Grammars = Brexit. A great brand but a lousy product. A romantic idea from a prelapsarian age, vague enough to project all ills onto, long enough ago to forget why we abolished them/joined the EEC in the first place, everyone wants their kid in a grammar/£350m pw for the NHS. everyone will be horrified if their kid ends up in a secondary modern/lower trend growth makes most Brexit drivers worse. Both have no evidence to support them and both are startlingly irrelevant to globalisation and it's challenges ( which is part of the attraction.)
May has played a blinder over Grammars. She's seized the Zeitgeist and is now leading the Zeitgeist. As long as, unlike Brexit, she's always in favour of Grammars but never actually does it. If that happens the sh*t will hit the fan.
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.
Actually the proposal earlier today (sorry I forget who made it), to select by behaviour would be much better. If the disruptive pupils were removed and put in heavily staffed schools that could address their behavioural issues in a supportive and theraputic way, then other schools could make a lot of progress whatever their academic mix.
It's a big ask. There is or was a set of schools run by ex- soldiers
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.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
*Checks Patel's ' Next Tory Leader ' Betfair price. *
I don't know how long May will last. Her inability to charm or build a support base will leave her friendless if Brexit goes wrong, and I do not think much of her negotiating skills. Her health is not good either.
I think Corbyn will see off another Tory leader.
PMQs today showed May flirting with hubris, and she needs to nip that in the bud sharpish, and start listening to some of her advisers, or she will be hero-to-zero in no time.
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.
I would be very surprised if there were any comprehensives that didn't set for at least maths.
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.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
What are FT Points?
"We give pupils 8 points for an A* in any full GCSE down to 1 point for a G, and add up the scores they get in English, maths and their three best other subjects."
So, A*s in Maths, English and three other subjects would garner you 40 points
Like SBC-esque Black Lives Matter protesters all being white...we have a POTUS candidate who claims it doesn't matter he is a fatty because he has a cracking golf swing.
He has high testosterone levels and is borderline obese. He also reportedly said he does not exercise, but is so good at golf that he could play professionally.
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
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
The East Midlands has the highest number of failing institutions and outside Lincolnshire is almost entirely comprehensive, the mainly comprehensive North West is second worst, the completely comprehensive North East is third worst
I'm with you on 1 and 2, but not 3. Corbyn's appeal is fading fast among middle-class leftie radicals except, bizarrely, in London where he still appears to have a following - but then much of London has been impervious to the LibDems anyway. Any LibDem recovery in the provinces and regions is only likely to be helped by Corbyn's incompetence.
Meanwhile, May had potentially created an opportunity to win back Yellow Tories, but now seems intent on squandering it with grammar schools and Priti Patel's pronouncements today on international aid, which are pretty much dog-whistle repellents to that audience.
If I were the LibDem campaign manager in Witney, I'd go hard on "you liked David Cameron, so vote for the party which gave him the policies you liked".
I rather think the reverse: I don't think that those middle-class left-liberals who abandoned Clegg will be much inclined to go back to the Lib Dems after the 2010 'betrayal', and Labour's strength in London is largely down to the fact that this constituency is disproportionately concentrated in the capital (along with the university towns: apart from Luton and Slough with their unusually large BAME votes, virtually all of the Labour holdouts in southern England (ex-London) are London cultural outposts and/or university seats, and the Lib Dems are nowhere close to Labour in any of them except Cambridge.) Even if some of these voters go off Corbynite Labour, they all have the guilt-free protest option of the Greens in reserve.
As far as the Yellow Tory vote is concerned, the fundamental issue that keeps them in the Conservative fold - the fact that the Lib Dems are of the centre-left, and cannot be trusted not to put a Lab/SNP rainbow coalition into power if given half a chance - has not gone away. At this stage, I see no reason why anybody who voted for Cameron should defect now that May has taken over (unless Brexit is too soft for some tastes, but that of course could mean a bleed of votes not leftwards to the LDs, but rightwards to Ukip.)
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.
That's certainly not the case in most of Germany. Typically, the primary schools recommend which type of school would be most suitable for a child on the basis of their overall performance at school, and the parents take this recommendation into account (or not) when deciding which secondary school to send their child to.
