politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It would be a mistake for Sadiq Khan to attack Zac Goldsmit
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It would be a mistake for Sadiq Khan to attack Zac Goldsmith’s out of touchness
What’s remarkable is just how evenly matched [Khan and Goldsmith] are, right down to the different aspects of their personality. Likeable? Its 41%/41%. Good in a crisis? 26%/27%. Up to the job of Mayor? 38%/39%.
Comments
-
I don't think it will be very effective to attack Zac's perceived out of touchedness, but I don't think it will exactly be a 'mistake' in the sense I doubt it would harm Khan to do it. What would be a mistake would be to focus too much on it, as since you point out it's not going to win the day if Zac is perceived to have good qualities elsewhere. Probably best for Khan to attack the policies, as you say, since those people who are going to vote based on Zac being supposedly out of touch, will not need any encouragement from the candidate to decide on that basis.0
-
Stuart Rose strikes me as an odd choice to front the IN campaign. If he was running it akin to Matthew Elliott for No to AV I could understand. Whatever his business skills he doesn't strike me as a persuasive front man.0
-
I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.0 -
I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.0
-
Weekly Politics and Farage.0
-
That seems like a big worry. I support free trade, but I don't see why they should cover non-trade issues like this. There comes a point where it is an excessive intrusion onto domestic law.rcs1000 said:I don't know if anyone's been following the TPP saga, but Wikileaks has released the intellectual property chapter. (Full text here)
It is slightly disturbing the extent to which countries are being forced to tow the line on issues that seem totally unrelated to freeing up global trade. I'm not so bothered by the extension on copyright terms to death + 70 years (although that seems long), but I do object to the provisions on DRM. Essentially, in countries which sign the TPP, circumvention of DRM is to be made a criminal offence, even when there has been no breach of copyright. Furthermore, the US DMCA is effectively being extended to a bunch more countries, with ISPs being responsible for compliance. Penalties - both civil and criminal - for infringement are also seriously strict, and go well beyond what we expect to see. Or to put it another way, the TPP pretty much outsources all local law on intellectual property to the United States.
The EFF has a good piece here.0 -
Curse of the new thread:
F1: post-race analysis up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/russia-post-race-analysis.html0 -
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/which-cabinet-minister-took-the/
I will be appalled if Cameron starts looking to sack eurosceptics as a way to neutralise them before the debate begins in a big way. This would be exactly the sort of thing that will cause a split in the party. An open debate needs both sides to behave with honesty and respect towards the other.0 -
The fact that it didn't work for Miliband isn't decisive, since the Tories had significant alternative arguments which seem to have worked well - perceived economic competence, the SNP, and doubts about Miliband himself. Khan and Goldsmith are absolutely level pegging on everything except out-of-touchness, so it would be odd not to use that argument. But of course it's right to say that you can't win just on that.
There is quite a lot of policy duelling going on, e.g. Khan has come out for transferable bus tickets, so you don't need to pay twice if the bus network happens to require you to change - Boris rejected that a couple of years ago. But the problem about London policy initiatives is that most Londoners don't think anything the mayor does will matter much so they don't get much coverage even in the Standard. People seem to vote on party allegiance plus beauty contest.
By the way, replies on European questions (Switzerland, Dutch referendum) from JEO and Charles are on the last thread - probably not of sufficient general interest to repeat.0 -
Once such policy would be Zac's resignation as an MP on account of principle when Cameron / Osborne [ correctly ] goes in favour of R3 but then supporting the Tory government who will allow the 3rd runway.kle4 said:I don't think it will be very effective to attack Zac's perceived out of touchedness, but I don't think it will exactly be a 'mistake' in the sense I doubt it would harm Khan to do it. What would be a mistake would be to focus too much on it, as since you point out it's not going to win the day if Zac is perceived to have good qualities elsewhere. Probably best for Khan to attack the policies, as you say, since those people who are going to vote based on Zac being supposedly out of touch, will not need any encouragement from the candidate to decide on that basis.
BTW, Khan himself would be wrong to oppose R3. R3 will create many, many jobs. He can also display a difference between him and McDonell [ possibly also Corbyn ]0 -
Which is completely idiotic they're the same checks that Labour introduced for Employers. It is a criminal offence to not check everyone's proof of right to work and keep a copy of it on file and that was introduced by the last Labour government. If that's ok for employers why is it discrimination for landlords?JEO said:I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.
Hypocrites.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."0 -
.0
-
Mr. Thompson, the Labour employment checks are caring, diverse, multi-cultural checks. These Conservative landlord checks are evil, divisive, nasty checks.
Obviously.0 -
Damn it: you guys started a new thread, while isam and I were on the last one wondering where everyone had gone.
I spit in your soup.0 -
On which bombshell. It's 12:45am in Melbourne, and I need to get some sleep (even though it only feels like 3pm...)kle4 said:
Damn, they've found us - new thread everyone, quick!rcs1000 said:Damn it: you guys started a new thread, while isam and I were on the last one wondering where everyone had gone.
I spit in your soup.0 -
@Richard_Tyndall (and before I go to bed... honest...)
Re the Swiss referendum, didn't the Swiss sign a treaty with the EU about access to the Single Market which included provisions re immigration.
This was then broken down into two different referendum questions: 1. re access to the Single Market and 2. re Immigration.
The Swiss said no to 2, and yes to 1. And the EU said, you get to choose on the whole package, not to segment it as you please.
I.e., you can have 1 & 2, or not 1 and not 2. But you cannot have 1 and not 2.0 -
F1: seems Pirelli will continue to make the tyres for another 3 years.0
-
LOLMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, the Labour employment checks are caring, diverse, multi-cultural checks. These Conservative landlord checks are evil, divisive, nasty checks.
Obviously.0 -
Whisky, wine or calves vs lambs liver? All very appropriate subjects for around lunchtime on a Sunday.kle4 said:
Damn, they've found us - new thread everyone, quick!rcs1000 said:Damn it: you guys started a new thread, while isam and I were on the last one wondering where everyone had gone.
I spit in your soup.0 -
Any polls anywhere ? I need a fix.0
-
I'm oinked out on roast beef, yorkshires, dauphin potatoes, sauted french beans/mushrooms/asparagus/mangetout and red pepper.
