Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Damian Green resigns

124»

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    There were fewer grammar schools at the end of Mrs T's tenures as Education Secretary and PM than at the start.
    The numbers were virtually unchanged, whereas in the late 1960s and 1970s the vast majority of grammars were closed, a process started under Crosland. Today there are now more grammar schools than there were in 1979, that would not be the case if Thatcher had allowed them to be shut at the rate they were being in the 1970s.
    Trying to explain facts to you is a lot like this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
    It is a fact more pupils are taught in grammar schools today than were in 1979
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:
    He’s all fart and no follow through.
    But how would the country manage without it’s part-time Brexit secretary?
    The country may well manage a lot better in negotiations as we are currently being buggered over a beer barrel in the current context. It really shows how ridiculous things have become that the PM is judged by some to be in a strengthened position when she and her team have capitulated to the EU and got NOTHING in return.
    Have you compared the EU's starting position to where we ended up?
    Foxinsox says 3-0 to them, though the annotated deal on politico as I recall called it more for them but that we got some things, at least three big wins according to them. But that does not sound gloomy enough for some.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-deal-document-annotated/
    Basically, you can ignore everything fox, William Glenn and archer says on this.

    Guess what, the real world is nuanced.
    No one can polish a turd, though May will sprinkle a little glitter on it:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/943432000270200832
    I don't see how that contradict Rcs's point - you insist that we have gotten nothing at all, that we are wrong on everything, and yet there exist plenty of people who say that while the EU has the upper hand and may indeed have won more concessions, they have also demonstrably made concessions to us. Therefore it would be absurd to act like we have gotten nothing.

    Now, the extreme position is not always incorrect, and the middle ground option not always correct, but even if we do make more concessions that we get, that isn't 3-0, and insisting on that position itself, which I doubt even the EU negotiators make (given they presumably want us to keep negotiating) comes across more as spin than anything else.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    edited December 2017
    Isn't Bob Quick suing Damian Green.

    Today's events might end up costing Damian Green serious wonga.

    He's going to be seriously pissed at Mrs May.
  • Isn't Bob Quick suing Damian Green.

    Today's events might end up costing Damian Green serious wonga.

    He's going to be seriously pissed at Mrs May.

    It's not today's events, but his own actions, which might end up costing Damian Green serious wonga.
  • HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    I'm pretty sure you didn't say it would be a 'net' vote loser.

    :)

    I did.

    However the polling also found more people in favour of scrapping existing current grammar schools/or not creating any more grammar schools. This is probably based on the studies that show 'that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas' as grammar schools might help a few, in totality they are worse for children.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/09/vox-populi-vox-dei-the-polling-that-explains-why-mrs-may-is-backing-grammar-schools/
    38% supported more grammar schools, 23% wanted to scrap existing grammar schools in that poll. So more wanted to open new grammars than to shut existing ones.

    If you add in the 17% who want to keep current grammars but not open any more, 55% of voters want to have some grammar schools in the UK
    You are arguing with a Public School boy who wants the best education reserved for the elites who can afford to pay for it. He is never going to accept anything that improves social mobility.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    It is a fact more pupils are taught in grammar schools today than were in 1979

    But we're talking about Mrs Thatcher and her tenure's as Education Secretary and Prime Minister.

    Her name in Latin is 'Malleus Grammarus Schoolum'
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Saw a trailer for a movie called Alita, packed for of Oscar winners, although it seems to pose an odd question 'Can people accept, even love, AI, if it comes in an attractive female body?' A broad array of speculative fiction suggests that people cannot wait for such an occurrence, so I don't know why stories act like it might be surprising.

    I'm sure there's more to the movie than that though.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:
    He’s all fart and no follow through.
    But how would the country manage without it’s part-time Brexit secretary?
    The country may well manage a lot better in negotiations as we are currently being buggered over a beer barrel in the current context. It really shows how ridiculous things have become that the PM is judged by some to be in a strengthened position when she and her team have capitulated to the EU and got NOTHING in return.
    Have you compared the EU's starting position to where we ended up?
    Foxinsox says 3-0 to them, though the annotated deal on politico as I recall called it more for them but that we got some things, at least three big wins according to them. But that does not sound gloomy enough for some.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-deal-document-annotated/
    Basically, you can ignore everything fox, William Glenn and archer says on this.

    Guess what, the real world is nuanced.
    No one can polish a turd, though May will sprinkle a little glitter on it:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/943432000270200832
    I don't see how that contradict Rcs's point - you insist that we have gotten nothing at all, that we are wrong on everything, and yet there exist plenty of people who say that while the EU has the upper hand and may indeed have won more concessions, they have also demonstrably made concessions to us. Therefore it would be absurd to act like we have gotten nothing.

    Now, the extreme position is not always incorrect, and the middle ground option not always correct, but even if we do make more concessions that we get, that isn't 3-0, and insisting on that position itself, which I doubt even the EU negotiators make (given they presumably want us to keep negotiating) comes across more as spin than anything else.
    The EU27 have been quite magnanimous in victory, they even applauded May a week ago. They want her and DD in the seats opposite.

  • So how many by elections in Kent next year?

    We could see four now in the right circumstances.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,841
    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    I'm pretty sure you didn't say it would be a 'net' vote loser.

    :)

    I did.

    However the polling also found more people in favour of scrapping existing current grammar schools/or not creating any more grammar schools. This is probably based on the studies that show 'that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas' as grammar schools might help a few, in totality they are worse for children.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/09/vox-populi-vox-dei-the-polling-that-explains-why-mrs-may-is-backing-grammar-schools/
    38% supported more grammar schools, 23% wanted to scrap existing grammar schools in that poll. So more wanted to open new grammars than to shut existing ones.

