Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
I'm glad you had a good experience, and I hope you recover soon.
But... when I stupidly broke my elbow in the arse-end of nowhere, Scotland, eight years ago, the GP and hospital service were first class. Really excellent. And that, IMO, is one of the NHS's biggest problems: the service is so incredibly spotty.
And as I said earlier today, the problem is the bad experiences stick longer in your mind than the good.
And in two weeks so far I’ve only met one person who wasn’t effectively fluent in English, and that was an old guy up in the hills and even he had a few words. Teaching it at school is one thing, but on that basis most of us in England would be fluent in French, and we’re not.
The fact that the Vikings gifted us so many of our basic words helps a bit - a lot of Norwegian looks like English written by a eight-year-old:
Kvikk Lunsj Ambulanse Iskrem Eple Pai Konferanse Senter Lokal Taxi Vi Er Apen Resepsjon
"ambulance" and "reception" are from French
I think you will find that it is from Welsh - Ambiwlans Same as Welsh Tacsi...
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
I've been to the house where he was born. It's nothing special.
For the time it was - leastways, compared to those who truly came from nothing. True, they were not aristos, but they were not exactly poor either AIUI. They were probably like the Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice.
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Has there ever been a more endearing dog than that? I'm anxious around them (having been savaged by one at age 5) but I reckon I'd be ok there.
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
I'm glad you had a good experience, and I hope you recover soon.
But... when I stupidly broke my elbow in the arse-end of nowhere, Scotland, eight years ago, the GP and hospital service were first class. Really excellent. And that, IMO, is one of the NHS's biggest problems: the service is so incredibly spotty.
And as I said earlier today, the problem is the bad experiences stick longer in your mind than the good.
And in two weeks so far I’ve only met one person who wasn’t effectively fluent in English, and that was an old guy up in the hills and even he had a few words. Teaching it at school is one thing, but on that basis most of us in England would be fluent in French, and we’re not.
The fact that the Vikings gifted us so many of our basic words helps a bit - a lot of Norwegian looks like English written by a eight-year-old:
Kvikk Lunsj Ambulanse Iskrem Eple Pai Konferanse Senter Lokal Taxi Vi Er Apen Resepsjon
"ambulance" and "reception" are from French
I think you will find that it is from Welsh - Ambiwlans Same as Welsh Tacsi...
From memory, Taxi and Ambulance are the two words that hardly ever need translating.
If you need a car with driver that you can flag down on the street, or a vehicle to take a sick person to the hospital, those two words are pretty much universal when spoken.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
I'm glad you had a good experience, and I hope you recover soon.
But... when I stupidly broke my elbow in the arse-end of nowhere, Scotland, eight years ago, the GP and hospital service were first class. Really excellent. And that, IMO, is one of the NHS's biggest problems: the service is so incredibly spotty.
And as I said earlier today, the problem is the bad experiences stick longer in your mind than the good.
And in two weeks so far I’ve only met one person who wasn’t effectively fluent in English, and that was an old guy up in the hills and even he had a few words. Teaching it at school is one thing, but on that basis most of us in England would be fluent in French, and we’re not.
The fact that the Vikings gifted us so many of our basic words helps a bit - a lot of Norwegian looks like English written by a eight-year-old:
Kvikk Lunsj Ambulanse Iskrem Eple Pai Konferanse Senter Lokal Taxi Vi Er Apen Resepsjon
"ambulance" and "reception" are from French
I think you will find that it is from Welsh - Ambiwlans Same as Welsh Tacsi...
From memory, Taxi and Ambulance are the two words that hardly ever need translating.
If you need a car with driver that you can flag down on the street, or a vehicle to take a sick person to the hospital, those two words are pretty much universal when spoken.
Don't try this in Greece. I once spent 20 minutes yelling at a bunch of elderly Cretans that I wanted a taxi. At minute 21 one of them said ah, I get it, he wants a taxEE. In Greek tAxi means OK, so they thought I had been telling them I was fine.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
Please don't talk total bollocks the 18 - 29 group voted 60% in favour of the eu from your chart. Those would be the boomers you talk about. 60 percent in favour does not imply not keen on europe
I’m starting to think the BBC Presenter involved in the scandal should now come forward publicly. These new allegations will result in yet more vitriol being thrown at perfectly innocent colleagues of his. And the BBC, which I’m sure he loves, is on its knees with this. But it is his decision and his alone.
My sense is while the Conservatives will lose all three seats, the Selby result will be the most spectacular. I think the Greens may finish third just in front of the LDs and the Yorkshire Party.
In Somerton & Frome, I expect an LD win but not on a 30% swing - probably nearer 15-20%, underwhelming but still positive for Davey. Uxbridge will shift Labour but again not by a huge margin and with a swing well below that seen in some recent polling.
As for the REAL elections this Thursday, Wall End will be an easy Labour hold but Boleyn will be more dramatic with the Greens running Labour very close.
It's either a rightwing plot against the BBC/a good day to bury bad news or the BBC is a cesspit full of nonces/ the end of the TV licence...... You'll believe whatever fits your world view, same as Big G. Me? I couldn't give a toss.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
I'm glad you had a good experience, and I hope you recover soon.
But... when I stupidly broke my elbow in the arse-end of nowhere, Scotland, eight years ago, the GP and hospital service were first class. Really excellent. And that, IMO, is one of the NHS's biggest problems: the service is so incredibly spotty.
And as I said earlier today, the problem is the bad experiences stick longer in your mind than the good.