*lays on sofa with glass of red wine*OldKingCole said:
Whisky, wine or calves vs lambs liver? All very appropriate subjects for around lunchtime on a Sunday.kle4 said:
Damn, they've found us - new thread everyone, quick!rcs1000 said:Damn it: you guys started a new thread, while isam and I were on the last one wondering where everyone had gone.
I spit in your soup.0 -
Yes, basically. The proposers of the ultimately successful initiative opposed the freedom of movement part of the deal, and the EU then said you can't cherry-pick the package (the actual words used by the negotiator), it's all or none.rcs1000 said:@Richard_Tyndall (and before I go to bed... honest...)
Re the Swiss referendum, didn't the Swiss sign a treaty with the EU about access to the Single Market which included provisions re immigration.
This was then broken down into two different referendum questions: 1. re access to the Single Market and 2. re Immigration.
The Swiss said no to 2, and yes to 1. And the EU said, you get to choose on the whole package, not to segment it as you please.
I.e., you can have 1 & 2, or not 1 and not 2. But you cannot have 1 and not 2.0 -
My wife is watching Educating Cardiff, the latest in the series. Kids in year 9 have no idea about their 8x table.
Is that not really weird? How can 13 year olds not know their 8x table?
The standard of the teaching is seriously down on Yorkshire as well. It is one of the poorest schools in Cardiff apparently, but blimey, they have problems.0 -
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
0 -
Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..0
-
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.0 -
Never liked veal, isn't that quite popular in Italy?richardDodd said:
Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
I'm not attacking Vote Leave.MikeK said:Weekly Politics and Farage.
There are two campaigns: Leave.EU is a people's campaign with 200,000 members. Vote Leave is run by a clique of Westminster politicians. But I'm not attacking them. No siree. Of course not. Pure as the driven snow I am. Butter wouldn't melt in my mouth.0 -
FPT:
Some pretty unconvincing numbers for Hillary Clinton vs Trump:
Florida: Clinton 46%, Trump 41%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 42%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
Iowa: Trump 48%, Clinton 41%
New Hampshire: Clinton 48%, Trump 45%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/0 -
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."0 -
I'd like to see more details of that too - sounds like an admirable scheme.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
I think high density housing has an image problem due to ugly ideologically driven rabbit hutch high rises. Doesn't have to be like that.0 -
We get all our meat from local farms direct (and occasionally hunters of our land)richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
I love it (never used to order it due to ethical reasons, but the few times I had it it was delish). It's not an issue now though because most veal is Rose veal that is simply 'calf' rather than locked in a crate calf.Plato_Says said:Never liked veal, isn't that quite popular in Italy?
richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
Was surprised you liked elk to venison, I assumed elk would be very gamey.MTimT said:
We get all our meat from local farms direct (and occasionally hunters of our land)richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
Dauphin potatoes. At restaurants, my wife knows what I will chose for a main course based on the accompanying potatoes. Dauphinois is a dead give away.Plato_Says said:I'm oinked out on roast beef, yorkshires, dauphin potatoes, sauted french beans/mushrooms/asparagus/mangetout and red pepper.
*lays on sofa with glass of red wine*OldKingCole said:
Whisky, wine or calves vs lambs liver? All very appropriate subjects for around lunchtime on a Sunday.kle4 said:
Damn, they've found us - new thread everyone, quick!rcs1000 said:Damn it: you guys started a new thread, while isam and I were on the last one wondering where everyone had gone.
I spit in your soup.0 -
Where is 'here'? You dont mean UK, do you? I cant move for cows in fields. Maybe you need to live in an area where the cows grow.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.
0 -
Interesting thought; the (young) teachers I know are leaving because they can't take the continual political interference and the paperworkfelix said:
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."
As my granddaughter put when someone commiserated with her on teaching teenagers ... "it's not the kid, the kids are lovely."0 -
I believe that the architectural arrogance that inflicted Brutalist building on us in the 60s/70s was unforgivable.
Who wants to live in a Ken Loach nightmare?flightpath01 said:
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.0 -
Cows are actually very curious and very dangerous. If you are used to animals, the bluff and courage is enough to get them to do what you want without causing panic.kle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Cows with calves are very defensive and will stampede if they perceive you as a threat, while everyone knows about older bulls, and why they arent allowed on public walkways, the same isnt for young bulls up to a certain age. They get very aggressive and territorial.
I often run along a river, with cows to the other side of the path. You have to be very careful and aware with them.0 -
It's a well known fact that labour cuts are sweet soft and cuddly to the extent that they never happen.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, the Labour employment checks are caring, diverse, multi-cultural checks. These Conservative landlord checks are evil, divisive, nasty checks.
Obviously.0 -
MTimT said:
Dauphin potatoes. At restaurants, my wife knows what I will chose for a main course based on the accompanying potatoes. Dauphinois is a dead give away.Plato_Says said:I'm oinked out on roast beef, yorkshires, dauphin potatoes, sauted french beans/mushrooms/asparagus/mangetout and red pepper.
*lays on sofa with glass of red wine*OldKingCole said:
Whisky, wine or calves vs lambs liver? All very appropriate subjects for around lunchtime on a Sunday.kle4 said:
Damn, they've found us - new thread everyone, quick!rcs1000 said:Damn it: you guys started a new thread, while isam and I were on the last one wondering where everyone had gone.
I spit in your soup.
Last night our evening meal was steak in pepper sauce, with an excellent bottle of Shiraz, bought the previous day from Majestic.
If only Wales had won both games it would have been a perfect evening!0 -
There are now moves to list some 'brutalist' buildings which obviously does not particularly mean housing. I have some sympathy with that but as ever the devil is in the details.Plato_Says said:I believe that the architectural arrogance that inflicted Brutalist building on us in the 60s/70s was unforgivable.
Who wants to live in a Ken Loach nightmare?flightpath01 said:
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.0 -
AFAIC if someone wants to appreciate ugly oppressive architecture - they can go to Eastern bloc passim or Oslo that has far too many civic buildings of that ilk.
The multi-storey car park made famous in Get Carter is an eye sore of epic proportions in Gateshead - it makes a sunny day feel grim. Knock it down.flightpath01 said:
There are now moves to list some 'brutalist' buildings which obviously does not particularly mean housing. I have some sympathy with that but as ever the devil is in the details.Plato_Says said:I believe that the architectural arrogance that inflicted Brutalist building on us in the 60s/70s was unforgivable.
