politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ex-LD leader, Paddy Ashdown launches move to have one non-C

TCPoliticalBetting said:

YellowSubmarine said:

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.

To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.

I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.

That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."

YellowSubmarine said:

Grammar schools are a terrific brand and a lousy product. By adopting the brand May has played a blinder. She's touched the same cultural erogenous zone as Brexit and given herself a USP to the Hard Brexit headbangers on her backbenches. She will need that USP. As Grammars are such a lousy product I'm assuming that as a serious politician she'll be quite happy with a minor relaxing in the current expansion rules and two or three rural countries doing a pilot on new ones. Of course as we all know PM's do do very stupid things occasionally so we'll see. However I remain to be convinced this is anything other than a clever ruse re Brexit.

Being pro Brexit and pro LEAVE are not the same views. I would put the HoC anti grammar tories at 30+. Bigger than Mrs May's majority. Since it was not in the manifesto it is also an easy point to oppose.

weejonnie said:

Speedy said:

This is an interesting read, Republicans are panicking that Trump may WIN !

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/republicans-privately-panic-at-terrifying-prospect-of-trump?utm_term=.lnGKDOP5Mk#.oi7AgG3k8n

I think the word is 'Scuttlebutt' - Buzzfeed do not seem to be an objective organisation. "In October 2014, it was noted by the Pew Research Center that in the United States, BuzzFeed was viewed as an unreliable source by the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation." - Wikipedia

I note mostly that NeverTrump's are really concerned that Trump may win, I've noticed it my self.

Some of them are wobbling towards Trump (like David Frum and Ross Douthat), some have gone straight in calling Hillary a superman and a genius (like Josh Barro)

The National Review and the Weekly Standard are particularly wobbling, if Trump cuts the Putin stuff I believe they may join him.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

MikeL said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

MikeL said:

.....Basically, they're reliant on Jeremy Corbyn being able to generate absolute vote shares in excess of 40% and the Tories doing appallingly just to get to a majority of one (and this is one of those occasions when I remind those not already aware that the Conservatives have polled at least 30% of the vote at every single GE since 1835.) Indeed, if you give both parties 36% each then the Tories are only just shy of a majority and Labour are 70 seats behind them. It's an astonishing reversal of Labour's previous systemic advantages.

It's no wonder that the Tories are so assiduously pursuing a "no MP left behind" policy to shuffle all the retirements and ennoblements about, and try to make sure that threatened MPs are moved into safe seats. The advantages of getting the new boundaries through are clearly enormous for them.

Absolutely. People underestimate how important this is to the Conservative party. There will be massive effort of carrots and sticks from the whips over the next two years, to make sure this goes off without a hitch.

Anyone who is being awkward now will end up with a knighthood, a seat in the Lords or a job as Ambassador to Singapore or the Seychelles.

How does this fit in with local party autonomy?
Surely local parties choose their candidates?
However, at the same time, presumably new local associations would all have to be set up for all new seats - so local parties don't actually exist until that happens?
So how will it work in practice?
eg Take the extra Isle of Wight seat. Could Theresa May just issue an edict that the Con candidate will be X? If not, what would have to happen?

If managed carefully most problems can be overcome. There was an article on Con Home on the draft principles. Also do note the late retirements which could easily add another 6 guaranteed seats in return for peerages and other jobs. The biggest challenge are with the europhiles. Far too many of them for the membership to put up with. However with the continued death of Labour, there could be circa 40 gains from a new GE. But does Patrick McLoughlin inspire confidence as Chairman to anyone in the party?

Two ConHome articles explaining more:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/the-boundary-proposals-are-just-the-beginning-of-what-could-be-a-painful-process-for-all-involved.html
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-1922-committee-proposes-to-beef-up-incumbency-protections-for-mps-threatened-by-the-boundary-changes.html

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky Tv debate with Corbyn and Smith is boring. Furthermore neither will address immigration into UK

I have the feeling that they know the cake is baked, and so they are toning it down.

weejonnie said:

Google Survey results on 538

Trump Leads in

NEVADA
OHIO
NORTH CAROLINA
PENNSYLVANIA
IOWA
FLORIDA (+10!!!!)
TIES NEW HAMPHSIRE

Clinton leads in

COLORADO
MISSOURI
WISCONSIN
RHODE ISLAND


Caution: Poll size often very small / State.

I don't use those aggregated 50 state polls, they use a new methodology that is untested and tend to produce clunky results.

