I would think a likely outcome, come the likely election in early summer 24 would result in a Lab majority of 40-50 seats. The Libs will pick off some Tory seats in areas they've had pre 2010 (with a few surprises here and there, probably in the South & South West). Overall the Tories on that basis will be down to single numbers of members in Wales, Scotland and in London (where they'll probably bottom out to very few). Whatever eventually happens it'll be the most interesting election for some years.
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
I would think a likely outcome, come the likely election in early summer 24 would result in a Lab majority of 40-50 seats. The Libs will pick off some Tory seats in areas they've had pre 2010 (with a few surprises here and there, probably in the South & South West). Overall the Tories on that basis will be down to single numbers of members in Wales, Scotland and in London (where they'll probably bottom out to very few). Whatever eventually happens it'll be the most interesting election for some years.
A Labour majority of 40 seats requires Labour to gain around 141 seats.
Those are the only times since 1928 a party has gained more than 100 seats at a general election, and you may notice three of them were before the end of the Second World War.
So it's not impossible, but it is very, very hard. I do not think we should be optimistic about a Labour majority. Labour short by 20 however is both realistic and to be honest, should be their minimum target.
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
Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
Ireland has some seriously bonkers MEPs and TDs. (PR helps, of course.). Usually they are bonkers in a fairly harmless, entertaining way, but sometimes not.
Pop of UK increased by 504,000 in a year, almost 10% of the population of Scotland.
I believe that's the net inward migration figure you're quoting. The actual population increase will almost certainly be greater than that - in the most recently published set of mid-year population estimates, which are still currently those for mid-2020, births outnumbered deaths despite a huge wave of Covid fatalities.
The latest set of immigration figures is very unusual for a combination of reasons that have been covered extensively in the press, but regardless of that the same long-term trend continues: out of control population growth, which is just one more factor feeding into the tremendous houses-as-investments problem that's working synergistically with the steady increase in the numbers of elderly people (and consequent prioritisation of their interests) to wreck the economy.
The actual population increase for the year, taking into account natural growth as well as immigration, could easily be 650,000. The country has shown itself to be entirely incapable of constructing houses on anything like the scale needed to cope with this kind of growth. And so the relentless increase in the percentage of the nation's wealth, and the proportion of workers' wages, that ends up being sunk into bricks and mortar rather than productive activity continues unchecked.
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
Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
Ireland has some seriously bonkers MEPs and TDs. (PR helps, of course.). Usually they are bonkers in a fairly harmless, entertaining way, but sometimes not.
Closer then to the UK than either country might want to consider.
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
Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
Ireland has some seriously bonkers MEPs and TDs. (PR helps, of course.). Usually they are bonkers in a fairly harmless, entertaining way, but sometimes not.
Closer then to the UK than either country might want to consider.
Not really. We can't compete with, say, the Healy-Rae family.
Not even if we play our best cards, such as Rees-Mogg.
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.
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
Good point, and Sunak is a vastly more impressive operative than Cameron, although Sunak can't temp the voters with an "in, out" EU Referendum. Or can he....?
Pretty pathetic relying on Belgium to keep our nuclear deterrent operational.
Belgium and the UK have become embroiled in a row after the Belgian government blocked the export of technology that is critical for maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, despite both countries being Nato allies https://mobile.twitter.com/thetimes/status/1595839996824469504
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.
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
Pretty pathetic relying on Belgium to keep our nuclear deterrent operational.
Belgium and the UK have become embroiled in a row after the Belgian government blocked the export of technology that is critical for maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, despite both countries being Nato allies https://mobile.twitter.com/thetimes/status/1595839996824469504
That was the kind of return Putin was looking for from his investment.
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.
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
Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
Ireland has some seriously bonkers MEPs and TDs. (PR helps, of course.). Usually they are bonkers in a fairly harmless, entertaining way, but sometimes not.
Closer then to the UK than either country might want to consider.
Not really. We can't compete with, say, the Healy-Rae family.
Not even if we play our best cards, such as Rees-Mogg.
Didn't he move his business to Dublin already? Or am I misremembering?
Pretty pathetic relying on Belgium to keep our nuclear deterrent operational.
