Sajd Javid – the latest CON MP to announce that he’s going – politicalbetting.com

Pro_Rata said:

First - out the door

Pro_Rata said:

Pro_Rata said:

First - out the door

Actually I keep imagining a Dehenna Davidson, Laura Pidcock "we were the future once pub crawl".

It's a strange image.

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

Andy_JS said:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.

Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it.
But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.

This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?

Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.

Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.

So words can hurt you? 🤔

Um, no.

So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?

You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.

There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.

You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?

I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.

Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.

Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.

Sticks and stones is something you teach kids to help them learn resilience. It seems many adults have bizarrely interpreted as some kind of divine law. It is patently false, words can and do hurt humans immensely.

tlg86 said:

If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.

BartholomewRoberts said:

tlg86 said:

If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.

Strange Magic involved? The only blues left will be Mr Blue Sky?

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

Andy_JS said:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.

Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it.
But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.

This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?

Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.

Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.

So words can hurt you? 🤔

Um, no.

So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?

You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.

There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.

You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?

I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.

Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.

Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.

Sticks and stones is something you teach kids to help them learn resilience. It seems many adults have bizarrely interpreted as some kind of divine law. It is patently false, words can and do hurt humans immensely.

Worse than that, it seems some adults have interpreted as a kind of divine shield that means they can say what they want, but God Forbid that someone else says what they're thinking which might lead to consequences, or worse "cancellation".

If there's a free for all in speech, then that means everyone can speak, including those unhappy and publicly willing to go on the record to express their thoughts as to why.

I believe in free speech. I also believe that speech has consequences. If you say something, and it bites you back, then that's not your freedom being taken away, that is a consequence of your own actions.

Cyclefree said:

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1

1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous.
2. Martin Amis
3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore.
4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable.
5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written.

Writers worth reading:

1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: the best writer of English fiction, IMO. No-one writes about evil better, about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives - and he can be laugh-out loud funny too. That he was overlooked by the Booker for meretricious rubbish that no-one (well, OK, me) can remember is to their discredit.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" - but all his three books are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. John McGahern - all his books are good but "Memoir" is superb.

I eventually got through The Secret History by Donna Tartt and Scoop by Evelyn Waugh but thought both were vastly overrated

Agree on the first. Found parts of Scoop very funny indeed but it's a while since I read it so may feel differently now.

Jane Eyre is a book I reread. I adored Anna Karenin and Middlemarch when I first read them.

tlg86 said:

If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.

Heathener said:

I mentioned earlier this morning that I think 100-150 Tory seats is the likely landing zone but, currently, I'd say it's nearer the lower end of that figure.

This is far, far, worse than 1997.

Heathener said:

Driver said:

TheValiant said:

Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)

But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.

I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.

Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.

If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.

No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?

eristdoof said:

Heathener said:

Driver said:

TheValiant said:

Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)

But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.

I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.

Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.

If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.

No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?

In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.

mwadams said:

Heathener said:

'Almost impossible' for Conservatives to win next election, says senior Tory Updated 6 minutes ago

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/02/rishi-sunak-chester-election-results-labour-keir-starmer/

This is the groundwork for a "Demon Eyes II" strategy - fear of what a huge Labour landslide will mean for the country. I think it unlikely to work, but it is probably worth a go.

As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.

So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Heathener said:

Driver said:

TheValiant said:

Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)

But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.

I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.

Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.

If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.

No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?

In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.

Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.

Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Heathener said:

Driver said:

TheValiant said:

Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)

But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.

I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.

Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.

If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.

No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?

In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.

Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.

Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.

Scott_xP said:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 49% (-1)
CON: 26% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-)
REF: 5% (NA)

via @techneUK, 30 Nov - 01 Dec
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts

Scott_xP said:

NEW.

25 point lead for Labour ...

Labour 46% (+2)
Conservatives 21% (-3)
Greens 9% (+1)
Lib Dems 7% (-1)
Reform 7% (+2)
SNP 5% (-)

@PeoplePolling Nov 30

tlg86 said:

If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.

mwadams said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Heathener said:

Driver said:

TheValiant said:

Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)

But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.

I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.

Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.

If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.

No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?

In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.

Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.

Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.

I agree that the Tories' best chance for post-electoral rejuvenation is for a majority of their cohort to be new faces. Sadly, I suspect we are more likely to see Michael Fabricant and John Hayes as the last men standing.