    If you add in the 17% who want to keep current grammars but not open any more, 55% of voters want to have some grammar schools in the UK
    You are arguing with a Public School boy who wants the best education reserved for the elites who can afford to pay for it. He is never going to accept anything that improves social mobility.
    TSE believes in Public School elitism for the rich, comprehensive school equality for the plebs.

    If TSE ever has children there is not a chance he would send them to the local comp, even middle class parents who do send their children to comprehensives tend to choose academies in leafy catchment areas or Church schools not bog standard comps.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    It isn't true that the deal for Green to resign included him being able to keep his work computer.

    Nor were the pages of his resignation letter stuck together.
  • It isn't true that the deal for Green to resign included him being able to keep his work computer.

    Nor were the pages of his resignation letter stuck together.

    Hope the unpleasant events in Chesterfield weren't close to you?
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 183
    Does he get a pay off after these barnstorming 6 months in post?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    Saw a trailer for a movie called Alita, packed for of Oscar winners, although it seems to pose an odd question 'Can people accept, even love, AI, if it comes in an attractive female body?' A broad array of speculative fiction suggests that people cannot wait for such an occurrence, so I don't know why stories act like it might be surprising.

    I'm sure there's more to the movie than that though.

    I thought Ex Machina covered the theme very well 2 years ago. Roger correctly tipped it for an Oscar, and well worth catching on Netflix.

    http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    It is a fact more pupils are taught in grammar schools today than were in 1979

    But we're talking about Mrs Thatcher and her tenure's as Education Secretary and Prime Minister.

    Her name in Latin is 'Malleus Grammarus Schoolum'
    If Mrs Thatcher had really opposed grammars there would not have been a single one left by 1990
  • Hearing that Mrs May is putting out feelers to George Osborne to become her First Secretary of State.







    When I say hearing I'm talking about the voices in my head.

    Good night.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    Hearing that Mrs May is putting out feelers to George Osborne to become her First Secretary of State.







    When I say hearing I'm talking about the voices in my head.

    Good night.

    I would have thought Ambassador to North Korea was more likely but there we go
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2017

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:
    He’s all fart and no follow through.
    But how would the country manage without it’s part-time Brexit secretary?
    The country may well manage a lot better in negotiations as we are currently being buggered over a beer barrel in the current context. It really shows how ridiculous things have become that the PM is judged by some to be in a strengthened position when she and her team have capitulated to the EU and got NOTHING in return.
    Have you compared the EU's starting position to where we ended up?
    Foxinsox says 3-0 to them, though the annotated deal on politico as I recall called it more for them but that we got some things, at least three big wins according to them. But that does not sound gloomy enough for some.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-deal-document-annotated/
    Basically, you can ignore everything fox, William Glenn and archer says on this.

    Guess what, the real world is nuanced.
    No one can polish a turd, though May will sprinkle a little glitter on it:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/943432000270200832
    I don't see how that contradict Rcs's point - you insist that we have gotten nothing at all, that we are wrong on everything, and yet there exist plenty of people who say that while the EU has the upper hand and may indeed have won more concessions, they have also demonstrably made concessions to us. Therefore it would be absurd to act like we have gotten nothing.

    Now, the extreme position is not always incorrect, and the middle ground option not always correct, but even if we do make more concessions that we get, that isn't 3-0, and insisting on that position itself, which I doubt even the EU negotiators make (given they presumably want us to keep negotiating) comes across more as spin than anything else.
    The EU27 have been quite magnanimous in victory, they even applauded May a week ago. They want her and DD in the seats opposite.

    I'm still unclear why parts of the agreement which that politico chap identified as wins for us do not count. Your response to the question was to say that red lines faded fast, in essence saying the EU are a bunch of liars about what they have agreed with us, so whenever it looks like a win for us, it doesn't matter. That sounds like classic spin tactics.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    How has it taken me so long to find Dectectorists!!?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited December 2017
    The interesting thing about the exchange of correspondence between the PM and Damian Green is that it is deliberately expressed as a sacking. These things are of course always choreographed, and even if Theresa May did make it clear in private to him that he was a goner, normally he'd be offered the Fallon gambit of an honourable resignation entirely of his own volition, regretfully accepted by the PM. So there are two options:

    - Either he was offered an honourable resignation route but refused to take it, leaving the PM no choice but to sack him, or
    - She deliberately wanted to be seen to be sacking him.

    It looks very much like the latter to me. Interesting.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
  • Mortimer said:

    How has it taken me so long to find Dectectorists!!?

    Is it good ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2017

    kle4 said:

    Saw a trailer for a movie called Alita, packed for of Oscar winners, although it seems to pose an odd question 'Can people accept, even love, AI, if it comes in an attractive female body?' A broad array of speculative fiction suggests that people cannot wait for such an occurrence, so I don't know why stories act like it might be surprising.

    I'm sure there's more to the movie than that though.

    I thought Ex Machina covered the theme very well 2 years ago. Roger correctly tipped it for an Oscar, and well worth catching on Netflix.

    http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/
    I've heard it is very good, though I was thinking less of serious examining of the themes, and more just elements of humanity would be more than happy to fall in love with a robot, so while serious stories on the subject are worthwhile, that aspect would not exactly be a revelation.

    Good night
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    It isn't true that the deal for Green to resign included him being able to keep his work computer.

    Nor were the pages of his resignation letter stuck together.

    Hope the unpleasant events in Chesterfield weren't close to you?
    The people of Chesterfield are really good at over reacting.

    Small town Syndrome methinks
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    How has it taken me so long to find Dectectorists!!?

