Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A 15% lead would give LAB a majority of just 8 seats – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 27 in General
A 15% lead would give LAB a majority of just 8 seats – politicalbetting.com

Under the old boundaries, this poll would produce a Labour majority of 26 seats – so the impact of the new boundaries is already becoming clear, and if the polls narrow it'll be even clearer. https://t.co/GjNDZRSIwA

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046
    To be fair, another part of the reason is that their support is very well spread out in Scotland, in a way that's insufficient to win many seats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    The Tories also suffered from the same in 2010, hence Cameron failed to get a majority though still won most seats as Starmer almost certainly will
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,880
    I recall someone saying that Kantar includes an Opinium-like swingback correction but I'm not sure he really knew. Any hard info on that?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories also suffered from the same in 2010, hence Cameron failed to get a majority though still won most seats as Starmer almost certainly will

    The Cameron problem in 2010 was more about being on 37% in GB.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.
  • Very disappointing Brazil have only gone with 5 attackers......what's the point of picking 9 strikers if you aren't going to use them all!
  • Depends also on the tactical situation.

    In 2019, there was a hefty "anyone but Labour" vote, because of Jez. That ought to unwind, which would help the Labour tally a bit even if nothing else happens.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    EPG said:

    To be fair, another part of the reason is that their support is very well spread out in Scotland, in a way that's insufficient to win many seats.

    How many seats did Blair win in Scotland? 55? Yes, enough to make quite a dent in his majority if he hadn't had them, but he would still have had a handsome overall majority.

    It's in England in the next election will be won and lost, and there I would have said Labour have the opposite problem - too many votes piled up in safe seats in major conurbations rather than in the suburbs where they're needed.
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 373

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    Housing

    Europe

    Mone
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    One of the great national anthems, there
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    True, but don’t let your personal opinions distract from how far the Tories have sunk in many people’s views.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    There ought to be a time limit on national anthems.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046
    edited November 24
    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    To be fair, another part of the reason is that their support is very well spread out in Scotland, in a way that's insufficient to win many seats.

    How many seats did Blair win in Scotland? 55? Yes, enough to make quite a dent in his majority if he hadn't had them, but he would still have had a handsome overall majority.

    It's in England in the next election will be won and lost, and there I would have said Labour have the opposite problem - too many votes piled up in safe seats in major conurbations rather than in the suburbs where they're needed.
    Assume we're not talking about the landslides - Blair only won around 40 to 45 seats I thought, because the SLDs were winning seats that now seem to be as implausible as the giants of Celtic myth. But Labour did so quite vote efficiently by facing lots of different opponents around Scotland. That would add up to Scotland contributing 20 to 30 seats to Blair's last 60-seat majority. Anyway, point being, this is an explainer of how so much of the 45% vote ends up in seats where they get great second places.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    edited November 24
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    In addition for the public sector how do we think teachers of subjects in over supply were paid a lot less than teacher of subjects more in demand would react. Does anyone really believe if for the sake of argument a maths teacher earned twice what a religous education teacher just because its hard to get enough maths teachers but lots of people who can teach RE that teachers unions wouldnt be up in arms? (for the avoidance of doubt I have no idea if re teachers are in short supply, I just needed to pick an example of a subject)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,046
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    Most people in the state system don't pay extra for extra teaching, so probably, market outcomes would lead to fewer teachers and less teaching overall. I'd say it would be underinvestment due of misalignment between what benefits parents and kids, but that's subjective, of course, and many parents probably think some more basic level of education in most subjects is fine. (Looking at social attitudes, I don't think most parents really value a good maths or science education, and if they value an education in English, it is really basic stuff about spelling and old culture.)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    EPG said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    Most people in the state system don't pay extra for extra teaching, so probably, market outcomes would lead to fewer teachers and less teaching overall. I'd say it would be underinvestment due of misalignment between what benefits parents and kids, but that's subjective, of course, and many parents probably think some more basic level of education in most subjects is fine. (Looking at social attitudes, I don't think most parents really value a good maths or science education, and if they value an education in English, it is really basic stuff about spelling and old culture.)
    I was not referring to extra teaching, what I was saying its not a free market because the state sector doesn't have to worry about its customers leaving as they are mandated to attend by law
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 373
    IanB2 said:

    pillsbury said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    Housing

    Europe

    Mone
    The Mone story does have the potential to capture the public imagination, and not in a good way for the Tories.

    We all remember our Leon’s predecessor on this site posting from his ‘holiday’ in Wales, whilst the rest of us were following the government instruction to stay at home.

    Mone posted multiple Insta photos from her yacht in the Med during the same period - a yacht it appears may have been bought using £millions of winnings, secretly passed to her through various offshore accounts, from PPE contracts awarded to a company in which her husband was involved, most of which proved to be poorly made and unsuitable for medical use. Which she never declared in her House of Lords declaration of financial interests, and indeed denied when originally asked about it by the Guardian.

    Guardian journalism is on the front line of defending the UK’s reputation as somewhere you can investigate and challenge the powerful without wrecking the life chances of yourself and your family. Kudos to them.