In the case of Google, Hillary with a lead of just 6% in D.C.

MP_SE said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

YellowSubmarine said:

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.

To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.

I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.

That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."

At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.

and risk driving their vote down further since a large minority of their GE vote voted to LEAVE.

You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision

Scott_P said:

@BethRigby: BREAK: Some of MPs named accused of 'abuse' by team #Corbyn seeking legal advice for defamation #BattleForLabour https://t.co/K8LA4cmWEK

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....if he wins again, how are Labour going to stay together for another 4 years?

Alanbrooke said:

You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision

Even more so if you listened to him - the man will go down as losing the UK and eventually the EU itself

@gabyhinsliff: While 'senior Corbyn allies' are disowning the dossier of MPs We Officially Hate, Corbyn is live on Sky leadership debate not disowning it

MP_SE said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

YellowSubmarine said:

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.

To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.

I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.

That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."

At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.

The problem for the LD is that there are very few Liberals left, this is no longer the 1970's.

Liberal ideology is on the wane for a long time now, it's policies discredited.
Those who are fanatical europeans are few to find after the failure of the EU project.

Just flicked Sky on, Owen Smith starts speaking about Labour being seen as hard left and every time they cut to audience lots of shaking heads and no clamping.

Scott_P said:

@DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn talks of Norway model for Brexit Britain and no hard borders with EU countries - not convinced that's what many leave voters want.

He should have a word with Dan...

@DanielJHannan: If you're told that "Brexit was all about immigration," you can be almost certain that you're talking to a Remain voter.

Hannan belongs to a minority tendency of libertarians: very focussed on sovereignty and democracy, but also uber-free market and completely relaxed about immigration. For the wider electorate, evidence suggests that the motivating factors were 1. Sovereignty and 2. Immigration, in that order.

partypoliticalorphan said:

weejonnie said:

538 has just tipped Florida from D --> R. Doesn't mean anything in real terms but symbolically significant . http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

With 538, Florida now flipped back to Clinton but Ohio and North Carolina switched to GOP column. Race definitely tightening after Clinton's "stumble".

There have as yet been no polls taken with fieldwork solely post stumble .

nunu said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BBC take on Powell leak....TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP....Clinton hubris over email....TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37364189

If Trump does win the media are going to the most unbelievable meltdown.

June 24th with knobs on.

It really isnt.

It will be in terms of leftie wailing and hysteria

MikeL said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

MikeL said:

Someone asked the following question late last night:


Also:

New boundaries - Con needs 2% lead for a majority

New boundaries - Lab needs 6% lead for Con & Lab to be level on seats

May surely has to pull out every single thing she can to get this through.

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2016/09/first-look-at-the-boundary-review.html/

I've tried running some crude numbers through Electoral Calculus and that suggests that Labour "only" needs something like a 12% lead for a majority - but regardless of the model the numbers do look to be very forbidding for them. Basically, they're reliant on Jeremy Corbyn being able to generate absolute vote shares in excess of 40% and the Tories doing appallingly just to get to a majority of one (and this is one of those occasions when I remind those not already aware that the Conservatives have polled at least 30% of the vote at every single GE since 1835.) Indeed, if you give both parties 36% each then the Tories are only just shy of a majority and Labour are 70 seats behind them. It's an astonishing reversal of Labour's previous systemic advantages.

It's no wonder that the Tories are so assiduously pursuing a "no MP left behind" policy to shuffle all the retirements and ennoblements about, and try to make sure that threatened MPs are moved into safe seats. The advantages of getting the new boundaries through are clearly enormous for them.

Absolutely. People underestimate how important this is to the Conservative party. There will be massive effort of carrots and sticks from the whips over the next two years, to make sure this goes off without a hitch.

Anyone who is being awkward now will end up with a knighthood, a seat in the Lords or a job as Ambassador to Singapore or the Seychelles.

How does this fit in with local party autonomy?

Surely local parties choose their candidates?

However, at the same time, presumably new local associations would all have to be set up for all new seats - so local parties don't actually exist until that happens?

So how will it work in practice?

eg Take the extra Isle of Wight seat. Could Theresa May just issue an edict that the Con candidate will be X? If not, what would have to happen?