    Is it good ?
    Hilarious. Gets men and their obsessions perfectly.
  • It isn't true that the deal for Green to resign included him being able to keep his work computer.

    Nor were the pages of his resignation letter stuck together.

    Hope the unpleasant events in Chesterfield weren't close to you?
    The people of Chesterfield are really good at over reacting.

    Small town Syndrome methinks
    People in Chesterfield are envious that they aren't in (South) Yorkshire.

    It explains everything.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,841
    edited December 2017
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
    Didn't say it wasn't.
    My recollection was two. However, we don't get much opportunity to enjoy ourselves.
    You won't deny me some fun at this time of year?
    Season of goodwill and all that?
  • dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
    Didn't say it wasn't.
    My recollection was two. However, we don't get much opportunity to enjoy ourselves.
    You won't deny me some fun at this time of year?
    Seaso of goodwill and that?
    Sam Allardyce for Deputy PM?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:
    He’s all fart and no follow through.
    But how would the country manage without it’s part-time Brexit secretary?
    The country may well manage a lot better in negotiations as we are currently being buggered over a beer barrel in the current context. It really shows how ridiculous things have become that the PM is judged by some to be in a strengthened position when she and her team have capitulated to the EU and got NOTHING in return.
    Have you compared the EU's starting position to where we ended up?
    Foxinsox says 3-0 to them, though the annotated deal on politico as I recall called it more for them but that we got some things, at least three big wins according to them. But that does not sound gloomy enough for some.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-deal-document-annotated/
    Basically, you can ignore everything fox, William Glenn and archer says on this.

    Guess what, the real world is nuanced.
    No one can polish a turd, though May will sprinkle a little glitter on it:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/943432000270200832
    I don't see how that contradict Rcs's point
    The EU27 have been quite magnanimous in victory, they even applauded May a week ago. They want her and DD in the seats opposite.

    I'm still unclear why parts of the agreement which that politico chap identified as wins for us do not count. Your response to the question was to say that red lines faded fast, in essence saying the EU are a bunch of liars about what they have agreed with us, so whenever it looks like a win for us, it doesn't matter. That sounds like classic spin tactics.
    I think the EU27 are quite happy with the first round. They have conceeded nothing of consequence. The second round will be much the same. The EU has stuck to what they layed out originally. This is really quite inevitable with their bureaucratic technique and ability to maintain solidarity. The ultimate deal will be a choice between the EU27 deal and no deal. They are in the driving seat. You have to respect their negotiating ability and attention to detail.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:
    He’s all fart and no follow through.
    But how would the country manage without it’s part-time Brexit secretary?
    The country may well manage a lot better in negotiations as we are currently being buggered over a beer barrel in the current context. It really shows how ridiculous things have become that the PM is judged by some to be in a strengthened position when she and her team have capitulated to the EU and got NOTHING in return.
    Have you compared the EU's starting position to where we ended up?
    Foxinsox says 3-0 to them, though the annotated deal on politico as I recall called it more for them but that we got some things, at least three big wins according to them. But that does not sound gloomy enough for some.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-deal-document-annotated/
    Basically, you can ignore everything fox, William Glenn and archer says on this.

    Guess what, the real world is nuanced.
    No one can polish a turd, though May will sprinkle a little glitter on it:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/943432000270200832
    I don't see how that contradict Rcs's point
    The EU27 have been quite magnanimous in victory, they even applauded May a week ago. They want her and DD in the seats opposite.

    I'm still unclear why parts of the agreement which that politico chap identified as wins for us do not count. Your response to the question was to say that red lines faded fast, in essence saying the EU are a bunch of liars about what they have agreed with us, so whenever it looks like a win for us, it doesn't matter. That sounds like classic spin tactics.
    I think the EU27 are quite happy with the first round. They have conceeded nothing of consequence. The second round will be much the same. The EU has stuck to what they layed out originally. This is really quite inevitable with their bureaucratic technique and ability to maintain solidarity. The ultimate deal will be a choice between the EU27 deal and no deal. They are in the driving seat. You have to respect their negotiating ability and attention to detail.
    They clearly have conceded things. Going in, weren't they asking for continued ECJ jurisdiction for their citizens? They aren't getting that....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    kle4 said:



    It would have been better, to a degree. That he held onto police notes he was instructed to destroy make it a malicious act, however, and totally improper. He didn't know this would all come up again, it is not the role of the police to hold onto notes which are not yours on the off chance someone 10 years later says something untrue about it. What was he planning to do with them if this did not come up?

    Yes, I agree.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    edited December 2017

    It isn't true that the deal for Green to resign included him being able to keep his work computer.

    Nor were the pages of his resignation letter stuck together.

    Hope the unpleasant events in Chesterfield weren't close to you?
    The people of Chesterfield are really good at over reacting.

    Small town Syndrome methinks
    People in Chesterfield are envious that they aren't in (South) Yorkshire.

    It explains everything.
    Next time you visit make sure you don't wear a back pack.

    Mass panic and unpleasantness would likely ensue in the minds of the average Chesterfielder
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
    Didn't say it wasn't.
    My recollection was two. However, we don't get much opportunity to enjoy ourselves.
    You won't deny me some fun at this time of year?
    Seaso of goodwill and that?
    Sam Allardyce for Deputy PM?
    Sam is a Corbynite
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    The interesting thing about the exchange of correspondence between the PM and Damian Green is that it is deliberately expressed as a sacking. These things are of course always choreographed, and even if Theresa May did make it clear in private to him that he was a goner, normally he'd be offered the Fallon gambit of an honourable resignation entirely of his own volition. So there are two options:

    - Either he was offered an honourable resignation route but refused to take it, leaving the PM no choice but to sack him, or
    - She deliberately wanted to be seen to be sacking him.