    That’s a story most people can understand.
    They can. It's an Only Fools And Horses plot, slightly scaled up.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,541
    edited November 24
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    In addition for the public sector how do we think teachers of subjects in over supply were paid a lot less than teacher of subjects more in demand would react. Does anyone really believe if for the sake of argument a maths teacher earned twice what a religous education teacher just because its hard to get enough maths teachers but lots of people who can teach RE that teachers unions wouldnt be up in arms? (for the avoidance of doubt I have no idea if re teachers are in short supply, I just needed to pick an example of a subject)
    As a matter of fact, there's been loads of schemes over the last 30 years to incentivise teachers in shortage subjects (maths, physics etc.) to enter and stay in the profession, resulting in such teachers earning more than those in 'non-shortage' subjects.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,144
    Pagan2 said:

    EPG said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    Most people in the state system don't pay extra for extra teaching, so probably, market outcomes would lead to fewer teachers and less teaching overall. I'd say it would be underinvestment due of misalignment between what benefits parents and kids, but that's subjective, of course, and many parents probably think some more basic level of education in most subjects is fine. (Looking at social attitudes, I don't think most parents really value a good maths or science education, and if they value an education in English, it is really basic stuff about spelling and old culture.)
    I was not referring to extra teaching, what I was saying its not a free market because the state sector doesn't have to worry about its customers leaving as they are mandated to attend by law
    They're not mandated. Private and home schooling.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    IanB2 said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    True, but don’t let your personal opinions distract from how far the Tories have sunk in many people’s views.
    Under Johnson and Truss.

    The can come back under Sunak.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,144

    IanB2 said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    True, but don’t let your personal opinions distract from how far the Tories have sunk in many people’s views.
    Under Johnson and Truss.

    The can come back under Sunak.
    And a tapir can appear in my back garden.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    All this assumes UNS.
    The regional polling suggests the Tory vote efficiency is unwinding. And the Labour inefficiency is too.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,144
    IanB2 said:

    pillsbury said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    Housing

    Europe

    Mone
    The Mone story does have the potential to capture the public imagination, and not in a good way for the Tories.

    We all remember our Leon’s predecessor on this site posting from his ‘holiday’ in Wales, whilst the rest of us were following the government instruction to stay at home.

    Mone posted multiple Insta photos from her yacht in the Med during the same period - a yacht it appears may have been bought using £millions of winnings, secretly passed to her through various offshore accounts, from PPE contracts awarded to a company in which her husband was involved, most of which proved to be poorly made and unsuitable for medical use. Which she never declared in her House of Lords declaration of financial interests, and indeed denied when originally asked about it by the Guardian.

    Guardian journalism is on the front line of defending the UK’s reputation as somewhere you can investigate and challenge the powerful without wrecking the life chances of yourself and your family. Kudos to them.

    That’s a story most people can understand.
    OTOH the tabloids and Tory media love her. Excuses to show photos of models in revealing lingerie. And lapping up her stuff about leaving Scotland and closing down her factory if it became independent.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,541
    On Baroness Mone, this story has been around for quite a while. As with much else of Boris's regime, what has done for her is the lying. She claimed way back "nothing to do with me". She's been caught. Lying.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    edited November 24
    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    EPG said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    Most people in the state system don't pay extra for extra teaching, so probably, market outcomes would lead to fewer teachers and less teaching overall. I'd say it would be underinvestment due of misalignment between what benefits parents and kids, but that's subjective, of course, and many parents probably think some more basic level of education in most subjects is fine. (Looking at social attitudes, I don't think most parents really value a good maths or science education, and if they value an education in English, it is really basic stuff about spelling and old culture.)
    I was not referring to extra teaching, what I was saying its not a free market because the state sector doesn't have to worry about its customers leaving as they are mandated to attend by law
    They're not mandated. Private and home schooling.
    Most cant afford private, most can't homeschool because both need to work or they cant be bothered. Yes technically not mandated but the number of people with children currently in state schools who could take up either option is small. Its only a choice if you can actually make the choice.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,144

    On Baroness Mone, this story has been around for quite a while. As with much else of Boris's regime, what has done for her is the lying. She claimed way back "nothing to do with me". She's been caught. Lying.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/23/michelle-mones-ppe-denials-v-what-we-know

    The Graun has a whole story category on the good baroness.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    Not sure removing the working time directive is a good look for the Tories . In this rush to remove anything EU related the right wing papers will be celebrating as workers rights are flushed down the toilet .

    WTD is a joke. I have never worked a job where I didn't have to waive it as a condition of employment.
    I was working at Goldman Sachs when the WTD came out, and HR kindly put a copy of a waiver on everyone's desk to sign.

    I did wonder what the consequences of not signing it would be.
    I asked my boss and he told me that it was the sort of question it was better not to ask!
    Sensible bosses know that having staff working excessive hours is not a recipe for long term success.

    Staying back to meet an important deadline once in a while is fine. Working way above contracted hours every week is quite another.

    Any workplace where that is the accepted culture is not one where I would want to work.
    Then stay away from teaching.
    Only in term time, in school holidays teachers are off while others are working.

    Plus lesson prep at home in the evening is not quite the same as doing an all nighter at a City firm to close a deal, though obviously you get paid more for doing the latter
    And yet there is no shortage of capable people who would like to be City lawyers, and an absolute dearth of people willing and able to teach maths and physics.