Not in Bavaria though which selects by examination
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
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.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
What are FT Points?
"We give pupils 8 points for an A* in any full GCSE down to 1 point for a G, and add up the scores they get in English, maths and their three best other subjects."
So, A*s in Maths, English and three other subjects would garner you 40 points
Thanks! I wonder how much the "three best other subjects" biases it?
I would be very surprised if there were any comprehensives that didn't set for at least maths.
Yes - as I understand it, it was New Labour policy that comps should set for maths, English and science, and it was observed to a greater or lesser degree. There's an FoI request with numbers somewhere.
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%.
That's not quite true, or at least it elides two separate points:
1) The top 25% by ability, measured (say) by GCSE results? Maybe we don't do too badly in aggregate on that score, albeit with a load of turbo-charged help from excellent private schools
... but..
2) What about the bottom 25% by household income, whose chances of getting into a good university are, for all practical purposes, zero? Yet amongst them, there must be a fair chunk of children who are every bit as intelligent and potentially academic as their richer counterparts.
I'm not convinced that grammar schools are the solution", but we should never blind ourselves to the problem.
* That is to say, the solution in 2016. That doesn't in any way negate the point that the 1960s/1970s ideologically-motivated destruction of the grammar schools (the best state schools we had at the time), and with nothing to replace them, wasn't an unparalleled act of educational vandalism, and a catastrophe for social mobility and for the country generally.
*Checks Patel's ' Next Tory Leader ' Betfair price. *
I don't know how long May will last. Her inability to charm or build a support base will leave her friendless if Brexit goes wrong, and I do not think much of her negotiating skills. Her health is not good either.
I think Corbyn will see off another Tory leader.
I disagree, May is relentlessly tough and ruthless when she needs to be as we have seen. Even Thatcher had a few teething problems at the beginning. Personally I think she will see off Corbyn/McDonnell in 2020 and be PM until at least 2025, thus being premier for 3 years longer than Cameron and the second longest Tory PM postwar since Thatcher and the third longest overall after Thatcher and Blair
But the probability of him holding onto all the ones that have just turned red(ish) is much less than the probability of Clinton holding all the ones that are blue(ish) - hence he is only 37% likely to win.
However a lot of the polling data is still pre pneumonia-related collapse so most of this swing is as a result of the Commander In Chief Debate (which most polling reported that Trump had won 2:1)
I'm not a doctor, but that HRC collapse last Sunday was more than a dizzy spell.
"Felt dizzy"???
Do they think we didn't all see the video of her being bundled into her car?
As was said the other day, the issue isn't that she's sick, it's that she's lying. Again.
Brought you by the same PR as claiming a certain Virgin train to Newcastle was ram packed...
Clinton when she phoned into CNN claimed she didn't faint...I really wonder who are advising them, even Axelrod mocked them. Surely the spin play was I have pneumonia, I stupidly ignored medical advice and I ended up paying for that.
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
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
The East Midlands has the highest number of failing institutions and outside Lincolnshire is almost entirely comprehensive, the mainly comprehensive North West is second worst, the completely comprehensive North East is third worst
Sure, Nottingham and Leicester both have numbers of failing schools, in part compounded by brighter Leicester students going either to faith schools or over the border in the County, which is a separate education authority.
There is no panacea, but there is a correlation between failing schools and there being selection.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
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.
That's certainly not the case in most of Germany. Typically, the primary schools recommend which type of school would be most suitable for a child on the basis of their overall performance at school, and the parents take this recommendation into account (or not) when deciding which secondary school to send their child to.
Not in Bavaria though which selects by examination
For those that read German, this Wikipedia page sets out the details of the criteria for secondary school selection in the different German states:
In most German states, the parents have the final say on which type of secondary school their child will attend, regardless of the primary school recommendation.
In a few states, such as Bavaria, the primary school recommendation is binding and depends on the grades achieved by the child at school. A Bavarian child that doesn't receive a recommendation for grammar school also has the right to a 3-day series of trial lessons to determine whether they should be offered a grammar school place after all.