    It looks very much like the latter to me. Interesting.

    She is still weak and chaotic though isn't she. Her judgement is pretty suspect again as well. This government looks like it is falling apart, the real pity is the Labour party has similar fundamental problems that mean the country would experience being thrown into an even more damaging situation.

    The only solution I can see is the formation of a "Democratic Party of Britain" which needs to be formed. It would need to be unequivocal in its platform of being a party of sound economic and public finance and also committed to retracting A50. The closest you will of course get to a Democratic Party of Britain is a National government and I don't think the PM is capable of leading that either.



  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,776
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    The interesting thing about the exchange of correspondence between the PM and Damian Green is that it is deliberately expressed as a sacking. These things are of course always choreographed, and even if Theresa May did make it clear in private to him that he was a goner, normally he'd be offered the Fallon gambit of an honourable resignation entirely of his own volition. So there are two options:

    - Either he was offered an honourable resignation route but refused to take it, leaving the PM no choice but to sack him, or
    - She deliberately wanted to be seen to be sacking him.

    It looks very much like the latter to me. Interesting.

    She is still weak and chaotic though isn't she. Her judgement is pretty suspect again as well. This government looks like it is falling apart, the real pity is the Labour party has similar fundamental problems that mean the country would experience being thrown into an even more damaging situation.

    The only solution I can see is the formation of a "Democratic Party of Britain" which needs to be formed. It would need to be unequivocal in its platform of being a party of sound economic and public finance and also committed to retracting A50. The closest you will of course get to a Democratic Party of Britain is a National government and I don't think the PM is capable of leading that either.



    The first act of this Democratic party would be to undo the biggest democratic vote this country has ever had? I suppose Democratic in the sense of Democratic People's Republic.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited December 2017
    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly while decrying private schools and grammars where people got on based on ability not their parental wealth - was spellbinding.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as fact. She only exists as a primeval fantasy in a certain sort of Tory, as patron saint to bless whatever they wish to believe. They forget how pro EU she was, how she forged the Single Market and pushed for the Eastern Europeans to join. She had a much wider vision of freedom than their narrow nationalism.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,841

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
    Didn't say it wasn't.
    My recollection was two. However, we don't get much opportunity to enjoy ourselves.
    You won't deny me some fun at this time of year?
    Seaso of goodwill and that?
    Sam Allardyce for Deputy PM?

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
    Didn't say it wasn't.
    My recollection was two. However, we don't get much opportunity to enjoy ourselves.
    You won't deny me some fun at this time of year?
    Seaso of goodwill and that?
    Sam Allardyce for Deputy PM?
    One thing is for sure. If he had masterminded an election sitting on a 20% lead the ball would have been in the stand not in their own net.
    And instead of sitting off, a number of 2 footed tackles would have gone in.
    And possibly the Blues might have hung on for an outright victory.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    HYUFD said:
    Who in their right minds would trust the police these days. I know OGH keeps coming up with tables showing they are trusted but to me the only reason for that is that most people still see them as they were portrayed 50 years ago.
    Indeed. See the mess they and the CPs are making over their disclosure obligations in serious crime trials. This is a repeat of exactly the same failings which led to the miscarriages of justice in the Irish terrorism cases years ago - a failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence. It was as a result of those cases that new evidence disclosure rules were introduced.

    And yet here we are with people at risk of going to prison for serious criminal offences because of appalling failures by both the police and the CPS.

    An utter disgrace. And far more serious for our system of justice and the liberties of individuals than this Green farrago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    If the rate of grammar schools decline seen in the late 1960s and 1970s had continued in the 1980s there would have been no grammar schools left for pupils to go too by 1990
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as fact. She only exists as a primeval fantasy in a certain sort of Tory, as patron saint to bless whatever they wish to believe. They forget how pro EU she was, how she forged the Single Market and pushed for the Eastern Europeans to join. She had a much wider vision of freedom than their narrow nationalism.
    She supported the Single Market, she did not support uncontrolled free movement from the new accession countries of Eastern Europe to the UK without transition controls as Blair pushed through in 2004
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,841

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Last time I looked on PB Mrs May was imperious.
    Indeed, it was a matter of time until a 10% tory lead, as the scales fell from Labour voters eyes, and we all realised how silly we'd been worrying our little heads about falling real wages and other trifles.

    That was just one poster, IIRC.
    Didn't say it wasn't.
    My recollection was two. However, we don't get much opportunity to enjoy ourselves.
    You won't deny me some fun at this time of year?
    Seaso of goodwill and that?
    Sam Allardyce for Deputy PM?
    Sam is a Corbynite
    Is he?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That was less the case in the case in the 1950s and early 1960s, there were plenty of grammar schools in South Yorkshire and the Welsh Valleys back then for instance
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,776

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    I always had high hopes for her, so sad she has been so low profile.

    Mind you, that might just mean she's doing her day job reasonably well.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,841
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who in their right minds would trust the police these days. I know OGH keeps coming up with tables showing they are trusted but to me the only reason for that is that most people still see them as they were portrayed 50 years ago.
    Indeed. See the mess they and the CPs are making over their disclosure obligations in serious crime trials. This is a repeat of exactly the same failings which led to the miscarriages of justice in the Irish terrorism cases years ago - a failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence. It was as a result of those cases that new evidence disclosure rules were introduced.

    And yet here we are with people at risk of going to prison for serious criminal offences because of appalling failures by both the police and the CPS.

