politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What does the UK’s next PM have to say about Trump’s latest ra
Comments
-
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.0 -
But then The Betting Syndicate would have been most displeased.....Mysticrose said:
I don't think your link works. It's this: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/15/england-ben-stokes-mistake-umpire-cricket-world-cup-final-six-runs-new-zealandsurbiton19 said:
I love all this. It's rather like the '66 'did it cross the line' controversy and will enter folklore for years to come.
And there will be those, like myself, who will gently point out that had Stokes needed more runs he would have tanked that final ball low leg stump full toss into the St John's Wood Road ...0 -
Hmm, lets talk about failing academy chains - heck the nearest secondary school to me is about to enter it's 4th chain in 10 yearsHYUFD said:
It allows investment and new leadership into often failing schoolsnichomar said:
What does an academy do to enhance education (serious question) ?HYUFD said:
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.nichomar said:
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why?kinabalu said:
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.Richard_Nabavi said:That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible0 -
To be honest if you are unaware of the head of state of you nearest neighbours you are insular, the ROI has had a succession of excellent elected heads of state and is not to be mocked.HYUFD said:
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentityRoger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
0 -
The key reason why I think Corbyn would veto anyone bar him leading a GoNAFAE is that he will essentially dare Grieve, Clarke etc that they can get the extension they want but only with him in Downing Street. Grieve etc will face a Sophie's Choice scenario of either permitting No Deal or installing Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If Grieve, Clarke etc are serious at wanting to avoid No Deal they would have to install Corbyn as PM.
If Grieve, Clarke etc say they'd rather have Corbyn in Downing Street than the Tory leader then that will be the biggest boost ever imaginable in the forthcoming election and completely spike the Tories guns.0 -
I can't get too worked up about the royal family even as a republican and accept there is little public mood to change to an elected head of state.HYUFD said:
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentityRoger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
The furthest I would go is something along the lines of a referendum every 25 years with the first one not whilst the current Queen is on the throne. I think the royals would easily win at least the first couple but it would give them added legitimacy.0 -
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.0 -
No, if you're not aware of the Heads of State of certain nations that just means you're not a nerd, not insular.nichomar said:
To be honest if you are unaware of the head of state of you nearest neighbours you are insular, the ROI has had a succession of excellent elected heads of state and is not to be mocked.HYUFD said:
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentityRoger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
Heads of Government is different. We're all politics geeks lets be honest and we could name most neighbouring Heads of Government but that'd be rare for the general public. Heads of state is different entirely.
I could name the Irish Head of Government - and his deputy too - but not the Head of State. That's not due to being insular its due to one mattering far more than the other.0 -
The queen's done pretty well. It's some of her hangers-on I can't stand and as I said, why pay a penny for the living costs of the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc in line to the throne when we may never need their services?Cyclefree said:
Don't be silly Roger. HMQ's family play no role in government. On no objective basis is our Head of State worse than Trump.Roger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
And Trump is not a ceremonial Head of State, unlike HMQ, but an executive one.
Also see the recent Private Eye for details of their sheer extravagance, including taking RAF flights and the royal train when scheduled 1st class flights or 1st class train fares would cost a relative pittance. Taking the piss is an understatement. There should be a normal fee-for-service contract and no more.
The amount we pay the royals makes the House of Lords look extremely economical. As I understand it, they are on a fee of £300 per day, including hotel expenses, even if they spend all day in the HoL. Days spent at home aren't paid for. It's not a lot of money, especially if the train fare to London is say £70 return and an overnight hotel is £100. Agreed, it's OK if one lives in London or the Home Counties. For this, we get a second chamber full of retired experts, many with science degrees.0 -
Of course the Queen is better than Trump. It's the inherited position that is difficult to defend. The Pope succeeds in being chosen for life without controversy.Cyclefree said:
Don't be silly Roger. HMQ's family play no role in government. On no objective basis is our Head of State worse than Trump.Roger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
And Trump is not a ceremonial Head of State, unlike HMQ, but an executive one.
OT. Having just watched Trump and his disciples on Ch4 News it's quite sad after Obama seeing America's reputation going down the toilet so fast. With their recent history they look so bad0 -
Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.kinabalu said:
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.0 -
The 7% figure is often bandied about, but in fact the number of pupils taking A'levels at private schools and crammers is closer to 18-20% - a much higher number for the state to absorb.ydoethur said:
If you think a 7% rise in pupil numbers could be absorbed into the state system with ease, you don't know much about education.kinabalu said:
It's only 7% - so not a massive new input.malcolmg said:All that would happen is the good schools would be swamped with rich people#'s kids as they could afford to move/buy property etc. Lower end would suffer and overall education would be wrecked , where will the billions come from for all the extra schools and teachers come from.
PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
You would have to direct resources to less affluent areas.
Spend more on poor kids than the rest. Lots more if necessary.
I have a dream!
We're having to do something like this after a local private school went bust - we think over pension changes - and believe me it's proving an absolute nightmare.