And in two weeks so far I’ve only met one person who wasn’t effectively fluent in English, and that was an old guy up in the hills and even he had a few words. Teaching it at school is one thing, but on that basis most of us in England would be fluent in French, and we’re not.
The fact that the Vikings gifted us so many of our basic words helps a bit - a lot of Norwegian looks like English written by a eight-year-old:
Kvikk Lunsj Ambulanse Iskrem Eple Pai Konferanse Senter Lokal Taxi Vi Er Apen Resepsjon
"ambulance" and "reception" are from French
I think you will find that it is from Welsh - Ambiwlans Same as Welsh Tacsi...
From memory, Taxi and Ambulance are the two words that hardly ever need translating.
If you need a car with driver that you can flag down on the street, or a vehicle to take a sick person to the hospital, those two words are pretty much universal when spoken.
Don't try this in Greece. I once spent 20 minutes yelling at a bunch of elderly Cretans that I wanted a taxi. At minute 21 one of them said ah, I get it, he wants a taxEE. In Greek tAxi means OK, so they thought I had been telling them I was fine.
Given it's a Greek word, they can be forgiven for having their views on it being spoken in Greek rather than French ...
It must have been a nervy morning at The Sun offices, but the champers must be flowing there now
Why? I might be missing something but fail to see how the second complainant proves the veracity of the mother's testimony. The first relationship might still have been perfectly legal.
This is all such trivial bollocks.
One could be forgiven for thinking it is a Conservative Party owned BBC's attempt to smokescreen mortgage rates hitting 6.66% That's right 666!
You sound a wee bit like @Heathener, and I doubt it is trivia to the parents or the second complainant today or indeed the BBC
With all due respect you seem to be wrapping yourself up in this salacious nonsense.
There is nothing I have read that suggests this is anything, so far at least, other than anti BBC propaganda whipped up by the Murdoch press. Up in arms about the allegation that a 17 year old produced unedifying images of themselves and all this when the Sun spent decades published photographs of naked 16 year old girls. Whatever the offence caused by the presenter, the double standard from the Sun is beyond contempt.
Many on here are reporting this crisis for the BBC and you clearly are only believing what you want to believe and downplaying the allegations
Your suggestion I am wrapping myself up in this salacious nonsense is nonsense itself
The whole media are involved in reporting this story and in everything I have said I have cautioned to wait and see how this develops not least to @Heathener this morning who also attempted to close this down
It is no Beergate though, is it?
Not yet. But just wait till we discover that it's all Starmer's fault because when he was DPP he failed to prosecute the BBC presenter at the centre of the allegations.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
Please don't talk total bollocks the 18 - 29 group voted 60% in favour of the eu from your chart. Those would be the boomers you talk about. 60 percent in favour does not imply not keen on europe
The Common Market of 1975 was a very different animal from the EC of 2016. The meaning of 'ever closer union' became starkly clear in the meantime not to mention the idea of an 'acquis communitaire'
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
Please don't talk total bollocks the 18 - 29 group voted 60% in favour of the eu from your chart. Those would be the boomers you talk about. 60 percent in favour does not imply not keen on europe
only the 18-24s were more in favour of europe than in the 7- referendum than the boomers on 62% that you claimed werent keen....the 25-34 group in 2016 were equal to the boomers in the 70's to the "not keen boomers".
My point is valid, the more experience voters had of the eu the more they wanted to say fuck off.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
Please don't talk total bollocks the 18 - 29 group voted 60% in favour of the eu from your chart. Those would be the boomers you talk about. 60 percent in favour does not imply not keen on europe
only the 18-24s were more in favour of europe than in the 7- referendum than the boomers on 62% that you claimed werent keen....the 25-34 group in 2016 were equal to the boomers in the 70's to the "not keen boomers".
My point is valid, the more experience voters had of the eu the more they wanted to say fuck off.
I guess going by standards no one therefore 25 and upwards was keen on the eu?
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
Stop defending the indefensible, grow a spine and a conscience.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
Stop defending the indefensible, grow a spine and a conscious.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
Stop defending the indefensible, grow a spine and a conscious.
And maybe even a conscience?
That is 100% down to auto-correct.
Any further discussions regarding this should be directed to my social media team.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
Stop defending the indefensible, grow a spine and a conscious.
Talking about Tory MPs and their excuses, this is quite a good read:
"But the fact that Djanogly’s holdings are listed in shareholder registers under his own name and at an address owned jointly with his father suggests the trust cannot be truly “blind”. Companies regularly correspond with their shareholders to provide information about shareholder meetings, dividend payments and performance updates.
Djanogly did not dispute that the shares were in his name but said he did not pick up post from the property to which information about the shareholdings would have been sent."
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
60% of 18-29 year olds still voted in favour of Remain, in 1975. These voters were aged 59-70 in 2016, and voted 60% Leave, a swing of 20%. The tipping point where Leave voters outnumbered Remain voters in 2016 was age 42, well past the baby boomer generation.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Thing is the truth is somewhere between (a) all are economic migrants pretending to need asylum and (b) they are all genuinely in need of asylum. I have no idea where the percentage split is.
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Shame, it looks quite good on a sunny day.
Make sure you visit nearby Romsdalen if you can though, it is seriously impressive. The Troll Wall is the tallest vertical face in Europe.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Thing is the truth is somewhere between (a) all are economic migrants pretending to need asylum and (b) they are all genuinely in need of asylum. I have no idea where the percentage split is.
The Post Office Inquiry has had to be delayed until (probably) September because the Post Office itself has been unable to disclose important documents in time, documents which the inquiry needs to scrutinise before it takes evidence from witnesses, (many of whom were due to appear at the inquiry over the next 3 weeks).