    An utter disgrace. And far more serious for our system of justice and the liberties of individuals than this Green farrago.
    Orgreave, Hillsborough, Birmingham Six....etc. It is a wonder anyone has had any faith for a while
  • Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who in their right minds would trust the police these days. I know OGH keeps coming up with tables showing they are trusted but to me the only reason for that is that most people still see them as they were portrayed 50 years ago.
    Indeed. See the mess they and the CPs are making over their disclosure obligations in serious crime trials. This is a repeat of exactly the same failings which led to the miscarriages of justice in the Irish terrorism cases years ago - a failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence. It was as a result of those cases that new evidence disclosure rules were introduced.

    And yet here we are with people at risk of going to prison for serious criminal offences because of appalling failures by both the police and the CPS.

    An utter disgrace. And far more serious for our system of justice and the liberties of individuals than this Green farrago.
    One of the issues that came out of the Jeremy Vine show a few days ago was, on no account accept a Police Juvenile Caution.

    The police had told one mother it would be the easiest and best way to get an issue sorted out and that it would be wiped off the record when the boy turned 18. Because she was convinced he was innocent and because she had done some research and found it would stay on his record permanently (it was for an accusation of a sexual crime) she refused it at which point the police threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice.

    A former Met officer came on the programme and said the police love Juvenile Cautions because it clears up supposed crimes without them having to actually go through the process of presenting any evidence in court.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited December 2017
    dixiedean said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who in their right minds would trust the police these days. I know OGH keeps coming up with tables showing they are trusted but to me the only reason for that is that most people still see them as they were portrayed 50 years ago.
    Indeed. See the mess they and the CPs are making over their disclosure obligations in serious crime trials. This is a repeat of exactly the same failings which led to the miscarriages of justice in the Irish terrorism cases years ago - a failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence. It was as a result of those cases that new evidence disclosure rules were introduced.

    And yet here we are with people at risk of going to prison for serious criminal offences because of appalling failures by both the police and the CPS.

    An utter disgrace. And far more serious for our system of justice and the liberties of individuals than this Green farrago.
    Orgreave, Hillsborough, Birmingham Six....etc. It is a wonder anyone has had any faith for a while
    Agreed. It’s not just the police. The CPS are utterly woeful.

    Root and branch reform of both is long overdue, a clear out of the deadwood and some proper training on the basic principles of English criminal law and why they matter are all needed.

    I’d make this my top priority were I Home/Justice Secretary. The rule of law matters.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    I think you've missed the point about grammar schools: they select by ability, not by where someone lives.
  • brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    Ilford North is posher than Ilford South :lol:
  • brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Grammar schools are free at the point of use, unlike public schools.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Really? I think selective Kent has a higher proportion of state educated pupils at Oxbridge than neighbouring comprehensive Sussex does for example
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as fact. She only exists as a primeval fantasy in a certain sort of Tory, as patron saint to bless whatever they wish to believe. They forget how pro EU she was, how she forged the Single Market and pushed for the Eastern Europeans to join. She had a much wider vision of freedom than their narrow nationalism.
    She supported the Single Market, she did not support uncontrolled free movement from the new accession countries of Eastern Europe to the UK without transition controls as Blair pushed through in 2004
    Pushed through?
    It was backed by the Tories too as I recall...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Grammar schools are free at the point of use, unlike public schools.
    Comprehensives, like my own, are also free, and deliver excellent education.

    Tories do seem to be determined to take us back to the 1950's in so many ways.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Really? I think selective Kent has a higher proportion of state educated pupils at Oxbridge than neighbouring comprehensive Sussex does for example
    What percentage of those Kent Oxbridge pupils were on free school meals? to use a practical measure of social mobility
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited December 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as fact. She only exists as a primeval fantasy in a certain sort of Tory, as patron saint to bless whatever they wish to believe. They forget how pro EU she was, how she forged the Single Market and pushed for the Eastern Europeans to join. She had a much wider vision of freedom than their narrow nationalism.
    She supported the Single Market, she did not support uncontrolled free movement from the new accession countries of Eastern Europe to the UK without transition controls as Blair pushed through in 2004
    Pushed through?
    It was backed by the Tories too as I recall...
    I don't believe Michael Howard supported Blair in not introducing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as fact. She only exists as a primeval fantasy in a certain sort of Tory, as patron saint to bless whatever they wish to believe. They forget how pro EU she was, how she forged the Single Market and pushed for the Eastern Europeans to join. She had a much wider vision of freedom than their narrow nationalism.
    She supported the Single Market, she did not support uncontrolled free movement from the new accession countries of Eastern Europe to the UK without transition controls as Blair pushed through in 2004
    Pushed through?
    It was backed by the Tories too as I recall...
    Yes, IDS’s only objection was that it didn’t happen earlier.
  • brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Grammar schools are free at the point of use, unlike public schools.
    Comprehensives, like my own, are also free, and deliver excellent education.

    Tories do seem to be determined to take us back to the 1950's in so many ways.
    The idea that the Comprehensive system in this country delivers excellent education is so laughably false that it undermines any other point you might want to make about social mobility. The UK comprehensive education system is dire and has been for decades.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    I think you've missed the point about grammar schools: they select by ability, not by where someone lives.
    Geography matters when it comes to practicalities. Grammar schools generally have very low numbers on free school meals, and also have feeder primary schools in leafy areas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Really? I think selective Kent has a higher proportion of state educated pupils at Oxbridge than neighbouring comprehensive Sussex does for example
    What percentage of those Kent Oxbridge pupils were on free school meals? to use a practical measure of social mobility
    Social mobility does not just include those on free school meals raised on a council estate going to Oxbridge and getting a professional career (who will be a tiny fraction regardless of education type), it can equally include children of lower middle class non graduate or lower ranked university educated parents raised in a semi detached house who equally ended up at Oxbridge or a professional career and are likely to be more able to do that at a grammar school.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent....
    Which would be ...?