I worry that an understandable backlash to current figures like Rees-Mogg and Johnson, and the fact that the system clearly continues to structurally reinforce privilege and distort society in certain ways, is still blinding the left to the fact the British private school system has also historically still managed to produce plenty of people like Clement Attlee and Rory Stewart, too.0 -
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.kinabalu said:
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.0 -
Three Cheers for Theresa! What a dignified lady. Why she put Johnson in her cabinet will mystify historians for years. Single handed he destroyed her Prime Ministership0
-
If you want an independent UK to do trade deals with countries in Africa, it's not a good idea to glorify those who are reviled there.Viceroy said:
I am aware it had to be a scientist. I am just posting my favoured options.nichomar said:You are obviously another one who is unaware of the fact that it was to be a scientist, engineer etc and I think your Rhodes and Livingston nominations are trolling in the extreme
Why is everything trolling? Are you shocked that people hold different opinions to your own? Drake, Rhodes and Livingstone are some of the greatest Britons ever. One saved us from Spanish domination, another settled southern Africa for us and the other explored parts of the world that were unmapped. Heroes.
How would we feel about Hitler being on a German banknote?0 -
-
I can’t express the depth of my gratitude.rural_voter said:
The queen's done pretty well. It's some of her hangers-on I can't stand and as I said, why pay a penny for the living costs of the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc in line to the throne when we may never need their services?Cyclefree said:
Don't be silly Roger. HMQ's family play no role in government. On no objective basis is our Head of State worse than Trump.Roger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
And Trump is not a ceremonial Head of State, unlike HMQ, but an executive one.
Also see the recent Private Eye for details of their sheer extravagance, including taking RAF flights and the royal train when scheduled 1st class flights or 1st class train fares would cost a relative pittance. Taking the piss is an understatement. There should be a normal fee-for-service contract and no more.
The amount we pay the royals makes the House of Lords look extremely economical. As I understand it, they are on a fee of £300 per day, including hotel expenses, even if they spend all day in the HoL. Days spent at home aren't paid for. It's not a lot of money, especially if the train fare to London is say £70 return and an overnight hotel is £100. Agreed, it's OK if one lives in London or the Home Counties. For this, we get a second chamber full of retired experts, many with science degrees.
0 -
What an excellent thread earlier - just seen it and quite right to pick out headbanger Rees Mogg for showing he's a sad obessive headbanger .... which means under the buffoon, he'll probably get DCMS0
-
Well, it would always end in an election, because he could choose to pull the plug on the GoNAFAE at any time of his choosing.Philip_Thompson said:
It depends. I think Corbyn would be prepared to go down the VoNC route so long as it ended in either him in 10 Downing Street or an Election. I don't think he'd support anyone else getting in via a GoNAFAE.rcs1000 said:
I can see why Boris Johnson would do that, obviously.Philip_Thompson said:
If the Tories and Labour were to three-line-whip against GoNAFAE and three-line-whip in favour of an election then I think two-thirds for an election is more plausible.rcs1000 said:
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)Philip_Thompson said:What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
But surely Jeremy Corbyn would be much, much keener on the VoNC route. Indeed, he would be mad not to go for it. Firstly, he gets Boris Johnson out of Number 10, which would be a massive symbolic victory. Secondly, he keeps the issue of the timing of Britain's departure from the EU alive. If he allows Britain to exit by default to No Deal, he kills the Brexit Party vote. If he gets an election campaign following an extension, he keeps them alive, splitting the Conservative vote.
He can stand up as the voice of seeking an extension/deal and promising a swift one [even if there's been a No Deal Exit by then] while seeking a backdrop of Tory chaos and meltdown.
It's in his interest to keep the Tories fighting over the exit date. It's not in his interest to send the Brexit Party vote share down to zero.0 -
No, Eton and Harrow would not go out of existence because of a local comp with a class size of 20 and plenty of grammar schools used to get pupils into Oxbridge with a class size of 40ydoethur said:
Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.kinabalu said:
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.0 -
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt0 -
It would also be the biggest boost ever to Tory candidates in Remain areas of the Home Counties facing the LDsPhilip_Thompson said:The key reason why I think Corbyn would veto anyone bar him leading a GoNAFAE is that he will essentially dare Grieve, Clarke etc that they can get the extension they want but only with him in Downing Street. Grieve etc will face a Sophie's Choice scenario of either permitting No Deal or installing Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If Grieve, Clarke etc are serious at wanting to avoid No Deal they would have to install Corbyn as PM.
If Grieve, Clarke etc say they'd rather have Corbyn in Downing Street than the Tory leader then that will be the biggest boost ever imaginable in the forthcoming election and completely spike the Tories guns.0 -
Also the private sector has some very good teachers, encouraged there by the better conditions and smaller class sizes.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.kinabalu said:
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.
Redeploy them in the state sector. It probably wouldn't need full 'equalisation' with the private sector (£/child) but we might need over half or two-thirds of the resources, concentrated in the 'poor white' areas where pupils do really badly.
But imagine everyone being so well-educated that they understand how the EU works. Certain problems called B***** could never happen again and a degree of direct democracy might be acceptable and better than relying purely on our elected representatives.0 -
Doesn't the percentage in private education rise with age? (And not all 18 year olds take A Levels, a number take other vocational degrees.)WhisperingOracle said:
The 7% figure is often bandied about, but in fact the number of pupils taking A'levels at private schools and crammers is closer to 18-20% - a much higher number for the state to absorb.ydoethur said:
If you think a 7% rise in pupil numbers could be absorbed into the state system with ease, you don't know much about education.kinabalu said:
It's only 7% - so not a massive new input.malcolmg said:All that would happen is the good schools would be swamped with rich people#'s kids as they could afford to move/buy property etc. Lower end would suffer and overall education would be wrecked , where will the billions come from for all the extra schools and teachers come from.
PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
You would have to direct resources to less affluent areas.
Spend more on poor kids than the rest. Lots more if necessary.
