Heartening to see nationalise rail and energy so low on both priority lists.
A party which pledges to give the NHS "£350m per week" by 2022, raise the minimum wage to £12.50 per hour by the end of 2022 and commission a million affordable homes for sale exclusively to non-investor FTBs would do very well.
I think all of that is well within the realms of possibility for either party tbh, though Labour would probably make them social housing for rent rather than affordable housing for private ownership, which is why the Tories must offer ownership before Labour can create 2-3m new social tenants.
Well Javid and Hammond are now pushing more affordable housing on councils in their local plans
Affordable rental housing, which does nothing for us. We need to create more homeowners, not more social renters.
No, mainly affordable homes to buy, even if a small percentage will be social housing
You can not buy 100% of an 'affordable housing' house. The maximum is 80% purchased with the remainder rented.
The only 'affordable' element of affordable housing is the rented part which must be no more than 80% that of the market rental.
So for shared ownership (part rental part purchase), the rented element can be subsidised but the purchased element should be at market value.
I know a number of people who could only get on the housing ladder thanks to shared ownership, especially those who did not have parents with enough savings to help with a deposit
Can't see her sacking Grayling after losing Green.
Will be a disaster if Greening goes and is replaced by another meddlesome fool in the Gove/Morgan/Balls tradition.
Overall I would be surprised if the reconstruction was as extensive as predicted. That would mean a third of the Cabinet removed in less than three months, which would compare with Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives. She doesn't have Macmillan's majority and cannot afford the trouble it would cause.
If she does go for it, I expect her to be out by Easter with Hammond taking over.
She should make me Education Secretary.
I'd put a strong emphasis on history, maths, and the sciences.
I'd be the greatest Education Secretary ever, as I'd push up standards like never before.
Given your disdain for social mobility you would ensure the continuation of lowest common denominator education.
I'm all in favour of social mobility.
One of the reasons why I'm in favour of abolishing the monarchy.
TSE Will Never Be A Tory.
Domestos only [claims to] kill[s] 99.5% of germs. I am sure that there is a lickle bit of space for HB within the Conservative party.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
As does Lincolnshire. TSE is propagating myths in a desperate attempt to justify his elitist attitudes.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
As does Lincolnshire. TSE is propagating myths in a desperate attempt to justify his elitist attitudes.
Can't see her sacking Grayling after losing Green.
Will be a disaster if Greening goes and is replaced by another meddlesome fool in the Gove/Morgan/Balls tradition.
Overall I would be surprised if the reconstruction was as extensive as predicted. That would mean a third of the Cabinet removed in less than three months, which would compare with Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives. She doesn't have Macmillan's majority and cannot afford the trouble it would cause.
If she does go for it, I expect her to be out by Easter with Hammond taking over.
She should make me Education Secretary.
I'd put a strong emphasis on history, maths, and the sciences.
I'd be the greatest Education Secretary ever, as I'd push up standards like never before.
Given your disdain for social mobility you would ensure the continuation of lowest common denominator education.
I'm all in favour of social mobility.
One of the reasons why I'm in favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Those two points do not equate to each other. I suspect your A level in history was long after they had started to go down in value. Mine was in 1983, back when A levels still had some validity.
Social mobility should be about ensuring no matter your background you should have the opportunity to get any job if you have the talent to do so.
So the top job in this country is limited to a select few.
And would remain so in a Republic. All you would do is replace a stable figurehead position with the illusion of social mobility. Like so much else you extol as 'improvement' the real effect is to reduce mobility and opportunity whilst hiding behind the illusion that things are getting better. The idea of the proles having any real power or position of authority scares the hell out of you and your privately educated attitudes.
Grammar schools damage social mobility overall as organisations like the Sutton Trust have shown.
If you're in favour of grammar schools, then you're an enemy of social mobility.
Actually the Sutton Trust report showed nothing of the sort. Another TSE lie in support of the indefensible.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
That is simply not true, the overall GCSE results in Buckinghamshire for grammar and high school pupils combined are above average
I presume you are aware of the scandalous name change.
Well, the current name isn't that old - it was Newport Grammar when my grandfather was there.
I am intrigued however that it is making the link to the independent sector (and it always has been de facto an independent school) so very explicit. I wonder if this presages a Manchester style Declaration of Independence?
Edit - if you thought my comment was an oblique reference to that, unfortunately it wasn't. It was a reference to the standard of teaching in the History department at Adams.
Seems to me as dumb and unnecessary as when royal mail decided to become Consignia.
When did serious grade inflation start? I'd have imagined it was it was from 1997 onwards, but I'm sure there was (and is) a background level of inflation.
I took A-level further maths in 1994. In preparation I took every previous paper back to the early seventies (my old man was my teacher so he had access to all of the old papers and the marking guides. Each year either the questions became easier or the grade boundaries were adjusted. There was one big revamp of the format halfway through (1984?) which resulted in a much bigger slippage in standards than usual.