    It the free market were working, physics teachers should be paid way more, and City lawyers rather less.
    Teaching however is not a free market is why, a private firm has to pay to the going rate or have a shortage of staff and face losing customers, the public sector doesnt have enough teachers well it doesnt matter as they cant go out of business and by law you still need to send your kids to school regardless of if there are enough teachers. There is therefore no pressure to enhance pay to get sufficient in
    In addition for the public sector how do we think teachers of subjects in over supply were paid a lot less than teacher of subjects more in demand would react. Does anyone really believe if for the sake of argument a maths teacher earned twice what a religous education teacher just because its hard to get enough maths teachers but lots of people who can teach RE that teachers unions wouldnt be up in arms? (for the avoidance of doubt I have no idea if re teachers are in short supply, I just needed to pick an example of a subject)
    As a matter of fact, there's been loads of schemes over the last 30 years to incentivise teachers in shortage subjects (maths, physics etc.) to enter and stay in the profession, resulting in such teachers earning more than those in 'non-shortage' subjects.
    No surprise as STEM graduates are more likely to be preferred by big companies and City and tech firms than humanities subjects, so more if the latter become teachers than the former.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that what subject you are qualified to teach bears a great deal of relevance to what you are actually teaching.
    Increasingly it doesn't.
    There are no subjects whatsoever in which there is an oversupply anymore.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,144
    pillsbury said:

    IanB2 said:

    pillsbury said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    Housing

    Europe

    Mone
    The Mone story does have the potential to capture the public imagination, and not in a good way for the Tories.

    We all remember our Leon’s predecessor on this site posting from his ‘holiday’ in Wales, whilst the rest of us were following the government instruction to stay at home.

    Mone posted multiple Insta photos from her yacht in the Med during the same period - a yacht it appears may have been bought using £millions of winnings, secretly passed to her through various offshore accounts, from PPE contracts awarded to a company in which her husband was involved, most of which proved to be poorly made and unsuitable for medical use. Which she never declared in her House of Lords declaration of financial interests, and indeed denied when originally asked about it by the Guardian.

    Guardian journalism is on the front line of defending the UK’s reputation as somewhere you can investigate and challenge the powerful without wrecking the life chances of yourself and your family. Kudos to them.

    That’s a story most people can understand.
    They can. It's an Only Fools And Horses plot, slightly scaled up.
    Eau de Peckham never paid as well as this business seems to have done.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    pillsbury said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    Housing

    Europe

    Mone
    Cost of living
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    What kind of pass was that??
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,006
    Evening all :)

    I put the above numbers through Baxter and come up with a 78 majority, not 8 on the new boundaries. I don't know how @Leftiestats have come up with the numbers they have and I think it odd we accept their methodology without question or evidence. We are usually more thorough than that.

    Redfield & Wilton Blue Wall polling suggests nearly half of all voters would vote tactically including 63% of Labour and 61% of LD voters (from 2019). The tactical element is also likely to increase any Labour majority.

    The real telling statistic from R&W is only 53% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 are going to stay with the party while 24% will now vote Labour. It says something when Conservative vote intention is worse than the notoriously soft LD vote retention (56%). Labour is at 86%.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    It's a bit odd Kantar haven't produced a poll for 8 weeks. Anyone know why?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,595
    edited November 24
    I remember in the run up to GE2015 my boy Dave was told he needed a lead in the popular vote of 10% for a majority of 2.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758
    edited November 24
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    I put the above numbers through Baxter and come up with a 78 majority, not 8 on the new boundaries. I don't know how @Leftiestats have come up with the numbers they have and I think it odd we accept their methodology without question or evidence. We are usually more thorough than that.

    Redfield & Wilton Blue Wall polling suggests nearly half of all voters would vote tactically including 63% of Labour and 61% of LD voters (from 2019). The tactical element is also likely to increase any Labour majority.

    The real telling statistic from R&W is only 53% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 are going to stay with the party while 24% will now vote Labour. It says something when Conservative vote intention is worse than the notoriously soft LD vote retention (56%). Labour is at 86%.

    Re @Leftiestats, Labour will want people to believe it's going to be close, even if the party hierarchy think they're heading for a 500 seat majority.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    I put the above numbers through Baxter and come up with a 78 majority, not 8 on the new boundaries. I don't know how @Leftiestats have come up with the numbers they have and I think it odd we accept their methodology without question or evidence. We are usually more thorough than that.

    Redfield & Wilton Blue Wall polling suggests nearly half of all voters would vote tactically including 63% of Labour and 61% of LD voters (from 2019). The tactical element is also likely to increase any Labour majority.

    The real telling statistic from R&W is only 53% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 are going to stay with the party while 24% will now vote Labour. It says something when Conservative vote intention is worse than the notoriously soft LD vote retention (56%). Labour is at 86%.

    Re @Leftiestats. Labour will want people to believe it's going to be close, even if the party hierarchy think they're heading for a 500 seat majority.
    May had a 20% lead over corbyn led labour in the run up to 2017 remind me how that turned out for her?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Personally, I would have no problem with the scenario you outline and there are some ways it is done anyway. Extra bonuses, golden hellos, larger training bursaries.

    But the unions would of course go ballistic and demand top whack for everyone because that is their job. Just as they are on the railways right now.

    Incidentally RS is a shortage subject, covered partly by the large number of schools that don't meet the legal minimum hours for teaching it. I think it's only History and English that have an oversupply of teachers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,758

    I remember in the run up to GE2015 my boy Dave was told he needed a lead in the popular vote of 10% for a majority of 2.

    6.4% popular vote lead, shirley?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited November 24

    I remember in the run up to GE2015 my boy Dave needed a lead in the popular vote of 10% for a majority of 2.

    Indeed, plus at this stage in that parliament, ie in May 2008 about 2 years before the general election, Labour were on 23% with Yougov, 27% with ICM and 26% with Comres while the Conservatives were on 49%, 39% and 41% respectively. Not far off polling now with the party shares reversed.