I have a dream!
We're having to do something like this after a local private school went bust - we think over pension changes - and believe me it's proving an absolute nightmare.
I worry that an understandable backlash to current figures like Rees-Mogg and Johnson, and the fact that the system clearly continues to structurally reinforce privilege and distort society in certain ways, is still blinding the left to the fact the British private school system has also historically still managed to produce plenty of people like Clement Attlee and Rory Stewart, too.0 -
It appears the tentacles of the Zionist conspiracy have a long reach; even Labour Lords are now in their grasp:AlastairMeeks said:How exciting - I’m part of a Zionist conspiracy:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1150821658430775296?s=21
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48995585
How must it feel to have such power, to be pulling the strings so effectively!
(/s)0 -
I think you'll find God's representative on earth can still cause controversy; even if ROI has now chosen to ignore some core beleifs.Roger said:
Of course the Queen is better than Trump. It's the inherited position that is difficult to defend. The Pope succeeds in being chosen for life without controversy.Cyclefree said:
Don't be silly Roger. HMQ's family play no role in government. On no objective basis is our Head of State worse than Trump.Roger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
And Trump is not a ceremonial Head of State, unlike HMQ, but an executive one.
OT. Having just watched Trump and his disciples on Ch4 News it's quite sad after Obama seeing America's reputation going down the toilet so fast. With their recent history they look so bad0 -
I would bet barely 5% of the global population has heard of the Irish or German President at best but getting on for 90% have heard of Elizabeth IInichomar said:
To be honest if you are unaware of the head of state of you nearest neighbours you are insular, the ROI has had a succession of excellent elected heads of state and is not to be mocked.HYUFD said:
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentityRoger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
0 -
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.0 -
To be fair, Rhodes was controversial even his day, Livingstone is still pretty respected in Malawi and Zambia. Indeed both have cities named in his honour.rcs1000 said:
If you want an independent UK to do trade deals with countries in Africa, it's not a good idea to glorify those who are reviled there.Viceroy said:
I am aware it had to be a scientist. I am just posting my favoured options.nichomar said:You are obviously another one who is unaware of the fact that it was to be a scientist, engineer etc and I think your Rhodes and Livingston nominations are trolling in the extreme
Why is everything trolling? Are you shocked that people hold different opinions to your own? Drake, Rhodes and Livingstone are some of the greatest Britons ever. One saved us from Spanish domination, another settled southern Africa for us and the other explored parts of the world that were unmapped. Heroes.
How would we feel about Hitler being on a German banknote?
0 -
Brexit is Operation Market Garden in political form.0
-
You are assuming that teachers in the private sector would be willing to return to the state sector.rural_voter said:
Also the private sector has some very good teachers, encouraged there by the better conditions and smaller class sizes.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.kinabalu said:
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.
Redeploy them in the state sector. It probably wouldn't need full 'equalisation' with the private sector (£/child) but we might need over half or two-thirds of the resources, concentrated in the 'poor white' areas where pupils do really badly.
But imagine everyone being so well-educated that they understand how the EU works. Certain problems called B***** could never happen again and a degree of direct democracy might be acceptable and better than relying purely on our elected representatives.
I deal with quite a lot of them through my union, and when I point out that an easy way to protect their pensions and salaries is to return to the state sector they suggest being brutally tortured to a painful death would at least be quicker and easier.0 -
It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.Cyclefree said:Well, it’s not a platitude because a lot of ok but not great private prep schools are closing down and that is in large part because they are not as good as state schools or not good enough for parents to pay. So clearly improving state schools does have an impact.
VAT can easily be imposed. The real issue is not how easy it is to do it but whether it will raise money or will simply discourage private education. If the former it does not reduce inequality. If the latter, it may work ie more pupils go to state schools but then the question is where the funding for them comes from. These are not platitudes to be overcome with belief but hard cost benefit analysis questions which need answering not hand-waving away.
Charity law is more complex. Changing it without causing potentially harmful consequences eg harming charities providing educational opportunities for the disabled, say, is not easy and requires care and thoughtfulness.
Educational inequality caused by house prices is just as insidious and it would be foolish to abolish the Etons of this world only to find them replaced by the Henrietta Barnetts of NW11. That will do nothing to reduce any sort of inequality.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.0 -
It's the best debate that I've seen. Well chaired by TN-D, allowing the candidates to elaborate their positions.DecrepitJohnL said:Is no-one watching the Sun's Boris vs Hunt debate?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9384789/sun-readers-debate-boris-hunt-live/
0 -
If Corbyn was PM for the 20 minutes required to ask for an extension, would it really?HYUFD said:
It would also be the biggest boost ever to Tory candidates in Remain areas of the Home Counties facing the LDsPhilip_Thompson said:The key reason why I think Corbyn would veto anyone bar him leading a GoNAFAE is that he will essentially dare Grieve, Clarke etc that they can get the extension they want but only with him in Downing Street. Grieve etc will face a Sophie's Choice scenario of either permitting No Deal or installing Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If Grieve, Clarke etc are serious at wanting to avoid No Deal they would have to install Corbyn as PM.