Who wants to live in a Ken Loach nightmare?flightpath01 said:
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.0 -
The contenders need to get the public to see their personae. This is in large part a beauty contest.0
-
TBF< Gateshead has never been noted for it's architecture.Plato_Says said:AFAIC if someone wants to appreciate ugly oppressive architecture - they can go to Eastern bloc passim or Oslo that has far too many civic buildings of that ilk.
The multi-storey car park made famous in Get Carter is an eye sore of epic proportions in Gateshead - it makes a sunny day feel grim. Knock it down.flightpath01 said:
There are now moves to list some 'brutalist' buildings which obviously does not particularly mean housing. I have some sympathy with that but as ever the devil is in the details.Plato_Says said:I believe that the architectural arrogance that inflicted Brutalist building on us in the 60s/70s was unforgivable.
Who wants to live in a Ken Loach nightmare?flightpath01 said:
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.0 -
On hot off-topics:
1) whisky? Not for me thanks. Irish whiskey is acceptable.
2) sloe gin is maturing nicely. I too am a devotee of freezing them. I also make walnut brandy and cherry brandy and have experimented with limoncello.
3) my mother in law is considerably easier going than my other half, though both have a flair for drama that I can only admire.0 -
My city dwelling friends do not, I think, realise quite how big a cow is...notme said:
Cows are actually very curious and very dangerous. If you are used to animals, the bluff and courage is enough to get them to do what you want without causing panic.kle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Cows with calves are very defensive and will stampede if they perceive you as a threat, while everyone knows about older bulls, and why they arent allowed on public walkways, the same isnt for young bulls up to a certain age. They get very aggressive and territorial.
I often run along a river, with cows to the other side of the path. You have to be very careful and aware with them.0 -
How many teachers are there in total? Then I can decide whether that's an attrition rate worth worrying about.felix said:
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."0 -
And calendars?Morris_Dancer said:F1: seems Pirelli will continue to make the tyres for another 3 years.
0 -
It's Andy Burnham. What do you expect? He is the gold standard for inconsistency.Philip_Thompson said:
Which is completely idiotic they're the same checks that Labour introduced for Employers. It is a criminal offence to not check everyone's proof of right to work and keep a copy of it on file and that was introduced by the last Labour government. If that's ok for employers why is it discrimination for landlords?JEO said:I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.
Hypocrites.
The man is fool.0 -
The BBC ran a very interesting series recently called ‘The Secret History Of Our Streets’ which covered the economic changes over time of shopping high streets in London and the clearance of good, solid Victorian housing stock to make way for new housing schemes. 40 years later unsurprisingly, the ‘new homes’ are little more than slums, while the older properties in streets adjacent to those cleared are now worth rather a lot. – Ironically, the architect responsible for designing the new brutalist estates was always interviewed while happily ensconced in his Georgian town house.Plato_Says said:
I believe that the architectural arrogance that inflicted Brutalist building on us in the 60s/70s was unforgivable.
Who wants to live in a Ken Loach nightmare?flightpath01 said:JEO said:NickPalmer said:JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
0 -
My next door neighbour had a bull of epic proportions - I've lived cheek by jowl with many large farm animals - but this thing was the bovine version of King Kong. She rode it and the first time I saw it, I couldn't believe my eyes.
It was 6ft at the shoulder, huge wide horns and 800lbs at least. No idea what breed - but !!!!!!
This sort of scale http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392792/What-load-bull-Britains-biggest-bull-retires--spared-going-mincer.htmlTheWhiteRabbit said:
My city dwelling friends do not, I think, realise quite how big a cow is...notme said:
Cows are actually very curious and very dangerous. If you are used to animals, the bluff and courage is enough to get them to do what you want without causing panic.kle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Cows with calves are very defensive and will stampede if they perceive you as a threat, while everyone knows about older bulls, and why they arent allowed on public walkways, the same isnt for young bulls up to a certain age. They get very aggressive and territorial.
I often run along a river, with cows to the other side of the path. You have to be very careful and aware with them.0 -
In the fields by Dedham along the river the cows come up to nick things out of people picnic'skle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Very disconcerting for those who thought they might enjoy their picnic in peace.0 -
Elk filet mignon is the best meat ever, with the possible exception of really good horse meat. It is a deep purple raw, and melts in your mouth. The texture not at all stringy or tough, and the flavour mild, unlike venison.Plato_Says said:Was surprised you liked elk to venison, I assumed elk would be very gamey.
MTimT said:
We get all our meat from local farms direct (and occasionally hunters of our land)richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
0 -
Having had a few run-ins with the EFF over the years, I would not take everything they say as being the absolute truth. They have an agenda.JEO said:
That seems like a big worry. I support free trade, but I don't see why they should cover non-trade issues like this. There comes a point where it is an excessive intrusion onto domestic law.rcs1000 said:I don't know if anyone's been following the TPP saga, but Wikileaks has released the intellectual property chapter. (Full text here)
It is slightly disturbing the extent to which countries are being forced to tow the line on issues that seem totally unrelated to freeing up global trade. I'm not so bothered by the extension on copyright terms to death + 70 years (although that seems long), but I do object to the provisions on DRM. Essentially, in countries which sign the TPP, circumvention of DRM is to be made a criminal offence, even when there has been no breach of copyright. Furthermore, the US DMCA is effectively being extended to a bunch more countries, with ISPs being responsible for compliance. Penalties - both civil and criminal - for infringement are also seriously strict, and go well beyond what we expect to see. Or to put it another way, the TPP pretty much outsources all local law on intellectual property to the United States.
The EFF has a good piece here.
That said, copyright laws in general really aren't fit for purpose. And the copyright lobby is hugely powerful. Not least because it can put PMs and Presidents in the same photos as Hollywood stars and world famous musicians.
0 -
Shower of bricks over Glasgow. Demolition of 1960s tower blocks.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-11/failed-demolition-of-red-road-flats-leaves-two-tower-blocks-standing/
I can almost imagine Blaster Bates retelling this one.0 -
But this is not going to add to the stock of homes
But it may reduce the stock of misery, ill-health and crime. So go for it.0 -
"in November 2011, there were 438,000 teachers in state-funded schools in England on a full-time equivalent basis"John_M said:
How many teachers are there in total? Then I can decide whether that's an attrition rate worth worrying about.felix said:
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."