    Kent is pretty well unique, and no one, including those agitating for more grammar schools, has even the faintest desire to replicate it's system.
    And the figures on educational attainment for grammar vs non grammar are significantly distorted by Kent, which contains by some margin the largest number of grammars in the country
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    That situation arises because Labour councils in inner city and deprived areas wanted to get rid of them and many Tory councils in the suburbs kept them. Ilford still has a grammar school - it's hardly a posh suburb of London.

    Before the 1970s they were everywhere.
    It doesnt explain the distribution in county wide systems like Kent.

    Middle Class Tory voters like Grammar Schools not because they promote social mobility, but because they block it.
    Grammar schools are free at the point of use, unlike public schools.
    Comprehensives, like my own, are also free, and deliver excellent education.

    Tories do seem to be determined to take us back to the 1950's in so many ways.
    The idea that the Comprehensive system in this country delivers excellent education is so laughably false that it undermines any other point you might want to make about social mobility. The UK comprehensive education system is dire and has been for decades.
    Yes, for Labour both the Comprehensive education system and the NHS are sacred cows but neither deliver excellence all round
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,841
    Cyclefree said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who in their right minds would trust the police these days. I know OGH keeps coming up with tables showing they are trusted but to me the only reason for that is that most people still see them as they were portrayed 50 years ago.
    Indeed. See the mess they and the CPs are making over their disclosure obligations in serious crime trials. This is a repeat of exactly the same failings which led to the miscarriages of justice in the Irish terrorism cases years ago - a failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence. It was as a result of those cases that new evidence disclosure rules were introduced.

    And yet here we are with people at risk of going to prison for serious criminal offences because of appalling failures by both the police and the CPS.

    An utter disgrace. And far more serious for our system of justice and the liberties of individuals than this Green farrago.
    Orgreave, Hillsborough, Birmingham Six....etc. It is a wonder anyone has had any faith for a while
    Agreed. It’s not just the police. The CPS are utterly woeful.

    Root and branch reform of both is long overdue, a clear out of the deadwood and some proper training on the basic principles of English criminal law and why they matter are all needed.

    I’d make this my top priority were I Home/Justice Secretary. The rule of law matters.
    As a teacher I get irritated by the constant change, inspection and micro-maagement. However, we are forced to constantly reflect on what we are doing. What is the Aim? What is the Objective?
    Are my actions compatible with policy and justifiable?
    Too many lawyers in goverment.
    Justice remains the great unreformed Public Service.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as fact. She only exists as a primeval fantasy in a certain sort of Tory, as patron saint to bless whatever they wish to believe. They forget how pro EU she was, how she forged the Single Market and pushed for the Eastern Europeans to join. She had a much wider vision of freedom than their narrow nationalism.
    She supported the Single Market, she did not support uncontrolled free movement from the new accession countries of Eastern Europe to the UK without transition controls as Blair pushed through in 2004
    Pushed through?
    It was backed by the Tories too as I recall...
    I don't believe Michael Howard supported Blair in not introducing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004
    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-05-21&number=212

    Edit: and Michael Howard also voted in favour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited December 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'd hope Rory Stewart.

    But looks like Mrs May will conduct a wider reshuffle in January when she culls the likes of Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, and Patrick McLoughlin.

    So I'd expect a lot of women promoted into the cabinet, so maybe Esther McVey, but she might be a little to abrasive for Health.
    Thanks.

    Justine Greening seems almost invisible to me.
    She had her confidence shattered, she had to sell Mrs May's grammar schools policies when she didn't believe in it, then had to re-reverse ferret when Mrs May dumped the policy.
    I'd be happy to sell that policy as SoS for Education. From the Lords would be fine...
    As I told you at the time, it is a net vote loser for the Tories.

    Lady Thatcher as Education Secretary and PM reduced the number of grammar schools.

    She knew.
    Thatcher actually stopped the decline in grammar schools as PM, had the rate of decline of grammar schools in the 1970s continued in the 1980s there would have been none left in 1990.

    Instead there are now more grammar schools in the UK now than there were in 1979.
    She didn't. The trough in the number of grammar schools was 1990. It increased after she left Downing Street.
    Maggie no longer exists as narrow nationalism.
    She supported the Single Market, she did not support uncontrolled free movement from the new accession countries of Eastern Europe to the UK without transition controls as Blair pushed through in 2004
    Pushed through?
    It was backed by the Tories too as I recall...
    I
    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-05-21&number=212

    Edit: and Michael Howard also voted in favour.
    Howard supported the accession of the new accession nations and voted in favour, he did NOT support Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from those new accession nations to the UK once they had joined the EU. A vote against on that motion would have meant the UK vetoing their accession, it was Blair who made the decision not to impose transition controls
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-05-21&number=212

    Edit: and Michael Howard also voted in favour.

    Howard supported the accession of the new accession nations and voted in favour, he did NOT support Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from those new accession nations to the UK once they had joined the EU. A vote against on that motion would have meant the UK vetoing their accession, it was Blair who made the decision not to impose transition controls
    Looking back over the debates closer to the accession date, I'd forgotten the context of the controversies around ID cards. Perhaps if opposition to ID cards hadn't been such a totemic issue, things would have been different.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2004/feb/23/eu-enlargement-free-movement-of-workers

    We will therefore introduce a new workers registration scheme to replace work permits for accession nationals. That will place an obligation on all accession nationals to register where they are working and for whom. Their right to work in the UK will depend on their being issued with a registration certificate. It will be incumbent on the employer to check that the employee has registered. That will provide a platform for the national identity card scheme under which, in time, all non-UK nationals will be required to register. That will help us to determine accurately how many new workers are in Britain, and in which sectors and types of employment. It will also assist with enforcement and inspection and enable us to react immediately if, against all the odds, there are destabilising effects on the labour market.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-05-21&number=212

    Edit: and Michael Howard also voted in favour.