Belgium and the UK have become embroiled in a row after the Belgian government blocked the export of technology that is critical for maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, despite both countries being Nato allies https://mobile.twitter.com/thetimes/status/1595839996824469504
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.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions* which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
*two thirds of all training providers, I might add, and the survivors were selected at random on the basis that inspection reports grading failed providers as 'outstanding' were completely meaningless.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time and energy arguing with Himself. Nobody has ever got him to deal with reality yet and I'm too tired after yet another day trying to wrestle with probate to do so.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
Neither of those institutions is running it, the 4 bodies that make up the School Led Development Trust that are leading the NIT are the Harris Federation, Outwood Grange Academies Trust, Oasis Community Learning and Star Academies. The 2 in question may provide some advice, they are not running it.
There are masses of associate partners, including those 2, neither are running it. Even if you wish to continue your usual personal attacks (and I never went to Stowe)
Looks from the thread like StatsForLefties own seat calculation on the Kantar figures.
Put these polling numbers in EC and you get Labour majority 78, both on 2019.and 2023 boundaries.
Somebody is wrong.
Hat tip to Stodge - of course you guys had it covered
Aren't Stats For Lefties the "Any other leader (but especially Magic Grandpa) would be 20/30/40 points ahead, unlike Treacherous Old Starmer" people?
Wait till they get proved right about him not being a terrorist sympathiser, crow, realise the only plausible explanation that makes sense for that is that he was Blighty's finest, spying on the RA for Fatcha, and that the Labour party was compromised by rogue security services.*
Outwood Grange. Know a longstanding ex-teacher of many years and a parent of two kids who went there. (Different people). It doesn't fill me with confidence tbh.
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
Following a link from here gave me a shiny new Twitter pop-up urging that notifications be turned on. Elon's masterplan in action. Still getting the sign-in pop-up on another page though.
(The most common color coding, red for Republicans, blue for Democrats, is much more recent; as far as I know it was started by broadcasters in the 2000 election.
Earlier scholars typically used the reverse color coding, which is more consistent with international practice. I have a sneaking suspicion that the broadcasters because they didn't want the Democrats associated with the Communist Party. Stubborn folks, for instance Dave Leip (and I) continue to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. https://uselectionatlas.org/ )
Correction: tweet says that Farage's party "will stand a full set of candidates" - am guessing he does NOT have a full house of his horrors at present.
(The most common color coding, red for Republicans, blue for Democrats, is much more recent; as far as I know it was started by broadcasters in the 2000 election.
Earlier scholars typically used the reverse color coding, which is more consistent with international practice. I have a sneaking suspicion that the broadcasters because they didn't want the Democrats associated with the Communist Party. Stubborn folks, for instance Dave Leip (and I) continue to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. https://uselectionatlas.org/ )
According to this 1-minute video, colours were standardised in 2000 (Gore vs Bush) but before that each network did its own thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBgQjHIPY8
The actual population increase for the year, taking into account natural growth as well as immigration, could easily be 650,000. The country has shown itself to be entirely incapable of constructing houses on anything like the scale needed to cope with this kind of growth.
Not incapable, just unwilling. The housing crisis is a political problem. Voters are disproportionately old homeowners who know what they're doing and think of growth as a nuisance, while the young who suffer are much less likely to vote and don't have the experience to realise things can be different and rarely realise how and how badly they're being screwed.
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
No it isn’t.
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.
In the past some state Democratic parties used the rooster as a symbol. The Libertarians haven't settled on one animal, but have used both penguins and porcupines.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
There are masses of associate partners, including those 2, neither are running it. Even if you wish to continue your usual personal attacks (and I never went to Stowe)
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
No it isn’t.
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.
John Bryant - It's been a while since I looked at the numbers, but that UK record is quite similar to the House of Representatives record in the US -- since World War II. Almost always, the party that wins a majority of the popular vote wins a majority in the House.