So if the average teacher does 40 years in the profession, you'd expect 2.5% + from just retirements, i.e. 11,000 per year. That means the loss above retirement is something less than 38,000 or 7-8%. This does not strike me as particularly high, but I am ready to be educated if I am wrong on this.
The intake into teacher training education for 2014 was 32,500 so if this were sustained, it would appear that there would be a drain on teacher numbers, unless there is return to the workforce for teachers who had previously left (maternity leave?) or entry into teaching without going through formal teacher training college. HMG claims it is filling 92% of its teacher training target.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380175/ITT_CENSUS_2014-15_FINAL.pdf)0 -
Apparently not. I was following a front organisation for some lacklustre labour women called Woman Up, and apparently Pirelli will no longer be doing the usual, now it will be full of 'inspirational women'.MarqueeMark said:
And calendars?Morris_Dancer said:F1: seems Pirelli will continue to make the tyres for another 3 years.
FFS.0 -
Speaking of ugly architecture getting zapped
3, 2, 1.... controlled explosion, and Glasgow's skyline is changed forever http://t.co/qu9yohn8yn #redroadflats http://t.co/D15jASeNlC0 -
That's an interesting and helpful comment - thanks: I understand the idea better now. Reading the link that JEO provided, I think I'd reserve judgment pending some specific examples, but I see the idea of defensible space.flightpath01 said:
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.
My own affection for tower block living (going back to my Danish youth) was mostly centred on a single huge well-managed block which was neatly located between a railway and urban area on one side and a village on the other. It worked well and housed about 150 families at modest cost with wonderful access to transport, shopping and green spaces - it's still there 50 years later and still looks good. But I see the problem if you have 20 blocks with unclear "ownership" of the area between them. Hmm.
0 -
Khan faces a dilemma I think. He can win in two ways; either by going all out 'ethnic', or by appealing to the middle. Dithering though will (in my view) lose him the election. He'll go 'middle' I'm sure. He's not a conviction politician. The tough thing is though that he'll be at least in art fighting against Corbyn along the way.
So disappointing that Labour didn't go for a substantial politician like David Lammy
Talking of which I think a David Lammy sweepstake is a good idea! Which job will he apply for next?
1. God
2. A private sector role
3. Mayor
4. Pontiff
5. Something at the BBC
6. Labour leader
7. McDonalds
8. Something in Europe
9. US president
10. Russian President
As these are clearly equally likely it'll be an interesting run!
0 -
Do you currently live in a tower block?NickPalmer said:
That's an interesting and helpful comment - thanks: I understand the idea better now. Reading the link that JEO provided, I think I'd reserve judgment pending some specific examples, but I see the idea of defensible space.flightpath01 said:
Just being ugly is not a good reason, but that is probably a catch all for badly designed to the extent of incentivising community decline and decay.JEO said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-knock-down-ugly-estates-to-build-better-homes-for-londoners-a3083756.htmlNickPalmer said:
I like that in principle too, but the version I saw didn't actually sound like high-density, just more modern houses. Do you have a link? I'd favour moves to increase density, but if it was merely for visual attractiveness then it probably wouldn't be worth the disruption.JEO said:I've warmed to Goldsmith a lot. I really liked his idea to knock down ugly 1960s housing estates to build new high density housing.
P.S. Thank you for the information on Switzerland from the previous thread. Very informative.
It's not so much the design of houses but the planning of the communities which was wrong. High rise does not equate to high density since there has to be lots of empty space and parking between the towers. This is the problem, this space belongs to nobody. Deck access seems even worse. There have been major demolition programmes in Manchester and Sheffield I think involving these types. It's a tragedy to knock down houses but the mistakes of the 60's were terrible ones. If it can be shown that the estates deserve it then we need to get rid of them. But this is not going to add to the stock of homes.
The concept being suggested some time ago for successful development was one of 'defensible space' I believe. Occupiers need to have something to call their own and interlopers and troublemakers need to be aware of their acts of trespass.
My own affection for tower block living (going back to my Danish youth) was mostly centred on a single huge well-managed block which was neatly located between a railway and urban area on one side and a village on the other. It worked well and housed about 150 families at modest cost with wonderful access to transport, shopping and green spaces - it's still there 50 years later and still looks good. But I see the problem if you have 20 blocks with unclear "ownership" of the area between them. Hmm.
0 -
Well the path between the two is very much shorter than you think....JEO said:I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.
We'll have to see how this plays out but I for one am not pleased about it...0 -
I believe that there is also an anatomical element to this issue. Our horizontal peripheral vision is 200-220 degrees whereas the vertical one is 135 degrees. That means that we see more horizontally than vertically - making low rise buildings much more comfortably within our field of vision, hence adding to ownership, ability to observe/police and sense of security.NickPalmer said:
That's an interesting and helpful comment - thanks: I understand the idea better now. Reading the link that JEO provided, I think I'd reserve judgment pending some specific examples, but I see the idea of defensible space.
My own affection for tower block living (going back to my Danish youth) was mostly centred on a single huge well-managed block which was neatly located between a railway and urban area on one side and a village on the other. It worked well and housed about 150 families at modest cost with wonderful access to transport, shopping and green spaces - it's still there 50 years later and still looks good. But I see the problem if you have 20 blocks with unclear "ownership" of the area between them. Hmm.0 -
Burnham is unnecessarily racialising a non-racial issue to play to the Labour gallery. It is bitter and inflammatory politics, which Labour supporters would heavily criticise if UKIP did the same thing to stir up white anger.murali_s said:
Well the path between the two is very much shorter than you think....JEO said:I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.
We'll have to see how this plays out but I for one am not pleased about it...0 -
Jogging past some geese daily when I stay with one of my friends is truly a terrifying ordeal. At one point I was chased to a farm gate which I vaulted, inexpertly, to escape.notme said:
Cows are actually very curious and very dangerous. If you are used to animals, the bluff and courage is enough to get them to do what you want without causing panic.kle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Cows with calves are very defensive and will stampede if they perceive you as a threat, while everyone knows about older bulls, and why they arent allowed on public walkways, the same isnt for young bulls up to a certain age. They get very aggressive and territorial.
I often run along a river, with cows to the other side of the path. You have to be very careful and aware with them.