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
That is simply not true, the overall GCSE results in Buckinghamshire for grammar and high school pupils combined are above average
What is his religious denomination BTW? He supports a 12-week limit for elective abortion.
I don't think Boris will get demoted. "He came in from nowhere in national politics to a very senior cabinet position and performed badly in it, so let's create another powerful government position and give him that" doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, he could probably make an awful nuisance of himself, from Theresa May's point of view, outside the tent.
When did serious grade inflation start? I'd have imagined it was it was from 1997 onwards, but I'm sure there was (and is) a background level of inflation.
I took A-level further maths in 1994. In preparation I took every previous paper back to the early seventies (my old man was my teacher so he had access to all of the old papers and the marking guides. Each year either the questions became easier or the grade boundaries were adjusted. There was one big revamp of the format halfway through (1984?) which resulted in a much bigger slippage in standards than usual.
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
How did you know the grade boundaries?
I can tell you that from my experience that late 70's vs early 80's A level exams were much the same. There was a degree of progress in that some questions in the earlier years seemed trivial, but also some questions from the earlier years were harder because that wasn't the current focus. So broadly the test was the same. I have no idea about whether the marking reflected that.
I got an 'S' level grade 1 in Physics. There was a degree of 'wow' about that at the time. As far as I'm aware there isn't such a distinguishing thing for high achievement now.
Surprised to learn he keeps goats, and am even more surprised to learn there is a Facebook app for them...in my experience even if they don't eat the message kids or even adult goats are very bad messengers anyway. Too wilful.
If anybody else was PM Karen Bradley and James Brokenshire would be out but they are both former Home Office Ministers and as such however poor they are at their ministerial jobs presumably safe. With Priti Patel out surely there is a need for another ethnic Cabinet minister.
Grayling appears not to be a loss: His skills and abilities are not known to me but his appearance does not offer much. A change may be required in the Cabinet but I cannot see if the talent is available: Maybe minor changes and some swappsies for now.
He lacks judgement: in one situation recently he chose words poorly for someone of his scenario (it was an unimportant conversation in private but shows carelessness - he described an potential action by a friendly third country as "tantamount to a declaration of war" when it clear was not
May would be doing exactly the right thing by cutting out the old wood and bringing in young shoots. She needs to bring in younger talent which might succeed her and take on the stale geriatric Marxism of Corbyn in 2022. Then post 2022 after the shock of Labour's fourth defeat Labour can get on with being a viable alternative government again after many years of either Blairism or Corbynism with the mainstream neglected.
Can't see her sacking Grayling after losing Green.
Will be a disaster if Greening goes and is replaced by another meddlesome fool in the Gove/Morgan/Balls tradition.
Overall I would be surprised if the reconstruction was as extensive as predicted. That would mean a third of the Cabinet removed in less than three months, which would compare with Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives. She doesn't have Macmillan's majority and cannot afford the trouble it would cause.
If she does go for it, I expect her to be out by Easter with Hammond taking over.
She should make me Education Secretary.
I'd put a strong emphasis on history, maths, and the sciences.
I'd be the greatest Education Secretary ever, as I'd push up standards like never before.
I'm afraid while you have some positive ideas on the only really important subject, your willingness to waste time on unimportant subjects like maths and science would rule you out.
Yes, we should dump empirical sciences and prioritise gender equality, intersectional feminism and Islamic studies for feminists. I'm pretty sure the teaching unions would get on board with that curriculum change.
I’m sure they would.
Alternatively we can prioritise STEM subjects and give honours to the likes of Adrian Newey and Paddy Lowe, two Brits who have designed the last seven F1 winning cars between them.
When did serious grade inflation start? I'd have imagined it was it was from 1997 onwards, but I'm sure there was (and is) a background level of inflation.
I took A-level further maths in 1994. In preparation I took every previous paper back to the early seventies (my old man was my teacher so he had access to all of the old papers and the marking guides. Each year either the questions became easier or the grade boundaries were adjusted. There was one big revamp of the format halfway through (1984?) which resulted in a much bigger slippage in standards than usual.
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
How did you know the grade boundaries?
I can tell you that from my experience that late 70's vs early 80's A level exams were much the same. There was a degree of progress in that some questions in the earlier years seemed trivial, but also some questions from the earlier years were harder because that wasn't the current focus. So broadly the test was the same. I have no idea about whether the marking reflected that.
I got an 'S' level grade 1 in Physics. There was a degree of 'wow' about that at the time. As far as I'm aware there isn't such a distinguishing thing for high achievement now.
The grade boundaries were in the guides published after the event. I suspect marking guide is not the correct name for them though. There were plenty of examples of questions with various parts where the hardest part would disappear or be replaced with something easier.
