My 250/1 punt on Sunak for next PM looking good – politicalbetting.com

kle4 said:

Carte blanche for Philip if this pans out, I would think.

Fysics_Teacher said:

HYUFD said:

As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.

Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.

So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role

He also shares a characteristic of that all but four post war PMs had or have: he went to Oxford.

TOPPING said:

Go Raab.

(Said in a small, weedy voice.)

HYUFD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

HYUFD said:

As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.

Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.

So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role

He also shares a characteristic of that all but four post war PMs had or have: he went to Oxford.

Yes but that also applies to Leaders of the Opposition who led their party into power at a general election.

Though interestingly of the non Oxford educated postwar PMs, all of them ie Callaghan, Major and Brown all took with their party already in power. None were ever Leader of the Opposition, they had to prove themselves in government with a great office of state first to be trusted with the top job

RochdalePioneers said:

Is there anyone on here who doesn't think the government wouldn't be immediately better if Sunak replaced Johnson?

RochdalePioneers said:

Is there anyone on here who doesn't think the government wouldn't be immediately better if Sunak replaced Johnson?

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

British sources believe Asphalt Princess has been hijacked. They are working on the assumption Iranian military or proxies have boarded vessel

https://twitter.com/larisamlbrown/status/1422591859789029381?s=20

Sounds like a dreadful cruise ship.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

British sources believe Asphalt Princess has been hijacked. They are working on the assumption Iranian military or proxies have boarded vessel

https://twitter.com/larisamlbrown/status/1422591859789029381?s=20

Sounds like a dreadful cruise ship.

1976 built Asphalt/ Bitumen tanker sailing under the Panama flag

Fysics_Teacher said:

HYUFD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

HYUFD said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

HYUFD said:

As Chancellor of the Exchequer it is fairly obvious Sunak should be favourite to succeed Boris as PM as long as the Tories stay in power.

Of the postwar changes of PM in government, 3 of the new PMs were the Chancellor, Macmillan, Major and Brown, 1 was a former Chancellor, Callaghan. 3 were Foreign Secretary Eden and Home and Callaghan, 1 was a former Foreign Secretary, Boris and 1 was Home Secretary, May.

So merely by being Chancellor Sunak is favourite to succeed with historical precedent suggesting Raab would be his only serious rival. Though credit to PT for spotting him before he got the role

He also shares a characteristic of that all but four post war PMs had or have: he went to Oxford.

Yes but that also applies to Leaders of the Opposition who led their party into power at a general election.

Though interestingly of the non Oxford educated postwar PMs, all of them ie Callaghan, Major and Brown all took with their party already in power. None were ever Leader of the Opposition, they had to prove themselves in government with a great office of state first to be trusted with the top job

You forgot one…

If you include Churchill he also only took over in government as PM originally in 1940 but he had been to a major public school unlike the above 3, Harrow, even if not to Oxbridge

He was still a post war PM who didn’t go to Oxford (and indeed the only one who won an election against someone who was an Oxford graduate).

Edit to clarify: the only non-Oxford graduate to beat an Oxford graduate in a general election since the war.

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CarlottaVance said:

NEW: ‘I look forward to meeting you soon.’ @BorisJohnson declines @NicolaSturgeon’s invitation for a meeting during his imminent visit to Scotland. But says he wants a ‘structured forum’ so devolved admins can work with UK govt.

https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1422597659647516672?s=20

Excellent response

For a coward

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

British sources believe Asphalt Princess has been hijacked. They are working on the assumption Iranian military or proxies have boarded vessel

https://twitter.com/larisamlbrown/status/1422591859789029381?s=20

Sounds like a dreadful cruise ship.

FrancisUrquhart said:

BREAKING: New York City to require proof of vaccination for indoor activities, including at restaurants, gyms and performances - NYT

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Big Deal.

The Scottish Greens care more about reforming the Gender Recognition Act than they do pushing Sturgeon to hold an imminent indyref2
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/.

Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Big Deal.

The Scottish Greens care more about reforming the Gender Recognition Act than they do pushing Sturgeon to hold an imminent indyref2
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/.

Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners

Is that the second or the third time you've cut and pasted that today? One loses count.

It's SG policy to have a referendum once the pandemic is under control. And that programme was
"Published 25th Apr 2021", obiter dicta in an interview with the co-convener, not the Party as a whole.

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CarlottaVance said:

NEW: ‘I look forward to meeting you soon.’ @BorisJohnson declines @NicolaSturgeon’s invitation for a meeting during his imminent visit to Scotland. But says he wants a ‘structured forum’ so devolved admins can work with UK govt.

https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1422597659647516672?s=20

Excellent response

Idiotic response. Westminster has sidelined all such forums for two decades.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Big Deal.

The Scottish Greens care more about reforming the Gender Recognition Act than they do pushing Sturgeon to hold an imminent indyref2
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/.

Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners

Is that the second or the third time you've cut and pasted that today? One loses count.