Have we increduled here (in which case apologies) about the pathetic Cam "four musts" (as though he is living in 1970s PRC) yet and at sufficient length?0 -
Spot on.JEO said:
Burnham is unnecessarily racialising a non-racial issue to play to the Labour gallery. It is bitter and inflammatory politics, which Labour supporters would heavily criticise if UKIP did the same thing to stir up white anger.murali_s said:
Well the path between the two is very much shorter than you think....JEO said:I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.
We'll have to see how this plays out but I for one am not pleased about it...0 -
Another farming neighbour got some geese as she thought they'd be fun and supply eggs - they killed most of her chickens. Great guard birds though, I'm wary of them.TOPPING said:
Jogging past some geese daily when I stay with one of my friends is truly a terrifying ordeal. At one point I was chased to a farm gate which I vaulted, inexpertly, to escape.notme said:
Cows are actually very curious and very dangerous. If you are used to animals, the bluff and courage is enough to get them to do what you want without causing panic.kle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Cows with calves are very defensive and will stampede if they perceive you as a threat, while everyone knows about older bulls, and why they arent allowed on public walkways, the same isnt for young bulls up to a certain age. They get very aggressive and territorial.
I often run along a river, with cows to the other side of the path. You have to be very careful and aware with them.
Have we increduled here (in which case apologies) about the pathetic Cam "four musts" (as though he is living in 1970s PRC) yet and at sufficient length?0 -
I think the "too rich, out of touch" jibes only work when paired with actual policy. Whenever Labour tried it in the 2005-10 Parliament against Cameron, it always seemed gratuitous and irrelevant. It was only when they got into government, and they started simultaneously clobbering poor people while showering the rich with goodies, that the public started to feel their posh-ness was relevant.kle4 said:I don't think it will be very effective to attack Zac's perceived out of touchedness, but I don't think it will exactly be a 'mistake' in the sense I doubt it would harm Khan to do it. What would be a mistake would be to focus too much on it, as since you point out it's not going to win the day if Zac is perceived to have good qualities elsewhere. Probably best for Khan to attack the policies, as you say, since those people who are going to vote based on Zac being supposedly out of touch, will not need any encouragement from the candidate to decide on that basis.
Which brings me onto the next point: I think it's just wrong to say the "posh/out of touch" attacks didn't work at all in the last parliament. How people vote in a general election, and how they vote in mid-term elections are very different things. In the mid-term elections, the sense that the Tories were a bunch of rich kids was one of the main reasons the Tories got dustings (especially in 2012 immediately after the tax giveaway to millionaires). At the general election, people felt it was more important to go with the party who was best on the economy and which leader would look less out-of-place at world summits, but nobody thinks the Mayor of London is going to affect either of those things so people will vote on personality.0 -
It did work and was effective. Happily the fact that Lab was perceived as fiscally incompetent worked more effectively. However, as a shall we say to the right of the party economically and wet/left of it socially Cons supporter, I did cringe every time yet another OE was appointed to some position of power. Being voted in by the GBP is ofc different but my heart does sink at Zac's profile.Danny565 said:
I think the "too rich, out of touch" jibes only work when paired with actual policy. Whenever Labour tried it in the 2005-10 Parliament against Cameron, it always seemed gratuitous and irrelevant. It was only when they got into government, and they started simultaneously clobbering poor people while showering the rich with goodies, that the public started to feel their posh-ness was relevant.kle4 said:I don't think it will be very effective to attack Zac's perceived out of touchedness, but I don't think it will exactly be a 'mistake' in the sense I doubt it would harm Khan to do it. What would be a mistake would be to focus too much on it, as since you point out it's not going to win the day if Zac is perceived to have good qualities elsewhere. Probably best for Khan to attack the policies, as you say, since those people who are going to vote based on Zac being supposedly out of touch, will not need any encouragement from the candidate to decide on that basis.
Which brings me onto the next point: I think it's just wrong to say the "posh/out of touch" attacks didn't work at all in the last parliament. How people vote in a general election, and how they vote in mid-term elections are very different things. In the mid-term elections, the sense that the Tories were a bunch of rich kids was one of the main reasons the Tories got dustings (especially in 2012 immediately after the tax giveaway to millionaires). At the general election, people felt it was more important to go with the party who was best on the economy and which leader would look less out-of-place at world summits, but nobody thinks the Mayor of London is going to affect either of those things so people will vote on personality.
The question I asked throughout 05-10 remains - are there really no super-bright, intellectually gigantic, switched on, streetwise Cons candidates from Worksop? Or in this case Dagenham (no offence)?0 -
murali_s said:
Well the path between the two is very much shorter than you think....JEO said:I see Labour are opposing immigration checks once again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34498836
Apparently, making sure someone is in the UK legally is the equivalent to no dogs, no blacks, no Irish signs.
We'll have to see how this plays out but I for one am not pleased about it...
Were you happy about it when Labour introduced it for employers?
0 -
No, there aren't any around here in Holloway. I'm in a flat on the 3rd floor of a 4-story block. There are some taller blocks not far away where I wouldn't mind living, but this one is convenient for work and shopping (literally on top of a Sainsbury and there are four buses getting me to work in 10 minutes).Omnium said:
Do you currently live in a tower block?
0 -
Khan does not need to go "all out ethnic" (whatever that means) but he might have an advantage simply from being profiled in the ethnic press (whereas the posh publications are more likely to feature Zac). I'm thinking of lifestyle-type features here, not politics. It will provide visibility at a time when both men are quite unknown.Omnium said:Khan faces a dilemma I think. He can win in two ways; either by going all out 'ethnic', or by appealing to the middle. Dithering though will (in my view) lose him the election. He'll go 'middle' I'm sure. He's not a conviction politician. The tough thing is though that he'll be at least in art fighting against Corbyn along the way.
So disappointing that Labour didn't go for a substantial politician like David Lammy
Talking of which I think a David Lammy sweepstake is a good idea! Which job will he apply for next?
1. God
2. A private sector role
3. Mayor
4. Pontiff
5. Something at the BBC
6. Labour leader
7. McDonalds
8. Something in Europe
9. US president
10. Russian President
As these are clearly equally likely it'll be an interesting run!0 -
Plato - you will be pleased to learn that the Get Carter car park was demolished a couple of years ago. I mourn its passing but I do have a coffee mug featuring this Geordie icon.