    It ended up Labour 29% Cons 36%. Sunak will therefore be hoping for a similar recovery back to the government as Brown had, even if Starmer like Cameron probably ends up PM even without a majority

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,989
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that what subject you are qualified to teach bears a great deal of relevance to what you are actually teaching.
    Increasingly it doesn't.
    There are no subjects whatsoever in which there is an oversupply anymore.

    I did a philosophy degree.

    Due to a lack of demand for philosophy teachers in comprehensive schools, I was forced to go into investment banking.
    At least you were able to be philosophical about your predicament.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Personally, I would have no problem with the scenario you outline and there are some ways it is done anyway. Extra bonuses, golden hellos, larger training bursaries.

    But the unions would of course go ballistic and demand top whack for everyone because that is their job. Just as they are on the railways right now.

    Incidentally RS is a shortage subject, covered partly by the large number of schools that don't meet the legal minimum hours for teaching it. I think it's only History and English that have an oversupply of teachers.
    But my point proved the unions will demand pay parity in the public sector for teachers, one of the myriad reasons there can't be a free market for teachers. Personally I think RE should be dropped from the curriculum altogether but that is a different subject so to speak
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,006

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    I put the above numbers through Baxter and come up with a 78 majority, not 8 on the new boundaries. I don't know how @Leftiestats have come up with the numbers they have and I think it odd we accept their methodology without question or evidence. We are usually more thorough than that.

    Redfield & Wilton Blue Wall polling suggests nearly half of all voters would vote tactically including 63% of Labour and 61% of LD voters (from 2019). The tactical element is also likely to increase any Labour majority.

    The real telling statistic from R&W is only 53% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 are going to stay with the party while 24% will now vote Labour. It says something when Conservative vote intention is worse than the notoriously soft LD vote retention (56%). Labour is at 86%.

    Re @Leftiestats, Labour will want people to believe it's going to be close, even if the party hierarchy think they're heading for a 500 seat majority.
    Indeed, and it keeps the core support galvanised to turn out if you think it's going to be a close result.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited November 24
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Personally, I would have no problem with the scenario you outline and there are some ways it is done anyway. Extra bonuses, golden hellos, larger training bursaries.

    But the unions would of course go ballistic and demand top whack for everyone because that is their job. Just as they are on the railways right now.

    Incidentally RS is a shortage subject, covered partly by the large number of schools that don't meet the legal minimum hours for teaching it. I think it's only History and English that have an oversupply of teachers.
    But my point proved the unions will demand pay parity in the public sector for teachers, one of the myriad reasons there can't be a free market for teachers. Personally I think RE should be dropped from the curriculum altogether but that is a different subject so to speak
    They were just as strident in demanding it in the private sector. The difference is that the private sector is now much more weakly unionised so it is less noticeable.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Evening. Anyone see that bizarre incident at the end of the Ghana vs Portugal match?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Personally, I would have no problem with the scenario you outline and there are some ways it is done anyway. Extra bonuses, golden hellos, larger training bursaries.

    But the unions would of course go ballistic and demand top whack for everyone because that is their job. Just as they are on the railways right now.

    Incidentally RS is a shortage subject, covered partly by the large number of schools that don't meet the legal minimum hours for teaching it. I think it's only History and English that have an oversupply of teachers.
    But my point proved the unions will demand pay parity in the public sector for teachers, one of the myriad reasons there can't be a free market for teachers. Personally I think RE should be dropped from the curriculum altogether but that is a different subject so to speak
    They were just as strident in demanding it in the private sector. The difference is that the private sector is now much more weakly unionised so it is less noticeable.
    Unions increasingly only exist in the public sector, I have worked in the private sector mostly since the mid 80's as the disdain for unions has only increased since I started working
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited November 24
    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    I put the above numbers through Baxter and come up with a 78 majority, not 8 on the new boundaries. I don't know how @Leftiestats have come up with the numbers they have and I think it odd we accept their methodology without question or evidence. We are usually more thorough than that.

    Redfield & Wilton Blue Wall polling suggests nearly half of all voters would vote tactically including 63% of Labour and 61% of LD voters (from 2019). The tactical element is also likely to increase any Labour majority.

    The real telling statistic from R&W is only 53% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 are going to stay with the party while 24% will now vote Labour. It says something when Conservative vote intention is worse than the notoriously soft LD vote retention (56%). Labour is at 86%.

    Re @Leftiestats, Labour will want people to believe it's going to be close, even if the party hierarchy think they're heading for a 500 seat majority.
    Stats for lefties isn’t anything to do with mainstream Labour, it’s the comedy site BJO keeps quoting from.

    Where the header could be wrong is viewing it as two horse race - where in election 2015 and 2019 the non Labour opposition may have wanted them out of power, so sided with Tories. This one might be the opposite.

    That Kantor is a particularly disappointing one for the Tories. But to build your header and point you are making around the intel from only the most Conservative friendly pollster of all, is lacking a bit of subtlety.

    Mike is likely right overall though, the Lab majority could offer poor value considering their starting point we know, boundary changes we can guess, and very late swing back we cannot know depriving them majority. Betting wise offset on both nom and Lab maj seems sensible all the way up to election nights early hours.

    This Kantor, as with the Opinium will contribute to polling average, and with this Kantor being so poor for the Tories, average is about 27.5 in my book.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    I think I said a couple of weeks ago that pretty soon it would be 45/30.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    Andy_JS said:

    I think I said a couple of weeks ago that pretty soon it would be 45/30.