So, @Keir_Starmer accepts 'Politician of the Year' from a magazine which:
🤮 Praised Greek neo-Nazis 🤮 Argued "there is not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Tory party" 🤮 Published an article entitled 'In praise of the Wehrmacht' 🤮 Argued Black people have lower IQs"
The actual population increase for the year, taking into account natural growth as well as immigration, could easily be 650,000. The country has shown itself to be entirely incapable of constructing houses on anything like the scale needed to cope with this kind of growth.
Not incapable, just unwilling. The housing crisis is a political problem. Voters are disproportionately old homeowners who know what they're doing and think of growth as a nuisance, while the young who suffer are much less likely to vote and don't have the experience to realise things can be different and rarely realise how and how badly they're being screwed.
Nope - lots of young people fighting "development". I know some who moan about the cost of housing, while fighting any attempt to build an housing.
The trick to understanding this stuff is to try and see it from the point of view of the participants.
1) The planners like the idea of a large estate of houses, planned and rolled out, rather than piecemeal development 2) You bought a house in a nice village. Now they want to fill your horizon with thousands of shit boxes. Because they will gradually build them, this will fuck your ability to sell (if you need to) for years. And guarantee congestion during and after construction. 3) The developers like building big estates, gradually. This is because you can guarantee a steady amount of work for the sub contractors over a fair period and thus get good prices. The land costs a fucking fortune and density is the name of the game. So you need to build cheap, small, shitty boxes.
etc etc
Until you look at the whole problem, you won't get a solution - Just push the problem around.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
There are masses of associate partners, including those 2, neither are running it. Even if you wish to continue your usual personal attacks (and I never went to Stowe)
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
No it isn’t.
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.
2005 happened because of rampant tactical voting.
Possibly. But also because the Tories made an absolute pig’s ear of the review that decided the boundaries that were in effect for the GEs of 1997, 2001 and 2005.
My point is that if Labour at the next GE wins the popular vote by 45-30, or anything like it, it needn’t worry about getting a majority that will be a lot higher than the 8 suggested in the header. The seats will come from somewhere, almost certainly including some surprise results in constituencies that no one currently thinks of as serious Labour prospects.
The actual population increase for the year, taking into account natural growth as well as immigration, could easily be 650,000. The country has shown itself to be entirely incapable of constructing houses on anything like the scale needed to cope with this kind of growth.
Not incapable, just unwilling. The housing crisis is a political problem. Voters are disproportionately old homeowners who know what they're doing and think of growth as a nuisance, while the young who suffer are much less likely to vote and don't have the experience to realise things can be different and rarely realise how and how badly they're being screwed.
Growth is more than a nuisance, it is species suicide. It really is. Not that I expect anyone to moderate their behaviour or lifestyle to reflect the fact, but it is a fact. Land and fresh water and mineable minerals is finite resources.
Belgium blocked the delivery of a milling machine to Ukraine, as it was intended to increase Ukraine's production capacity for ammunition. They also blocked the delivery of an isostatic press to the UK. The latter gets the headlines as London retaliates. https://mobile.twitter.com/YvesDeVos1/status/1595888794955567104
Note Luxembourg, which doesn't even have a real army, has sent more military help to Ukraine than has Belgium.
Pretty pathetic relying on Belgium to keep our nuclear deterrent operational.
Belgium and the UK have become embroiled in a row after the Belgian government blocked the export of technology that is critical for maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, despite both countries being Nato allies https://mobile.twitter.com/thetimes/status/1595839996824469504
TAKE BACK CONTROL
I wouldn't have thought that the Belgians being idiots was a very good argument for rejoining their club. Have the Russians got some assets in their Green Party? Wouldn't be a surprise.
I understand the 'technology' in question is an isostatic press, which is used to make a variety of metal or ceramic items, so it isn't quite clear what this one might be being used for.
I note the Belgians also blocked the sale of a milling machine to Ukraine as the Ukrainians were going to use it to make ammunition.
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
Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
Wallace is a gobshite.
But, if Sinn Fein we’re to win the next Irish election, one can imagine that this is what Irish foreign policy would look like.
I'm no defender of Sinn Fein - their behaviour on internal dissent is worryingly anti-democratic - but there's no way Mary Lou would make the mistake of being on the wrong side of a popular anti-authoritarian movement as in Iran.