Another landmark featured in the film - Dunston coal staithes - are now open to the public to walk along. When I was young, I used to watch the coal wagons being shunted up to the top, and the empty wagons heading back down under gravity. Happy days.0 -
Yet she still would have a comfortable victory over Trump on those numbers, indeed a poll last week had her beating him in NC. A Trump GOP nomination is Hillary's best chance of the White HouseAndyJS said:FPT:
Some pretty unconvincing numbers for Hillary Clinton vs Trump:
Florida: Clinton 46%, Trump 41%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 42%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
Iowa: Trump 48%, Clinton 41%
New Hampshire: Clinton 48%, Trump 45%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/0 -
On topic - I wonder if Zac will be able to mop up Green second preferences? If Sadiq comes out in favour of the runway, might the Greens actually endorse Zac for second preference?0
-
Thank you Tim - my apologies for being too lazy to research the answer myself. 7-8% attrition doesn't seem out of whack with normal commercial turnover. We used to worry if it approached 10% (though I've been in organisations with 12-15% attrition that still functioned well).MTimT said:
"in November 2011, there were 438,000 teachers in state-funded schools in England on a full-time equivalent basis"John_M said:
How many teachers are there in total? Then I can decide whether that's an attrition rate worth worrying about.felix said:
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."
So if the average teacher does 40 years in the profession, you'd expect 2.5% + from just retirements, i.e. 11,000 per year. That means the loss above retirement is something less than 38,000 or 7-8%. This does not strike me as particularly high, but I am ready to be educated if I am wrong on this.
The intake into teacher training education for 2014 was 32,500 so if this were sustained, it would appear that there would be a drain on teacher numbers, unless there is return to the workforce for teachers who had previously left (maternity leave?) or entry into teaching without going through formal teacher training college. HMG claims it is filling 92% of its teacher training target.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380175/ITT_CENSUS_2014-15_FINAL.pdf)0 -
Equally, a Hillary nomination is probably Trump's best chance.HYUFD said:
Yet she still would have a comfortable victory over Trump on those numbers, indeed a poll last week had her beating him in NC. A Trump GOP nomination is Hillary's best chance of the White HouseAndyJS said:FPT:
Some pretty unconvincing numbers for Hillary Clinton vs Trump:
Florida: Clinton 46%, Trump 41%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 42%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
Iowa: Trump 48%, Clinton 41%
New Hampshire: Clinton 48%, Trump 45%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/0 -
I can't believe that Cameron is asking for so little, yet is likely not to achieve any of them. However, we'll just have to wait and see. I keep hoping he has a cunning planTOPPING said:
Jogging past some geese daily when I stay with one of my friends is truly a terrifying ordeal. At one point I was chased to a farm gate which I vaulted, inexpertly, to escape.notme said:
Cows are actually very curious and very dangerous. If you are used to animals, the bluff and courage is enough to get them to do what you want without causing panic.kle4 said:
I seem to bump into cows whenever I wander the local fields down my way - they often follow people around, and it makes me nervous I must say, coward that I am.richardDodd said:Plato.. I never eat roast beef here mainly because there is never a cow seen in in a field..they spend their lives locked up in sheds..
Cows with calves are very defensive and will stampede if they perceive you as a threat, while everyone knows about older bulls, and why they arent allowed on public walkways, the same isnt for young bulls up to a certain age. They get very aggressive and territorial.
I often run along a river, with cows to the other side of the path. You have to be very careful and aware with them.
Have we increduled here (in which case apologies) about the pathetic Cam "four musts" (as though he is living in 1970s PRC) yet and at sufficient length?. 0 -
Excellent - my aunty Dorothy lived in a Roker cottage. They're better looking unless someone turns them into a dormer delight.SandyRentool said:
Plato - you will be pleased to learn that the Get Carter car park was demolished a couple of years ago. I mourn its passing but I do have a coffee mug featuring this Geordie icon.
Another landmark featured in the film - Dunston coal staithes - are now open to the public to walk along. When I was young, I used to watch the coal wagons being shunted up to the top, and the empty wagons heading back down under gravity. Happy days.0 -
Or to put it another way, the number leaving was four times the expected attrition rate due to natural wastage and 50% above the numbers entering, at a time when pupil numbers are rapidly increasing (I think incidentally you mean "more" than 38,000, on those figures).MTimT said:
"in November 2011, there were 438,000 teachers in state-funded schools in England on a full-time equivalent basis"John_M said:
How many teachers are there in total? Then I can decide whether that's an attrition rate worth worrying about.felix said:
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."
So if the average teacher does 40 years in the profession, you'd expect 2.5% + from just retirements, i.e. 11,000 per year. That means the loss above retirement is something less than 38,000 or 7-8%. This does not strike me as particularly high, but I am ready to be educated if I am wrong on this.
The intake into teacher training education for 2014 was 32,500 so if this were sustained, it would appear that there would be a drain on teacher numbers, unless there is return to the workforce for teachers who had previously left (maternity leave?) or entry into teaching without going through formal teacher training college. HMG claims it is filling 92% of its teacher training target.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380175/ITT_CENSUS_2014-15_FINAL.pdf)
It would be interesting to know the ages of those who quit, given that now over half of all NQTs leave the profession within five years.
The thing is, teaching is not like say, accountancy, where one person with a computer can make up for about eight with quill pens. There is a certain critical mass needed for it to be viable, and it also has to be in the right subjects. If 50,000 teachers spread evenly across subjects go, that's a problem. If fifty thousand scientists and mathematicians - the ones who are both most overworked and most in demand in other jobs - walk, that's a crisis.0 -
Well if you say he doesn't need to do something then I presume you know what that something means. Zac's lifestyle is probably pretty nice.DecrepitJohnL said:
Khan does not need to go "all out ethnic" (whatever that means) but he might have an advantage simply from being profiled in the ethnic press (whereas the posh publications are more likely to feature Zac). I'm thinking of lifestyle-type features here, not politics. It will provide visibility at a time when both men are quite unknown.Omnium said:Khan faces a dilemma I think. He can win in two ways; either by going all out 'ethnic', or by appealing to the middle. Dithering though will (in my view) lose him the election. He'll go 'middle' I'm sure. He's not a conviction politician. The tough thing is though that he'll be at least in art fighting against Corbyn along the way.
So disappointing that Labour didn't go for a substantial politician like David Lammy
Talking of which I think a David Lammy sweepstake is a good idea! Which job will he apply for next?
