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

2»

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,304

    DavidL said:

    What a goal!

    Brazil looking the real deal in this second half.
    Yep, living up to the hype. Shortened to 3.7 for the comp. That's a lay but I won't be because it isn't.
  • 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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,359
    An interesting, albeit fanciful idea.

    Democrats should nominate a Republican successor to Pelosi
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3748337-democrats-should-nominate-a-republican-successor-to-pelosi/
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,978
    In all likelihood 15% would generate a solid Labour lead.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,978

    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
    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.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    edited November 24

    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.

    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.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,547

    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
    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    edited November 24
    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365

    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
    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,228
    Sean_F said:

    In all likelihood 15% would generate a solid Labour lead.

    Yes, a majority approaching three figures.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,547

    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
    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.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    And the Telegraph rightly now see a tory meltdown:

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1595674563295297536
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    p.s. beautiful goal
  • Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    Remember 2015!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262
    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.)
    Not irrelevant at all, all those subjects recruited well above their targets.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    Even by their standards, there would have to be some serious dross among the candidates for them to put up a full slate.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    Heathener said:

    p.s. beautiful goal

    Highlight of the tournament so far.

    The pussy-waxers certainly stepped things up in the second half.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497

    Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    Remember 2015!
    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....?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,359
    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
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    What a goal!

    Brazil looking the real deal in this second half.
    Yep, living up to the hype. Shortened to 3.7 for the comp. That's a lay but I won't be because it isn't.
    As a rule, always lay the favourite. Only in this case, don’t.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262
    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Nigelb said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149
    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...
    "Posh" schools as approved in that very term by HYUFD, presumably.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    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
    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?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,251
    Nigelb said:

    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
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149
    edited November 24
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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
    You mean, the ones that don't use 'Our Island Story' as the core text? Or '1066 and all that'.

    BTW 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

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    Andy_JS said:

    Pop of UK increased by 504,000 in a year, almost 10% of the population of Scotland.

    Are you suggesting if we exiled 10% of Scots, we would have nothing to worry about?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    edited November 24
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
  • Sports Direct owner buys historic Savile Row tailor

    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?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262
    edited November 24
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September and there are 4 School Development Trust bodies involved not 2
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,843
    Have we chewed the on-topic.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    edited November 24
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,843
    Pro_Rata said:

    Have we chewed the on-topic.

    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 :)
  • Pro_Rata said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Have we chewed the on-topic.

    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?
  • TresTres Posts: 1,362
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
    better than a gnomy gnome
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
    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)

    https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2022/05/niot/
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,843

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Have we chewed the on-topic.

    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.*

    * highly speculative pet theory
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    edited November 24
    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.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,157
    Hancock survives. Down to the last 5.

    In spite of myself I started watching it whilst eating dinner.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,268

    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
    #BlackAndTansDidNothingWrong
  • 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.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 895
    Speaking of animal symbols, here's an explanation of how US Democrats became donkeys, and Republicans became elephants.
    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/ )

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616

    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.

    Sunak is no John Major.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 895
    Correction: "Are there", not "is there", of course.
  • Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    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.

    Just sayin'.
  • Hancock survives. Down to the last 5.

    In spite of myself I started watching it whilst eating dinner.

    Would that the Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party had such a rigorous selection process for it's Fearless Leader.
  • Speaking of animal symbols, here's an explanation of how US Democrats became donkeys, and Republicans became elephants.
    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/ )

    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
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    edited November 24
    pigeon said:



    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    Hancock survives. Down to the last 5.

    In spite of myself I started watching it whilst eating dinner.

    Would that the Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party had such a rigorous selection process for it's Fearless Leader.
    Eating kangaroo cloacas rather than rubber chicken?
  • IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 895
    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.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,343
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
    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)
    What, never????
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486

    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.

  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 895
    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066

    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?
    My point was that today's 45/30 poll isn't the only one showing those types of figures.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    "Owen Jones
    @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
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,268
    Fishing said:

    pigeon said:



    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.