That it took 10 years for the proportion of A* grades to be similar to the proportion of A grades before A* grades were introduced is pretty telling. Maybe inflation was swifter during that decade.
When did serious grade inflation start? I'd have imagined it was it was from 1997 onwards, but I'm sure there was (and is) a background level of inflation.
I took A-level further maths in 1994. In preparation I took every previous paper back to the early seventies (my old man was my teacher so he had access to all of the old papers and the marking guides. Each year either the questions became easier or the grade boundaries were adjusted. There was one big revamp of the format halfway through (1984?) which resulted in a much bigger slippage in standards than usual.
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
How did you know the grade boundaries?
I can tell you that from my experience that late 70's vs early 80's A level exams were much the same. There was a degree of progress in that some questions in the earlier years seemed trivial, but also some questions from the earlier years were harder because that wasn't the current focus. So broadly the test was the same. I have no idea about whether the marking reflected that.
I got an 'S' level grade 1 in Physics. There was a degree of 'wow' about that at the time. As far as I'm aware there isn't such a distinguishing thing for high achievement now.
I crashed and burned, when I took S Level history. I just couldn't answer a single question.
If his Wikipedia page is even halfway accurate, I would think you're right. Somebody who self-identifies as a champagne socialist is hardly likely to visit an ex-industrial area.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
That is simply not true, the overall GCSE results in Buckinghamshire for grammar and high school pupils combined are above average
Almost entirely focused on those on FSM, not even the average and the number who go from poverty to the upper middle class has always been miniscule regardless of the school system
If his Wikipedia page is even halfway accurate, I would think you're right. Somebody who self-identifies as a champagne socialist is hardly likely to visit an ex-industrial area.
I believe there is a term for his tweet.....Fake something....
If his Wikipedia page is even halfway accurate, I would think you're right. Somebody who self-identifies as a champagne socialist is hardly likely to visit an ex-industrial area.
I believe there is a term for his tweet.....Fake something....
Well, at the head of his Twitter feed, if you look, he quotes the Spectator describing him as a 'purveyor of fake news.' If I was going to post rubbish like that I'm not sure I'd admit people have called me out over it.
When did serious grade inflation start? I'd have imagined it was it was from 1997 onwards, but I'm sure there was (and is) a background level of inflation.
I took A-level further maths in 1994. In preparation I took every previous paper back to the early seventies (my old man was my teacher so he had access to all of the old papers and the marking guides. Each year either the questions became easier or the grade boundaries were adjusted. There was one big revamp of the format halfway through (1984?) which resulted in a much bigger slippage in standards than usual.
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
How did you know the grade boundaries?
I can tell you that from my experience that late 70's vs early 80's A level exams were much the same. There was a degree of progress in that some questions in the earlier years seemed trivial, but also some questions from the earlier years were harder because that wasn't the current focus. So broadly the test was the same. I have no idea about whether the marking reflected that.
I got an 'S' level grade 1 in Physics. There was a degree of 'wow' about that at the time. As far as I'm aware there isn't such a distinguishing thing for high achievement now.
I just couldn't answer a single question.
General Organic II. Read it once. No ticks for questions I could answer. Read it again. Still no ticks. Oh sod it - make it up. Funnily enough turned out ok whereas the exam where I thought I'd been particularly clever, I hadn't.....
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Didn't say who voted for it, said what drove it. Subtle difference.
He's still wrong though. Ultimately, insofar as it was a revolt - which is rather an emotive word in any case and I'm not sure the wisest word to use - Brexit was a revolt against people like that, not a revolt guided by them, for all that Farage is cast as a pantomime villain. It was against Cameron, Osborne, Blair, Corbyn to an extent, London in general perhaps.
However as he himself would fit at least one of his own criteria he may not realise the situation as fully as he thinks he does.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Not sure O'Brien has ever actually been right about anything in his life. He is certainly not beyond making outright false statements during interviews, relying on the interviewee not being in a position to correct or challenge him. One of the nastiest and most dishonest presenters around today.
If his Wikipedia page is even halfway accurate, I would think you're right. Somebody who self-identifies as a champagne socialist is hardly likely to visit an ex-industrial area.
Brexit may have been led by upper-middle class activists, but that's true of all political movements. It attracted millions of working class voters. Working class does not necessarily equate to very poor, which is perhaps the point he's trying to make.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Not sure O'Brien has ever actually been right about anything in his life. He is certainly not beyond making outright false statements during interviews, relying on the interviewee not being in a position to correct or challenge him. One of the nastiest and most dishonest presenters around today.
It's like listening to Eyeore.