Mrs May, could right a letter to the members of the locale association, saying I think you should give consideration to X as your new candidate, I want to keep then in my cabinet/junior minister/on Z committee, and they very nice. it would not be binding, but I think there are sufficient number of members who want to be helpful to the leader of their party, that unless X really messes up there selection interview/presentation, then they are in prime position.

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude? Given pupil premium etc, surely the comprehensive school will receive better funding.

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

People love grammar schools.
They hate secondary moderns.

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results

weejonnie said:

Google Survey results on 538

Trump Leads in

NEVADA
OHIO
NORTH CAROLINA
PENNSYLVANIA
IOWA
FLORIDA (+10!!!!)
TIES NEW HAMPHSIRE

Clinton leads in

COLORADO
MISSOURI
WISCONSIN
RHODE ISLAND


Caution: Poll size often very small / State.

Clinton also leads by only 2 in New Jersey.

BBC's match report on Leicester's game reveals lack of editing:
"This was only the ninth European match in Leicester's history, and their first win since a victory over Glenavon of Northern Ireland in the preliminary round of the 1961-62 Cup Winners' Cup - when 1966 World Cup winner Gordon Banks was in goal.

Needs a link from Banks line into the following sentence, or more context, so it doesn't jar.

Danny Drinkwater went close with a dipping volley struck on the turn with the ball almost at ground level from outside the box, while Robert Huth might have added a fourth from another of Hernandez's several long throws."

FrancisUrquhart said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude?

Of course Grammars make neighbouring schools crap. They remove the brightest kids, remove the teachers who want to teach bright kids, remove the parents of bright kids and remove the marginal kids and their parents who aren't bright enough for Grammars by are bright enough that Middle Class fairy dust makes the difference. And by definition all the non grammar schools are full of failures. And as May is proposing three division points not just one at 11 a chunk of pupils in neighbouring schools will be competing to get out. Grammars make neighbouring schools worse.

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

People love grammar schools.
They hate secondary moderns.

Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans?
Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude?

Because they will become defacto Secondary Moderns.

If you look at the schools nearest to Grammar schools they have pretty appalling results.

Grammar school fanboys should perhaps consider why both major parties, and nearly all education authorities fell over themselves in the rush to get rid of the 11+ in the Sixties and Seventies.

Why do they have to though? Surely that is just defeatist. It sounds a lot like if we get to keep some poor bright kids we get to hide the fact we fail a load of others.

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results

Exactly what I was going to say. Are you Trafford too HYUFD?

Speedy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision

Sometimes I wonder if Juncker is the EU's Nicolae Ceaușescu, for the 21st Century.

Well Ceausescu relied upon IMF loans as much as the EU today.

Loans from the EU to the IMF exceed loans from the IMF to the EU (specifically, Greece) by more than eight times.

Casino_Royale said:

Paging TSE...

I have an idea for a guest thread.

Does it involve sheep and suspenders?

YellowSubmarine said:

And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".

There days 50% of kids go to Uni...employers care about what uni you went to and what degree you are going to get, they give no s##ts about if you got your 11 plus or not.

The single biggest social mobility policy the government could make (and the teaching unions will hate it), post A-Level result applications to uni. Then none of this nonsense of predicted grades and it is all based purely on achievement.

tyson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Paging TSE...

I have an idea for a guest thread.

Does it involve sheep and suspenders?

It involves TSE's hero.

BigRich said:

AndyJS said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.

The Netherlands as well, And I don't think it is even controversial there.

The English ( not British ) class system.

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

People love grammar schools.
They hate secondary moderns.

Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans?
Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.

Grammar schools have a place as part of comprehensive academic reform of the kind outlined by Max. Improve technical and vocational training, and bring it into the schooling system, as they do in Germany. And don't make it a second class option.

But don't just graft grammar schools onto our existing system. Because the biggest problem we have in the UK is not the education of the top 25%, but of the next 75%.

Speedy said:

MP_SE said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

YellowSubmarine said:

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

BigRich said:

can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?

I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.

West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.

To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.

I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.

That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."

At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.

The problem for the LD is that there are very few Liberals left, this is no longer the 1970's.

Liberal ideology is on the wane for a long time now, it's policies discredited.
Those who are fanatical europeans are few to find after the failure of the EU project.