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Shame, it looks quite good on a sunny day.
Make sure you visit nearby Romsdalen if you can though, it is seriously impressive. The Troll Wall is the tallest vertical face in Europe.
I drove right past it earlier, but could only see the bottom of it
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
And let's be clear that Brexiteers have done an absolute shite job of convincing Millennials of the case of remaining outside the EU. They really cannot assume at all they'll become more Eurosceptic as they grow older.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Thing is the truth is somewhere between (a) all are economic migrants pretending to need asylum and (b) they are all genuinely in need of asylum. I have no idea where the percentage split is.
It might even be a mixture of the two in one person. Say someone lives in a state where they do not feel happy, because the state infringes on one of their rights (say, they are gay). Other part of their country are more liberal, and they could move there, but they are afraid that those areas might become less liberal. The UK or Europe might seem like a lot freer - and less risky - state.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Thing is the truth is somewhere between (a) all are economic migrants pretending to need asylum and (b) they are all genuinely in need of asylum. I have no idea where the percentage split is.
Almost everyone coming from France cannot be escaping from a dangerous country - unless you think France is a dangerous country.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Might be misunderstanding what you have written but the US was created before the French Revolution so before Napoleon’s reign.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Then declared himself an Emperor and placed his family members on the conquered thrones of Europe.
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Has there ever been a more endearing dog than that? I'm anxious around them (having been savaged by one at age 5) but I reckon I'd be ok there.
Why do you insist on posting Goodwin's rubbish? The man is an absolute arse!
Unfortunately for all of us, he's an arse with a loud voice which means ignoring him is not an option.
From my university days I recall the most outlandish academics were revered the most. Goodwin's off the scale bollocks must put him in the highest echelons of political academia.
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Shame, it looks quite good on a sunny day.
Make sure you visit nearby Romsdalen if you can though, it is seriously impressive. The Troll Wall is the tallest vertical face in Europe.
I drove right past it earlier, but could only see the bottom of it
Shame, although not unusual, it often has terrible weather.
It was the site of a famous climbing epic when Norwegian and British parties turned up at the same time to attempt the first ascent in 1965.
Like at the South Pole, the Norwegians won (by one day!), but in this case both attempts succeeded and nobody was killed. Considering the terrain and the equipment of the time, that was quite a feat. The British route became the standard one but it can't be climbed now because half the route fell down in a massive rockfall.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Might be misunderstanding what you have written but the US was created before the French Revolution so before Napoleon’s reign.
Yes, that's a glaring error on my part.
But am I half remembering something - some way in which the French Revolution and Napoleonic era fed back into the development of the early US?
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Thing is the truth is somewhere between (a) all are economic migrants pretending to need asylum and (b) they are all genuinely in need of asylum. I have no idea where the percentage split is.
Almost everyone coming from France cannot be escaping from a dangerous country - unless you think France is a dangerous country.
They are not escaping France. They are passing through France. The "they have to settle in the first safe country" lie is so stupid as to make me question the motivation of anyone still prattling it.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
And his over-reaching led to disaster for France, and the deaths of millions of soldiers and civilians. He was a mass-murdering vainglorious genius.
I'd even argue that his regime and its wars are a reason why the industrial revolution really got going in Britain, rather than France.
And 'social progress' ? He reintroduced slavery. He was not interested in fighting the forces of monarchy; he wanted to be monarch over all of Europe. He was a tyrant.
Yes, a tyrant. But also a genius at one thing - war. IMV France - and Europe - would have been better off without him.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
Without him, what would we have called Waterloo station and Trafalgar Square, huh?
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
And most people’s applications for asylum from either country would be rejected, but that doesn’t mean that no one from those countries deserves asylum.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Even more remarkably, in that clip she says "India... has its own space programme". Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
These people believe in their hearts that all asylum seekers are really economic migrants & cannot possibly have good reasons for requesting asylum in the UK. Hence the comments about space programs & holidays.
Thing is the truth is somewhere between (a) all are economic migrants pretending to need asylum and (b) they are all genuinely in need of asylum. I have no idea where the percentage split is.
Almost everyone coming from France cannot be escaping from a dangerous country - unless you think France is a dangerous country.
It is. France is a failed state - according to various human rights groups, they treat asylum seekers so intolerably, that we *must* allow them into The Kingdom of Heaven. The U.K., that is.
Since they also have some oil, we know what we need to do…..
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Might be misunderstanding what you have written but the US was created before the French Revolution so before Napoleon’s reign.
Yes, that's a glaring error on my part.
But am I half remembering something - some way in which the French Revolution and Napoleonic era fed back into the development of the early US?
Would probably say that the US “revolution” was inspired by the Wars of the three Kingdoms and the writings of a lot of British thinkers and philosophers more than being French influence considering the French Crown tipped the balance in the Revolutionary war and it’s not unlikely that the US inspired the French Revolution rather than the other way round.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Might be misunderstanding what you have written but the US was created before the French Revolution so before Napoleon’s reign.
Yes, that's a glaring error on my part.
But am I half remembering something - some way in which the French Revolution and Napoleonic era fed back into the development of the early US?
It was the other way around, as far as I know: France supported the American revolution, in order to hurt the British. Sadly for Louis XVI, that support was vastly costly, and helped the country into a financial crisis. Ideas of liberty and equality, and the knowledge that you could overthrow the shackles of monarchy, emboldened the French revolutionaries.