    Howard supported the accession of the new accession nations and voted in favour, he did NOT support Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from those new accession nations to the UK once they had joined the EU. A vote against on that motion would have meant the UK vetoing their accession, it was Blair who made the decision not to impose transition controls
    Looking back over the debates closer to the accession date, I'd forgotten the context of the controversies around ID cards. Perhaps if opposition to ID cards hadn't been such a totemic issue, things would have been different.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2004/feb/23/eu-enlargement-free-movement-of-workers

    We will therefore introduce a new workers registration scheme to replace work permits for accession nationals. That will place an obligation on all accession nationals to register where they are working and for whom. Their right to work in the UK will depend on their being issued with a registration certificate. It will be incumbent on the employer to check that the employee has registered. That will provide a platform for the national identity card scheme under which, in time, all non-UK nationals will be required to register. That will help us to determine accurately how many new workers are in Britain, and in which sectors and types of employment. It will also assist with enforcement and inspection and enable us to react immediately if, against all the odds, there are destabilising effects on the labour market.
    Or even better had they stuck to work permits in the first place, as May now plans to introduce, rather than move to a registration scheme
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-05-21&number=212

    Edit: and Michael Howard also voted in favour.

    Howard supported the accession of the new accession nations and voted in favour, he did NOT support Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from those new accession nations to the UK once they had joined the EU. A vote against on that motion would have meant the UK vetoing their accession, it was Blair who made the decision not to impose transition controls
    Looking back over the debates closer to the accession date, I'd forgotten the context of the controversies around ID cards. Perhaps if opposition to ID cards hadn't been such a totemic issue, things would have been different.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2004/feb/23/eu-enlargement-free-movement-of-workers

    We will therefore introduce a new workers registration scheme to replace work permits for accession nationals. That will place an obligation on all accession nationals to register where they are working and for whom. Their right to work in the UK will depend on their being issued with a registration certificate. It will be incumbent on the employer to check that the employee has registered. That will provide a platform for the national identity card scheme under which, in time, all non-UK nationals will be required to register. That will help us to determine accurately how many new workers are in Britain, and in which sectors and types of employment. It will also assist with enforcement and inspection and enable us to react immediately if, against all the odds, there are destabilising effects on the labour market.
    Wouldn't that have been discriminatory in the eyes of the EU, since UK citizens and EU citizens were treated differently?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited December 2017
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    I think you've missed the point about grammar schools: they select by ability, not by where someone lives.
    Exactly - and your ability to get into the catchment area is linked to your ability to afford the local house prices. It's well reported that areas in the catchment areas of the best state schools see higher house price growth as a direct result.

    At least people who send their kids to private schools have the decency to be up front about using their wealth to get their kids a good start in life. Middle class liberals who decry grammar schools as 'creating inequality' while usIng their wealth to buy homes in the catchment areas of the best state schools are frankly hypocrites of the highest order.

    Selection by house prices and wealth - just fine. Selection by intelligence or innate ability - discriminatory and evil. It's just a bit much.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    A lot of middle class liberals have no problem with selection - as long as it is selection by house prices aka catchment areas. Means they can buy expensive homes to get their kids into the best state schools while poorer kids miss out.

    Is selection by intelligence any worse?

    Camden school for girls was the school of choice of many of the Labour elite. An excellent state school of course - for the wealthy who could afford local house prices. Their hypocrisy - buying their kids a decent education indirectly - was spellbinding.

    That applies to selective schools too. Grammar schools are rarely in the rougher parts of town. They too are in the leafy suburbs.
    I think you've missed the point about grammar schools: they select by ability, not by where someone lives.
    Exactly - and your ability to get into the catchment area is linked to your ability to afford the local house prices. It's well reported that areas in the catchment areas of the best state schools see higher house price growth as a direct result.

    At least people who send their kids to private schools have the decency to be up front about using their wealth to get their kids a good start in life. Middle class liberals who decry grammar schools as 'creating inequality' while usIng their wealth to buy homes in the catchment areas of the best state schools are frankly hypocrites of the highest order.

    Selection by house prices and wealth - just fine. Selection by intelligence or innate ability - discriminatory and evil. It's just a bit much.
    I'm not really sure I see the hypocrisy. For example, you could be anti-private school (selection by wealth), but pro-faith school (selection by religion). Or vice versa. I'm not clear on why opposing one type of selection means you have to oppose all of them.
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 185
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who in their right minds would trust the police these days. I know OGH keeps coming up with tables showing they are trusted but to me the only reason for that is that most people still see them as they were portrayed 50 years ago.
    Indeed. See the mess they and the CPs are making over their disclosure obligations in serious crime trials. This is a repeat of exactly the same failings which led to the miscarriages of justice in the Irish terrorism cases years ago - a failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence. It was as a result of those cases that new evidence disclosure rules were introduced.

    And yet here we are with people at risk of going to prison for serious criminal offences because of appalling failures by both the police and the CPS.

    An utter disgrace. And far more serious for our system of justice and the liberties of individuals than this Green farrago.
    Which is why bringing back the death penalty should never be on anyone's agenda. (A reference back to the previous thread topic).
  • blueblue said:

    Off Topic:

    Watching the Trump tax cut pass the House of Representatives, I noticed the Roman fasces carved in the wall behind the speaker. I hadn't noticed it before.