Social liberalism remains widespread, it's just the appetite for the Lib Dems' chosen brand of centrism - Europhile, pro-immigration, and floating halfway between the big two on tax and spend - is somewhat limited. They've also had an appalling run of luck:

1. The 2010 election result, which essentially forced them to ally with the Tories and immediately caused most of their left-flank to fall off
2. The circumstances of the 2015 election, which encouraged Yellow Tory voters to desert en masse to help keep Miliband (propped up by the SNP, which is loathed by much of the English electorate) out of office
3. The decision of the wounded activist base to pick Tim Farron and pitch to the soft Left, since when middle class leftie radicals have discovered Corbyn, and May's election has potentially created an opportunity to win back the Yellow Tory vote which they are now ill-placed to capitalise upon

I believe that you're quite right about the public view of the EU though: most people are sceptical to some degree, even if many don't care about it much. I imagine a very large fraction of the Remain vote was made up of better off people who either didn't care about the EU at all, or thought it was a bit rubbish, but wanted to stay in anyway because having no change seemed the safer option for their personal finances.

Top Tory minister Priti Patel has revealed she no longer believes some criminals should face the death penalty.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/78950/tory-minister-priti-patel-reveals-she-no-longer-backs-death

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision

Sometimes I wonder if Juncker is the EU's Nicolae Ceaușescu, for the 21st Century.

Well Ceausescu relied upon IMF loans as much as the EU today.

Loans from the EU to the IMF exceed loans from the IMF to the EU (specifically, Greece) by more than eight times.

Through the IMF's entire history since Bretton Woods I presume ?

How much has the IMF loaned to Greece over these years, last that I remember is a figure north of $100 billion.

YellowSubmarine said:

And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".

The only students who get promoted after failing the 11+ will be those who get extra tuition as their schools will not coach for the re-test. Partly that will be because they are not oriented at that level academically, partly that those schools will not want to lose their best pupils. The only ones making late entry to grammars will be those getting extra tuition or at private schools. Near-miss poor kids will get the worst deal.

Indeed the fall back plan for any family for a child that is failed by the 11+ should be to pay for a few years of private education and get in on the 13+.

Scott_P said:

@ReutersPolitics: Hillary Clinton has non-contagious bacterial pneumonia: campaign. LIVE COVERAGE: https://t.co/3ITwV5oYek https://t.co/ORn3dX3Sms

http://www.theonion.com/article/pneumonia-virus-terrified-after-remembering-what-c-53927

"Pneumonia Virus Terrified After Remembering What Clintons Capable Of"

YellowSubmarine said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

YellowSubmarine said:

And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".

There days 50% of kids go to Uni...employers care about what uni you went to and what degree you are going to get, they give no s##ts about if you got your 11 plus or not.

Exactly ! Pupils with the A Levels go to University, people with good GCSEs get good A Levels, people with good test results at 11 or 14 get good GCSE's.... The corelation goes right the way back to early years. Even pregnancy. In many ways it predates conception. If we we're remotely serious about this we'd be looking at pregnancy to aged 2 for intervention. And that doesn't necessarily mean a left wing analysis of the solutions. Fiddling around at 11 let alone 14 or 16 is far, far too late.

But as this s about politics not helping children all my points above are irrelevant.

That is why I believe in KIPPs...but that is far too radical given the outcry from allowing a few schools to convert to Grammars.

MarkHopkins said:

Top Tory minister Priti Patel has revealed she no longer believes some criminals should face the death penalty.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/78950/tory-minister-priti-patel-reveals-she-no-longer-backs-death

*Checks Patel's ' Next Tory Leader ' Betfair price. *

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AndyJS said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.

The main difference, as we were saying a few days ago, is that most German grammar schools do not select their pupils. This means that the secondary-modern equivalents (Realschulen) need to provide an attractive technically-oriented education in other to convince parents of less academic children to send their kids to them.

Gymnasium is the German form of our grammar schools, their equivalent 11+ is sat whilst at Grundschule (primary school) during their fourth year, aged 10. The exam involves Maths and German dictation and written essay.

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Smith said he would maintain the special relationship with the US whoever wins, though he does not want Trump to, Corbyn says he wants a good relationship with every nation and attacks Trump but Faislam Islam cleverly points out they both have the same views on NATO, at which point Corbyn says 'he could have a conversation with anyone'

In the Labour party you should attack Trump for his flaws first, then be diplomatic.

Posturing first is important.