He has the irritating habit of assuming his opponents must have base motives.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Not sure O'Brien has ever actually been right about anything in his life. He is certainly not beyond making outright false statements during interviews, relying on the interviewee not being in a position to correct or challenge him. One of the nastiest and most dishonest presenters around today.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
On that logic you should make every school a grammar
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Not sure O'Brien has ever actually been right about anything in his life. He is certainly not beyond making outright false statements during interviews, relying on the interviewee not being in a position to correct or challenge him. One of the nastiest and most dishonest presenters around today.
He sounds like just about every LBC presenter there is!
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
I can't see May having a major reshuffle in January. All her reshuffles have been pigmy affairs, so far.
Welcome, it's pygmy, and are reshuffles as major political drama a thing of the past? (Good thing, if so). Have we had a PM since Thatcher who positively relished them?
And while I'm here, "Foreign aid to be shifted to support UK policy, Johnson says". That's not a dogwhistle, it's a foghorn, intended for the ears of kippers, and the sort of tory member who voted in the Quiet Man.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
On that logic you should make every school a grammar
And there you have the prime argument against grammar schools.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
On that logic you should make every school a grammar
That was the pitch behind comprehensive schooling - Wilson's government referred to 'Grammar schools for all.'
There was a very interesting series of articles about that in the recent Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, although the author of them did spout a load of rubbish when it came to modern teaching in schools.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Buckinghamshire and Trafford are both fully selective and both have above average GCSE results
In Buckinghamshire, whilst those that go to grammar school do better on average than they would in non grammar areas, the overall child performance is lower than the overall performance in non grammar areas.
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
On that logic you should make every school a grammar
And there you have the prime argument against grammar schools.
If you are referring to academic segregation I'd agree. In my view setting is the best way to educate
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Why not make private schools illegal then?
Comprehensives leave plenty of poor kids behind of course - because they operate on the basis of catchment areas where you can buy your way into the best state schools by being able to afford the house prices in the catchment areas of the best state schools. Ask any estate agent - it's the dirty secret of the well heeled liberal middle classes!
I am not sure that selection by how well off your parents are (via their ability to afford a nice house in a nice area) - is any less likely to leave kids behind than selection by ability and intelligence. Allocating places by lottery and bussing poor kids from poor areas to the rich catchment areas of the best state schools are would solve the problem!
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Why not make private schools illegal then?
Comprehensives leave plenty of poor kids behind of course - because they operate on the basis of catchment areas where you can buy your way into the best state schools by being able to afford the house prices in the catchment areas of the best state schools. Ask any estate agent - it's the dirty secret of the well heeled liberal middle classes!
I am not sure that selection by how well off your parents are (via their ability to afford a nice house in a nice area) - is any less likely to leave kids behind than selection by ability and intelligence. Allocating places by lottery and bussing poor kids from poor areas to the rich catchment areas of the best state schools are would solve the problem!
A voucher system would be better as that way good schools would expand, bad ones would close
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
I've seen the data and stats, grammar schools help a few, but they damage even more, so they are a net loser.
I'm in favour of not leaving any child behind.
Why not make private schools illegal then?
Comprehensives leave plenty of poor kids behind of course - because they operate on the basis of catchment areas where you can buy your way into the best state schools by being able to afford the house prices in the catchment areas of the best state schools. Ask any estate agent - it's the dirty secret of the well heeled liberal middle classes!
I am not sure that selection by how well off your parents are (via their ability to afford a nice house in a nice area) - is any less likely to leave fewer kids behind than selection by ability and intelligence. Allocating places by lottery and bussing poor kids from poor areas to the rich catchment areas of the best state schools are would solve the problem!
One of the more bizarre elements of Corbyn's manifesto - in a field of stiff competition - was the treatment of private schools. He didn't propose to make them illegal but he did propose to slap heavy additional taxes on them that would in practice have put most albeit not all of them out of business.
Fair enough, if he believes private education to be unethical. However, the bizarre thing was he proposed to use the income from these punitive taxes - which would never have materialised, on account of the schools closing - to fund an increase in state education.
So without realising it what Corbyn and Rayner had actually proposed was a 7% increase in state school numbers and no extra money at all - therefore a further 7% real terms cut in school budgets. Worse, they had on that basis said they would force increased spending on schools - so undoubtedly a large number would have gone bankrupt.
It is to my mind the most striking example of why Labour are currently unfit to govern, far ahead of his links to the IRA and Hamas and the unanswered questions surrounding what he knew about Bernie Bain and when. They have ideas, possibly even ones that they consider well-intentioned, but no idea of what effect they will have on real people in the real world.
Edit- incidentally Bristol Cathedral School, a former private school turned academy, does allocate all places except for those reserved for choristers by lottery. Since it is one of only two, maybe three vaguely good state schools in Bristol, it is popular and that seemed the fairest way of allocating places.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
So back to my original point then
No. You original point was focused on a limited number of high income jobs. I pointed out this was not true.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
It’s also worth saying that there’s a significant difference in costs and pupil-base between London commuting distance and the wider country, at least at the day school level. If you look where I am currently, there are a disproportionate number of Asian families making genuine sacrifices to send their kids to HMC/GDST schools. That’s not inherited wealth but a belief in the standards that those schools have.