Backing the American Revolution may have seemed a wizard wheeze to Louis XVI, but it helped cost him his head.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
His methodology for elections was interesting.
And an inspiration for many a stupid tyrant since.
He (and his bother) pioneered all the classics - forced voting, inventing votes, dumping ballot boxes in rivers…
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Yeah, but no.
I actually like Napoleon, from all I've read about him. At a personal level, I'm sure I'd have preferred his company to that of Wellington or Nelson.
He was, as you say, an outstanding military commander. Perhaps the best battlefield commander ever. At a higher level than the battlefield, Egypt, Russia, and Spain were appalling strategic blunders.
He did a lot of good within France, and withing some parts of Europe, but his soldiers looted Germany and Italy thoroughly. He emancipated the Jews, but reinstated slavery in France's overseas possessions. His treatment of Alexandre Dumas Grandpere, "the Black Count", was appalling.
10% of Spain's population died of starvation, from 1808-14, mainly due to the requisitions of French soldiers. This was a wholly unnecessary war, which could never have benefitted France, even had he won.
Napoloen was not Hitler. A lot of what he stood for was good, (the same is also true of Robespierre). But, it was still a very mixed record.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
His methodology for elections was interesting.
And an inspiration for many a stupid tyrant since.
He (and his bother) pioneered all the classics - forced voting, inventing votes, dumping ballot boxes in rivers…
Truly an innovator.
But did he do leaflets headed C'EST UNE CHASSE DE DEUX CHEVEAX?
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
Without him, what would we have called Waterloo station and Trafalgar Square, huh?
The Guardian is trolling Boris re his new baby son.
Carrie Johnson, in the caption of an Instagram post with a picture of her holding the newborn, joked: “Welcome to the world Frank Alfred Odysseus Johnson born 5th July at 9.15am. (Can you guess which name my husband chose?!)”
The French Revolution is probably something I would have hated at the time, had I been alive then. Yet, like the Industrial Revolution, it helped propel us into the modern world.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
Without him, what would we have called Waterloo station and Trafalgar Square, huh?
Well the Waterloo Station would be named after whatever the nearby bridge was named instead of Waterloo Bridge. Can’t give an obnoxious answer re Trafalgar Square however.
Today on More4. A man is building a hose. The land cost 71k. The planned construction cost is £160k. A total of £231k. He is paying £50k from his savings. His parents have remortgaged their house for the remaining £180k and have given it to him for warm fuzzies.
How much it will cost by the end? Will it even occur to him to pay his parents back? Will let you know at the end.
For me, the biggest question in this mess is whether the talent used his position and influence to get things he would otherwise not get. In which case the BBC should get rid of him immediately, as it is an abuse of his position. If not - and what happened was legal - then not.
Aside from that, it appears so far to be nowhere near as clear-cut case as Schofield.
I saw some photos of a footballer of my acquaintance earlier today with a very scantily clad girl all over him. They were in Ibiza and seemed to be having fun. In Jessops world would this man be using his position and influence to get things he wouldn't otherwise get or is is it just a case of the birds and the bees and a nice celebration after winning the treble?
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
Without him, what would we have called Waterloo station and Trafalgar Square, huh?
Well the Waterloo Station would be named after whatever the nearby bridge was named instead of Waterloo Bridge. Can’t give an obnoxious answer re Trafalgar Square however.
{EDIT - I was wrong, mixing up Picadilly Circus with Trafalgar Square} We're not exactly short of national heroes, and it would probably be called Churchill Square, or something, at least until Winston is cancelled sometime around 2025.
As a complete aside, Waterloo Station is 175 years old this week.
There's a pleasant little exhibition on the concourse underneath the famous clock with a photographic and pictorial history of the station.
The numbers on the platform between the wars is extraordinary - the station's role in both world conflicts is explained - for me, the most interesting part was from the early 1900s with the crowds heading for Ascot - they had to put on separate booths to sell tickets to Ascot.
There's also the history of the Atlantic Coast Express and the other holiday trains which ran from Waterloo to the south west from the mid 20s until 1939 and then from 1945 onward. There were five trains which departed Waterloo before 11 taking holidaymakers to Ilfracombe, Bude, Newquay and other resorts.
The trains were so long they couldn't all fit in on the Waterloo platforms so they would start two on separate platforms and then join them up at Clapham.
An echo of the service was re-started by Great Western in 2018 and there's still a summer daily departure to Newquay from Paddington.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
And most people’s applications for asylum from either country would be rejected, but that doesn’t mean that no one from those countries deserves asylum.
Telling those that deserve it from those that do not is nigh on impossible.
So what to do?
We seem to be going for the 'make it as difficult as possible so only the truly desperate try' solution favoured by the Home Office for at least 20 years.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
The thing about revolts is, they don't happen till they do. At that point, people then say, "why couldn't they see what was coming?"
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Your dog always looks stuffed. How do we know it's not stuffed?
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
... though:
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress - he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished - he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives - the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee - the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships - his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
Without him, what would we have called Waterloo station and Trafalgar Square, huh?
Agincourt Station and Crecy Square?
Mers-el-Kébir station and to show off our global alliances, von Blücher Square.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
Ultimately the UK can't stop hefty immigration because we can't make the economy work without it. There are too many bits of modern life, especially in the public sector of the economy, that don't work without immigration; certainly not at a price that the UK electorate is willing to pay.
Given the carping about tax rises to pay for our existing social care system out of tax rises, heaven only knows what happens if you pushed the cost up by employing UK staff only.