If Grieve, Clarke etc say they'd rather have Corbyn in Downing Street than the Tory leader then that will be the biggest boost ever imaginable in the forthcoming election and completely spike the Tories guns.0 -
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.0 -
Monarchy = Socialism?HYUFD said:
I would bet barely 5% of the global population has heard of the Irish or German President at best but getting on for 90% have heard of Elizabeth IInichomar said:
To be honest if you are unaware of the head of state of you nearest neighbours you are insular, the ROI has had a succession of excellent elected heads of state and is not to be mocked.HYUFD said:
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentityRoger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
0 -
-
Indeed it was a date chosen by Macron for the EU, not by us...oxfordsimon said:
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.0 -
No a state controlled economy and an authoritarian President = SocialismSunil_Prasannan said:
Monarchy = Socialism?HYUFD said:
I would bet barely 5% of the global population has heard of the Irish or German President at best but getting on for 90% have heard of Elizabeth IInichomar said:
To be honest if you are unaware of the head of state of you nearest neighbours you are insular, the ROI has had a succession of excellent elected heads of state and is not to be mocked.HYUFD said:
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentityRoger said:
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.Cyclefree said:
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.Roger said:Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
0 -
I think the real problem is your/Corbyn's proposals attack the symptom, not the cause.kinabalu said:It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.
It's a very socialist way of looking at things. Some people with money pay to get a better product than the inferior one we provide? Outrage! This must be stopped!!!
And it never occurs to them that the key word is 'inferior' and that is where their efforts should be addressed.
Blair did grasp that, at a basic level, but for all his blether never had the gumption to address the issues properly.1 -
No it is operation dynamoSunil_Prasannan said:Brexit is Operation Market Garden in political form.
0 -
Come back, Theresa! All is forgiven!Roger said:Three Cheers for Theresa! What a dignified lady. Why she put Johnson in her cabinet will mystify historians for years. Single handed he destroyed her Prime Ministership
0 -
I know plenty of white South Africans who are pretty embarassed by Rhodes' exploits. And these aren't namby-pamby ANC lovers, either.Foxy said:
To be fair, Rhodes was controversial even his day, Livingstone is still pretty respected in Malawi and Zambia. Indeed both have cities named in his honour.rcs1000 said:
If you want an independent UK to do trade deals with countries in Africa, it's not a good idea to glorify those who are reviled there.Viceroy said:
I am aware it had to be a scientist. I am just posting my favoured options.nichomar said:You are obviously another one who is unaware of the fact that it was to be a scientist, engineer etc and I think your Rhodes and Livingston nominations are trolling in the extreme
Why is everything trolling? Are you shocked that people hold different opinions to your own? Drake, Rhodes and Livingstone are some of the greatest Britons ever. One saved us from Spanish domination, another settled southern Africa for us and the other explored parts of the world that were unmapped. Heroes.
How would we feel about Hitler being on a German banknote?0 -
Once they have backed Corbyn once the Tories can say the LDs, CUK and diehard Remainers will always be willing to put Corbyn in No 10, the CCHQ leaflets write themselvesrcs1000 said:
If Corbyn was PM for the 20 minutes required to ask for an extension, would it really?HYUFD said:
It would also be the biggest boost ever to Tory candidates in Remain areas of the Home Counties facing the LDsPhilip_Thompson said:The key reason why I think Corbyn would veto anyone bar him leading a GoNAFAE is that he will essentially dare Grieve, Clarke etc that they can get the extension they want but only with him in Downing Street. Grieve etc will face a Sophie's Choice scenario of either permitting No Deal or installing Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If Grieve, Clarke etc are serious at wanting to avoid No Deal they would have to install Corbyn as PM.
If Grieve, Clarke etc say they'd rather have Corbyn in Downing Street than the Tory leader then that will be the biggest boost ever imaginable in the forthcoming election and completely spike the Tories guns.0 -
As an aside, when someone says "Rhodes settled Southern Africa for us", how is that different from saying he found us lebensraum?0
-
Brexit = Operation Jubilee meets the fall of Singapore.nichomar said:
No it is operation dynamoSunil_Prasannan said:Brexit is Operation Market Garden in political form.
0 -
Personally, I think that's bullshit.HYUFD said:
Once they have backed Corbyn once the Tories can say the LDs, CUK and diehard Remainers will always be willing to put Corbyn in No 10, the CCHQ leaflets write themselvesrcs1000 said:
If Corbyn was PM for the 20 minutes required to ask for an extension, would it really?HYUFD said:
It would also be the biggest boost ever to Tory candidates in Remain areas of the Home Counties facing the LDsPhilip_Thompson said:The key reason why I think Corbyn would veto anyone bar him leading a GoNAFAE is that he will essentially dare Grieve, Clarke etc that they can get the extension they want but only with him in Downing Street. Grieve etc will face a Sophie's Choice scenario of either permitting No Deal or installing Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If Grieve, Clarke etc are serious at wanting to avoid No Deal they would have to install Corbyn as PM.
If Grieve, Clarke etc say they'd rather have Corbyn in Downing Street than the Tory leader then that will be the biggest boost ever imaginable in the forthcoming election and completely spike the Tories guns.
All of them would be able to point to the fact they immediately VoNCed him.0 -
Not many. And many who think they do are actually clueless (Cummings, Woodhead...)nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.0 -
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1150835040919707649
Hmm. Neither of which was or will be on offer.0 -
Voting for Corbyn once is all it needs for a Tory leaflet of 'Vote LD, get Corbyn' to be accurate.rcs1000 said:
Personally, I think that's bullshit.HYUFD said:
Once they have backed Corbyn once the Tories can say the LDs, CUK and diehard Remainers will always be willing to put Corbyn in No 10, the CCHQ leaflets write themselvesrcs1000 said:
If Corbyn was PM for the 20 minutes required to ask for an extension, would it really?HYUFD said:
It would also be the biggest boost ever to Tory candidates in Remain areas of the Home Counties facing the LDsPhilip_Thompson said:The key reason why I think Corbyn would veto anyone bar him leading a GoNAFAE is that he will essentially dare Grieve, Clarke etc that they can get the extension they want but only with him in Downing Street. Grieve etc will face a Sophie's Choice scenario of either permitting No Deal or installing Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If Grieve, Clarke etc are serious at wanting to avoid No Deal they would have to install Corbyn as PM.