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
So back to my original point then
No. You original point was focused on a limited number of high income jobs. I pointed out this was not true.
No, as you have just confirmed. To be able to afford boarding school fees of £30 000 a year on average you need to have a sufficiently high salary to buy an expensive enough property to borrow against to pay those fees in the first place. Either that or you have very wealth parents who you inherit from or who pay their grandchildrens fees themselves
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most t after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
It’s also worth saying that there’s a significant difference in costs and pupil-base between London commuting distance and the wider country, at least at the day school level. If you look where I am currently, there are a disproportionate number of Asian families making genuine sacrifices to send their kids to HMC/GDST schools. That’s not inherited wealth but a belief in the standards that those schools have.
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
Heartening to see nationalise rail and energy so low on both priority lists.
A party which pledges to give the NHS "£350m per week" by 2022, raise the minimum wage to £12.50 per hour by the end of 2022 and commission a million affordable homes for sale exclusively to non-investor FTBs would do very well.
I think all of that is well within the realms of possibility for either party tbh, though Labour would probably make them social housing for rent rather than affordable housing for private ownership, which is why the Tories must offer ownership before Labour can create 2-3m new social tenants.
You want the state to build a million homes and sell them off at a subsidy? And there I was thinking that Corbyn was the left wing one.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
So back to my original point then
No. You original point was focused on a limited number of high income jobs. I pointed out this was not true.
No, as you have just confirmed. To be able to afford boarding school fees of £30 000 a year on average you need to have a sufficiently high salary to buy an expensive enough property to borrow against to pay those fees in the first place. Either that or you have very wealth parents who you inherit from or who pay their grandchildrens fees themselves
No. The £30k fee - which is only a very small number of schools - the Etons and Winchesters of the world. Parents with children of 13+ typically bought 15+ years ago when prices were a lot cheaper
You really do t need to pretend to be right on every occasion. We're all just having fun, not trying to our do each other
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Not sure O'Brien has ever actually been right about anything in his life. He is certainly not beyond making outright false statements during interviews, relying on the interviewee not being in a position to correct or challenge him. One of the nastiest and most dishonest presenters around today.
A post that says little about O'B and rather more about you.
As an aside, Mrs Stodge and I did the Auckland-Honolulu journey with Air NZ back in 2006. It's odd to fly out one day and arrive the previous day. That year, we had two March 10ths - all I can tell you it's never the same second time round !!
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top on of Scotland
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most parents do not have capital of £30k a year lying around which is why if they are not high earners grammar schools and top academies are so sought after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
So back to my original point then
No. You original point was focused on a limited number of high income jobs. I pointed out this was not true.
No, as you have just confirmed. To be able to afford boarding school fees ens fees themselves
No. The £30k fee - which is only a very small number of schools - the Etons and Winchesters of the world. Parents with children of 13+ typically bought 15+ years ago when prices were a lot cheaper
You really do t need to pretend to be right on every occasion. We're all just having fun, not trying to our do each other
Eton fees as I have just shown are closer to £40k now not £30k. You would need to have a property worth at least around a million plus to be even able to consider borrowing against to pay for boarding school fees even with house price inflation and that is almost five times the average house price of just over £200k. Even if private day schools are a bit cheaper and a bit more accessible than boarding schools they are still beyond the reach of the average family without a scholarship or bursary
Heartening to see nationalise rail and energy so low on both priority lists.
A party which pledges to give the NHS "£350m per week" by 2022, raise the minimum wage to £12.50 per hour by the end of 2022 and commission a million affordable homes for sale exclusively to non-investor FTBs would do very well.
I think all of that is well within the realms of possibility for either party tbh, though Labour would probably make them social housing for rent rather than affordable housing for private ownership, which is why the Tories must offer ownership before Labour can create 2-3m new social tenants.
You want the state to build a million homes and sell them off at a subsidy? And there I was thinking that Corbyn was the left wing one.
Not necessarily.
You could - for example - sell at just the build cost (ie not for profit). Of if on state labs you could not charge for the land (which I think is about 40% of the cost) but charge rent for it.
If, say, you build start homes with a free market value of £100,000, you could sell for £60k plus annual rent of £2k (£40k @5%). The £20k profit (build cost of £40k) could then be used to fund building social housing on the same site.
Heartening to see nationalise rail and energy so low on both priority lists.
A party which pledges to give the NHS "£350m per week" by 2022, raise the minimum wage to £12.50 per hour by the end of 2022 and commission a million affordable homes for sale exclusively to non-investor FTBs would do very well.
I think all of that is well within the realms of possibility for either party tbh, though Labour would probably make them social housing for rent rather than affordable housing for private ownership, which is why the Tories must offer ownership before Labour can create 2-3m new social tenants.