And the problem with the soft right, and I include myself in that, is that we've been too soft, and not strangled the hard right at birth. So now we are where we are.
The Guardian is trolling Boris re his new baby son.
Carrie Johnson, in the caption of an Instagram post with a picture of her holding the newborn, joked: “Welcome to the world Frank Alfred Odysseus Johnson born 5th July at 9.15am. (Can you guess which name my husband chose?!)”
That’s what one might expect from the Mirror, not a supposedly-serious newspaper.
No matter how much you dislike someone, wish them for positive life events.
Interesting NY Times story about the FT and the Guardian though. Something of a fight coming between US and UK media groups I wonder?
I tend to think "serious" left town when the iPhone arrived, and newspapers had to compete with cat pictures.
Nothing can compete with cat pictures.
I was shopping in town on Saturday and went into the library to clean up my emails and take some books back. Whilst I was sat at the terminal an elderly gentleman came in to do some research about something. After filling out some forms, he and the library assistant got to chatting. After some subjects of mutual incomprehension, they settled on talking about a website called "Cats that look like Hitler"
For me, the biggest question in this mess is whether the talent used his position and influence to get things he would otherwise not get. In which case the BBC should get rid of him immediately, as it is an abuse of his position. If not - and what happened was legal - then not.
Aside from that, it appears so far to be nowhere near as clear-cut case as Schofield.
I saw some photos of a footballer of my acquaintance earlier today with a very scantily clad girl all over him. They were in Ibiza and seemed to be having fun. In Jessops world would this man be using his position and influence to get things he wouldn't otherwise get or is is it just a case of the birds and the bees and a nice celebration after winning the treble?
"Jessops world" ?
Without going into your footballer anecdote, if you think that abuse of position and influence is not an issue, then it explains many of your comments.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
If immigration is essentially an economic phenomenon, then that could be reformulated as "more and more jobs will be created here", which seems like a much more tenuous prediction.
The Guardian is trolling Boris re his new baby son.
Carrie Johnson, in the caption of an Instagram post with a picture of her holding the newborn, joked: “Welcome to the world Frank Alfred Odysseus Johnson born 5th July at 9.15am. (Can you guess which name my husband chose?!)”
That’s what one might expect from the Mirror, not a supposedly-serious newspaper.
No matter how much you dislike someone, wish them for positive life events.
Interesting NY Times story about the FT and the Guardian though. Something of a fight coming between US and UK media groups I wonder?
I tend to think "serious" left town when the iPhone arrived, and newspapers had to compete with cat pictures.
Nothing can compete with cat pictures.
I was shopping in town on Saturday and went into the library to clean up my emails and take some books back. Whilst I was sat at the terminal an elderly gentleman came in to do some research about something. After filling out some forms, he and the library assistant got to chatting. After some subjects of mutual incomprehension, they settled on talking about a website called "Cats that look like Hitler"
Today on More4. A man is building a hose. The land cost 71k. The planned construction cost is £160k. A total of £231k. He is paying £50k from his savings. His parents have remortgaged their house for the remaining £180k and have given it to him for warm fuzzies.
How much it will cost by the end? Will it even occur to him to pay his parents back? Will let you know at the end.
[8:18pm] Joe's original plan of risking building a basement without reinforced wall fucked up, to nobody's surprise. The overspend - that's over what was originally planned - is somewhere between £30-110k to cover the cost of throwing concrete at a damp hole.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
Technically maybe but I expect she knows most of her Southend constituents will agree with her, Turkey and India are hardly warzones with mass genocide
And most people’s applications for asylum from either country would be rejected, but that doesn’t mean that no one from those countries deserves asylum.
Telling those that deserve it from those that do not is nigh on impossible.
So what to do?
We seem to be going for the 'make it as difficult as possible so only the truly desperate try' solution favoured by the Home Office for at least 20 years.
What else do we have?
It is quite probable that many, who could claim asylum, actually enter the country as economic migrants.
Getting legit working papers, if you have some kind of claim, is much easier and faster than claiming asylum.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
If immigration is essentially an economic phenomenon, then that could be reformulated as "more and more jobs will be created here", which seems like a much more tenuous prediction.
It's not just a economic phenomenon.
William Hague's nuanced piece talked about immigration happening because of other factors.
According to latest UN forecasts, the population of Africa and the Middle East is set to grow by around 320 million by the end of this decade, and 1.17 billion by 2050. We should hope that those vast numbers of young, digitally connected people will prosper in strong economies and stable political systems.
But it is only realistic to assume many will be driven by poverty, persecution and accelerating climate change to search for opportunity or safety elsewhere, particularly since they can research the countries that might provide that on their phones.
If only one in twenty of the people of that region migrated by mid-century — surely a conservative estimate — there would be 140 million people on the move.
Today on More4. A man is building a hose. The land cost 71k. The planned construction cost is £160k. A total of £231k. He is paying £50k from his savings. His parents have remortgaged their house for the remaining £180k and have given it to him for warm fuzzies.
How much it will cost by the end? Will it even occur to him to pay his parents back? Will let you know at the end.
[8:18pm] Joe's original plan of risking building a basement without reinforced wall fucked up, to nobody's surprise. The overspend - that's over what was originally planned - is somewhere between £30-110k to cover the cost of throwing concrete at a damp hole.
I've probably mentioned this before, but my dad was in building and demolition, latterly specialisng in groundworks. He said you could never truly predict the cost of a project until it got out of the ground: there was always some embuggerance in foundations or services that ended up costing more than expected. Sometimes much more.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
We really need differential approaches to the elite public schools which have become another global luxury good, like central London property, and the private day schools that mess around in the middle class selective market alongside grammar schools and postcode-based social cleansing.