Wallace and his fellow travellers say similarly wrong-headed nonsense about Ukraine, but Mary Lou knows that the popular sentiment in Ireland is pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia.
It's interesting how Thanksgiving has had almost no impact in the UK as an occasion. Most other things from America like Halloween have become popular over here.
So, @Keir_Starmer accepts 'Politician of the Year' from a magazine which:
🤮 Praised Greek neo-Nazis 🤮 Argued "there is not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Tory party" 🤮 Published an article entitled 'In praise of the Wehrmacht' 🤮 Argued Black people have lower IQs"
And Owen writes for a paper that was founded on the back of slave trade....called Abraham Lincoln abhorrent for putting an end to it..... and tax dodgers efficiency experts.....
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
Some strange bedfellows have crawled out the shadows this year
Ireland has some seriously bonkers MEPs and TDs. (PR helps, of course.). Usually they are bonkers in a fairly harmless, entertaining way, but sometimes not.
Closer then to the UK than either country might want to consider.
Not really. We can't compete with, say, the Healy-Rae family.
Not even if we play our best cards, such as Rees-Mogg.
The Healy-Raes topped the poll in Kerry with a combined 32.6% of the first preference vote. The trending in the same direction Michael Collins also topped the poll in Cork South-West.
I'm fairly confident these sort of independents would still prosper if Ireland used FPTP, because there's more of the clientelism in Irish politics that leads to these people winning support. I'd go as far as to say that STV makes it harder for these candidates, because they have to win votes across a larger geographical area, and can struggle to win transfer votes. The Healy-Raes would, alas, easily win a FPTP constituency in their core area.
I think Michael Collins is probably the only reason why I'd give lower preference votes to FF and FG, but when you talk to people the only thing they have to say about him is how great it was that he organised the eye operation bus trips to Belfast. If Irish government worked better, so people weren't so reliant on what local politicians could do for them as a favour, then it would undercut the source of support for these sorts of characters.
I realise this is tantamount to heresy, but I think that voting systems are much less deterministic of political culture then we often think in our debates over FPTP, PR, etc. There are bigger factors at play.
In Ireland the importance of the client vote is a legacy of civil war politics, and the political division between the two sides in the civil war was based on personal relationships, rather than differences in ideology. So it wasn't policy debates that won votes, but whether the local politician delivered for their client vote.
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
No it isn’t.
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.
2005 happened because of rampant tactical voting.
Possibly. But also because the Tories made an absolute pig’s ear of the review that decided the boundaries that were in effect for the GEs of 1997, 2001 and 2005.
My point is that if Labour at the next GE wins the popular vote by 45-30, or anything like it, it needn’t worry about getting a majority that will be a lot higher than the 8 suggested in the header. The seats will come from somewhere, almost certainly including some surprise results in constituencies that no one currently thinks of as serious Labour prospects.
"Foreign students may be barred from Britain unless they win a place at a top university under Rishi Sunak’s plans to curb record immigration.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
Given how dangerous the situation is, it seems somewhat irresponsible of the BBC journalist to be putting players on the spot like that. Its not the same as a western journalist asking for instance Hugo Lloris about rainbow armbands (although again I am not sure they should be, its for them to volunteer their opinion on non-footballing matters, rather than trying to bounce them into being embarrassed).
Given how dangerous the situation is, it seems somewhat irresponsible of the BBC journalist to be putting players on the spot like that. Its not the same as a western journalist asking for instance Hugo Lloris about rainbow armbands (although again I am not sure they should be, its for them to volunteer their opinion on non-footballing matters, rather than trying to bounce them into being embarrassed).
Who cares what happens to they player? Just so long as the journalist gets their story.
Given how dangerous the situation is, it seems somewhat irresponsible of the BBC journalist to be putting players on the spot like that. Its not the same as a western journalist asking for instance Hugo Lloris about rainbow armbands (although again I am not sure they should be, its for them to volunteer their opinion on non-footballing matters, rather than trying to bounce them into being embarrassed).
Who cares what happens to they player? Just so long as the journalist gets their story.