    But it’s not.

    Kantor last poll had the gap between the parties at 4% in the same week Redfield, Savanta, You gov and Delta poll had it at 14, 13, 17, 13.

    We don’t know where the Tories will be when starting gun is fired, but there’s more that can go wrong for them than right for them over the next two years, pushing their share even lower than 27/28 where it is now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358

    On Baroness Mone, this story has been around for quite a while. As with much else of Boris's regime, what has done for her is the lying. She claimed way back "nothing to do with me". She's been caught. Lying.

    While trousering millions from the state.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Personally, I would have no problem with the scenario you outline and there are some ways it is done anyway. Extra bonuses, golden hellos, larger training bursaries.

    But the unions would of course go ballistic and demand top whack for everyone because that is their job. Just as they are on the railways right now.

    Incidentally RS is a shortage subject, covered partly by the large number of schools that don't meet the legal minimum hours for teaching it. I think it's only History and English that have an oversupply of teachers.
    But my point proved the unions will demand pay parity in the public sector for teachers, one of the myriad reasons there can't be a free market for teachers. Personally I think RE should be dropped from the curriculum altogether but that is a different subject so to speak
    I would keep RE, though many schools now combine it with philosophy.

    Equal pay for all teachers whether 1st class STEM graduates or 2.2 social studies graduates and no matter how well they can control a class and get good results the same problem as same tuition fees for Economics at Cambridge or Maths at Oxford and Creative Arts at Man Met.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    edited November 24

    Andy_JS said:

    I think I said a couple of weeks ago that pretty soon it would be 45/30.

    But it’s not.

    Kantor last poll had the gap between the parties at 4% in the same week Redfield, Savanta, You gov and Delta poll had it at 14, 13, 17, 13.

    We don’t know where the Tories will be when starting gun is fired, but there’s more that can go wrong for them than right for them over the next two years, pushing their share even lower than 27/28 where it is now.
    Yes Mike doesn't strike me as someone to change position so I expect there will be two more years of telling us Labour aren't likely to win a majority, which will probably ignore the poll leads that exceed 25%.

    Except they are. Crushingly. Seat by seat stats tell a picture of a double pincer movement of anti-tory vote with Labour and LibDems defenestrating tory MPs. The tory MPs all know it, which is why they're getting out.

    The real question is the size of the Labour majority. I'm going for over 100.

    Forget precedence. These have been, and are, unprecedented times.
  • Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
    More likely than the school not caring about lack of staff is that the school, however much it cares, has not the wherewithal to do anything about it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,989
    edited November 24
    One of the pro-Putin Irish MEPs has spoken out against the protesters in Iran:

    @NaomiOhReally
    Irish MEP Mick Wallace has used his platform in the European Parliament to criticise protests in Iran.
    “Iran is under attack,” he said, decrying "propaganda" against the regime.
    Violent civil unrest "would not be tolerated anywhere" he told the chamber


    https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1595842272662282240
  • Pro-Boris extract from that book review:-

    And yet it’s actually the chapter on Ukraine that is the most revelatory, for it tells the story of when Boris got it right. He was decisive. He cut through the red tape. His issue knowledge was exceptional: one Foreign Office advisor recalled that when they studied the maps “Boris knew where everything was - the villages, historical monuments, it fitted into a particular part of his brain.” And for a man dismissed as “wanting to be liked”, he was unyielding in his diplomacy, convincing sceptical leaders that the only acceptable strategy was “Ukraine must win”.

    "We did change the course of international opinion," believed one insider. A former cabinet minister argued that only Boris could've pulled it off: "He took on the blob" of policy orthodoxy "and won, it was a shame he could not do it on other matters, too."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/fall-boris-johnson-sebastian-payne-review-three-ps-brought/ (£££)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited November 24

    Andy_JS said:

    I think I said a couple of weeks ago that pretty soon it would be 45/30.

    But it’s not.

    Kantor last poll had the gap between the parties at 4% in the same week Redfield, Savanta, You gov and Delta poll had it at 14, 13, 17, 13.

    We don’t know where the Tories will be when starting gun is fired, but there’s more that can go wrong for them than right for them over the next two years, pushing their share even lower than 27/28 where it is now.
    As I posted earlier at this stage before the 2010 GE ex chancellor PM Brown's Labour was polling almost exactly the same as ex chancellor Sunak's Tories are against a Leader of the Opposition who appealed to swing voters but failed to inspire his base taking on the challenge of shifting his party back to the centre ie Cameron/Starmer. Yet Labour recovered to 29% and the Tories fell below 40% and it was a hung parliament, even if Brown still lost he avoided the landslide defeat he was facing in 2008 polls
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    On topic. A 15% lead doesn't square with that majority in any independent scenario I have seen anywhere.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    One of the pro-Putin Irish MEPs has spoken out against the protesters in Iran:

    @NaomiOhReally
    Irish MEP Mick Wallace has used his platform in the European Parliament to criticise protests in Iran.
    “Iran is under attack,” he said, decrying "propaganda" against the regime.
    Violent civil unrest "would not be tolerated anywhere" he told the chamber


    https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1595842272662282240

    If that were the case, Ireland would today be part of the United Kingdom.
  • National Dog Show now being broadcast in USA from Philadelphia Kennel Club show;

    First group up - Terriers. Great assortment (and tribute to Britain & Ireland).