Both have damaging impacts on British life but in very different ways. One gave us the likes of Boris and JRM but most of what it does is bring in export income. Perhaps we just ringfence the hyper-elite sector like we do Mayfair. Charge a luxury tax on it, a kind of poshness excise duty. The other is more of a serious market failing because its impact is more widespread.
Somehow if we could blur the line between state and private at the mid level we might be able to widen access to the facilities and skills in the independent sector and reduce social gaps in attainment. But don’t ask me how. If the answer was easy we’d have done it already.
The problem is not that the solution is difficult but that it is expensive.
Cut all classes in the state sector to a maximum of twenty and offer private schools the chance to become state at the same time, and almost all private schools would become state schools overnight.
Plus it would solve many other problems, including making behaviour management much easier.
But - nobody has ever found a way to pay for it, and it would not be cheap.
It would pay for itself over time by leading to improved educational outcomes and higher productivity. The fact we don't do it is another example of our aversion to investment in this country. Plus of course the fact that it would undermine the advantages that the rich and powerful are buying for their offspring.
I entirely agree. But it will still never happen.
Maybe, like with the idea of Brexit as shock therapy with a short term cost that would force us to adopt policies that paid off in the long term, we need to simply shut down all private schools and see what happens. It may be the only way to create a sufficiently powerful political constituency for adequately funded schools in the long run, even if in the short run it will make things worse.
Can I just check - are you a Rejoiner?
At some point I think we will rejoin because Brexit has made us poorer and because the people who found the EU most offensive are old and we all know what happens to old people. I would welcome us rejoining, but I'm not agitating for it if that's what you mean.
Historically the proportion of oldies in the UK is continuing to grow so your point may lack some of the force you intended.
Brexit backers were a specific generation of old people. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s who remembered their youth before the EEC and (to an extent) have always mourned its loss. (Fun fact: young people were the most hostile to the EEC in the 1975 referendum).
Apply that same logic to the incoming generation of not-yet-old people. We grew up in the 70s and 80s; Brexit has taken a chunk of our youth away from us. We maybe fools for thinking that way, but foolishness is part of the human condition. Based on the precedent of the boomers above us, there's no particular reason to think we'll change our mind as we get older and grumpier.
Imagine a graph of Brexit support against age. It's roughly a straight line bottom left to top right. The changes since 2016 are partly about that line moving down (Brexit seen as not a good idea) but also moving right (time doing its thing, and people carrying their prejudices with them as they age). Trouble is that, unless you track individuals, it's not easy to tell those two effects apart by looking at the graph.
Correction brexit backers are the people who voted yes to stay in back in the 70's and after watching how it evolved over 50 odd years when yeah no thanks. People who never saw the alternative of pre eu went yes we want to stay in.
The only demographic that had both experiences told the eu to fuck off. Those that only knew one side stayed sucking at mummy eu's teat
And let's be clear that Brexiteers have done an absolute shite job of convincing Millennials of the case of remaining outside the EU. They really cannot assume at all they'll become more Eurosceptic as they grow older.
And millenials did an even worse job of convincing people we should stay in. Sorry it is not my job to persuade those that vote bnp that racism is a bad idea, nor is it my job to convince millenials the eu is a bad idea. If they wanted to be in the eu they had to convince the majority....it is not the majorities job to convince them.
Experienced the Norwegian health service today, dropping in to their A&E because of a troublesome ear infection that hasn’t responded to over-the-counter stuff. My, was it impressive. More than anything it reminded me of the NHS we were supposed to be getting according to that Leave Campaign ad. More staff than patients, clean modern facilities, seen within ten minutes, blood test, doctor inspection, out within 45 minutes with a prescription, all for a £17 fee, the same that Norwegians pay, as my EHIC card hasn’t quite yet expired. Remarkable.
Earlier I did another of Clarkson’s world’s best drives, over the Trollstigen, although it was so cloudy you could hardly see anything. But it was a fun drive.
Since it’s grey and wet today, here’s a photo of a small lake from yesterday, dog for scale.
Your dog always looks stuffed. How do we know it's not stuffed?
I really don't get all the adoration for Napoleon - and that's not just because I'm British. So many deaths, all for his vanity.
Napolean almost created a european superstate and you wonder why some adore him?
His strategic and tactical military genius were unparalleled. His Code laid the basis for most of Europe's legal system, based on an equality and protection for the private property of all that was at the time revolutionary. He standardised measurements, leading to the metric system we know and use today.
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Might be misunderstanding what you have written but the US was created before the French Revolution so before Napoleon’s reign.
Yes, that's a glaring error on my part.
But am I half remembering something - some way in which the French Revolution and Napoleonic era fed back into the development of the early US?
Napoleon undoubtedly inspired the American adventurer Aaron Burr, who tried to found an empire in the western United States (what is now the midwest) but didn't get enough support.
Also, the Americans tried to use the Napoleonic Wars to seize Canada in their disgraceful, aggressive and pointless war of 1812. We were preoccupied in Europe and they thought we wouldn't be able to resist. But they totally failed and their captial city got burned and their ports blockaded as a consequence. And they inspired Canadian nationalism, meaning that Canada would always be a separate country.
About as successful as Vietnam, or Putin's invasion of Ukraine, really.