"Foreign students may be barred from Britain unless they win a place at a top university under Rishi Sunak’s plans to curb record immigration.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
There is the odd situation where a student can pay £20k to a university, but his children will cost £15k to educate that year. Doesn't matter to the university - they don't pay the £15k, the taxpayer does. A sort of moral hazard.
Of course, if the student is going to stay in the UK afterward, and his children stay here permanently, the country probably wins. If it's just three years of free education and English practice for the kids, and then they go back home, not so much.
"Foreign students may be barred from Britain unless they win a place at a top university under Rishi Sunak’s plans to curb record immigration.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
There is the odd situation where a student can pay £20k to a university, but his children will cost £15k to educate that year. Doesn't matter to the university - they don't pay the £15k, the taxpayer does. A sort of moral hazard.
Of course, if the student is going to stay in the UK afterward, and his children stay here permanently, the country probably wins. If it's just three years of free education and English practice for the kids, and then they go back home, not so much.
Student can work 18 hours per week in term time, full time in holidays, and spouse work full time, as I understand the rules.
"Foreign students may be barred from Britain unless they win a place at a top university under Rishi Sunak’s plans to curb record immigration.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
There is the odd situation where a student can pay £20k to a university, but his children will cost £15k to educate that year. Doesn't matter to the university - they don't pay the £15k, the taxpayer does. A sort of moral hazard.
Of course, if the student is going to stay in the UK afterward, and his children stay here permanently, the country probably wins. If it's just three years of free education and English practice for the kids, and then they go back home, not so much.
Student can work 18 hours per week in term time, full time in holidays, and spouse work full time, as I understand the rules.
Most students with children will be masters or doctoral students though - no holidays or 18 hours for them, one would hope.
John Bryant - It's been a while since I looked at the numbers, but that UK record is quite similar to the House of Representatives record in the US -- since World War II. Almost always, the party that wins a majority of the popular vote wins a majority in the House.
Clearly you haven’t looked at the numbers if you think any of our parties regularly (or, in recent times, ever) wins a majority of the vote.
Strangely. Just Baxtered a 42-31. And that gives a majority of 10. I expect it to be more. Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are. So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
A lot of casual observers don’t realise how much potential unfairness is already baked into our crooked voting system. It’s a miracle we haven’t had another of those elections where the second most supported party actually gets the most seats.
No it isn’t.
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.
Despite the apparently analytical nature of your response, your conclusion rests entirely upon your assumptions.
The “test” assumes that it is legitimate for a party that has only 40% support and only a minimum 3% lead over its rival to assume majority power. That is a highly contestable assertion.
Second, even by your own yardstick you still concede a system failure rate of 8%, which in any other walk of life would be considered a system unfit for purpose.
Third, the system has other purposes in addition to selecting a government. Even if you dismiss the question of representation, there is still the question of how the government is held to account, and by whom. 1983 is clearly a further failure of the system in handing this task almost entirely to the Labour Party despite the vote share it received being similar to that of the hugely underrepresented Alliance parties.
I’d also suggest that the later election when UKIP received a significant vote without any representation at all is a further instance of failure.
"Foreign students may be barred from Britain unless they win a place at a top university under Rishi Sunak’s plans to curb record immigration.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
There is the odd situation where a student can pay £20k to a university, but his children will cost £15k to educate that year. Doesn't matter to the university - they don't pay the £15k, the taxpayer does. A sort of moral hazard.
Of course, if the student is going to stay in the UK afterward, and his children stay here permanently, the country probably wins. If it's just three years of free education and English practice for the kids, and then they go back home, not so much.
You think the government pay £15,000 a year on each child’s education?!!!
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
Neither of those institutions is running it, the 4 bodies that make up the School Led Development Trust that are leading the NIT are the Harris Federation, Outwood Grange Academies Trust, Oasis Community Learning and Star Academies. The 2 in question may provide some advice, they are not running it.
There are masses of associate partners, including those 2, neither are running it. Even if you wish to continue your usual personal attacks (and I never went to Stowe)
Hyufd, I am afraid you are still incorrect. The two I name are leading it, those other four are associates with training provided by them. Or at least, they would be if the DfE were not trying to shut them down.
