So, if you had a few hours to spare at Zurich Hauptbahnhof, what would anyone suggest doing/visiting?
Take a walk along the river to the lake passing the Old Town. If you are interested in modern art you can call in at the Grossmunster church for stained glass by Alberto Giacometti and the Fraumunster for glass by Marc Chagall.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
I would query the statement about lowest conditional offer. Maybe Cambridge is different, but an old school friend got a conditional offer in 1980s from a college there for Chemistry that was significantly lower than the 3Bs Toby mentions.
I think that technically the 2 E offers were "unconditional" rather than "conditional". The 2 E requirement was the legal minimum to matriculate
2E is still conditional.
I've known AEs to have been made in the past - an unconditional offer is, formally, one made when the qualifications presented have been deemed enough i.e. reapplying later (for example, I knew someone when I was there who, post A-level, had done 3ish years as a marine and only then applied).
Anyway, this Young story is some remarkably weak gruel. Have we really got a year of this to come? Or are they going to go harder with the Fake News and Faux Outrage. I would imagine its only got a limited shelflife.
At.
Best.
Shirley Williams says she did not take A levels because she had already been awarded a scholarship at Oxford.
You used to be able to take entrance exams to Oxford and Cambridge and it was normal if you passed them to receive a 2E offer and either an Exhibition or Scholarship [ both money payments. I chose not to and after interview got a an offer of AAB. which I achieved and promptly wasted 3 glorious years at St John's before receiving a 'desmond'.
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
Selective outrage over the admissions policy of a single Oxford college, nearly four decades ago, is pretty thin stuff. There is rather a lot more in the field of eduction to get worked up about.
I am not worked up. I am just calling it for what it is: cronyism, rather than brilliance on the part of Mr Young...
Cronyism, in your opinion - on the facts it might be nothing of the sort. And he got a first, which one would have though was mostly on his part. It has absolutely no bearing on his qualification for the post.
While he is a slightly odd choice, he is not an indefensible one. And as one of thirteen members of a board of a slightly obscure quango, I don't think he's going to do a vast amount of damage.
I'd be far more interested in getting an explanation of how (for example) either Justine Greening or Angela Rayner are particularly qualified to be in charge of the nation's education...
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Less weird than your comparison with OGH's tip of Obama due president, I would humbly suggest. AFAIK, Mike didn't make that tip as a favour to Obama.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
That would really be a FFS point.
Actually, I think such transparency would be a bloody good idea. This is the remit, this is what we looked for, this is who was considered, this is who was chosen, this is why and this is how much they get paid and this is how they will be accountable to you, the public, who pay for it all and in whose interests they are supposed to be acting.
And that would open up huge HR expenses, and legal claims and challenges. Who's going to pay for that?
Why?
Let’s keep it all secret then. After all it’s only public money and public functions that are involved.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinkss not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
That would really be a FFS point.
Actually, I think such transparency would be a bloody good idea. This is the remit, this is what we looked for, this is who was considered, this is who was chosen, this is why and this is how much they get paid and this is how they will be accountable to you, the public, who pay for it all and in whose interests they are supposed to be acting.
And that would open up huge HR expenses, and legal claims and challenges. Who's going to pay for that?
Why?
Let’s keep it all secret then. After all it’s only public money and public functions that are involved.
It’s a public application process I think.
Remit, desired attributes, who was chosen, lines of accountability and terms of appointment are all public
Who was considered is - quite rightly - confidential
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
I am not surprised that TY was appointed as a political crony by is old mates, but it does show May's professed desire for social mobility to be the cant that we all expected. It is a self replicating oligarchy, like most government classes.
Interesting perspective here on the origin of the Iran protests btw. There too they have a problem with cronyism and favoritism:
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Less weird than your comparison with OGH's tip of Obama due president, I would humbly suggest. AFAIK, Mike didn't make that tip as a favour to Obama.
Circular argument. Your claim the place was given "as a favour" and not on merit has to deal with the fact that, in the event, we know there was merit in abundance. You have to claim that yebbut the admissions bods overlooked that point but made the offer anyway. People on the internet are too fond of saying "Occam's razor", but: Occam's razor.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
That would really be a FFS point.
Actually, I think such transparency would be a bloody good idea. This is the remit, this is what we looked for, this is who was considered, this is who was chosen, this is why and this is how much they get paid and this is how they will be accountable to you, the public, who pay for it all and in whose interests they are supposed to be acting.
And that would open up huge HR expenses, and legal claims and challenges. Who's going to pay for that?