You want the state to build a million homes and sell them off at a subsidy? And there I was thinking that Corbyn was the left wing one.
Not necessarily.
You could - for example - sell at just the build cost (ie not for profit). Of if on state labs you could not charge for the land (which I think is about 40% of the cost) but charge rent for it.
If, say, you build start homes with a free market value of £100,000, you could sell for £60k plus annual rent of £2k (£40k @5%). The £20k profit (build cost of £40k) could then be used to fund building social housing on the same site.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at the top so reduce the public school monopoly of elite schools, indeed many private schools saw falling rolls when grammars were at their peak in the 1950s and early 1960s, why pay for an education you can get free? Plus of course from 1964 we had no private school educated PMs for 33 years, since 1997 In the last 20 years we have had an Old Etonian PM and a PM educated at Fettes, the Eton of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most t after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
It’s also worth saying that there’s a significant difference in costs and pupil-base between London commuting distance and the wider country, at least at the day school level. If you look where I am currently, there are a disproportionate number of Asian families making genuine sacrifices to send their kids to HMC/GDST schools. That’s not inherited wealth but a belief in the standards that those schools have.
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at on of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most t after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
It’s also worth saying that there’s a significant difference in costs and pupil-base between London commuting distance and the wider country, at least at the
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
Your average Home Counties private day school is £11k a year.
Which you would still need to be close to the top 10% of earners to pay based on the typical calculation of fees being a quarter of salary. Though as I said day school fees are more affordable than boarding school fees and many parents do make sacrifices to educate their children privately
Little Boxes, Little Boxes, all made of ticky, tacky Little Boxes, Little Boxes and they all look just the same
Houses are being built in London - lots of them, the cranes are everywhere, the imported construction workers aren't short of work.
BUT all you see are flats, boxes, being built. Is the answer to the housing problem in London simply about building boxes in blocks on brownfield sites ? To what extent are they homes for families ?
The housing problem has many dimensions - the solution also needs many dimensions and while there has to be a place for flats that's not all the solution. Homes, like the people in them, come in all shapes and sizes.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
Not sure O'Brien has ever actually been right about anything in his life. He is certainly not beyond making outright false statements during interviews, relying on the interviewee not being in a position to correct or challenge him. One of the nastiest and most dishonest presenters around today.
A post that says little about O'B and rather more about you.
No it really doesn't. Indeed with the exception of yourself I have not seen anyone disagreeing with me on here regarding his nature.
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most t after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
It’s also worth saying that there’s a significant difference in costs and pupil-base between London commuting distance and the wider country, at least at the day school level. If you look where I am currently, there are a disproportionate number of Asian families making genuine sacrifices to send their kids to HMC/GDST schools. That’s not inherited wealth but a belief in the standards that those schools have.
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
On the reshuffle. Lots of pressure on May from both wings of the party to establish control over the other wing. Surely the best way to reassert her authority is NOT to reshuffle - this is my cabinet, it like me is Strong and Stable...
On Grammar schools - a marvellous idea. Smaller classes, focused teaching, equipment, opportunities. Lets make ALL schools Grammar schools. That way the opportunity afforded to the small minority who are naturally gifted or whose parents hire a tutor to pass the exam can be given to all in a comprehensive pledge to all children. We could call it "comprehensive education" - just needs a shit ton of cash throwing at it. As business keeps not paying taxes and then whining about kids leaving school stupid, simply apply an education levy to large business and challenge them to disown it. You don't want to fund education for our children Mr Starfucks...?
On housing. Its pretty simple really. When people have minimal prospect of ever being able to afford a deposit to buy, and in many bigger cities now struggle to rent without half their salary plus going to the landlord, the system is clearly broken. Rents are high because purchasing costs are high. So build a large number of houses that aren't sold on the market, rent them at a price people can afford, the private landlords can't afford to drop rents and sell up, hey presto houses on the market with falling prices. Rent controls work EVERYWHERE else, its typical post-Thatcher British stupidity to assume everyone else is wrong and we are right even when the evidence is clear and unambiguous.
Little Boxes, Little Boxes, all made of ticky, tacky Little Boxes, Little Boxes and they all look just the same
Houses are being built in London - lots of them, the cranes are everywhere, the imported construction workers aren't short of work.
BUT all you see are flats, boxes, being built. Is the answer to the housing problem in London simply about building boxes in blocks on brownfield sites ? To what extent are they homes for families ?
The housing problem has many dimensions - the solution also needs many dimensions and while there has to be a place for flats that's not all the solution. Homes, like the people in them, come in all shapes and sizes.
11 000 houses are going to be built in Epping Forest district as part of the local plan, 40% affordable housing
When did serious grade inflation start? I'd have imagined it was it was from 1997 onwards, but I'm sure there was (and is) a background level of inflation.