Mainly will affect Detroit so will boost Trump in Michigan, though Ford already makes some small cars in Mexico
Trump is campaigning today in Michigan, I bet he would want to talk about Ford moving to Mexico just 8 weeks from the election and blame the democrats for it.
Given that the race is a tie nationally, every single vote matters.
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
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
The East Midlands has the highest number of failing institutions and outside Lincolnshire is almost entirely comprehensive, the mainly comprehensive North West is second worst, the completely comprehensive North East is third worst
Sure, Nottingham and Leicester both have numbers of failing schools, in part compounded by brighter Leicester students going either to faith schools or over the border in the County, which is a separate education authority.
There is no panacea, but there is a correlation between failing schools and there being selection.
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
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.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
*Checks Patel's ' Next Tory Leader ' Betfair price. *
I don't know how long May will last. Her inability to charm or build a support base will leave her friendless if Brexit goes wrong, and I do not think much of her negotiating skills. Her health is not good either.
I think Corbyn will see off another Tory leader.
I disagree, May is relentlessly tough and ruthless when she needs to be as we have seen. Even Thatcher had a few teething problems at the beginning. Personally I think she will see off Corbyn/McDonnell in 2020 and be PM until at least 2025, thus being premier for 3 years longer than Cameron and the second longest Tory PM postwar since Thatcher and the third longest overall after Thatcher and Blair
I wouldn't rush to place bets on May going "on and on", but I would agree that it's very precipitate to write her off. I certainly expect her to fight 2020 and win handsomely.
She didn't survive six years holding the poisoned chalice and then win the Tory leadership without having a certain amount of talent.
Clinton is going to have to have some policy for this, otherwise Trump is going to be all over this.
And what is Trumps policy to stop this?
Oh it will be nonsense....but he will bluster something or other about better deals, a wall and fining companies who do this....
The point is if you watch the John Harris dispatch from a few months ago from the rust belt, unionized workers who traditionally vote democrat already think they are being sold down the river and this kind of news just reaffirms it.
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
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
The East Midlands has the highest number of failing institutions and outside Lincolnshire is almost entirely comprehensive, the mainly comprehensive North West is second worst, the completely comprehensive North East is third worst
Sure, Nottingham and Leicester both have numbers of failing schools, in part compounded by brighter Leicester students going either to faith schools or over the border in the County, which is a separate education authority.
There is no panacea, but there is a correlation between failing schools and there being selection.
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
How else do you explain Lincs, and Kent having so many poor schools, compared to neighbouring non-urban areas?
Mainly will affect Detroit so will boost Trump in Michigan, though Ford already makes some small cars in Mexico
Trump is campaigning today in Michigan, I bet he would want to talk about Ford moving to Mexico just 8 weeks from the election and blame the democrats for it.
Given that the race is a tie nationally, every single vote matters.
Michigan isn't entirely out of reach for Trump. Especially with this news.
Emily Maitlis: Hinkley Point thought to have been given the go-ahead.
Its clearly getting green lighted. BBC ran a story 2 days ago on the 4 reasons why it would go ahead, then ITV ran a similar story yesterday and now Newsnight.
I heard from somebody working on the project a week ago they were very confident it was still going to happen, so much so they have continued the process of relocating their family. I did say are you sure, given Mrs T May leadership and they said they were confident.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
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.
I would be very surprised if there were any comprehensives that didn't set for at least maths.
Every school I've ever taught in set students from day 1 of Year 7, with regular review points to move up/down throughout each year, if necessary (Key Stage 2 data is variable in terms of reliability).
The idea that 'comprehensive' means free for all in the academic ability range of classes is a real red herring in this debate.
Regarding variation in GCSE results between local authority areas, it is interesting to compare the patterns to the f40 Group (lowest funded schools by council area in England).
Good line, wouldn't put Michigan past Trump on this news. With all Hillary's problems, this is going to be a much closer race than the current odds suggest.