Why?
Why? Because every public appointment to any QUANGO would be an endless stream of 'why X but not Y', why 'Y but not Z' as we're already seen with this one minor appointment. It would be a mess, and a fieldday for lawyers.
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
I think dull competence is underrated. This may be for personal reasons of course! It is certainly more important than inspiring advocacy albeit I agree that a part of the politician's roll is to create a consensus that his or her ideas are good ones and advocacy certainly helps with that.
The projected inheritances for millenials won't happen until they're in their sixties, by which time all sorts of things could have changed, including how old-age care is paid for. For people of working age, and particularly for young people with little hope of getting on the housing ladder, such distant windfall prospects are irrelevant.
It may well be that parents often help out with buying costs but that's a feature of a problem, not a solution to it. In any case, the average age of the first-time buyer is increasing and home-ownership rates are falling, and they're more relevant facts.
The problem is very simple: house prices are too high and mortgage leverage multiples are too restricted. In addition, it is possible that young people's expectations are too high (I recall my parents telling me they would go to the market at the crack of dawn to buy the previous days leavings cheaply as it helped them afford their first house).
Part of this is a problem with low interest rates inflating asset prices, part of it is a problem with the lack of quality alternative investments, part of it is slow planning processes and part of it is excess demand from the increase in the number of households through family breakups, demographics and immigration.
There is no simple "build more houses" solution to the problem. The government has done some good things (around taxing of investment properties as investments) and some bad things (I am not sure that "help to buy" is a good model).
But fundamentally, you need to institutionalise the private rented sector, build out more social housing and ensure that social housing is used as intended (the anecdotal evidence on illegal sub-letting is shocking) and accelerate the planning process.
Perhaps, maybe. But banks already offer 4.5 * joint salary, which is errm.. high by historical standards !
I believe the solution involves raising interest rates, slowly. Since the Fed in the US is doing this we should follow suit in time. More details on my blog post here:
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
Because of population growth, but that doesn't mean anything. Because of population growth there are nominally more Christians in the UK than there were 100 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the UK is a more Christian country than it was in 1918.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
Because of population growth, but that doesn't mean anything. Because of population growth there are nominally more Christians in the UK than there were 100 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the UK is a more Christian country than it was in 1918.
There will be 1.1 billion Christians in Sub Saharan Africa by 2050 compared to 670 million Muslims
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
That would really be a FFS point.
Actually, I think such transparency would be a bloody good idea. This is the remit, this is what we looked for, this is who was considered, this is who was chosen, this is why and this is how much they get paid and this is how they will be accountable to you, the public, who pay for it all and in whose interests they are supposed to be acting.
And that would open up huge HR expenses, and legal claims and challenges. Who's going to pay for that?
Why?
Why? Because every public appointment to any QUANGO would be an endless stream of 'why X but not Y', why 'Y but not Z' as we're already seen with this one minor appointment. It would be a mess, and a fieldday for lawyers.
Public appointments are subject to the same race/sex discrimination laws. Keep confidential who was considered, if that is a concern. But ensuring that there is an open and transparent process around public appointments seems to me to be desirable.
I also think that governments should actively look for possible candidates - such as people like my brother-in-law - rather than rely only on those who apply. A lot of people might not even consider applying for such posts. Reaching out beyond the usual charmed circle (ads in local papers, for instance) or those in the know might not be a bad thing.
The projected inheritances for millenials won't happen until they're in their sixties, by which time all sorts of things could have changed, including how old-age care is paid for. For people of working age, and particularly for young people with little hope of getting on the housing ladder, such distant windfall prospects are irrelevant.
It may well be that parents often help out with buying costs but that's a feature of a problem, not a solution to it. In any case, the average age of the first-time buyer is increasing and home-ownership rates are falling, and they're more relevant facts.
The problem is very simple: house prices are too high and mortgage leverage multiples are too restricted. In addition, it is possible that young people's expectations are too high (I recall my parents telling me they would go to the market at the crack of dawn to buy the previous days leavings cheaply as it helped them afford their first house).
Part of this is a problem with low interest rates inflating asset prices, part of it is a problem with the lack of quality alternative investments, part of it is slow planning processes and part of it is excess demand from the increase in the number of households through family breakups, demographics and immigration.
There is no simple "build more houses" solution to the problem. The government has done some good things (around taxing of investment properties as investments) and some bad things (I am not sure that "help to buy" is a good model).