When you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t arrogantly presume you’re more intelligent than the rest of us because you were at Warwick. You aren’t.
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.
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.)
Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
The government is starting its National Institute of Teaching, if some institutions failed Dept of Education accreditation that is their fault
In case you are unaware of this, the institutions which failed the DfE accreditation process included *both* institutions involved in the nascent National Institute of Teaching.
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
Neither of those institutions is running it, the 4 bodies that make up the School Led Development Trust that are leading the NIT are the Harris Federation, Outwood Grange Academies Trust, Oasis Community Learning and Star Academies. The 2 in question may provide some advice, they are not running it.
There are masses of associate partners, including those 2, neither are running it. Even if you wish to continue your usual personal attacks (and I never went to Stowe)
Hyufd, I am afraid you are still incorrect. The two I name are leading it, those other four are associates with training provided by them. Or at least, they would be if the DfE were not trying to shut them down.
When you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t arrogantly presume you’re more intelligent than the rest of us because you were at Warwick. You aren’t.
No they aren't leading it, it is the 4 are named who support and run each campus. Newcastle University for example as the article makes clear is only an associate partner.
I never mentioned once anything about being more intelligent than anybody else, however the facts above still stand
"Foreign students may be barred from Britain unless they win a place at a top university under Rishi Sunak’s plans to curb record immigration.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
There is the odd situation where a student can pay £20k to a university, but his children will cost £15k to educate that year. Doesn't matter to the university - they don't pay the £15k, the taxpayer does. A sort of moral hazard.
Of course, if the student is going to stay in the UK afterward, and his children stay here permanently, the country probably wins. If it's just three years of free education and English practice for the kids, and then they go back home, not so much.
You think the government pay £15,000 a year on each child’s education?!!!
Comments
Democrats should nominate a Republican successor to Pelosi
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3748337-democrats-should-nominate-a-republican-successor-to-pelosi/
But, if Sinn Fein we’re to win the next Irish election, one can imagine that this is what Irish foreign policy would look like.
Attlee gained 239. Baldwin gained 210. Blair gained 148. Macdonald gained 136. Cameron gained 113.
Those are the only times since 1928 a party has gained more than 100 seats at a general election, and you may notice three of them were before the end of the Second World War.
So it's not impossible, but it is very, very hard. I do not think we should be optimistic about a Labour majority. Labour short by 20 however is both realistic and to be honest, should be their minimum target.
And welcome.
The latest set of immigration figures is very unusual for a combination of reasons that have been covered extensively in the press, but regardless of that the same long-term trend continues: out of control population growth, which is just one more factor feeding into the tremendous houses-as-investments problem that's working synergistically with the steady increase in the numbers of elderly people (and consequent prioritisation of their interests) to wreck the economy.
The actual population increase for the year, taking into account natural growth as well as immigration, could easily be 650,000. The country has shown itself to be entirely incapable of constructing houses on anything like the scale needed to cope with this kind of growth. And so the relentless increase in the percentage of the nation's wealth, and the proportion of workers' wages, that ends up being sunk into bricks and mortar rather than productive activity continues unchecked.
Not even if we play our best cards, such as Rees-Mogg.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216
https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1595674563295297536
The pussy-waxers certainly stepped things up in the second half.
I expect it to be more.
Polling evidence suggests Sunak is holding up in London, but cratering elsewhere. Particularly the North and Midlands, which is where the marginals are.
So Labour won't be mainly piling up those extra votes in already safe seats.
Belgium and the UK have become embroiled in a row after the Belgian government blocked the export of technology that is critical for maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, despite both countries being Nato allies
https://mobile.twitter.com/thetimes/status/1595839996824469504
TAKE BACK CONTROLBTW this is a really good read - but alas only if you have access.
https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article-abstract/135/572/127/5812601?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
If you are as ignorant as you are arrogant, that is your fault.
*two thirds of all training providers, I might add, and the survivors were selected at random on the basis that inspection reports grading failed providers as 'outstanding' were completely meaningless.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63741467
Do I now get a giant novelty Sports Direct mug with every suit, and get to take my bespoke suit away in a Sport Direct branded 10p bag?