    My personal favorites at first sight: Welsh, Kerry Blue, Scottish and Norfolk terriers.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
    More likely than the school not caring about lack of staff is that the school, however much it cares, has not the wherewithal to do anything about it.
    No one at the school will lose their job because they aren't supplying enough teachers, nor the lea, nor the DofE, nor the politicians which is what I meant by don't care. Their job isnt on the line. A private company not being able to supply essential workers loses customers and eventually goes bust
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target while just 23% of Physics teachers and 28% of DT teachers have been recruited compared to the target.
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-target-for-new-trainee-teachers-could-be-missed-by-6k/#:~:text=Long-standing shortage subjects will,are likely to under-recruit.


    'Design and technology had the highest employment rate, with 83 per cent of those awarded QTS in work within 16 months.

    Religious education was second highest at 81 per cent and maths third at 80 per cent.

    By contrast, just 49 per cent of classics teachers were at work in state classrooms, and 64 per cent of newly-qualified PE teachers.'
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/initial-teacher-training-data-teaching-jobs-covid/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    #Wallpapergate, latest:

    In a speech at The Spectator's Parliamentarian awards, where [Hunt] won survivor of the year, he continued: "The massive disappointment was to discover that that wallpaper had started to peel off of its own accord and had actually been painted over by Liz Truss.

    "So I will be saying to my children: scratch over there, there’s gold in them walls'."

    His comments sparked an unlikely row over the renovation, as supporters of Ms Truss told The Times she did not even get round to any decorations in Downing Street during her fateful 49 days in power.

    However, others who worked on the campaign insisted she had repainted the walls of the flat, while there were separate claims there was not even any gold wallpaper in the first place.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
    More likely than the school not caring about lack of staff is that the school, however much it cares, has not the wherewithal to do anything about it.
    No one at the school will lose their job because they aren't supplying enough teachers, nor the lea, nor the DofE, nor the politicians which is what I meant by don't care. Their job isnt on the line. A private company not being able to supply essential workers loses customers and eventually goes bust
    If schools are unable to open due to staffing shortages I'm fairly sure even that limpet like twat Nick Gibb will get his marching orders.

    Along with Acland-Hood and the other drunken scum at the DfE.

    It will be too late for the nation's children by then of course, but they don't vote so this government doesn't care about them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target
    Its target being...?

    Double 20* is 40. Which is not many.

    *That's a guess, by the way, but I would be surprised if it were three figures.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 643
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
    More likely than the school not caring about lack of staff is that the school, however much it cares, has not the wherewithal to do anything about it.
    No one at the school will lose their job because they aren't supplying enough teachers, nor the lea, nor the DofE, nor the politicians which is what I meant by don't care. Their job isnt on the line. A private company not being able to supply essential workers loses customers and eventually goes bust
    If schools are unable to open due to staffing shortages I'm fairly sure even that limpet like twat Nick Gibb will get his marching orders.

    Along with Acland-Hood and the other drunken scum at the DfE.

    It will be too late for the nation's children by then of course, but they don't vote so this government doesn't care about them.
    Aside from that, all's well in education though?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    IanB2 said:

    #Wallpapergate, latest:

    In a speech at The Spectator's Parliamentarian awards, where [Hunt] won survivor of the year, he continued: "The massive disappointment was to discover that that wallpaper had started to peel off of its own accord and had actually been painted over by Liz Truss.

    "So I will be saying to my children: scratch over there, there’s gold in them walls'."

    His comments sparked an unlikely row over the renovation, as supporters of Ms Truss told The Times she did not even get round to any decorations in Downing Street during her fateful 49 days in power.

    However, others who worked on the campaign insisted she had repainted the walls of the flat, while there were separate claims there was not even any gold wallpaper in the first place.

    They should resolve the whole lot by asking Lord Hutton's estate if there is any whitewash left over.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    dixiedean said:

    On topic. A 15% lead doesn't square with that majority in any independent scenario I have seen anywhere.

    There was a 45/28 poll from Opinium fairly recently.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,989
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    #Wallpapergate, latest:

    In a speech at The Spectator's Parliamentarian awards, where [Hunt] won survivor of the year, he continued: "The massive disappointment was to discover that that wallpaper had started to peel off of its own accord and had actually been painted over by Liz Truss.

    "So I will be saying to my children: scratch over there, there’s gold in them walls'."

    His comments sparked an unlikely row over the renovation, as supporters of Ms Truss told The Times she did not even get round to any decorations in Downing Street during her fateful 49 days in power.

    However, others who worked on the campaign insisted she had repainted the walls of the flat, while there were separate claims there was not even any gold wallpaper in the first place.

    They should resolve the whole lot by asking Lord Hutton's estate if there is any whitewash left over.
    Wasn't the remainder sold to Shami Chakrabarti?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    ohnotnow said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
    More likely than the school not caring about lack of staff is that the school, however much it cares, has not the wherewithal to do anything about it.
    No one at the school will lose their job because they aren't supplying enough teachers, nor the lea, nor the DofE, nor the politicians which is what I meant by don't care. Their job isnt on the line. A private company not being able to supply essential workers loses customers and eventually goes bust
    If schools are unable to open due to staffing shortages I'm fairly sure even that limpet like twat Nick Gibb will get his marching orders.

    Along with Acland-Hood and the other drunken scum at the DfE.

    It will be too late for the nation's children by then of course, but they don't vote so this government doesn't care about them.
    Aside from that, all's well in education though?
    The exams are mostly meaningless drivel and the buildings are falling down through old age and neglect (except for the ones built under PFI which are mostly falling down through being badly-designed jerry-built rubbish).