But fundamentally, you need to institutionalise the private rented sector, build out more social housing and ensure that social housing is used as intended (the anecdotal evidence on illegal sub-letting is shocking) and accelerate the planning process.
Perhaps, maybe. But banks already offer 4.5 * joint salary, which is errm.. high by historical standards !
I believe the solution involves raising interest rates, slowly. Since the Fed in the US is doing this we should follow suit in time. More details on my blog post here:
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Less weird than your comparison with OGH's tip of Obama due president, I would humbly suggest. AFAIK, Mike didn't make that tip as a favour to Obama.
Circular argument. Your claim the place was given "as a favour" and not on merit has to deal with the fact that, in the event, we know there was merit in abundance. You have to claim that yebbut the admissions bods overlooked that point but made the offer anyway. People on the internet are too fond of saying "Occam's razor", but: Occam's razor.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Someone much cleverer than me once wrote that all democracies ultimately fail due to the fact that at some point the electorate cottons on and votes for the governing party that is offering the most collectively to the electorate.
These promises are often unfunded and over a period of time the country becomes indebted to unmanageable levels leading to financial and political collapse.
Not difficult to visualise that a few mature western democracies are nearing the endgame
So around half the board are experienced HE quangocrats, and then there are a couple of lawyers and industrialists, a sprinkling of varied HE providers, a student... and Toby Young.
Maybe he's there to keep them awake.
One of its duties is to administer the Prevent duty. And Young’s qualifications for this are.....?
Not notably different to that of several other, less controversial board members.
Young's capacity and willingness to educate and inform himself on educational issues appears to be more than adequate. It is his judgment that I would question - but that, of course, is a matter of opinion.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Less weird than your comparison with OGH's tip of Obama due president, I would humbly suggest. AFAIK, Mike didn't make that tip as a favour to Obama.
You should note that I never give tips - I simply suggest that in my view outcome X is at current betting prices is good value. Everything is about my assessment of X happening and what bookies and other Betfair punters are prepared to offer.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
I think dull competence is underrated. This may be for personal reasons of course! It is certainly more important than inspiring advocacy albeit I agree that a part of the politician's roll is to create a consensus that his or her ideas are good ones and advocacy certainly helps with that.
At the moment we have dull incompetence.
A leader needs to be able to say:-
- This is who we are - This is what we do - This is how we do it - This is where we are going - This is how we are going to get there
And do so in a way which makes others want to follow.
It needs to be convincing and it needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
It does not need to be Martin Luther King-style oratory. But something a little livelier than the kind of speaking style used by those telling you that you’re held in a queue would help.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Less weird than your comparison with OGH's tip of Obama due president, I would humbly suggest. AFAIK, Mike didn't make that tip as a favour to Obama.
You should note that I never give tips - I simply suggest that in my view outcome X is at current betting prices is good value...
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Not at all. You seem to be thinking that he got an offer from Oxford out of the blue and that the admissions team knew nothing else about him or his potential.
Don't they normally interview their applicants before giving them an offer - an interview that he presumably must have done very well in to be given the offer. They must have seen what they were looking for in him and the fact he went on to get a first is not simply hindsight but also vindication of the admissions process for him. It's not simply hindsight, they had something already to base their decision on.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Less weird than your comparison with OGH's tip of Obama due president, I would humbly suggest. AFAIK, Mike didn't make that tip as a favour to Obama.
Circular argument. Your claim the place was given "as a favour" and not on merit has to deal with the fact that, in the event, we know there was merit in abundance. You have to claim that yebbut the admissions bods overlooked that point but made the offer anyway. People on the internet are too fond of saying "Occam's razor", but: Occam's razor.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
They interviewed him and made an offer. What more do you want as evidence?
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
I think dull competence is underrated. This may be for personal reasons of course! It is certainly more important than inspiring advocacy albeit I agree that a part of the politician's roll is to create a consensus that his or her ideas are good ones and advocacy certainly helps with that.
At the moment we have dull incompetence.
A leader needs to be able to say:-
- This is who we are - This is what we do - This is how we do it - This is where we are going - This is how we are going to get there
And do so in a way which makes others want to follow.
It needs to be convincing and it needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
It does not need to be Martin Luther King-style oratory. But something a little livelier than the kind of speaking style used by those telling you that you’re held in a queue would help.
Well if the next general election is JRM/Boris v Corbyn it may be many things but it will certainly not be dull!
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Not at all. You seem to be thinking that he got an offer from Oxford out of the blue and that the admissions team knew nothing else about him or his potential.