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.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
As I mentioned a few days ago the 2008 Sutton Trust report on this showed that there is no measureable drop in the standards attained by non Grammar schools in Grammar areas compared to those with no Grammars. Since Grammar schools drag the overall results up by a small amount (0.5 grades - 1.5 grades overall) the net result of having Grammar schools is to improve education overall.
According to Nate at 538 it was a video in which she "appeared to stumble into her vehicle".. unspoofable.
Seem an accurate description to me.
She was dragged into the vehicle.
In a grainy video, it looked as though she stumbled, fell over, or collapsed, or tripped. . Her aides grabbed her as she fell, or stumbled, and got her into the vehicle..
I mean, really, this is silly stuff. A neutral observer, or responsible journalist, is going to express it neutrally, as Nate Silver did. That's not some media conspiracy, it's sensible caution.
Heaven knows, the Clinton campaign has been bad, and the handling of this is a good example of that. But give over on blaming journalists or Nate Silver for being sensibly cautious.
I read (well scanned, at any rate) that Opinium survey. If it's anywhere close to reality (and IMHO it looks pretty plausible, as a reflection of England at least) then Labour are in an awful hole. Something close to two thirds of the electorate appears to consist of various flavours of Tory (blue, yellow and libertarian) plus the Ukip coalition of British and English nationalists, of both right and left-leaning persuasion. Very few of these people are likely to back Corbyn Labour because it offends against them on one or more fundamental levels: its anti-patriotism, sympathy towards open borders, disdain for free market capitalism and obsession with minority identity politics are all anathema. And the floating voters won't be much impressed by the general sense of civil war and incompetent generalship that pervades Labour, either.
Labour still has a lot of residual strengths - enthusiastic backing from a lot of middle-class lefties and public sector workers, as well as the hard left and most of the unions, plus a substantial tribal loyalty vote and the more-or-less captive support of poorer BAME voters - but, if things remain as they are, I can easily see them only polling 25% at the next GE.
Indeed, clearly over 50% of the voters in the UK are now supporters of either the Tories or UKIP
In the last election, Con + Ukip + DUP commanded a majority (just) of all votes cast in the UK.
Like SBC-esque Black Lives Matter protesters all being white...we have a POTUS candidate who claims it doesn't matter he is a fatty because he has a cracking golf swing.
He has high testosterone levels and is borderline obese. He also reportedly said he does not exercise, but is so good at golf that he could play professionally.
Mainly will affect Detroit so will boost Trump in Michigan, though Ford already makes some small cars in Mexico
Trump is campaigning today in Michigan, I bet he would want to talk about Ford moving to Mexico just 8 weeks from the election and blame the democrats for it.
Given that the race is a tie nationally, every single vote matters.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
Should've clarified that of course Blair was great at winning over floating voters and soft Tories, but how long do we think it will be before Labour is in a position to put a centrist into the leadership again, if ever? Is there anything necessarily to stop a realignment, the outright marginalisation of socialism, and the emergence of a system where what might broadly be termed the soft centre-right and the nationalist right wing provide the two major parties?
"Just two years ago, Powell told billionaire megadonor Jeffrey Leeds just how he feels about Hillary "I would rather not vote for her," and Bill "still dicking bimbos at home.""
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.
Actua
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
The East Midlands has the highest number of failing institutions and outside Lincolnshire is almost entirely comprehensive, the mainly comprehensive North West is second worst, the completely comprehensive North East is third worst
Sure, Nottingham and Leicester both have numbers of failing schools, in part compounded by brighter Leicester students going either to faith schools or over the border in the County, which is a separate education authority.
There is no panacea, but there is a correlation between failing schools and there being selection.
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
How else do you explain Lincs, and Kent having so many poor schools, compared to neighbouring non-urban areas?
Kent has the lowest house prices of any county in the South East (and still often has above average overall GCSE results), Lincolnshire is in a similar position in the East Midlands
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
" Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday. "
According to Nate at 538 it was a video in which she "appeared to stumble into her vehicle".. unspoofable.
Seem an accurate description to me.
She was dragged into the vehicle.
HRC was physically man handled into the vehicle and whisked away so fast, they left her shoe behind. No woman would leave a $5,000 leather pump behind if she was corpus mentis.