[8:25] Hey, he's using SIPS (structural insulated panels) for the above-ground bits. Suddenly I'm interested! Oh, and he's given up work to devote time to this middle-class Wendy House. God knows who's paying for his and his wife's food and shelter, as that bit is not mentioned: either she works or Daddy wrote a bigger cheque, you tell me.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
If immigration is essentially an economic phenomenon, then that could be reformulated as "more and more jobs will be created here", which seems like a much more tenuous prediction.
It's not just a economic phenomenon.
William Hague's nuanced piece talked about immigration happening because of other factors.
According to latest UN forecasts, the population of Africa and the Middle East is set to grow by around 320 million by the end of this decade, and 1.17 billion by 2050. We should hope that those vast numbers of young, digitally connected people will prosper in strong economies and stable political systems.
But it is only realistic to assume many will be driven by poverty, persecution and accelerating climate change to search for opportunity or safety elsewhere, particularly since they can research the countries that might provide that on their phones.
If only one in twenty of the people of that region migrated by mid-century — surely a conservative estimate — there would be 140 million people on the move.
The global population will grow by less over the next 25 years than it did over the preceding 25, and nobody can move anywhere unless it is economically viable for them to do so.
That’s an incredibly stupid interpretation of William Hague’s article.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
The thing about Matt Goodwin is that his predictions of populist revolt don't seem to come to pass. If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything. The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it. The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
The thing about revolts is, they don't happen till they do. At that point, people then say, "why couldn't they see what was coming?"
But what's coming is Keir Starmer and a dose of 'let's just stop the nonsense and get our heads down'.
Comments
Same as Welsh Tacsi...
eta perhaps that was your point
If you need a car with driver that you can flag down on the street, or a vehicle to take a sick person to the hospital, those two words are pretty much universal when spoken.
Boomers were never that keen on Europe.
But it is his decision and his alone.
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1678812329113272320
My sense is while the Conservatives will lose all three seats, the Selby result will be the most spectacular. I think the Greens may finish third just in front of the LDs and the Yorkshire Party.
In Somerton & Frome, I expect an LD win but not on a 30% swing - probably nearer 15-20%, underwhelming but still positive for Davey. Uxbridge will shift Labour but again not by a huge margin and with a swing well below that seen in some recent polling.
As for the REAL elections this Thursday, Wall End will be an easy Labour hold but Boleyn will be more dramatic with the Greens running Labour very close.
You'll believe whatever fits your world view, same as Big G.
Me? I couldn't give a toss.
Needless to say, this is an absurd interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The issue is whether citizens of a State have a well-founded fear of persecution there on the grounds listed in the Convention, not whether that State is nice to foreign tourists.
Anna Firth MP reckons there is no reason for any Indian or Turkish people to claim asylum, because "British people go there on holiday".
The ignorance on display is breathtaking.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1678822741271539726
https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/
only the 18-24s were more in favour of europe than in the 7- referendum than the boomers on 62% that you claimed werent keen....the 25-34 group in 2016 were equal to the boomers in the 70's to the "not keen boomers".
My point is valid, the more experience voters had of the eu the more they wanted to say fuck off.
Good to know that countries that send people into space can't possibly also persecute anybody.
Labour leads by 25% in the Red Wall, enough to win back ALL 40 of these seats in the next GE.
Red Wall VI (9 July):
Labour 52% (-1)
Conservative 27% (+1)
Reform UK 9% (–)
Liberal Democrat 6% (–)
Green 4% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 25 June
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1678796293198741504
Do voters in the Red Wall believe the Government is currently taking the right measures to address the cost-of-living crisis? (9 July)
No 66% (–)
Yes 20% (-2)
Don't know 14% (+2)
Changes +/- 25 June
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1678813961502720028
Any further discussions regarding this should be directed to my social media team.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/11/tory-mp-jonathan-djanogly-stock-portfolio-raises-questions-about-blind-trust-system
"But the fact that Djanogly’s holdings are listed in shareholder registers under his own name and at an address owned jointly with his father suggests the trust cannot be truly “blind”. Companies regularly correspond with their shareholders to provide information about shareholder meetings, dividend payments and performance updates.
Djanogly did not dispute that the shares were in his name but said he did not pick up post from the property to which information about the shareholdings would have been sent."
I have no idea where the percentage split is.
Make sure you visit nearby Romsdalen if you can though, it is seriously impressive. The Troll Wall is the tallest vertical face in Europe.
@GoodwinMJ
Former Conservative leader William "I want more immigration" Hague is a good example of what I argue in latest column
Whether Left or Right, almost all our politicians now lean much further to the cultural left than most voters
This is why millions no longer feel represented"
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1678822612888088583
His ability to seize opportunities, overcome obstacles, and inspire loyalty among his troops and the general public are characteristics that continue to captivate and inspire. It remains one of the greatest stories of history.
Within France he improved transport and infrastructure, transformed education, and promoted science and discovery. He brought an end to the bloody chaos of the immediate post-revolutionary period and stabilised it such that the French Revolution could go on to inspire revolutionary change around the world, notably leading to the creation of the US.
His opponents represented the forces of monarchy, hierarchy, and inherited privilege, and although they saw him defeated in the short term, there is no doubt that the Napoleonic upheaval ultimately led to a great leap forward in social progress.
Oh wait it is Matt Goodwin, as you were.
It's complex.
Approve: 13% (=)
Disapprove: 67% (=)
via @YouGov, 9-10 Jul
(Changes with 3 Jul)
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1678837459034034176?t=oOv_EFe43vEYz80jw1pluQ&s=19
It was the site of a famous climbing epic when Norwegian and British parties turned up at the same time to attempt the first ascent in 1965.
