problem with searching for an 'egalitarian' system is that the starting points are not egalitarian.
I really fail to see how banning private schools will lead to better results for children of either 'rich' or 'poor' parents. In fact, I can see it easily making matters much worse.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a36755737/kate-middleton-launches-center-for-early-childhood/
She has a substantial following amongst 20-something and 30-something Mums (people who listen to the Happy Mum Happy Baby podcast where she talked about this stuff https://play.acast.com/s/happymumhappybaby/theduchessofcambridgeontheearlyyears), so we shall find out in a decade's time whether initiatives like this start to make a difference.
He’s Chancellor because he’s a powerful politician and it’s a desirable role. Those attributes also make him a serious contender for PM
Just the same as if England had a Tory majority in 2024 but there was a majority across the UK of Labour, SNP and LD MPs you would have to accept Starmer would become PM of the UK. Personally I would prefer an English Parliament too but we are one United Kingdom
Scottish public opinion, which is the ultimate arbiter, was heavily split before the 2014 vote, heavily split afterwards, and is heavily split today. Nothing that has happened in the last seven years - neither Brexit, nor the rise of Boris Johnson, nor elderly pro-Union voters kicking the bucket, nor the pandemic - has caused a fundamental shift either for or against the Union. Nothing. And it shows no imminent sign of changing, either.
Therefore, what is there left to discuss?
But I agree that discussions about Scotland are probably the most boring on this site.
Instead of the Clown making comments about wanting to scrap devolution he should be trying to extend it. Give democracy to England, all 4 nations have parliaments allowing their people to make their own decisions.
However, if you think Brexit is difficult Scots Independence is Brexit on steriods
The uncertainty over the years needed to achieve independence would see Scotland frozen out of International investment, with much of it being diverted to Northern England and the English border counties
Also do not underestimate the huge UK Scots family ties that would be disrupted and the idea Sturgeon is now suggesting a hard border would go down like a lead balloon with those ties
So there’s nothing cowardly about it, just rational calculation
However: IMV many things (e.g. baby sensory) aren't much use to the baby. They are great for parents, though. I'd like to think of myself as educated and knowledgeable, but when we had our kid (I was 41), I was effing clueless about what to do - I don't think I had ever even held a baby before, and our families were a long way away. Being in a social situation where I could chat to people was a great help.
Also, I loved the National Childcare Trust meetings we went to whilst Mrs J was pregnant. We're still friends with all of the group.
These are the facts. It is simply adding. Trying to claim this isn't true is why we go round in these circles...
Oh and while we are at it, lets have a directly elected PM/Uk and directly elected first ministers. There we are. Constitution sorted! It'll never happen of course.
In fact are there any where we don't?
Especially as getting is more neutral than suffering from.
Roughly speaking Uk government spending is about 50% of GDP, so if we are spending 20% of gdp we are spending 40% of the government budget. Yes there will be extra around the edges for private sector etc but that analysis doesn’t pass the sniff test
But your comments hint that it's not outcomes you are interested in, but class hatred.