1. God
2. A private sector role
3. Mayor
4. Pontiff
5. Something at the BBC
6. Labour leader
7. McDonalds
8. Something in Europe
9. US president
10. Russian President
As these are clearly equally likely it'll be an interesting run!0 -
But it's not 7-8%, is it? It's over 11%.John_M said:
Thank you Tim - my apologies for being too lazy to research the answer myself. 7-8% attrition doesn't seem out of whack with normal commercial turnover. We used to worry if it approached 10% (though I've been in organisations with 12-15% attrition that still functioned well).MTimT said:
"in November 2011, there were 438,000 teachers in state-funded schools in England on a full-time equivalent basis"John_M said:
How many teachers are there in total? Then I can decide whether that's an attrition rate worth worrying about.felix said:
Whenever unemployment falls generally people leave teaching - reflects an economy doing well. Good for the UK and good for teachers as it will help them bid up their wages. Incidental bonus - many of the leavers will be those who can't hack it. In my 35 years in the profession i've seen this pattern happen many times.surbiton said:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/10/teacher-shortfall-schools-overseas-recruits
Just pointing out. Whether IN or OUT hardly matters.
"Between November 2013 and November 2014, 49,120 teachers left the profession – an increase of 3,480 teachers on the previous year, and the largest number to quit in a year since records began."
So if the average teacher does 40 years in the profession, you'd expect 2.5% + from just retirements, i.e. 11,000 per year. That means the loss above retirement is something less than 38,000 or 7-8%. This does not strike me as particularly high, but I am ready to be educated if I am wrong on this.
The intake into teacher training education for 2014 was 32,500 so if this were sustained, it would appear that there would be a drain on teacher numbers, unless there is return to the workforce for teachers who had previously left (maternity leave?) or entry into teaching without going through formal teacher training college. HMG claims it is filling 92% of its teacher training target.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380175/ITT_CENSUS_2014-15_FINAL.pdf)0 -
She still does a bit better than Sanders against Trump on average, though Biden does better than bothSandyRentool said:
Equally, a Hillary nomination is probably Trump's best chance.HYUFD said:
Yet she still would have a comfortable victory over Trump on those numbers, indeed a poll last week had her beating him in NC. A Trump GOP nomination is Hillary's best chance of the White HouseAndyJS said:FPT:
Some pretty unconvincing numbers for Hillary Clinton vs Trump:
Florida: Clinton 46%, Trump 41%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 42%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 44%, Trump 42%
Iowa: Trump 48%, Clinton 41%
New Hampshire: Clinton 48%, Trump 45%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/0 -
INcidentally, I'm not going to repost them but my comments here from last week still have relevance to @John_M and @MTimT's discussion.
Just to reiterate, in light of subsequent comments - I do not know when OFSTED are coming in. The only reason I am doing all this extra paperwork is because it is what they insist on seeing when they do come in. It is totally irrelevant to the education I am giving my children, and putting me under a colossal and unnecessary strain. However, if I don't do it, the outstanding exam results don't matter and we will get a 4 for having the wrong paperwork. It has made me wonder whether I should also quit teaching in favour of a profession where you are not constantly bossed about by a bunch of pompous failures (does anyone know of such a profession)? So these figures do not surprise me.0 -
No, I meant less. 2.5% retirement is the low end estimate as it is likely the average teaching career is less than 40 years across men and women teachers, and teachers coming to the profession late, say as a second career after being in the military.ydoethur said:
Or to put it another way, the number leaving was four times the expected attrition rate due to natural wastage and 50% above the numbers entering, at a time when pupil numbers are rapidly increasing (I think incidentally you mean "more" than 38,000, on those figures).
It would be interesting to know the ages of those who quit, given that now over half of all NQTs leave the profession within five years.
The thing is, teaching is not like say, accountancy, where one person with a computer can make up for about eight with quill pens. There is a certain critical mass needed for it to be viable, and it also has to be in the right subjects. If 50,000 teachers spread evenly across subjects go, that's a problem. If fifty thousand scientists and mathematicians - the ones who are both most overworked and most in demand in other jobs - walk, that's a crisis.
And it will be less than 50% above the numbers entering because of those entering/reentering without need to go to college.
That said, it could be a problem. I say could, because I do not know what the natural attrition rate is, nor what levels of teacher training intake is needed to sustain that level of leaving. Too many unknown variables in the equation. All I was trying to do was start an analysis, not give a complete one.0 -
If paperwork is due to be done then it should be due to be done at all times and not just when an inspection is expected. If it isn't required it should be scrapped if it is, it should always be completed. Either way it is not the fault of OFSTED. That is like a chef complaining because the EHO demand to see completed temperature checks. They're required for a reason not for the EHO or OFSTED respectively.ydoethur said:INcidentally, I'm not going to repost them but my comments here from last week still have relevance to @John_M and @MTimT's discussion.
Just to reiterate, in light of subsequent comments - I do not know when OFSTED are coming in. The only reason I am doing all this extra paperwork is because it is what they insist on seeing when they do come in. It is totally irrelevant to the education I am giving my children, and putting me under a colossal and unnecessary strain. However, if I don't do it, the outstanding exam results don't matter and we will get a 4 for having the wrong paperwork. It has made me wonder whether I should also quit teaching in favour of a profession where you are not constantly bossed about by a bunch of pompous failures (does anyone know of such a profession)? So these figures do not surprise me.
Every profession I know has paperwork requirements.0 -
No-one minds (much) doing paperwork if there’s a point to it. Like your chefs. My understanding of teaching is that there’s a lot of paperwork which isn’t reasonably obviously necessary,Philip_Thompson said:
If paperwork is due to be done then it should be due to be done at all times and not just when an inspection is expected. If it isn't required it should be scrapped if it is, it should always be completed. Either way it is not the fault of OFSTED. That is like a chef complaining because the EHO demand to see completed temperature checks. They're required for a reason not for the EHO or OFSTED respectively.ydoethur said:INcidentally, I'm not going to repost them but my comments here from last week still have relevance to @John_M and @MTimT's discussion.
Just to reiterate, in light of subsequent comments - I do not know when OFSTED are coming in. The only reason I am doing all this extra paperwork is because it is what they insist on seeing when they do come in. It is totally irrelevant to the education I am giving my children, and putting me under a colossal and unnecessary strain. However, if I don't do it, the outstanding exam results don't matter and we will get a 4 for having the wrong paperwork. It has made me wonder whether I should also quit teaching in favour of a profession where you are not constantly bossed about by a bunch of pompous failures (does anyone know of such a profession)? So these figures do not surprise me.