Corbyn knows where the votes are

Black_Rook said:

Social liberalism remains widespread, it's just the appetite for the Lib Dems' chosen brand of centrism - Europhile, pro-immigration, and floating halfway between the big two on tax and spend - is somewhat limited. They've also had an appalling run of luck:

1. The 2010 election result, which essentially forced them to ally with the Tories and immediately caused most of their left-flank to fall off
2. The circumstances of the 2015 election, which encouraged Yellow Tory voters to desert en masse to help keep Miliband (propped up by the SNP, which is loathed by much of the English electorate) out of office
3. The decision of the wounded activist base to pick Tim Farron and pitch to the soft Left, since when middle class leftie radicals have discovered Corbyn, and May's election has potentially created an opportunity to win back the Yellow Tory vote which they are now ill-placed to capitalise upon

I believe that you're quite right about the public view of the EU though: most people are sceptical to some degree, even if many don't care about it much. I imagine a very large fraction of the Remain vote was made up of better off people who either didn't care about the EU at all, or thought it was a bit rubbish, but wanted to stay in anyway because having no change seemed the safer option for their personal finances.

Liberal policies have been discredited over the years, so even if the LD suffer, liberal strains in the Tory and Labour parties have suffered too:

Liberal economic policy produced the financial crisis, sky high income inequality and the euro.
Liberal foreign policy has caused multiple wars and the EU.
Liberal social policy has caused the immigration and refugee crisis.

Liberals have to blame themselves for the trouble, as they have been in the driving seat of the West since the end of the Cold War.

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results

Look at Poole where the non-grammar schools do not enter pupils for A levels and have poor figures for GCSE. Look at the large numbers of failing schools in Lincs or Kent.

Actually the local high school where I grew up in Kent has just been rated outstanding. Look at Bucks which has well above average GCSEs too, indeed even Kent and Lincolnshire sometimes have above average GCSE results despite having slightly below average house prices

Cookie said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.

It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.

Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results

Exactly what I was going to say. Are you Trafford too HYUFD?

No, Essex (which also has a few excellent grammars in Chelmsford)

AndyJS said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.

Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?

People love grammar schools.
They hate secondary moderns.

Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans?
Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.

Because everyone and their dog has been trying to do precisely that for 40 years without much success. The horrible truth is that a certain percentage of children aren't particularly academic and teaching them in the same classes as high-flyers doesn't seem to work.

So let's enshrine that by removing the non high-flyers to a whole different school and they can flick ink pellets at each other all day.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision

Sometimes I wonder if Juncker is the EU's Nicolae Ceaușescu, for the 21st Century.

Well Ceausescu relied upon IMF loans as much as the EU today.

Loans from the EU to the IMF exceed loans from the IMF to the EU (specifically, Greece) by more than eight times.

Through the IMF's entire history since Bretton Woods I presume ?

How much has the IMF loaned to Greece over these years, last that I remember is a figure north of $100 billion.

The total Greek bailout was close to EUR200bn, but only about 10% was the IMF, most of the rest was the ECB, and the EFSF.

The IMF had to be cajoled by Germany into taking part iirc. They were originally only looking to get involved if Greece left the Eurozone, seeing it as a Eurozone matter. Could explain their lack of exposure.

That's absolutely right. Essentially, Merkel made the call that bailing out the French and German banks the Greek government was only possible if the IMF was involved as well to give political cover.

The result of her call has been to utterly poison relations between the IMF and the EU (and in particular Germany). They (the IMF) feel battered and betrayed by the Europeans, who who created the mess and then wanted someone else to sort it out.

The consequence of which was that the IMF tried very hard when Syriza and Tsipras first came to power to encourage Grexit, because they felt the only way to enable restructuring of the loans in a sensible way was outside the Eurozone. But Tsipras (and it really was Tsipras, there was no one else) bottled it.

AndyJS said:

The horrible truth is that a certain percentage of children aren't particularly academic and teaching them in the same classes as high-flyers doesn't seem to work.

That's an argument for setting or streaming, not for grammars.

Setting is common in comprehensives but universal in private schools (because yes, there are thick kids at private schools - usually thick rich kids, at least at the one I went to). Below the age of 13 it has pros and cons, but upwards of 13 I don't see why you'd do anything else.

But what does it mean - "the people must have a say on the Brexit deal"? Haven't the people done enough damage already? Most of us don't know our arse from our elbow, EU-wise. The people will have a say at the general election. What we need now is for MPs not to shirk their responsibilites - MPs should have a vote on Brexit, and Cabinet should have a vote on Brexit. If either vote is against Brexit they should reassess whether we should go through with it.