  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 373
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
    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)
    What, never????
    Well, hardly ever...
  • rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 373
    Fishing said:

    pigeon said:



    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.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,547
    Jonathan 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.

    Sunak is no John Major.
    And the economy isn't going to be in excellent shape as it was in 1997
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,771
    edited November 24
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Jonathan 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.

    Sunak is no John Major.
    No, he's rather more of an optimistic character.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551
    Sean_F said:

    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
    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.
  • Yet another beloved American Thanksgiving tradition:

    WKRP Turkey Drop
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGFtV6-ALoQ
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,618
    Lab gain in Bassetlaw. Rumours of LD gain in Isle of Wight.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066

    Yet another beloved American Thanksgiving tradition:

    WKRP Turkey Drop
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGFtV6-ALoQ

    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.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,618
    slade said:

    Lab gain in Bassetlaw. Rumours of LD gain in Isle of Wight.

    Confirmed LD gain with over 50% of the vote.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,954
    edited November 24
    Andy_JS said:

    "Owen Jones
    @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

    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.....
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551

    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
    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.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,343

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    Or Lib Dem prospects?
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,618
    Lab hold in Sefton(Bootle).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    "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." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,954
    edited November 24
    The BBC's Shaimaa Khalil was confronted by Carlos Queiroz, the manager of Iran's national football team, after a World Cup press conference in Qatar.

    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).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,989

    The BBC's Shaimaa Khalil was confronted by Carlos Queiroz, the manager of Iran's national football team, after a World Cup press conference in Qatar.

    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).

    Who cares what happens to they player? Just so long as the journalist gets their story.
  • RobD said:

    The BBC's Shaimaa Khalil was confronted by Carlos Queiroz, the manager of Iran's national football team, after a World Cup press conference in Qatar.

    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).

    Who cares what happens to they player? Just so long as the journalist gets their story.
    Its Boris Johnson levels of misstep-age....
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,330
    edited November 25
    Andy_JS said:

    "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." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m

    Depends if it's spouses or children.

    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.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,618
    Con hold in Warrington by 3 votes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    dixiedean said:

    All this assumes UNS.
    The regional polling suggests the Tory vote efficiency is unwinding. And the Labour inefficiency is too.

    Yes, I just find it difficult to believe on that basis. Just got feeling, but I think when you get that big a lead things breakdown.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    The Tories haven't even reneged on Brexit yet, what's his problem?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    carnforth said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "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." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m

    Depends if it's spouses or children.

    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.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,330
    edited November 25
    Foxy said:

    carnforth said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "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." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m

    Depends if it's spouses or children.

    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.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487
    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    The Tories haven't even reneged on Brexit yet, what's his problem?
    NF is canny enough to see which way the wind is blowing though.

    🎶 It's beginning to look a lot like rejoin! 🎶
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 25
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    Just to put the latest spanner in Mike's view. Nigel Farage announces a full set of candidates at the next election and no deals with the tories:

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1595781501953929216

    The Tories haven't even reneged on Brexit yet, what's his problem?
    NF is canny enough to see which way the wind is blowing though.

    🎶 It's beginning to look a lot like rejoin! 🎶
    Not yet, but likely to be on offer by a mainstream party in England shortly. Lib Dems see it as a long term goal, Greens too.

    https://greencoordinate.co.uk/agenda/motions/closer-alignment-to-the-european-union/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    edited November 25

    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    carnforth said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "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." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m

    Depends if it's spouses or children.

    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?!!!

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
    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)

    https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2022/05/niot/
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.)
    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.
    No they didn't as the Institute doesn't even open until next September
    https://schoolsweek.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-governments-new-institute-of-teaching/
    They did.

    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.
    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)

    https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2022/05/niot/
    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
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,330
    ydoethur said:

    carnforth said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "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." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-students-face-ban-from-uk-universities-ql9qzf83m

    Depends if it's spouses or children.

    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?!!!

    Children is plural!
This discussion has been closed.