SandyRentool said:

The privately educated, and the parents of the privately educated, certainly appear to be over-represented here on PB.

Stocky said:

Simon_Peach said:

Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…

And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 49% (-1)
CON: 26% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-)
REF: 5% (NA)

via @techneUK, 30 Nov - 01 Dec
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts

No change with Techne MOE.

Scott_xP said:

NEW.

25 point lead for Labour ...

Labour 46% (+2)
Conservatives 21% (-3)
Greens 9% (+1)
Lib Dems 7% (-1)
Reform 7% (+2)
SNP 5% (-)

@PeoplePolling Nov 30

There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.

I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.

As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election > LABOUR VOTE SHARE ON THE SLIDE DEFYING THE NARRATIVES

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.

How senior is "senior" these days ?

Simon_Peach said:

Stocky said:

Simon_Peach said:

Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…

And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?

My point being that the charitable act of the private school has an adverse impact on the local state school…

Richard_Nabavi said:

SandyRentool said:

The privately educated, and the parents of the privately educated, certainly appear to be over-represented here on PB.

As in all elites.

IanB2 said:

mwadams said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Heathener said:

Driver said:

TheValiant said:

Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)

But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.

I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.

Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.

If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.

No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?

In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.

Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.

Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.

I agree that the Tories' best chance for post-electoral rejuvenation is for a majority of their cohort to be new faces. Sadly, I suspect we are more likely to see Michael Fabricant and John Hayes as the last men standing.

The bigger the swing, the higher will be the proportion of time-serving nutters we will be left with. Those resigning are mostly in marginals

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.

How senior is "senior" these days ?

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.

How senior is "senior" these days ?

eek said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

2 would be my preferred option - you want university covered (£50,000 or so) but that still leaves £200,000 for a decent leg up in life.

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.

How senior is "senior" these days ?

LostPassword said:

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 49% (-1)
CON: 26% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-)
REF: 5% (NA)

via @techneUK, 30 Nov - 01 Dec
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts

No change with Techne MOE.

Scott_xP said:

NEW.

25 point lead for Labour ...

Labour 46% (+2)
Conservatives 21% (-3)
Greens 9% (+1)
Lib Dems 7% (-1)
Reform 7% (+2)
SNP 5% (-)

@PeoplePolling Nov 30

There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.

I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.

As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election > LABOUR VOTE SHARE ON THE SLIDE DEFYING THE NARRATIVES

The Tory vote share is also on the slide. The relief rally at the end of Truss has dissipated, the panic and desperation that led many voters to support Labour has ebbed, and voters are beginning to cast around for alternatives (Lib Dems and the Farage Grift Vehicle).

SandyRentool said:

The privately educated, and the parents of the privately educated, certainly appear to be over-represented here on PB.

FrankBooth said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.

Cyclefree said:

MoonRabbit said:

Cyclefree said:

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1

1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous.
2. Martin Amis
3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore.
4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable.
5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written.

Writers worth reading:

1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: the best writer of English fiction, IMO. No-one writes about evil better, about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives - and he can be laugh-out loud funny too. That he was overlooked by the Booker for meretricious rubbish that no-one (well, OK, me) can remember is to their discredit.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" - but all his three books are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. John McGahern - all his books are good but "Memoir" is superb.

I eventually got through The Secret History by Donna Tartt and Scoop by Evelyn Waugh but thought both were vastly overrated

Agree on the first. Found parts of Scoop very funny indeed but it's a while since I read it so may feel differently now.

Jane Eyre is a book I reread. I adored Anna Karenin and Middlemarch when I first read them.

Where would you place Anya Seton? I enjoyed Green Darkness and Katherine, particularly Green Darkness, maybe I was in the right mood.

I have to confess that I have never heard of her.


My pile of unread books gets taller and taller.

FrankBooth said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.

I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 49% (-1)
CON: 26% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-)
REF: 5% (NA)

via @techneUK, 30 Nov - 01 Dec
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts

No change with Techne MOE.

Scott_xP said:

NEW.

25 point lead for Labour ...

Labour 46% (+2)
Conservatives 21% (-3)
Greens 9% (+1)
Lib Dems 7% (-1)
Reform 7% (+2)
SNP 5% (-)

@PeoplePolling Nov 30

There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.

I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.