*Checks Patel's ' Next Tory Leader ' Betfair price. *
I don't know how long May will last. Her inability to charm or build a support base will leave her friendless if Brexit goes wrong, and I do not think much of her negotiating skills. Her health is not good either.
I think Corbyn will see off another Tory leader.
I disagree, May is relentlessly tough and ruthless when she needs to be as we have seen. Even Thatcher had a few teething problems at the beginning. Personally I think she will see off Corbyn/McDonnell in 2020 and be PM until at least 2025, thus being premier for 3 years longer than Cameron and the second longest Tory PM postwar since Thatcher and the third longest overall after Thatcher and Blair
I wouldn't rush to place bets on May going "on and on", but I would agree that it's very precipitate to write her off. I certainly expect her to fight 2020 and win handsomely.
She didn't survive six years holding the poisoned chalice and then win the Tory leadership without having a certain amount of talent.
Indeed, nobody else comes close to her at the moment in either the top of the Tory or Labour parties
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
I read (well scanned, at any rate) that Opinium survey. If it's anywhere close to reality (and IMHO it looks pretty plausible, as a reflection of England at least) then Labour are in an awful hole. Something close to two thirds of the electorate appears to consist of various flavours of Tory (blue, yellow and libertarian) plus the Ukip coalition of British and English nationalists, of both right and left-leaning persuasion. Very few of these people are likely to back Corbyn Labour because it offends against them on one or more fundamental levels: its anti-patriotism, sympathy towards open borders, disdain for free market capitalism and obsession with minority identity politics are all anathema. And the floating voters won't be much impressed by the general sense of civil war and incompetent generalship that pervades Labour, either.
Labour still has a lot of residual strengths - enthusiastic backing from a lot of middle-class lefties and public sector workers, as well as the hard left and most of the unions, plus a substantial tribal loyalty vote and the more-or-less captive support of poorer BAME voters - but, if things remain as they are, I can easily see them only polling 25% at the next GE.
Indeed, clearly over 50% of the voters in the UK are now supporters of either the Tories or UKIP
In the last election, Con + Ukip + DUP commanded a majority (just) of all votes cast in the UK.
Mainly will affect Detroit so will boost Trump in Michigan, though Ford already makes some small cars in Mexico
Trump is campaigning today in Michigan, I bet he would want to talk about Ford moving to Mexico just 8 weeks from the election and blame the democrats for it.
Given that the race is a tie nationally, every single vote matters.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
" Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday. "
They said Labour could never win again in 1992. They said the Tories couldn't win again in 2001.
Good line, wouldn't put Michigan past Trump on this news. With all Hillary's problems, this is going to be a much closer race than the current odds suggest.
Agree. We should all learn the lessons of the pre-Brexit conversation. Nobody should be surprised if the choice shunned by most of what might broadly be termed the Establishment turns out to be the one that wins, even if only narrowly.
Incidentally, anyone who actually takes the trouble to read Nate Silver will find that his latest article is a model of objective analysis of the polls:
Whether or not the race will continue to tighten is a guessing game, in other words. But my impression is that the commentariat has been slow to recognize how much the race has tightened already. It’s never a good idea to freak out over any one poll. But the trend toward Trump has been clear for a few weeks now, and it’s been just as clear in state polls as national polls. Yes, the data is noisy. Polls are all over the place in Ohio, for instance. But over the course of all of this, Trump has whittled down an 8-point lead for Clinton into about a 3-point lead instead — about a 5-point swing. With there having been several shifts of that magnitude since the primaries ended, with there being a large number of undecided voters, and with the debates still ahead, neither Clinton nor Trump should feel all that secure.
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.
Actua
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
The East Midlands has the highest number of failing institutions and outside Lincolnshire is almost entirely comprehensive, the mainly comprehensive North West is second worst, the completely comprehensive North East is third worst
Sure, Nottingham and Leicester both have numbers of failing schools, in part compounded by brighter Leicester students going either to faith schools or over the border in the County, which is a separate education authority.
There is no panacea, but there is a correlation between failing schools and there being selection.