I took A-level further maths in 1994. In preparation I took every previous paper back to the early seventies (my old man was my teacher so he had access to all of the old papers and the marking guides. Each year either the questions became easier or the grade boundaries were adjusted. There was one big revamp of the format halfway through (1984?) which resulted in a much bigger slippage in standards than usual.
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
You are part of the problem, you and your father and your careful analysis of past papers. One factor that has driven grade inflation is far better exam preparation. That is not to say that there has not been dumbing down but that there are many drivers, some benign.
The interesting distinction between Leavers and Remainers is at the second level - control versus rights - after the main distinction of immigration and the economy. Leavers and Remainers have completely different concepts of freedom.
On topic, it seems Mrs May is feeling confident. Mind you, she was confident before the GE.
On Grammar schools - a marvellous idea. Smaller classes, focused teaching, equipment, opportunities. Lets make ALL schools Grammar schools. That way the opportunity afforded to the small minority who are naturally gifted or whose parents hire a tutor to pass the exam can be given to all in a comprehensive pledge to all children. We could call it "comprehensive education" - just needs a shit ton of cash throwing at it. As business keeps not paying taxes and then whining about kids leaving school stupid, simply apply an education levy to large business and challenge them to disown it. You don't want to fund education for our children Mr Starfucks...?
Grammar schools actually tend to have larger class sizes than ordinary comprehensives, not smaller, because on average they get less funding per pupil (also it is much easier to control a class of 31 able children who want to learn than 25 who need heavy teacher input and don't want to work). Private schools have smaller ratios, but they have about double the spending per pupil which goes a long way towards explaining classes less than half the size.
I would agree that cutting class sizes to below 20 would be a major boost for education. Unfortunately leaving aside the major initial capital cost for additional classrooms, the huge ongoing bill for staff salaries would be more than even Corbyn has proposed putting into education.
The interesting distinction between Leavers and Remainers is at the second level - control versus rights - after the main distinction of immigration and the economy. Leavers and Remainers have completely different concepts of freedom.
On topic, it seems Mrs May is feeling confident. Mind you, she was confident before the GE.
Remainers believe rights derive from the State whereas Leavers believe they are inalienable and do not require the EU to deliver them.
Comments
Which means Buckinghamshire is letting down those who don't go to grammar school and do worse than they would in a non grammar area.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
Exam boards competing for business is sure to lead to erosion of standards.
See the FT study.
http://ig-legacy.ft.com/content/cb1e02f4-7461-3fd1-ac5d-9fd9befb20dd
I respect him for this tweet:
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/938067406886506496?
What is his religious denomination BTW? He supports a 12-week limit for elective abortion.
I don't think Boris will get demoted. "He came in from nowhere in national politics to a very senior cabinet position and performed badly in it, so let's create another powerful government position and give him that" doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, he could probably make an awful nuisance of himself, from Theresa May's point of view, outside the tent.
I can tell you that from my experience that late 70's vs early 80's A level exams were much the same. There was a degree of progress in that some questions in the earlier years seemed trivial, but also some questions from the earlier years were harder because that wasn't the current focus. So broadly the test was the same. I have no idea about whether the marking reflected that.
I got an 'S' level grade 1 in Physics. There was a degree of 'wow' about that at the time. As far as I'm aware there isn't such a distinguishing thing for high achievement now.
Oh, and welcome.
With Priti Patel out surely there is a need for another ethnic Cabinet minister.
Huddersfield NOT the worst place to live in England
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-not-worst-place-live-14091948
Alternatively we can prioritise STEM subjects and give honours to the likes of Adrian Newey and Paddy Lowe, two Brits who have designed the last seven F1 winning cars between them.
That it took 10 years for the proportion of A* grades to be similar to the proportion of A grades before A* grades were introduced is pretty telling. Maybe inflation was swifter during that decade.
I mean, where would Alistair Campbell be if that was the criteria?
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/947511357422931969
I got an A for the A level, though.
However as he himself would fit at least one of his own criteria he may not realise the situation as fully as he thinks he does.
He has the irritating habit of assuming his opponents must have base motives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-affect-the-eu-referendum-result/
And while I'm here, "Foreign aid to be shifted to support UK policy, Johnson says". That's not a dogwhistle, it's a foghorn, intended for the ears of kippers, and the sort of tory member who voted in the Quiet Man.
HNY to everybody.
edit: the bojo story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42528712
There was a very interesting series of articles about that in the recent Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, although the author of them did spout a load of rubbish when it came to modern teaching in schools.
Her British dream lies in tatters.
(Yes, I know it's both spelled and pronounced differently!)
Comprehensives leave plenty of poor kids behind of course - because they operate on the basis of catchment areas where you can buy your way into the best state schools by being able to afford the house prices in the catchment areas of the best state schools. Ask any estate agent - it's the dirty secret of the well heeled liberal middle classes!