Like at the South Pole, the Norwegians won (by one day!), but in this case both attempts succeeded and nobody was killed. Considering the terrain and the equipment of the time, that was quite a feat. The British route became the standard one but it can't be climbed now because half the route fell down in a massive rockfall.
https://www.fjords.com/the-pioneers-of-the-troll-wall/
We did manage to climb a mountain on the opposite side of the valley but couldn't see much of the summit either:
Slartibartfast really was busy with those glaciers.
#ToryScum
But am I half remembering something - some way in which the French Revolution and Napoleonic era fed back into the development of the early US?
- the five million or so who died in his wars somehow never got to see the great leap forward in social progress
- he was one of very few leaders in modern history to reintroduce slavery after it had been abolished
- he caused chaos across Europe by grabbing thrones for his useless relatives
- the protection for private property for some reason never prevented the systematic looting of much of Europe by the Grande Armee
- the strategic and tactical genius only showed up when he was against second and third rate opponents, and deserted him in Russia, Spain and at Waterloo or whenever he had to think about ships
- his career was indeed an inspiration to many, not least Franco, Lenin and Hitler
etc etc.
I'd even argue that his regime and its wars are a reason why the industrial revolution really got going in Britain, rather than France.
And 'social progress' ? He reintroduced slavery. He was not interested in fighting the forces of monarchy; he wanted to be monarch over all of Europe. He was a tyrant.
Yes, a tyrant. But also a genius at one thing - war. IMV France - and Europe - would have been better off without him.
Since they also have some oil, we know what we need to do…..
Backing the American Revolution may have seemed a wizard wheeze to Louis XVI, but it helped cost him his head.
IANAE, AIUI etc, etc.
And an inspiration for many a stupid tyrant since.
He (and his bother) pioneered all the classics - forced voting, inventing votes, dumping ballot boxes in rivers…
Truly an innovator.
I actually like Napoleon, from all I've read about him. At a personal level, I'm sure I'd have preferred his company to that of Wellington or Nelson.
He was, as you say, an outstanding military commander. Perhaps the best battlefield commander ever. At a higher level than the battlefield, Egypt, Russia, and Spain were appalling strategic blunders.
He did a lot of good within France, and withing some parts of Europe, but his soldiers looted Germany and Italy thoroughly. He emancipated the Jews, but reinstated slavery in France's overseas possessions. His treatment of Alexandre Dumas Grandpere, "the Black Count", was appalling.
10% of Spain's population died of starvation, from 1808-14, mainly due to the requisitions of French soldiers. This was a wholly unnecessary war, which could never have benefitted France, even had he won.
Napoloen was not Hitler. A lot of what he stood for was good, (the same is also true of Robespierre). But, it was still a very mixed record.
If there is another populist revolt on immigration, as was the case with Brexit, it is unlikely to change anything.
The reality is that immigration will keep happening and it is better to look at how to manage it rather than stop it.
The best argument against identity politics is that it doesn't help facilitate integration, it just creates division.
How much it will cost by the end? Will it even occur to him to pay his parents back? Will let you know at the end.
There's a pleasant little exhibition on the concourse underneath the famous clock with a photographic and pictorial history of the station.
The numbers on the platform between the wars is extraordinary - the station's role in both world conflicts is explained - for me, the most interesting part was from the early 1900s with the crowds heading for Ascot - they had to put on separate booths to sell tickets to Ascot.
There's also the history of the Atlantic Coast Express and the other holiday trains which ran from Waterloo to the south west from the mid 20s until 1939 and then from 1945 onward. There were five trains which departed Waterloo before 11 taking holidaymakers to Ilfracombe, Bude, Newquay and other resorts.
The trains were so long they couldn't all fit in on the Waterloo platforms so they would start two on separate platforms and then join them up at Clapham.
An echo of the service was re-started by Great Western in 2018 and there's still a summer daily departure to Newquay from Paddington.
So what to do?
We seem to be going for the 'make it as difficult as possible so only the truly desperate try' solution favoured by the Home Office for at least 20 years.
What else do we have?
Given the carping about tax rises to pay for our existing social care system out of tax rises, heaven only knows what happens if you pushed the cost up by employing UK staff only.
And the problem with the soft right, and I include myself in that, is that we've been too soft, and not strangled the hard right at birth. So now we are where we are.
We are truly damned.
Without going into your footballer anecdote, if you think that abuse of position and influence is not an issue, then it explains many of your comments.
Getting legit working papers, if you have some kind of claim, is much easier and faster than claiming asylum.
William Hague's nuanced piece talked about immigration happening because of other factors.
According to latest UN forecasts, the population of Africa and the Middle East is set to grow by around 320 million by the end of this decade, and 1.17 billion by 2050. We should hope that those vast numbers of young, digitally connected people will prosper in strong economies and stable political systems.
But it is only realistic to assume many will be driven by poverty, persecution and accelerating climate change to search for opportunity or safety elsewhere, particularly since they can research the countries that might provide that on their phones.
If only one in twenty of the people of that region migrated by mid-century — surely a conservative estimate — there would be 140 million people on the move.
Also, the Americans tried to use the Napoleonic Wars to seize Canada in their disgraceful, aggressive and pointless war of 1812. We were preoccupied in Europe and they thought we wouldn't be able to resist. But they totally failed and their captial city got burned and their ports blockaded as a consequence. And they inspired Canadian nationalism, meaning that Canada would always be a separate country.
About as successful as Vietnam, or Putin's invasion of Ukraine, really.