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
Looks from the thread like StatsForLefties own seat calculation on the Kantar figures.
Put these polling numbers in EC and you get Labour majority 78, both on 2019.and 2023 boundaries.
Somebody is wrong.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/institute-teaching-russell-group-universities-dfe
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is a reason why you had a donkey avatar imposed by the mods. It's like that time you lectured @Richard_Tyndall about the qualifications needed to be an engineer. You looked ridiculous then and you look ridiculous now.
Learn when you are wrong, and when actual intelligent people tell you you are wrong, to admit it. Something that seems to have been lost on you in your expensive education at Stowe and Warwick. Maybe I should have made more of an effort at Aber, but I suspect it was too late by then.
I wish the company nos da.
There are masses of associate partners, including those 2, neither are running it. Even if you wish to continue your usual personal attacks (and I never went to Stowe)
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2022/05/niot/
* highly speculative pet theory
It doesn't fill me with confidence tbh.
In spite of myself I started watching it whilst eating dinner.
https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-republican-and-democratic-parties-get-their-animal-symbols
(Is there equivalents in the UK? Elsewhere?)
(The most common color coding, red for Republicans, blue for Democrats, is much more recent; as far as I know it was started by broadcasters in the 2000 election.
Earlier scholars typically used the reverse color coding, which is more consistent with international practice. I have a sneaking suspicion that the broadcasters because they didn't want the Democrats associated with the Communist Party. Stubborn folks, for instance Dave Leip (and I) continue to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans.
https://uselectionatlas.org/ )
Just sayin'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBgQjHIPY8
The comment implies that there’s a randomness, or capriciousness, about the way FPTP as practised in the UK translates the popular vote into seats.
Not so.
What FPTP almost always does, as the record shows going back many decades, is award a substantial bonus in terms of seats to the party that gains the most votes. Whether this results in an outright majority, however, is subject to two conditions: (a) the winning party must get more than about 40%; and (b), it must have a decent lead, say 3%, over its nearest rival.
Since the present party system became established, which I am taking as being the 1924 GE when Liberal representation collapsed from 158 to 40, FPTP has delivered this outcome almost infallibly. Of the 25 GEs during this time, the two requirements of a 40% vote and 3% lead have been achieved on 15 occasions and each time the ascendant party has been rewarded with a decent governing majority (Tories 11 (1924, 1931, 1935, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2019); Labour 4 (1945, 1966, 1997, 2001)).
On the 10 occasions where these two requirements were not met, the system delivered:
- four hung Parliaments (1929, Feb 1974, 2010, 2017);
- four very small majorities (1950, 1964, Oct 1974, 2015); and
- two system failures (in 1951 Labour narrowly won the popular vote (48.8 to 48.0) but the Tories gained a small majority of 17, and in 2005 Labour won only 35.2% of the vote with a lead of 2.8% (so failing both elements of the test) but gained a very comfortable majority of 66).
Given the closeness of the numbers in 1951, I'd say that 2005 represents the clearest failure of the system, and it favoured Labour.@OwenJones84
So, @Keir_Starmer accepts 'Politician of the Year' from a magazine which:
🤮 Praised Greek neo-Nazis
🤮 Argued "there is not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Tory party"
🤮 Published an article entitled 'In praise of the Wehrmacht'
🤮 Argued Black people have lower IQs"
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1595764793335582720
The trick to understanding this stuff is to try and see it from the point of view of the participants.
1) The planners like the idea of a large estate of houses, planned and rolled out, rather than piecemeal development
2) You bought a house in a nice village. Now they want to fill your horizon with thousands of shit boxes. Because they will gradually build them, this will fuck your ability to sell (if you need to) for years. And guarantee congestion during and after construction.
3) The developers like building big estates, gradually. This is because you can guarantee a steady amount of work for the sub contractors over a fair period and thus get good prices. The land costs a fucking fortune and density is the name of the game. So you need to build cheap, small, shitty boxes.
etc etc
Until you look at the whole problem, you won't get a solution - Just push the problem around.