It's SG policy to have a referendum once the pandemic is under control. And that programme was
"Published 25th Apr 2021", obiter dicta in an interview with the co-convener, not the Party as a whole.

Yes but only a legal one which this Tory government will refuse.

They are not pressing Sturgeon to hold a wildcat referendum and declare UDI as Salmond and Alba would so nothing for London to worry about

maaarsh said:

Quincel said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?

Because if it was a coalition, Nicola wouldn't have won the election, and we all know the Great Leader won the election. QED.

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Big Deal.

The Scottish Greens care more about reforming the Gender Recognition Act than they do pushing Sturgeon to hold an imminent indyref2
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/.

Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners

Is that the second or the third time you've cut and pasted that today? One loses count.

It's SG policy to have a referendum once the pandemic is under control. And that programme was
"Published 25th Apr 2021", obiter dicta in an interview with the co-convener, not the Party as a whole.

It may be the SG policy but in view of public opinion moving against independence expect lots of fudge as Sturgeon does not want to lose

Sorry - in that context SG = Scottish Green, not Scotytish Gmt. Apologies.

Carnyx said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58077039

The tribulations of tank enthusiasts.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Big Deal.

The Scottish Greens care more about reforming the Gender Recognition Act than they do pushing Sturgeon to hold an imminent indyref2
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/.

Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners

Is that the second or the third time you've cut and pasted that today? One loses count.

It's SG policy to have a referendum once the pandemic is under control. And that programme was
"Published 25th Apr 2021", obiter dicta in an interview with the co-convener, not the Party as a whole.

Yes but only a legal one which this Tory government will refuse.

They are not pressing Sturgeon to hold a wildcat referendum and declare UDI as Salmond and Alba would so nothing for London to worry about

They don't live in Epping and don't accept your claim to a veto.

You might want to read their manifesto on the issue.

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Have you not hedged any of that £5k back, Mike?

I've got £30+ quid on Sunak at 250/1.

Not hedged it yet - difficult when market is thin and it would tie up cash. Could back others I guess. Starmer I guess?

Yes, I'd do that in your position. But you like to ride things, Stocky, don't you?

I try to ignore prior bets and look afresh at markets each time. Nothing is jumping out at me at the moment. If I thought Sunak was too lowly priced and there was sufficient liquidity to bet then I'd lay him - but that - in my mind - would be unconnected to the previous long-shot bet.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.

Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now

That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens
Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats

The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.

It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.

It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party

The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.

the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/03/sturgeon-on-brink-cooperation-deal-scottish-greens

Big Deal.

The Scottish Greens care more about reforming the Gender Recognition Act than they do pushing Sturgeon to hold an imminent indyref2
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/.

Absent Alba MSPs Sturgeon can use the Greens as her little helpers to ignore calls for a wildcat referendum or UDI from Nat hardliners

Is that the second or the third time you've cut and pasted that today? One loses count.

It's SG policy to have a referendum once the pandemic is under control. And that programme was
"Published 25th Apr 2021", obiter dicta in an interview with the co-convener, not the Party as a whole.

Yes but only a legal one which this Tory government will refuse.

They are not pressing Sturgeon to hold a wildcat referendum and declare UDI as Salmond and Alba would so nothing for London to worry about

They don't live in Epping and don't accept your claim to a veto.

You might want to read their manifesto on the issue.

It doesn't matter if they live on Mars, under the Scotland Act 1998 union matters are reserved to the UK government and this UK government will refuse indyref2.

So as Sturgeon has ruled out a wildcat referendum and ruled out UDI that is the end of the matter

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.

Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now

That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.

ping said:

CarlottaVance said:

Recent escalations in the Middle East. According to local agents, "An exchange of missile fire between Iranian, Israeli, British & American warships off the coast of the UAE, & the British Ministry of Defense asks all international ships not to approach the scene of the event"

https://twitter.com/Oil/status/1422597120054501382?s=20

This could go hot very quickly…

Decent map;

https://www.ukmto.org/indian-ocean/recent-incidents#report-2A9E9A7F26A047CF9552D33DDF0EE60E

No_Offence_Alan said:

maaarsh said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BREAKING: New York City to require proof of vaccination for indoor activities, including at restaurants, gyms and performances - NYT

Dead cat from the dirty creep

Cuomo is the New York State governor, New York CIty Mayor is De Blasio.

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.

Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now

That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.

Overall Singapore spends less as a percentage of gdp than we do, 26% to 50% here post Covid. Even on your figures as a percentage of gdp they spent effectively the same as we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP

It is not spending which puts Singapore at the top of the PISA rankings but the fact it only recruits the brightest graduates as teachers and has a focus on educational excellence.