As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election > LABOUR VOTE SHARE ON THE SLIDE DEFYING THE NARRATIVES

The Tory vote share is also on the slide. The relief rally at the end of Truss has dissipated, the panic and desperation that led many voters to support Labour has ebbed, and voters are beginning to cast around for alternatives (Lib Dems and the Farage Grift Vehicle).

Looking at the dots the Wikiworms are drawn through, there's not much evidence for anything other than stasis over the last couple of weeks. Labour down on their "Truss has gone Tonto with our money" peak, but well above where they were even at Johnson's nadir. Similarly, the Conservatives are doing better than they were when the Conservative rating was chasing the value of the pound down, but the not-Budget brought an end to whatever Rishibounce there was.

Other noticeable change- RefUK do seem to be having a growth spurtette. The 2s and 3s are becoming 5s, 6s and 7s. What's driving that?

Stocky said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.

I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.

The light it casts is that of opportunity cost. But I take your point about relative schooling in the area.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stocky said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.

I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.

The light it casts is that of opportunity cost. But I take your point about relative schooling in the area.

I suppose so. Maybe people generally don't think about opportunity cost enough. To me, it just seems pretty obvious to think, before spending a significant amount of money, about what else I could spend it on instead. But perhaps people don't focus on it enough.

Dura_Ace said:

Nigelb said:

This isn't exactly an unbiased news source, but interesting nonetheles, if it's accurate.
And it seems a bit odd that our nuclear submariner training wasn't delivered in house (or with the US).

Elbit Systems UK Fired From £280 MILLION Worth Of Ministry of Defence Contracts
https://www.palestineaction.org/contract-loss/
Minister of State for Defence Procurement Alex Chalk has confirmed that Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms company Elbit Systems LTD, has been forced out of lucrative contracts to deliver training for Dreadnought submarine and Royal Navy crews [1, 2]. The Ministry of Defence has ejected Elbit from a contract worth £160m to deliver Dreadnought crew training, and is ‘negotiating the departure’ of Elbit from a £123m contract for ‘Project Selborne’ Royal Navy training, stating that Elbit now falls short of ‘operational sovereignty standards for the UK’s highest priority capabilities’.

These submissions were made by Chalk in Parliament in responses to questions by Labour MPs Chris Evans, and Kevan Jones – both associated with the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ group – and by Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey. Elbit’s removal from these contracts was not in the public domain until these questions were asked. Release of this information further damaged Elbit Systems’ plummeting share prices, which fell 10% over November 29th, and is down 18% through November, as the company posts third quarter losses [3].

The loss of these contracts is a huge blow for Elbit, with their attempts to gain MOD favour a major reason for their manufacturing presence in Britain. These contracts were initially awarded after Elbit’s deep involvement in procurement and training for the Israeli defence, across army, navy, and air forces. Not only are Elbit’s manufactured products described as “field-tested on Palestinians”, but their training and simulation contracts have been gained following their performances in Israel, including delivering the ‘Brigade and Battlegroup Mission Training Centre’...

This can't be the full story as the Elbit/KBR joint venture still manages the Grob/T-6/Phenom fleets for MFTS.

I will posit that this fannying around will not make Dreadnought any cheaper or arrive any quicker.

WillG said:

Nigelb said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,

And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery.
For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.

If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.

The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.

biggles said:

FrankBooth said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.

It also depends on the child, and their planned career choices. Marginal gains at A-Level, and private school swagger (much though I despise it) could be the difference that gets them up the greasy pole in a large law firm. Less relevant if that’s not their thing.

WillG said:

Nigelb said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,

And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery.
For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.

If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.

The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.

Endillion said:

WillG said:

Nigelb said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,

And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery.
For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.

If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.

The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.

I don't know what experience this view is based on, but mine is that children who are ahead do not get "showered with attention" by teachers. Quite the reverse: teachers' incentives are focused on getting as many of their charges as possible to a minimum standard, so they tend to ignore anyone who's clearly going to exceed that standard without any intervention.

These narrow definitions of "success" (eg, 5 "good" GCSEs) goes a pretty long way towards explaining what's wrong with the UK education system, in my opinion.

SandyRentool said:

biggles said:

FrankBooth said:

Stocky said:

On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).

Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:

1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.

If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?

I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).

It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.

It also depends on the child, and their planned career choices. Marginal gains at A-Level, and private school swagger (much though I despise it) could be the difference that gets them up the greasy pole in a large law firm. Less relevant if that’s not their thing.

If I had kids, the last thing I'd want them to have is "swagger".