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
How else do you explain Lincs, and Kent having so many poor schools, compared to neighbouring non-urban areas?
Kent has the lowest house prices of any county in the South East (and still often has above average overall GCSE results), Lincolnshire is in a similar position in the East Midlands
Low house prices because of their low quality schools!
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
" Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday. "
They said Labour could never win again in 1992. They said the Tories couldn't win again in 2001.
Shit happens. Times change.
Very true. Then again, the Liberals last won an election outright in 1906.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
Same old story - voters who deserted over immigration, clueless Corbynistas convinced the echo chamber of social media is reality, John Harris does it better...
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.
Actua
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
How else do you explain Lincs, and Kent having so many poor schools, compared to neighbouring non-urban areas?
Kent has the lowest house prices of any county in the South East (and still often has above average overall GCSE results), Lincolnshire is in a similar position in the East Midlands
Low house prices because of their low quality schools!
Wrong, Trafford has selection and the highest house prices in Greater Manchester, Buckinghamshire has selection and the second highest house prices of any county in the South East. Plenty of areas in Kent like Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge have a grammar school premium, however many areas of Kent used to be mining communities and in Lincolnshire based on agriculture, they have never been wealthy
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
Same old story - voters who deserted over immigration, clueless Corbynistas convinced the echo chamber of social media is reality, John Harris does it better...
John Harris's Stoke video was great. Just thought this one is bang up to the minute. Even Maggie got a bit of love, definitely de trop for SJWs.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
" Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday. "
They said Labour could never win again in 1992. They said the Tories couldn't win again in 2001.
Shit happens. Times change.
That's very true. If a week is a long time in politics, then a decade is an eternity.
But right now, Labour are in self destruct mode - their new membership have views that are completely unpalatable to 3/4 of the electorate.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
Same old story - voters who deserted over immigration, clueless Corbynistas convinced the echo chamber of social media is reality, John Harris does it better...
John Harris's Stoke video was great. Just thought this one is bang up to the minute. Even Maggie got a bit of love, definitely de trop for SJWs.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
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.
Actua
That well .
The East Midlands has the highest number of fai
Sure, No
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
How else do you explain Lincs, and Kent having so many poor schools, compared to neighbouring non-urban areas?
Kent has the lowest house prices of any county
Low house prices because of their low quality schools!
Wrong, Trafford has selection and the highest house prices in Greater Manchester, Buckinghamshire has selection and the second highest house prices of any county in the South East. Plenty of areas in Kent like Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge have a grammar school premium, however many areas of Kent used to be mining communities and in Lincolnshire based on agriculture, they have never been wealthy
So poor areas with lower cost housing do less well academically, whether Comprehensive or selective?
Colour me unsurprised. I am sure that there is a very high correlation of parental income and childrens educational achievement, both within areas and comparing areas.
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
Will there ever be another Labour PM? There may not be enough centre-left votes remaining in England to return a majority Government.
" Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday. "
They said Labour could never win again in 1992. They said the Tories couldn't win again in 2001.
Shit happens. Times change.
That's very true. If a week is a long time in politics, then a decade is an eternity.
But right now, Labour are in self destruct mode - their new membership have views that are completely unpalatable to 3/4 of the electorate.
And people weren't really saying that in 1992. 1983 or 1987 maybe. Which underlines the point about how long Labour probably has to wait. And the clock doesn't really start until 2020.
Mainly will affect Detroit so will boost Trump in Michigan, though Ford already makes some small cars in Mexico
Trump is campaigning today in Michigan, I bet he would want to talk about Ford moving to Mexico just 8 weeks from the election and blame the democrats for it.
Given that the race is a tie nationally, every single vote matters.
He's done it just now
I have the feeling that Trump will need a new anthem after today's polls showing him on a roll, my proposal:
And people weren't really saying that [Labour would never win again] in 1992.
They certainly were - often the same pundits who a few weeks earlier had been telling us Labour would win the GE. I remember it particularly well because the about-turn was so hilarious.