Singapore also values private tuition, with 60% of high school students in the city state also having a private tutor
https://theconversation.com/behind-singapores-pisa-rankings-success-and-why-other-countries-may-not-want-to-join-the-race-70057

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

And fpt:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Cutting the head off a hydra, mate. Everywhere has oligarchies, nowhere else has public schools (except in the sense of actually public actual schools). If you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I think that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Elitism can be reduced but not eradicated. In fact you shouldn't even try to eradicate it. That leads to totalitarianism and - yes - elites. Worse ones. I'm just thinking about what's realistic in England 2021. This could be possible one day. But not this day, I'm fully aware of that. It's electoral poison. People who can't afford this privilege still support it. Until this changes, no chance of reform, I'll be talking to the hand.

I can promise you there's also people who can and do afford it who'd be secretly not wholly disgruntled if the option were denied them, and they had to spend the money on horses and yachts instead, dammit.

For sure. It's kind of a tax cut for the rich. In fact that's how I'd sell it in the drawing rooms and boardrooms of England.

They are still not going to send their kids to the average or below average local comp.

They will make sure they live in the most expensive postcodes and thus the locals schools their kids attend will still be those mainly attended by the offspring of the wealthy.

So you would have to ban expensive detached houses too and make everyone live in a 2 bed semi or council flat

That's just the old "if we can't totally deal with an issue let's not deal with it at all" shtick.

No - it's about not letting the state decide everything and accepting that individuals and indeed parents have the right to make choices - and that those choices have consequences which no amount of state engineering can, or should negate.

The whole rationale of the state is to prevent people's choices from harming other people. Otherwise we wouldn't need it, we could all just do whatever we want.
I want the state to do its best to create a level playing field so that (a) everyone gets a fair shot in life and (b) the best people end up in top positions. It should be fairly evident that that's not happening right now, and private schools play a big part in that failure.

The best instrument we had for getting people from average or below average income backgrounds into top positions was of course the grammar schools.

Labour of course could not have that so abolished most of them, for socialists equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity

You keep saying this, despite the evidence that grammar schools get captured by the middle class via tutoring and prep schools. If grammar schools were these incredible engines of social mobility, then Kent (where they still exist) would be a classless society. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in Kent will know that the opposite is the case.
Personally I am all for equality of opportunity - equality of outcome is impossible in education because some people are just smarter than others. The way to get equality of opportunity is to fund all schools better, rigorously enforce standards, pay teachers better to get good teachers to stay in the profession, and to make sure there are no kids too hungry to learn.

Private schools are a symptom not a cause. Take them away and parents will find a zillion ways to give their children a "better" start in life - for a start they will have £40k after tax to play with to do so.

So you've got to go back to the root cause and then you are either build a Communist state or become like Finland, which would mean a root and branch transformation of our schooling - and university - system.

Problem is, as the man said, I wouldn't have started from here. Today we have bog standard comprehensives, Eton, Winchester and Oxbridge. All that would need to be reformed to get to "free" education.

I imagine that the extra percentage of GDP to be spent plus the requirement for all teachers to have a masters degree might also cause some problems, politically, as an example.

We know that wealthy people think a lot of money should be spent on educating children, from revealed preference. They just don't want other people's kids to have that kind of money spent on them.
You say that spending more on schools would cause political problems. Why is that? The problem we have is that the constituency for spending more money on schools is too small, because many of those who feel most passionately about education have taken matters into their own hands. In many cases they have become opponents of funding state schools more generously in the process.

Singapore spends far less than we do as a percentage of its gdp but is top of the PISA rankings now

That's incorrect. According to the World Bank, Singapore spent 21.6% of its GDP per capita on each secondary school pupil in the most recent year for which data are available (2017) while the UK spent 21.2% (2016). Since Singapore's GDP per capita is approximately 50% higher than ours, this means that they spent about 50% more per pupil than we did. Which I suppose could account for their higher PISA score.
Incidentally, UK spending has gone down from a peak of 31.2% of per capita GDP in 2010, thanks to the Tories.

This is where linkies would help. Secondary school is just below half of a child's education (and that depends on the educational system run in a country). What about spending on primary schools?

I used to naively thing that comparing education systems between schools, yet alone countries, was easy. Now I've got a kid in school, I can see it's fraught with difficulties.

I'd prefer to look at the functional illiteracy and innumeracy levels of a country: kids we are failing at a much younger age.

tlg86 said:

Not a big fan of Piers Morgan, but this is your regular reminder that he was brave enough to face Brett Lee (off 20 yards) in the nets.

ping said:

ping said:

CarlottaVance said:

Recent escalations in the Middle East. According to local agents, "An exchange of missile fire between Iranian, Israeli, British & American warships off the coast of the UAE, & the British Ministry of Defense asks all international ships not to approach the scene of the event"

https://twitter.com/Oil/status/1422597120054501382?s=20

This could go hot very quickly…

Decent map;

https://www.ukmto.org/indian-ocean/recent-incidents#report-2A9E9A7F26A047CF9552D33DDF0EE60E

This from a couple of hours ago;

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/1422574393859915777

tlg86 said:

The BBC are still misreporting Simone Biles as having missed events due to mental health reasons.