Every profession I know has paperwork requirements.0 -
What do you think natural wastage is? Retirements alone? There isn't a single industry where that is true.ydoethur said:Or to put it another way, the number leaving was four times the expected attrition rate due to natural wastage and 50% above the numbers entering, at a time when pupil numbers are rapidly increasing (I think incidentally you mean "more" than 38,000, on those figures).
It would be interesting to know the ages of those who quit, given that now over half of all NQTs leave the profession within five years.
The thing is, teaching is not like say, accountancy, where one person with a computer can make up for about eight with quill pens. There is a certain critical mass needed for it to be viable, and it also has to be in the right subjects. If 50,000 teachers spread evenly across subjects go, that's a problem. If fifty thousand scientists and mathematicians - the ones who are both most overworked and most in demand in other jobs - walk, that's a crisis.
Teachers leaving their profession is not higher than other rates of change.0 -
Very few teachers re-enter teaching, and almost none work in the state sector without completing a teacher training course. If the 32,000 includes SCITT (ones who train in schools rather than colleges/universities) as I think it must, then that's the shortfall right there.MTimT said:
No, I meant less. 2.5% retirement is the low end estimate as it is likely the average teaching career is less than 40 years across men and women teachers, and teachers coming to the profession late, say as a second career after being in the military.
And it will be less than 50% above the numbers entering because of those entering/reentering without need to go to college.
That said, it could be a problem. I say could, because I do not know what the natural attrition rate is, nor what levels of teacher training intake is needed to sustain that level of leaving. Too many unknown variables in the equation. All I was trying to do was start an analysis, not give a complete one.
With regard to retirements, a great many teachers now go part-time for a few years before retiring - my colleague, the ex-Head of French, is now job-sharing with another ex-Head of French, which suits them both nicely. In my first school, the former head of history had gone down to 0.6 for a couple of years before finally quitting. 0.6, incidentally, normally is about a 45 hour week - and with good pay for senior teachers, going part time is actually a very attractive option as a result.
So it depends on two things: (1) if the 49120 figure includes part time teachers leaving, in which case obviously 32,000 coming in might be enough to take up the slack or (2) if it only includes those leaving from full time posts, i.e. discounting retirement. Because if it's the latter, things are actually slightly worse than I thought.
Anecdotally, I believe that only half of the 15 students I trained with three years ago are still in teaching. And that was on a course with an outstanding reputation for getting us into teaching and keeping us there.0 -
The point is, it is expected to be completed AT ALL TIMES for the benefit of the inspectors. They demand it so that they can 'see continuous progress' (although, frustratingly, they often then don't check it). It has no use whatsoever apart from that. It does nothing to improve my teaching - in fact, given the vast amount of time it wastes, quite the reverse. So it is undoubtedly the fault of OFSTED, and I am at a loss to see your point.Philip_Thompson said:
If paperwork is due to be done then it should be due to be done at all times and not just when an inspection is expected. If it isn't required it should be scrapped if it is, it should always be completed. Either way it is not the fault of OFSTED. That is like a chef complaining because the EHO demand to see completed temperature checks. They're required for a reason not for the EHO or OFSTED respectively.ydoethur said:INcidentally, I'm not going to repost them but my comments here from last week still have relevance to @John_M and @MTimT's discussion.
Just to reiterate, in light of subsequent comments - I do not know when OFSTED are coming in. The only reason I am doing all this extra paperwork is because it is what they insist on seeing when they do come in. It is totally irrelevant to the education I am giving my children, and putting me under a colossal and unnecessary strain. However, if I don't do it, the outstanding exam results don't matter and we will get a 4 for having the wrong paperwork. It has made me wonder whether I should also quit teaching in favour of a profession where you are not constantly bossed about by a bunch of pompous failures (does anyone know of such a profession)? So these figures do not surprise me.
Every profession I know has paperwork requirements.0 -
Any figures to support that? I somehow doubt that 50% of new insurance brokers quit the profession in five years.Philip_Thompson said:
What do you think natural wastage is? Retirements alone? There isn't a single industry where that is true.ydoethur said:Or to put it another way, the number leaving was four times the expected attrition rate due to natural wastage and 50% above the numbers entering, at a time when pupil numbers are rapidly increasing (I think incidentally you mean "more" than 38,000, on those figures).
It would be interesting to know the ages of those who quit, given that now over half of all NQTs leave the profession within five years.
The thing is, teaching is not like say, accountancy, where one person with a computer can make up for about eight with quill pens. There is a certain critical mass needed for it to be viable, and it also has to be in the right subjects. If 50,000 teachers spread evenly across subjects go, that's a problem. If fifty thousand scientists and mathematicians - the ones who are both most overworked and most in demand in other jobs - walk, that's a crisis.
Teachers leaving their profession is not higher than other rates of change.0 -
If paperwork is being required that shouldn't be needed, it should be scrapped with or without OFSTED though. If it is required then OFSTED should be able to go in unannounced at any time and it should be done.OldKingCole said:
No-one minds (much) doing paperwork if there’s a point to it. Like your chefs. My understanding of teaching is that there’s a lot of paperwork which isn’t reasonably obviously necessary,Philip_Thompson said:
If paperwork is due to be done then it should be due to be done at all times and not just when an inspection is expected. If it isn't required it should be scrapped if it is, it should always be completed. Either way it is not the fault of OFSTED. That is like a chef complaining because the EHO demand to see completed temperature checks. They're required for a reason not for the EHO or OFSTED respectively.ydoethur said:INcidentally, I'm not going to repost them but my comments here from last week still have relevance to @John_M and @MTimT's discussion.
Just to reiterate, in light of subsequent comments - I do not know when OFSTED are coming in. The only reason I am doing all this extra paperwork is because it is what they insist on seeing when they do come in. It is totally irrelevant to the education I am giving my children, and putting me under a colossal and unnecessary strain. However, if I don't do it, the outstanding exam results don't matter and we will get a 4 for having the wrong paperwork. It has made me wonder whether I should also quit teaching in favour of a profession where you are not constantly bossed about by a bunch of pompous failures (does anyone know of such a profession)? So these figures do not surprise me.
Every profession I know has paperwork requirements.
Either way it isn't OFSTED's fault.0