If Grieve, Clarke etc say they'd rather have Corbyn in Downing Street than the Tory leader then that will be the biggest boost ever imaginable in the forthcoming election and completely spike the Tories guns.
All of them would be able to point to the fact they immediately VoNCed him.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd0 -
HYUFD said:
So how are my family going to benefit from brexit? They can’t eat distorted ideas of freedom and they don’t give a shit about taking back control because they never thought they lost it. Will these people stop claiming they talk fo r everybody.0 -
I think you're right. Private schools mainly do better due to higher per pupil resource and an advantaged intake, don't they?ydoethur said:Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.
I have to scoot but we can hopefully pick this up again soon.
MASSIVE topic.0 -
Not just education and health, but also social housing. Some housing associations seem more keen on building for yuppies than the homeless.nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.0 -
Personally no, reliant on the DUP they cannot afford to be seen to be soft on the backstop.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1150835040919707649
Hmm. Neither of which was or will be on offer.
However I note neither ruled out letting NI voters decide on it by referendum as a last resort0 -
Who does he mean by 'we'? The Brexiteers are the ones stopping us leaving the EU.nichomar said:HYUFD said:
So how are my family going to benefit from brexit? They can’t eat distorted ideas of freedom and they don’t give a shit about taking back control because they never thought they lost it. Will these people stop claiming they talk fo r everybody.0 -
"A Brexit Too Far" - Antony Beevor, 2029TheScreamingEagles said:
Brexit = Operation Jubilee meets the fall of Singapore.nichomar said:
No it is operation dynamoSunil_Prasannan said:Brexit is Operation Market Garden in political form.
The British fascination for heroic failure has clouded the story of Brexit in myths, not least that victory was possible when in fact the plan imposed by Boris Johnson and Nigel 'Boy' Farage was doomed from the start. Antony Beevor, using many overlooked and new sources from French, British, Irish, Polish and German archives, has reconstructed the terrible reality of this epic clash. Yet this book, written in Beevor's inimitable and gripping narrative style, is about much more than a single dramatic battle. It looks into the very heart of British politics.0 -
Mostly the first. Those who have never taught have no idea how much easier it is to teach classes of 9 against those of 34.kinabalu said:
I think you're right. Private schools mainly do better due to higher per pupil resource and an advantaged intake, don't they?ydoethur said:Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.
I have to scoot but we can hopefully pick this up again soon.
MASSIVE topic.
I look forward to resuming the conversation.0 -
I don't have a real problem with pandering to disgusting leaders of dysfunctional regimes for commercial reasons: one regrets it, but the world is the world and we have to make a living. What I would rather not do is pander without any profit to show for it, and given Boris's capacity to fuck up I can see him doing a deal that makes our life worse, not better.kinabalu said:Well I suppose we have a long and proud history of pandering to disgusting leaders of dysfunctional regimes for commercial reasons.
0 -
Yep.OnlyLivingBoy said:The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.0 -
Then why did the EU pick it? Why did May agree to it? Why did the Commons agree to it?oxfordsimon said:
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.
What's going to change by 14/11 or 1/1?0 -
Well, quiteMarqueeMark said:
But then The Betting Syndicate would have been most displeased.....Mysticrose said:
I don't think your link works. It's this: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/15/england-ben-stokes-mistake-umpire-cricket-world-cup-final-six-runs-new-zealandsurbiton19 said:
I love all this. It's rather like the '66 'did it cross the line' controversy and will enter folklore for years to come.
And there will be those, like myself, who will gently point out that had Stokes needed more runs he would have tanked that final ball low leg stump full toss into the St John's Wood Road ...
0 -
A minor attack on Europe to distract from bigger issues on distant shores?TheScreamingEagles said:
Brexit = Operation Jubilee meets the fall of Singapore.nichomar said:
No it is operation dynamoSunil_Prasannan said:Brexit is Operation Market Garden in political form.
0 -
It's called the third sector - you labourites should be keen on it since it employs half of you but personally I don't see the point of it.Foxy said:
Not just education and health, but also social housing. Some housing associations seem more keen on building for yuppies than the homeless.nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.0 -
-
-
Agreed -- this has been the best debate so far. Part two (domestic policies) is about to start.geoffw said:
It's the best debate that I've seen. Well chaired by TN-D, allowing the candidates to elaborate their positions.DecrepitJohnL said:Is no-one watching the Sun's Boris vs Hunt debate?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9384789/sun-readers-debate-boris-hunt-live/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9384789/sun-readers-debate-boris-hunt-live/0 -
If it is to be No Deal then I think 31/10 is a good day to do it. Gives us November to deal with any teething disruptions caused by it, then everyone gets distracted and moves on with their lives regarding Christmas. After Christmas its history and we're done 0
-
Motivated parents are a much bigger predictor of pupil success than type of school.kinabalu said:
I think you're right. Private schools mainly do better due to higher per pupil resource and an advantaged intake, don't they?ydoethur said:Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.