My point is that if Labour at the next GE wins the popular vote by 45-30, or anything like it, it needn’t worry about getting a majority that will be a lot higher than the 8 suggested in the header. The seats will come from somewhere, almost certainly including some surprise results in constituencies that no one currently thinks of as serious Labour prospects.
Belgium blocked the delivery of a milling machine to Ukraine, as it was intended to increase Ukraine's production capacity for ammunition. They also blocked the delivery of an isostatic press to the UK. The latter gets the headlines as London retaliates.
https://mobile.twitter.com/YvesDeVos1/status/1595888794955567104
Note Luxembourg, which doesn't even have a real army, has sent more military help to Ukraine than has Belgium.
I understand the 'technology' in question is an isostatic press, which is used to make a variety of metal or ceramic items, so it isn't quite clear what this one might be being used for.
I note the Belgians also blocked the sale of a milling machine to Ukraine as the Ukrainians were going to use it to make ammunition.
Wallace and his fellow travellers say similarly wrong-headed nonsense about Ukraine, but Mary Lou knows that the popular sentiment in Ireland is pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia.
WKRP Turkey Drop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGFtV6-ALoQ
dodgersefficiency experts.....I'm fairly confident these sort of independents would still prosper if Ireland used FPTP, because there's more of the clientelism in Irish politics that leads to these people winning support. I'd go as far as to say that STV makes it harder for these candidates, because they have to win votes across a larger geographical area, and can struggle to win transfer votes. The Healy-Raes would, alas, easily win a FPTP constituency in their core area.
I think Michael Collins is probably the only reason why I'd give lower preference votes to FF and FG, but when you talk to people the only thing they have to say about him is how great it was that he organised the eye operation bus trips to Belfast. If Irish government worked better, so people weren't so reliant on what local politicians could do for them as a favour, then it would undercut the source of support for these sorts of characters.
I realise this is tantamount to heresy, but I think that voting systems are much less deterministic of political culture then we often think in our debates over FPTP, PR, etc. There are bigger factors at play.
In Ireland the importance of the client vote is a legacy of civil war politics, and the political division between the two sides in the civil war was based on personal relationships, rather than differences in ideology. So it wasn't policy debates that won votes, but whether the local politician delivered for their client vote.
All foreign students will also have new restrictions on bringing family members with them after the number of dependants almost tripled in a year." (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m
The correspondent had asked footballer Mehdi Taremi for his views on the protests in Iran.
Afterwards, Mr Queiroz asked if it was fair for the player to have been asked a political question.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-63750753
Given how dangerous the situation is, it seems somewhat irresponsible of the BBC journalist to be putting players on the spot like that. Its not the same as a western journalist asking for instance Hugo Lloris about rainbow armbands (although again I am not sure they should be, its for them to volunteer their opinion on non-footballing matters, rather than trying to bounce them into being embarrassed).
There is the odd situation where a student can pay £20k to a university, but his children will cost £15k to educate that year. Doesn't matter to the university - they don't pay the £15k, the taxpayer does. A sort of moral hazard.
Of course, if the student is going to stay in the UK afterward, and his children stay here permanently, the country probably wins. If it's just three years of free education and English practice for the kids, and then they go back home, not so much.
🎶 It's beginning to look a lot like rejoin! 🎶
https://greencoordinate.co.uk/agenda/motions/closer-alignment-to-the-european-union/
The “test” assumes that it is legitimate for a party that has only 40% support and only a minimum 3% lead over its rival to assume majority power. That is a highly contestable assertion.
Second, even by your own yardstick you still concede a system failure rate of 8%, which in any other walk of life would be considered a system unfit for purpose.
Third, the system has other purposes in addition to selecting a government. Even if you dismiss the question of representation, there is still the question of how the government is held to account, and by whom. 1983 is clearly a further failure of the system in handing this task almost entirely to the Labour Party despite the vote share it received being similar to that of the hugely underrepresented Alliance parties.
I’d also suggest that the later election when UKIP received a significant vote without any representation at all is a further instance of failure.
When you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t arrogantly presume you’re more intelligent than the rest of us because you were at Warwick. You aren’t.
I never mentioned once anything about being more intelligent than anybody else, however the facts above still stand