Nice of midland rail to make absolutely no planning for spurs playing at Wembley...trains every 30 mins.. What's the phrase ....I've had to kick Jeremy corbyn out of the way to get on.
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.
Actua
That well .
The East Midlands has the highest number of fai
Sure, No
I fail to see it, otherwise how does the fully comprehensive North East have the third worst number of failing schools (more than Yorkshire and Humber for example which has selective schools around Ripon for example)?
How else do you explain Lincs, and Kent having so many poor schools, compared to neighbouring non-urban areas?
Kent has the lowest house prices of any county
Low house prices because of their low quality schools!
Wrong, Trafford has selection and the highest house prices in Greater Manchester, Buckinghamshire has selection and the second highest house prices of any county in the South East. Plenty of areas in Kent like Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge have a grammar school premium, however many areas of Kent used to be mining communities and in Lincolnshire based on agriculture, they have never been wealthy
So poor areas with lower cost housing do less well academically, whether Comprehensive or selective?
Colour me unsurprised. I am sure that there is a very high correlation of parental income and childrens educational achievement, both within areas and comparing areas.
On average of course there is, however at least selection in the best grammars is based on IQ and not house price, unlike the best comprehensives
It's been observed Blair didn't win elections by appealing to the guy with the " Image from Rochester " England Flag on his house. Blair won by appealing to the guys Tory neighbour who thought he was a chat.
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
That's a pretty small niche of the electorate, even assuming Labour could find a leader to appeal to them.
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
Owen Jones posted a video of him doing a vox pop in Nuneaton earlier today. It's only 8 minutes long, and worth pages and pages of argument.
Comments
May has played a blinder over Grammars. She's seized the Zeitgeist and is now leading the Zeitgeist. As long as, unlike Brexit, she's always in favour of Grammars but never actually does it. If that happens the sh*t will hit the fan.
http://telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8350538/Soldiers-drafted-into-schools-in-discipline-crackdown.html
But I'm not sure of its scalability. They would surely be in danger of becoming borstal-like?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
Dr Lisa Bardack said Mrs Clinton, 68, was "recovering well with antibiotics and rest" after she felt dizzy at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37369615
I'm not a doctor, but that HRC collapse last Sunday was more than a dizzy spell.
So, A*s in Maths, English and three other subjects would garner you 40 points
He has high testosterone levels and is borderline obese. He also reportedly said he does not exercise, but is so good at golf that he could play professionally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/14/donald-trump-health-summary-on-dr-oz-chat-show-high-testosterone/
As far as the Yellow Tory vote is concerned, the fundamental issue that keeps them in the Conservative fold - the fact that the Lib Dems are of the centre-left, and cannot be trusted not to put a Lab/SNP rainbow coalition into power if given half a chance - has not gone away. At this stage, I see no reason why anybody who voted for Cameron should defect now that May has taken over (unless Brexit is too soft for some tastes, but that of course could mean a bleed of votes not leftwards to the LDs, but rightwards to Ukip.)
The next Labour PM will win not by appealing to folk who wanted Grammars back. She'll win by appealing to Tories with expensive houses in nice areas who's dull kids ended up in a Secondary Modern because they couldn't afford caching on top of the Mortgage and Student debt. Discuss ?
WembleyobscurityDonald Trump
Is anyone else curious why #DNCleak stopped trending so fast, considering it's the biggest news thus far?
https://t.co/x5btRxgeaE
1) The top 25% by ability, measured (say) by GCSE results? Maybe we don't do too badly in aggregate on that score, albeit with a load of turbo-charged help from excellent private schools
... but..
2) What about the bottom 25% by household income, whose chances of getting into a good university are, for all practical purposes, zero? Yet amongst them, there must be a fair chunk of children who are every bit as intelligent and potentially academic as their richer counterparts.
I'm not convinced that grammar schools are the solution", but we should never blind ourselves to the problem.
* That is to say, the solution in 2016. That doesn't in any way negate the point that the 1960s/1970s ideologically-motivated destruction of the grammar schools (the best state schools we had at the time), and with nothing to replace them, wasn't an unparalleled act of educational vandalism, and a catastrophe for social mobility and for the country generally.