I have to scoot but we can hopefully pick this up again soon.
MASSIVE topic.
0 -
iirc it was a compromise date with Macron.Philip_Thompson said:
Then why did the EU pick it? Why did May agree to it? Why did the Commons agree to it?oxfordsimon said:
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.
What's going to change by 14/11 or 1/1?0 -
-
Philip do you ever pause for breath before posting on here? It's incessant and repetitive (HYUFD is similar).Philip_Thompson said:If it is to be No Deal then I think 31/10 is a good day to do it. Gives us November to deal with any teething disruptions caused by it, then everyone gets distracted and moves on with their lives regarding Christmas. After Christmas its history and we're done
0 -
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1150835579925540864
Seems to fit the growing idea that Johnson actually wants the EU to reject his advances.0 -
Supporting blanket equality = Socialistydoethur said:
I think the real problem is your/Corbyn's proposals attack the symptom, not the cause.kinabalu said:It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.
It's a very socialist way of looking at things. Some people with money pay to get a better product than the inferior one we provide? Outrage! This must be stopped!!!
And it never occurs to them that the key word is 'inferior' and that is where their efforts should be addressed.
Blair did grasp that, at a basic level, but for all his blether never had the gumption to address the issues properly.
Supporting greater equality of opportunity = Range of political beliefs across the spectrum.
I have no problem with wealthy people spending their money on private healthcare. I don't even want to stop wealthy people handing down their privilege to their kids through private schooling. I merely want the govt subsidisation of that process through free VAT and funding unmeritocratic universities to stop, which will just tilt the balance a little towards meritocracy and fairness.
Normally a special interest group asking for unnecessary government subsidies would be seen as the socialists, not those asking for it to be removed!0 -
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employablekinabalu said:
Yep.OnlyLivingBoy said:The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.1 -
Yes of course and since nobody else seems to share my opinions it doesn't seem that repetitive to me.Mysticrose said:
Philip do you ever pause for breath before posting on here? It's incessant and repetitive (HYUFD is similar).Philip_Thompson said:If it is to be No Deal then I think 31/10 is a good day to do it. Gives us November to deal with any teething disruptions caused by it, then everyone gets distracted and moves on with their lives regarding Christmas. After Christmas its history and we're done
Should I just join the "no deal is horrific and Boris is a moron" circlejerk that most posters here seem to agree with? Will that make you feel better?0 -
Well, quite. I don't get Wickham's comment - isn't this a straw man? "We will not accept free ice cream with our Brexit." Well, OK.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1150835040919707649
Hmm. Neither of which was or will be on offer.0 -
Free VAT? What is this idea?noneoftheabove said:
Supporting blanket equality = Socialistydoethur said:
I think the real problem is your/Corbyn's proposals attack the symptom, not the cause.kinabalu said:It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.
It's a very socialist way of looking at things. Some people with money pay to get a better product than the inferior one we provide? Outrage! This must be stopped!!!
And it never occurs to them that the key word is 'inferior' and that is where their efforts should be addressed.
Blair did grasp that, at a basic level, but for all his blether never had the gumption to address the issues properly.
Supporting greater equality of opportunity = Range of political beliefs across the spectrum.
I have no problem with wealthy people spending their money on private healthcare. I don't even want to stop wealthy people handing down their privilege to their kids through private schooling. I merely want the govt subsidisation of that process through free VAT and funding unmeritocratic universities to stop, which will just tilt the balance a little towards meritocracy and fairness.
Normally a special interest group asking for unnecessary government subsidies would be seen as the socialists, not those asking for it to be removed!
Again, we come back to the issue that VAT is a very dubious tool. For example, are you aware that your proposals would also kill off the surviving sixth form colleges?0 -
Since when do people have to approve of their employer?JBriskinindyref2 said:
It's called the third sector - you labourites should be keen on it since it employs half of you but personally I don't see the point of it.Foxy said:
Not just education and health, but also social housing. Some housing associations seem more keen on building for yuppies than the homeless.nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.
Incidentally, I am not a Labourite.
I quite recommend this little documentary on the subject of housing associations:
https://player.bfi.org.uk/subscription/film/watch-dispossession-the-great-social-housing-swindle-2017-online0 -
I think it was picked as the EU knew there wasnt time to do anything other than ask for another extension, which could become a long one and eventual revoke or soft brexit. Still hard to tell if it will turn out to be a gamble that spectacularly misfires with no deal or one that could pay off for them.rottenborough said:
iirc it was a compromise date with Macron.Philip_Thompson said:
Then why did the EU pick it? Why did May agree to it? Why did the Commons agree to it?oxfordsimon said:
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.
What's going to change by 14/11 or 1/1?0 -
Commentators all over the place saying this constrains negotiation. How? These things are not on offer and the WA is closed.NickPalmer said:
Well, quite. I don't get Wickham's comment - isn't this a straw man? "We will not accept free ice cream with our Brexit." Well, OK.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1150835040919707649
Hmm. Neither of which was or will be on offer.
0 -
having been de jure homeless I am not going to waste my time clicking.Foxy said:
Since when do people have to approve of their employer?JBriskinindyref2 said:
It's called the third sector - you labourites should be keen on it since it employs half of you but personally I don't see the point of it.Foxy said:
Not just education and health, but also social housing. Some housing associations seem more keen on building for yuppies than the homeless.nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.
Incidentally, I am not a Labourite.