I am not sure that selection by how well off your parents are (via their ability to afford a nice house in a nice area) - is any less likely to leave kids behind than selection by ability and intelligence. Allocating places by lottery and bussing poor kids from poor areas to the rich catchment areas of the best state schools are would solve the problem!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5224261/Man-arrested-suspicion-murder-woman-dead.html
But the man named came 4th in the county council election this year, and is therefore, er, not a councillor
https://elections.suffolk.gov.uk/division/220
Fair enough, if he believes private education to be unethical. However, the bizarre thing was he proposed to use the income from these punitive taxes - which would never have materialised, on account of the schools closing - to fund an increase in state education.
So without realising it what Corbyn and Rayner had actually proposed was a 7% increase in state school numbers and no extra money at all - therefore a further 7% real terms cut in school budgets. Worse, they had on that basis said they would force increased spending on schools - so undoubtedly a large number would have gone bankrupt.
It is to my mind the most striking example of why Labour are currently unfit to govern, far ahead of his links to the IRA and Hamas and the unanswered questions surrounding what he knew about Bernie Bain and when. They have ideas, possibly even ones that they consider well-intentioned, but no idea of what effect they will have on real people in the real world.
Edit- incidentally Bristol Cathedral School, a former private school turned academy, does allocate all places except for those reserved for choristers by lottery. Since it is one of only two, maybe three vaguely good state schools in Bristol, it is popular and that seemed the fairest way of allocating places.
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
http://www.etoncollege.com/CurrentFees.aspx
You really do t need to pretend to be right on every occasion. We're all just having fun, not trying to our do each other
Happy New Year to all on PB from Stodge.
As an aside, Mrs Stodge and I did the Auckland-Honolulu journey with Air NZ back in 2006. It's odd to fly out one day and arrive the previous day. That year, we had two March 10ths - all I can tell you it's never the same second time round !!
You could - for example - sell at just the build cost (ie not for profit). Of if on state labs you could not charge for the land (which I think is about 40% of the cost) but charge rent for it.
If, say, you build start homes with a free market value of £100,000, you could sell for £60k plus annual rent of £2k (£40k @5%). The £20k profit (build cost of £40k) could then be used to fund building social housing on the same site.
You could - for example - sell at just the build cost (ie not for profit). Of if on state labs you could not charge for the land (which I think is about 40% of the cost) but charge rent for it.
If, say, you build start homes with a free market value of £100,000, you could sell for £60k plus annual rent of £2k (£40k @5%). The £20k profit (build cost of £40k) could then be used to fund building social housing on the same site.
Little Boxes, Little Boxes, all made of ticky, tacky
Little Boxes, Little Boxes and they all look just the same
Houses are being built in London - lots of them, the cranes are everywhere, the imported construction workers aren't short of work.
BUT all you see are flats, boxes, being built. Is the answer to the housing problem in London simply about building boxes in blocks on brownfield sites ? To what extent are they homes for families ?
The housing problem has many dimensions - the solution also needs many dimensions and while there has to be a place for flats that's not all the solution. Homes, like the people in them, come in all shapes and sizes.
On the reshuffle. Lots of pressure on May from both wings of the party to establish control over the other wing. Surely the best way to reassert her authority is NOT to reshuffle - this is my cabinet, it like me is Strong and Stable...
On Grammar schools - a marvellous idea. Smaller classes, focused teaching, equipment, opportunities. Lets make ALL schools Grammar schools. That way the opportunity afforded to the small minority who are naturally gifted or whose parents hire a tutor to pass the exam can be given to all in a comprehensive pledge to all children. We could call it "comprehensive education" - just needs a shit ton of cash throwing at it. As business keeps not paying taxes and then whining about kids leaving school stupid, simply apply an education levy to large business and challenge them to disown it. You don't want to fund education for our children Mr Starfucks...?
On housing. Its pretty simple really. When people have minimal prospect of ever being able to afford a deposit to buy, and in many bigger cities now struggle to rent without half their salary plus going to the landlord, the system is clearly broken. Rents are high because purchasing costs are high. So build a large number of houses that aren't sold on the market, rent them at a price people can afford, the private landlords can't afford to drop rents and sell up, hey presto houses on the market with falling prices. Rent controls work EVERYWHERE else, its typical post-Thatcher British stupidity to assume everyone else is wrong and we are right even when the evidence is clear and unambiguous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42526271
The Iranian government -- ditto.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42529576
On topic, it seems Mrs May is feeling confident. Mind you, she was confident before the GE.
I would agree that cutting class sizes to below 20 would be a major boost for education. Unfortunately leaving aside the major initial capital cost for additional classrooms, the huge ongoing bill for staff salaries would be more than even Corbyn has proposed putting into education.