    But other than those three problems everything's rosy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    #Wallpapergate, latest:

    In a speech at The Spectator's Parliamentarian awards, where [Hunt] won survivor of the year, he continued: "The massive disappointment was to discover that that wallpaper had started to peel off of its own accord and had actually been painted over by Liz Truss.

    "So I will be saying to my children: scratch over there, there’s gold in them walls'."

    His comments sparked an unlikely row over the renovation, as supporters of Ms Truss told The Times she did not even get round to any decorations in Downing Street during her fateful 49 days in power.

    However, others who worked on the campaign insisted she had repainted the walls of the flat, while there were separate claims there was not even any gold wallpaper in the first place.

    They should resolve the whole lot by asking Lord Hutton's estate if there is any whitewash left over.
    Wasn't the remainder sold to Shami Chakrabarti?
    That was a downright Liberty.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    edited November 24

    National Dog Show now being broadcast in USA from Philadelphia Kennel Club show;

    First group up - Terriers. Great assortment (and tribute to Britain & Ireland).

    My personal favorites at first sight: Welsh, Kerry Blue, Scottish and Norfolk terriers.

    No Wire-haired Foxy?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    National Dog Show now being broadcast in USA from Philadelphia Kennel Club show;

    First group up - Terriers. Great assortment (and tribute to Britain & Ireland).

    My personal favorites at first sight: Welsh, Kerry Blue, Scottish and Norfolk terriers.

    No Wire-haired Foxy?
    There's Leicester see of that breed.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    edited November 24
    Much as I despised the x Lab pol in y SNP pol’s pocket wankery, and Labour letting it turn them into quivering jellies, it would be karmically hilarious if Labour gained a majority because English voters felt they had to back them enough to stop them needing the SNP.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Labour lead at the next election will not be 15%. Labour majority is a mirage.

    Starmer is no Tony Blair.

    He's not even a Harold Wilson.

    True, but don’t let your personal opinions distract from how far the Tories have sunk in many people’s views.
    Under Johnson and Truss.

    The can come back under Sunak.
    And a tapir can appear in my back garden.
    Next from Rishi, free tapirs.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    Nigelb said:

    On Baroness Mone, this story has been around for quite a while. As with much else of Boris's regime, what has done for her is the lying. She claimed way back "nothing to do with me". She's been caught. Lying.

    While trousering millions from the state.
    Mone, Mone, Mone,
    must be funny,
    in the rich man's world.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047

    One of the pro-Putin Irish MEPs has spoken out against the protesters in Iran:

    @NaomiOhReally
    Irish MEP Mick Wallace has used his platform in the European Parliament to criticise protests in Iran.
    “Iran is under attack,” he said, decrying "propaganda" against the regime.
    Violent civil unrest "would not be tolerated anywhere" he told the chamber


    https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1595842272662282240

    Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,006
    Kantar and Opinium both have Labour at 45% while other polling organisations have Labour closer to or above 50% - that's the fundamental difference. The Conservative vote share hovers in the high 20s and the fragmented "third" vote (LDs, Greens, SNP, Reform combined at just above 20%) means it's hard to try to compare 2022/23 with 2008/09.

    The role any anti-Conservative tactical voting isn't clear but the R&W Blue Wall polling shows it exists and as in 1997 that may well accentuate the level of Conservative losses beyond UNS.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited November 24
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target
    Its target being...?

    Double 20* is 40. Which is not many.

    *That's a guess, by the way, but I would be surprised if it were three figures.
    Postgraduate ITT applications in History, Drama, PE and Primary teaching were all above target this year, as well as Classics
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/teacher-targets-for-popular-subjects-set-to-be-missed-as-recruitment-challenges-re-emerge/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target
    Its target being...?

    Double 20* is 40. Which is not many.

    *That's a guess, by the way, but I would be surprised if it were three figures.
    Postgraduate ITT applications in History, Drama, PE and Primary teaching were all above target this year, as well as Classics
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/teacher-targets-for-popular-subjects-set-to-be-missed-as-recruitment-challenges-re-emerge/
    Irrelevant. What was the actual, physical number of classics trainees?

    (By the way, due to the impending closure of around half of teacher training courses, everything is going to be below target next year.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    What a goal!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic. A 15% lead doesn't square with that majority in any independent scenario I have seen anywhere.

    There was a 45/28 poll from Opinium fairly recently.
    You know perfectly well Opinium apply "swing back" rather than leaving the figures as a snapshot.

    Picking and choosing polls to bolster your team is normally the work of another poster. Has that poster hacked your account?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    Regardless of what the polls say - and I'm certainly not ramping for the Tory Party here, I'd be thrilled if it burned - I don't think it likely that they'll poll under a third of the vote at the next election. Even John Major in 1997 managed over 30%, the median age of the electorate has increased since then, and Sunak still has eighteen months (I reckon he goes to the country after the Spring '24 budget) to hose down pensioners with more money and friendly policy offerings, in order to persuade as much as possible of the grey vote not to defect.

    This doesn't mean that Labour is incapable of winning outright, but I do think it makes a Hung Parliament the most probable outcome.
  • ydoethur said:

    ohnotnow said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Which was my point about why its not a free market, the state sector has a captive audience which can't easily move schools because they have a dearth of maths teachers. It was in response to a comment about if there was a free market.