I quite recommend this little documentary on the subject of housing associations:
https://player.bfi.org.uk/subscription/film/watch-dispossession-the-great-social-housing-swindle-2017-online
Hit a nerve, perchance?0 -
It would be nice if we could start doing that. But for many the aim of Brexit is to transfer power to a nebulously defined Anglosphere and import whatever twaddle the alt-right want swallowed this week. If we're going to be independent I'd rather generate our own ideas and develop our own muscles, not photocopy somebody else's.RobD said:
I dunno, the whole concept of governing oneself.williamglenn said:
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?Charles said:
We’re not supplicantPeter_the_Punter said:'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/7235478106337771520 -
Plenty of State schools take advantage of using the local private school's theatre, athletics track etcOnlyLivingBoy said:
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.kinabalu said:
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!Cyclefree said:Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.0 -
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.HYUFD said:
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employablekinabalu said:
Yep.OnlyLivingBoy said:The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.0 -
Completely OT. I have been visiting the Manchester festival this week. I am from Manchester but like many earned my living in London. The improvement in Manchester over the last dozen or so years is nothing short of spectacular. The City Centre has improved beyond recognition. Partly because of a tram system but mainly because of a very smart planning department.
Even Salford Quays with it's proliferation of production companies and TV stations is a revelation. Whether the next generation of photographers and film makers will have make their way to London I doubt.
Two interesting facts. 1. It's the third most visited place in the UK (after london and Edinburgh) Today It was spilling over with Spanish French and Italians today. and 2. It has more cranes in operation than anywhere else in Europe. They are building at a rate of knots
Finally if anyone wants to see a show at the festival the standout is Ballet Rambert's 'Invisible Cities'. It's staging is spectacular and quirky. Another show worth looking at is at the Science museums Atmospheric Memory which ironically was visited by Mark Carney this morning1 -
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.HYUFD said:Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.0 -
No I am not aware, but presumably legislation can be drafted that treats sixth form colleges differently if deserved?ydoethur said:
Free VAT? What is this idea?noneoftheabove said:
Supporting blanket equality = Socialistydoethur said:
I think the real problem is your/Corbyn's proposals attack the symptom, not the cause.kinabalu said:It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.
It's a very socialist way of looking at things. Some people with money pay to get a better product than the inferior one we provide? Outrage! This must be stopped!!!
And it never occurs to them that the key word is 'inferior' and that is where their efforts should be addressed.
Blair did grasp that, at a basic level, but for all his blether never had the gumption to address the issues properly.
Supporting greater equality of opportunity = Range of political beliefs across the spectrum.
I have no problem with wealthy people spending their money on private healthcare. I don't even want to stop wealthy people handing down their privilege to their kids through private schooling. I merely want the govt subsidisation of that process through free VAT and funding unmeritocratic universities to stop, which will just tilt the balance a little towards meritocracy and fairness.
Normally a special interest group asking for unnecessary government subsidies would be seen as the socialists, not those asking for it to be removed!
Again, we come back to the issue that VAT is a very dubious tool. For example, are you aware that your proposals would also kill off the surviving sixth form colleges?0 -
Betting news: Boris and Hunt have more-or-less said they will give at least one top four job to a woman. Trouble is TND included defence in that, on which there is no betting.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9384789/sun-readers-debate-boris-hunt-live/0 -
This isn’t about party politics it’s about how much do people know about what is happening around them. If you are fully aware of the changes to education, the NHS, your local council services and the provision for long term care to name a few and you agree with well good for you. I’m willing to admit that, despite being reasonably intelligent and a news junky, I’m not.JBriskinindyref2 said:
It's called the third sector - you labourites should be keen on it since it employs half of you but personally I don't see the point of it.Foxy said:
Not just education and health, but also social housing. Some housing associations seem more keen on building for yuppies than the homeless.nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.
I also think most voters aren’t unless they have some direct experience of the various issues. If everybody is aware then fine but I very much doubt it0 -
How? They are educational institutions. They are charities. They take money to provide education. Most of them are on the financial edge, partly due to tax arrangements.noneoftheabove said:
No I am not aware, but presumably legislation can be drafted that treats sixth form colleges differently if deserved?ydoethur said:
Free VAT? What is this idea?noneoftheabove said:
Supporting blanket equality = Socialistydoethur said:
I think the real problem is your/Corbyn's proposals attack the symptom, not the cause.kinabalu said:It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.
It's a very socialist way of looking at things. Some people with money pay to get a better product than the inferior one we provide? Outrage! This must be stopped!!!
And it never occurs to them that the key word is 'inferior' and that is where their efforts should be addressed.
Blair did grasp that, at a basic level, but for all his blether never had the gumption to address the issues properly.
Supporting greater equality of opportunity = Range of political beliefs across the spectrum.
I have no problem with wealthy people spending their money on private healthcare. I don't even want to stop wealthy people handing down their privilege to their kids through private schooling. I merely want the govt subsidisation of that process through free VAT and funding unmeritocratic universities to stop, which will just tilt the balance a little towards meritocracy and fairness.
Normally a special interest group asking for unnecessary government subsidies would be seen as the socialists, not those asking for it to be removed!
Again, we come back to the issue that VAT is a very dubious tool. For example, are you aware that your proposals would also kill off the surviving sixth form colleges?
If you draft legislation with sufficient loopholes to exclude them, you would be surprised how many private schools would wriggle through as well.0 -
Did the Commons agree to it? (I genuinely don't know the answer)Philip_Thompson said:
Then why did the EU pick it? Why did May agree to it? Why did the Commons agree to it?oxfordsimon said:
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.