Do they think we didn't all see the video of her being bundled into her car?
As was said the other day, the issue isn't that she's sick, it's that she's lying. Again.
However a lot of the polling data is still pre pneumonia-related collapse so most of this swing is as a result of the Commander In Chief Debate (which most polling reported that Trump had won 2:1)
Clinton when she phoned into CNN claimed she didn't faint...I really wonder who are advising them, even Axelrod mocked them. Surely the spin play was I have pneumonia, I stupidly ignored medical advice and I ended up paying for that.
There is no panacea, but there is a correlation between failing schools and there being selection.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/776115820296544257
This sort of news is manna from heaven for Trump.
Lehrerempfehlung
In most German states, the parents have the final say on which type of secondary school their child will attend, regardless of the primary school recommendation.
In a few states, such as Bavaria, the primary school recommendation is binding and depends on the grades achieved by the child at school. A Bavarian child that doesn't receive a recommendation for grammar school also has the right to a 3-day series of trial lessons to determine whether they should be offered a grammar school place after all.
Given that the race is a tie nationally, every single vote matters.
She didn't survive six years holding the poisoned chalice and then win the Tory leadership without having a certain amount of talent.
The point is if you watch the John Harris dispatch from a few months ago from the rust belt, unionized workers who traditionally vote democrat already think they are being sold down the river and this kind of news just reaffirms it.
https://twitter.com/scottdetrow/status/776148592386007040
I heard from somebody working on the project a week ago they were very confident it was still going to happen, so much so they have continued the process of relocating their family. I did say are you sure, given Mrs
TMay leadership and they said they were confident.Surely the simplist thing for Trump to do is not fit any doors in his wall, therefore no cars can get through...
One of Labour's many problems is that in the Kent/Essex marginals that Blair used to win, unhappy voters support UKIP, not Labour.
The idea that 'comprehensive' means free for all in the academic ability range of classes is a real red herring in this debate.
Regarding variation in GCSE results between local authority areas, it is interesting to compare the patterns to the f40 Group (lowest funded schools by council area in England).
http://www.f40.org.uk/f40-members/
I mean, really, this is silly stuff. A neutral observer, or responsible journalist, is going to express it neutrally, as Nate Silver did. That's not some media conspiracy, it's sensible caution.
Heaven knows, the Clinton campaign has been bad, and the handling of this is a good example of that. But give over on blaming journalists or Nate Silver for being sensibly cautious.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/600283502966345729
"Just two years ago, Powell told billionaire megadonor Jeffrey Leeds just how he feels about Hillary "I would rather not vote for her," and Bill "still dicking bimbos at home.""
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-14/guess-who-colin-powell-talking-about-hes-still-dicking-bimbos-home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAUfIEPRikA
Shit happens. Times change.
Muslim woman set on fire was not target of hate crime, New York police say
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/muslim-woman-set-fire-no-bias-other-victims-police
Whether or not the race will continue to tighten is a guessing game, in other words. But my impression is that the commentariat has been slow to recognize how much the race has tightened already. It’s never a good idea to freak out over any one poll. But the trend toward Trump has been clear for a few weeks now, and it’s been just as clear in state polls as national polls. Yes, the data is noisy. Polls are all over the place in Ohio, for instance. But over the course of all of this, Trump has whittled down an 8-point lead for Clinton into about a 3-point lead instead — about a 5-point swing. With there having been several shifts of that magnitude since the primaries ended, with there being a large number of undecided voters, and with the debates still ahead, neither Clinton nor Trump should feel all that secure.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-has-clintons-bad-weekend-moved-the-polls/
But right now, Labour are in self destruct mode - their new membership have views that are completely unpalatable to 3/4 of the electorate.
Colour me unsurprised. I am sure that there is a very high correlation of parental income and childrens educational achievement, both within areas and comparing areas.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/heres-how-two-twitter-pranksters-convinced-the-world-that-pepe-the-frog-meme-is-just-a-front-for-white-nationalism/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/14/warsaw-sends-police-officers-to-harlow-after-killing-of-polish-man?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxyN3z9PL4