    Watching the Trump tax cuts pass, I wondered why the hell our supposed "nasty" Conservative Government isn't offering us the same, ramming it down Labour's throats and daring them to oppose it. Do they have no vision, no ability to plan, to position themselves politically, to undermine their opponents? Are we in Government purely for the masochistic joy of daily humiliation and daily impotence?

    Yeah, I didn't choose the name "blueblue" for nothing!
    They're going to have the blow the money they haven't got on Brexit, they can't afford to borrow even more to cut corporation tax.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    They're going to have the blow the money they haven't got on Brexit, they can't afford to borrow even more to cut corporation tax.

    Brexit has tested the "there's no more money" argument to destruction and beyond. If they can afford Brexit they can afford ∀x. Where x is anything you want.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    I see the BBC headline writers have decided that 'asked to resign' is just too obviously a sacking to pretend that this 'resignation' is indeed a resignation and are calling it a sacking. Although the writers of the copy seem confused, stating both that he was 'asked to quit' in quotations, but don't similarly use quotations around his 'resignation' letter

    I thought that - technically - Ministers are Officers of the Crown and therefore the PM *can't* sack them (only the Queen can)

    They are *all* asked to resign. Most accept with good grace. I'm not impressed with Green's letter. Perhaps he though his personal friendship would save him and is bitter that it didn't?
  • Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    I see the BBC headline writers have decided that 'asked to resign' is just too obviously a sacking to pretend that this 'resignation' is indeed a resignation and are calling it a sacking. Although the writers of the copy seem confused, stating both that he was 'asked to quit' in quotations, but don't similarly use quotations around his 'resignation' letter

    I thought that - technically - Ministers are Officers of the Crown and therefore the PM *can't* sack them (only the Queen can)

    They are *all* asked to resign. Most accept with good grace. I'm not impressed with Green's letter. Perhaps he though his personal friendship would save him and is bitter that it didn't?
    It struck me as slightly curious too. The usual construct is “we agreed” not “I asked you to”. Perhaps he thought that his behaviour was, while technically a breach, minor compared to possible criminality by retired Police officers?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Just when you think Faisal Islam couldn't get any worse. He has utterly misreported the Green case this morning. He said that Green has resigned after making inaccurate statements relating to a decade old police investigation into pornography found on his parliamentary computer.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883
    We need another leak so we know what DG is into. He does have that world weary and utterly crushed look peculiar to middle aged men who've seen everything the Internet has to offer.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    DD still in office as of this morning. So well done those PBers who made money on Green's departure.
  • In her update to MPs on the completion of phase one of the Brexit talks on Monday, the Prime Minister revealed the UK’s continuation in the common fisheries policy during any implementation period is still up for negotiations.

    Yet with the EU determined to stop the UK having any say in the decision-making process during the two-year implementation period, fish quotas affecting British waters could be decided without a representative of UK fishing present.


    http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-tories-animals-defra_uk_5a39274ce4b0fc99878ed555
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,776

    blueblue said:

    Off Topic:

    Watching the Trump tax cut pass the House of Representatives, I noticed the Roman fasces carved in the wall behind the speaker. I hadn't noticed it before.

    Watching the Trump tax cuts pass, I wondered why the hell our supposed "nasty" Conservative Government isn't offering us the same, ramming it down Labour's throats and daring them to oppose it. Do they have no vision, no ability to plan, to position themselves politically, to undermine their opponents? Are we in Government purely for the masochistic joy of daily humiliation and daily impotence?

    Yeah, I didn't choose the name "blueblue" for nothing!
    They're going to have the blow the money they haven't got on Brexit, they can't afford to borrow even more to cut corporation tax.
    Also, US corporation tax is a big outlier globally. Ours is not. We're slightly below what other countries our size are, and slightly above low tax smaller countries like Ireland or Estonia. I suspect we already have the lowest level of corporation tax of any developed country with more than 20 million people.
  • DD still in office as of this morning. So well done those PBers who made money on Green's departure.

    Well done also to PBers who bet on the next departure being in December.

    When that market reopens, and Hills at least were betting on it, we shall need to consider both the calendar (only five working days left this month, including today) and DD's position.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    In her update to MPs on the completion of phase one of the Brexit talks on Monday, the Prime Minister revealed the UK’s continuation in the common fisheries policy during any implementation period is still up for negotiations.

    Yet with the EU determined to stop the UK having any say in the decision-making process during the two-year implementation period, fish quotas affecting British waters could be decided without a representative of UK fishing present.


    http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-tories-animals-defra_uk_5a39274ce4b0fc99878ed555

    I really can’t understand the constant media spinning by the EU side, it’s almost as if they want us to walk away.

    Before the latest agreement they were frantically telling anyone who’d listen that the talks were a mess, only for a deal to be done at the end. Now they’re back at shouting loudly how they’re going to walk all over us again.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Re Green, circumstances of police action at his Commons office in 2008 were oddly unique. Police leaks re contents found on his computer this autumn unusual if not bordering on illegal, his explanation about contents of contorted.

    Are tickets to Quick v Green selling fast?
  • NEW THREAD

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited December 2017
    dr_spyn said:

    Re Green, circumstances of police action at his Commons office in 2008 were oddly unique. Police leaks re contents found on his computer this autumn unusual if not bordering on illegal, his explanation about contents of contorted.

    Are tickets to Quick v Green selling fast?

    *Grammar Nazi hat ON*

    Either something is unique, or it isn't. It cannot be oddly unique. It can be unique and odd, but that is a different concept.

    *Grammar Nazi hat OFF*
This discussion has been closed.