What's going to change by 14/11 or 1/1?0 -
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.rcs1000 said:
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.HYUFD said:Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Now if Grieve and co are desperate enough to defect from the Tories [and they would have to] to VONC the Tories, Corbyn would be perfectly entitled to say he is the only one leading a party with hundreds of MPs prepared to vote for an extension.
Are Grieve and co really going to VONC the Tories only to then allow No Deal to occur anyway because they're not prepared to let Corbyn get the extension?0 -
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spend half their time in gangs roaming the streetsOnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.HYUFD said:
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employablekinabalu said:
Yep.OnlyLivingBoy said:The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.0 -
Age of pupils seems instinctively very hard to wriggle through?ydoethur said:
How? They are educational institutions. They are charities. They take money to provide education. Most of them are on the financial edge, partly due to tax arrangements.noneoftheabove said:
No I am not aware, but presumably legislation can be drafted that treats sixth form colleges differently if deserved?ydoethur said:
Free VAT? What is this idea?noneoftheabove said:
Supporting blanket equality = Socialistydoethur said:
I think the real problem is your/Corbyn's proposals attack the symptom, not the cause.kinabalu said:It's not a platitude if there is a genuine willingness to fund state schools to the same per pupil spend as private schools. With preferably the spend in poorer areas to be greater.
But then the argument that this would be unaffordable quite rightly tends to raise its head.
Back to platitude.
The purpose of the VAT would be to discourage not to raise money. A behavioural tax. A vice tax even.
I will defer to your greater knowledge of charity law. Of course it would need to be suitably drafted.
House price discrimination? Sure. But let's not use that as an excuse not to do anything about what is undeniably a serious and growing problem in this country.
It's a very socialist way of looking at things. Some people with money pay to get a better product than the inferior one we provide? Outrage! This must be stopped!!!
And it never occurs to them that the key word is 'inferior' and that is where their efforts should be addressed.
Blair did grasp that, at a basic level, but for all his blether never had the gumption to address the issues properly.
Supporting greater equality of opportunity = Range of political beliefs across the spectrum.
I have no problem with wealthy people spending their money on private healthcare. I don't even want to stop wealthy people handing down their privilege to their kids through private schooling. I merely want the govt subsidisation of that process through free VAT and funding unmeritocratic universities to stop, which will just tilt the balance a little towards meritocracy and fairness.
Normally a special interest group asking for unnecessary government subsidies would be seen as the socialists, not those asking for it to be removed!
Again, we come back to the issue that VAT is a very dubious tool. For example, are you aware that your proposals would also kill off the surviving sixth form colleges?
If you draft legislation with sufficient loopholes to exclude them, you would be surprised how many private schools would wriggle through as well.0 -
Yes through a Statutory Instrument accepted by negative procedure.rcs1000 said:
Did the Commons agree to it? (I genuinely don't know the answer)Philip_Thompson said:
Then why did the EU pick it? Why did May agree to it? Why did the Commons agree to it?oxfordsimon said:
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.Philip_Thompson said:
But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.HYUFD said:
#HasToNotBeHunt
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.
What's going to change by 14/11 or 1/1?0 -
I am not fully aware. But all you've described so far is the third sectorisation of services which has been on the cards for a while.nichomar said:
This isn’t about party politics it’s about how much do people know about what is happening around them. If you are fully aware of the changes to education, the NHS, your local council services and the provision for long term care to name a few and you agree with well good for you. I’m willing to admit that, despite being reasonably intelligent and a news junky, I’m not.JBriskinindyref2 said:
It's called the third sector - you labourites should be keen on it since it employs half of you but personally I don't see the point of it.Foxy said:
Not just education and health, but also social housing. Some housing associations seem more keen on building for yuppies than the homeless.nichomar said:
This does in my mind open up a much wider issue about how much people are actually aware of the reality of what is going on around them. We have, as we have discussed the rapid privatization of education but who is aware? I have another daughter who is a mental health therapist. The local PCT decided to outsource it, no discussion no public vote, the staff were devastated but in the end relieved when a not for profit organization won the tender. Do people actually know what is happening around them or am I paranoid?ydoethur said:
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.nichomar said:Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.
I also think most voters aren’t unless they have some direct experience of the various issues. If everybody is aware then fine but I very much doubt it
I'm anti-third sector. But it's all labour voters who work in it.
0 -
Oh my godHYUFD said:
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employablekinabalu said:
Yep.OnlyLivingBoy said:The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.0 -
Who blinks first in this scenario, Corbyn or Lee?Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.rcs1000 said:
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.HYUFD said:Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Now if Grieve and co are desperate enough to defect from the Tories [and they would have to] to VONC the Tories, Corbyn would be perfectly entitled to say he is the only one leading a party with hundreds of MPs prepared to vote for an extension.
Are Grieve and co really going to VONC the Tories only to then allow No Deal to occur anyway because they're not prepared to let Corbyn get the extension?
I think Corbyn would accept a retiring Labour MP (no, not her) as a compromise.
Brexit on 31 October is a disaster for Corbyn, as it sends the Brexit Party share to zero. So the idea that he would engineer that scenario deliberately seems far fetched.0 -
I despair.HYUFD said:
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streetsOnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.HYUFD said:
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employablekinabalu said:
Yep.OnlyLivingBoy said:The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.0