    A company not able to service its customers due to lack of staff loses them to companies who will pay better so does have those staff. A school that can't service its customers due to lack of staff doesn't really care because they have no where else to go. Not the schools fault alone either goes all the way up
    More likely than the school not caring about lack of staff is that the school, however much it cares, has not the wherewithal to do anything about it.
    No one at the school will lose their job because they aren't supplying enough teachers, nor the lea, nor the DofE, nor the politicians which is what I meant by don't care. Their job isnt on the line. A private company not being able to supply essential workers loses customers and eventually goes bust
    If schools are unable to open due to staffing shortages I'm fairly sure even that limpet like twat Nick Gibb will get his marching orders.

    Along with Acland-Hood and the other drunken scum at the DfE.

    It will be too late for the nation's children by then of course, but they don't vote so this government doesn't care about them.
    Aside from that, all's well in education though?
    The exams are mostly meaningless drivel and the buildings are falling down through old age and neglect (except for the ones built under PFI which are mostly falling down through being badly-designed jerry-built rubbish).

    But other than those three problems everything's rosy.
    To be fair, I had a nice day today, covering some sixth form science.

    Strip away all the nonsense and ignore the things falling apart all around, and the guts of teaching are still tremendous fun.

    Unfortunately, on its own that's not enough to recruit and retain, or keep they system going.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    DavidL said:

    What a goal!

    Brazil looking the real deal in this second half.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,292
    Sorry but I simply don't believe a 15 pt lead for Labour would only produce a tiny majority. That model must be flawed in some way.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,483
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target while just 23% of Physics teachers and 28% of DT teachers have been recruited compared to the target.
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-target-for-new-trainee-teachers-could-be-missed-by-6k/#:~:text=Long-standing shortage subjects will,are likely to under-recruit.


    'Design and technology had the highest employment rate, with 83 per cent of those awarded QTS in work within 16 months.

    Religious education was second highest at 81 per cent and maths third at 80 per cent.

    By contrast, just 49 per cent of classics teachers were at work in state classrooms, and 64 per cent of newly-qualified PE teachers.'
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/initial-teacher-training-data-teaching-jobs-covid/
    just 49 per cent of classics teachers were at work in state classroom

    I wonder where they could be working...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target while just 23% of Physics teachers and 28% of DT teachers have been recruited compared to the target.
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-target-for-new-trainee-teachers-could-be-missed-by-6k/#:~:text=Long-standing shortage subjects will,are likely to under-recruit.


    'Design and technology had the highest employment rate, with 83 per cent of those awarded QTS in work within 16 months.

    Religious education was second highest at 81 per cent and maths third at 80 per cent.

    By contrast, just 49 per cent of classics teachers were at work in state classrooms, and 64 per cent of newly-qualified PE teachers.'
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/initial-teacher-training-data-teaching-jobs-covid/
    just 49 per cent of classics teachers were at work in state classroom

    I wonder where they could be working...
    Downing Street?
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target
    Its target being...?

    Double 20* is 40. Which is not many.

    *That's a guess, by the way, but I would be surprised if it were three figures.
    Postgraduate ITT applications in History, Drama, PE and Primary teaching were all above target this year, as well as Classics
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/teacher-targets-for-popular-subjects-set-to-be-missed-as-recruitment-challenges-re-emerge/
    Irrelevant. What was the actual, physical number of classics trainees?

    (By the way, due to the impending closure of around half of teacher training courses, everything is going to be below target next year.)
    71 recruited against a target of 28.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    @ydoethur

    As an ex teacher I ask you an opinion

    How would teachers react under the following circumstances

    Teacher of subject x where there is 1 applicant per 3 available posts get paid 70K a year

    Teacher of subject y where there are 1 applicants per post gets paid 40k a year

    Teacher of subject z where there are 3 applicants per post get paid 28k a year

    Assuming all have similar number of years teaching.

    My suspicion is that the unions would go ballistic and demand all get the top rate. But the situation above is what you would get if it was a true free market and parents could move pupils to schools who did source enough of relevant subject teachers from ones unwilling to pay the going rate

    Schools don't have the budgets to fund pay as it is. So unless the government ponies up a lot of extra cash via taxation, then your scenario is entirely moot.
    Teacher X gets £50k a year (Probably Maths or Science, Business or IT and Tech)

    Teacher Y gets £35k a year (Probably languages or RS or Geography)

    Teacher Z gets £20k a year more realistic (Probably History or English or PE or Drama, though lots of Historians end up Headteachers so could in time end up on more than even Teacher X)
    You seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension. There is no oversupply in any subject whatsoever. Certainly not up here there isn't.
    There just isn't any pool of qualified teachers unable to find work. Which is why we can't get supply.
    I'm being bombarded with emails from my own agency, who I currently work for, with offer of work after offer of work.
    They rarely specify subject. They just can't be that choosy anymore.
    So nobody's pay in any subject would be falling.
    That is not correct, Classics for instance has double the number of trainees compared to its target
    Its target being...?

    Double 20* is 40. Which is not many.

    *That's a guess, by the way, but I would be surprised if it were three figures.
    Postgraduate ITT applications in History, Drama, PE and Primary teaching were all above target this year, as well as Classics
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/teacher-targets-for-popular-subjects-set-to-be-missed-as-recruitment-challenges-re-emerge/
    Irrelevant. What was the actual, physical number of classics trainees?

    (By the way, due to the impending closure of around half of teacher training courses, everything is going to be below target next year.)
    71 recruited against a target of 28.
    So I was not far out.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Pop of UK increased by 504,000 in a year, almost 10% of the population of Scotland.
This discussion has been closed.