Don't they normally interview their applicants before giving them an offer - an interview that he presumably must have done very well in to be given the offer. They must have seen what they were looking for in him and the fact he went on to get a first is not simply hindsight but also vindication of the admissions process for him. It's not simply hindsight, they had something already to base their decision on.
Yes, it's surreal seeing the dons being lambasted for being right!
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
Perhaps you should consider becoming famous given the performance of many of those who have the job at the moment.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
Hopefully there might soon be a cherry-red car in such a ?rather elliptical? orbit.
It's a shame Bertrand Russell didn't use 'car' instead of 'teapot'.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
Because of population growth, but that doesn't mean anything. Because of population growth there are nominally more Christians in the UK than there were 100 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the UK is a more Christian country than it was in 1918.
There will be 1.1 billion Christians in Sub Saharan Africa by 2050 compared to 670 million Muslims
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
Yes, but there may well be a cherry Tesla roadster in that orbit soon !
We apply absolute rules in other areas - such as welfare - so why not do it for appointments to public bodies of whatever kind too? How about: ministers cannot appoint family friends or work colleagues or acquaintances to any entity that is charged with the spending of public money or the supervision of entities that spend public money.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
Because of population growth, but that doesn't mean anything. Because of population growth there are nominally more Christians in the UK than there were 100 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the UK is a more Christian country than it was in 1918.
There will be 1.1 billion Christians in Sub Saharan Africa by 2050 compared to 670 million Muslims
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
I think dull competence is underrated. This may be for personal reasons of course! It is certainly more important than inspiring advocacy albeit I agree that a part of the politician's roll is to create a consensus that his or her ideas are good ones and advocacy certainly helps with that.
At the moment we have dull incompetence.
A leader needs to be able to say:-
- This is who we are - This is what we do - This is how we do it - This is where we are going - This is how we are going to get there
And do so in a way which makes others want to follow.
It needs to be convincing and it needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
It does not need to be Martin Luther King-style oratory. But something a little livelier than the kind of speaking style used by those telling you that you’re held in a queue would help.
I think what you are describing is pretty optimal and it is inevitable that democracies will elect sub optimal people, just as we did in 2017. Democracies that need exceptional skills to run them will fail. They need to be more robust than that. Not every generation will produce a FDR.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
All I meant was that lots of people (NSS members etc) who identify as secular like to attack or are dismissive of Christianity, when the predominant variety of secular values in the West is stamped with Christianity’s imprint. Secular culture and values in East Asia are quite different.
This is not a simple issue, and no offence was intended
Off topic: Nice to collect on all those "Will x stay in post" winners, where x = someone who probably won't lose their job, but the press are always inflating the perceived probabilities beyond the actual.
Boris and Bercow the two for a few hundred return this year. Last year was Corbyn (And the year before iirc)
Off topic: Nice to collect on all those "Will x stay in post" winners, where x = someone who probably won't lose their job, but the press are always inflating the perceived probabilities beyond the actual.
Boris and Bercow the two for a few hundred return this year. Last year was Corbyn (And the year before iirc)
Yes, those are usually goodies. Now you come to mention it, I think I was on Bercow, I must check my records.
Edit: Incidentally, it seems to me that Bercow has been doing his job well recently, and a lot of the criticism of him has died down. It used to look as though he had some personal grudge against Cameron but he seems to treat May and Corbyn fairly.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
I think dull competence is underrated. This may be for personal reasons of course! It is certainly more important than inspiring advocacy albeit I agree that a part of the politician's roll is to create a consensus that his or her ideas are good ones and advocacy certainly helps with that.
At the moment we have dull incompetence.
A leader needs to be able to say:-
- This is who we are - This is what we do - This is how we do it - This is where we are going - This is how we are going to get there
And do so in a way which makes others want to follow.
It needs to be convincing and it needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
It does not need to be Martin Luther King-style oratory. But something a little livelier than the kind of speaking style used by those telling you that you’re held in a queue would help.
I think what you are describing is pretty optimal and it is inevitable that democracies will elect sub optimal people, just as we did in 2017. Democracies that need exceptional skills to run them will fail. They need to be more robust than that. Not every generation will produce a FDR.
You're right but there's another problem, which is not only that the system can't be relied on to produce exceptional leaders but it's harder for them to be elected these days anyway. FDR quite possibly wouldn't have been elected without the connivance of journalists (and his opponents) covering up his disability. Standards have slipped since then - or, if you prefer, the public has other priorities and journalists and media are happy to pander to them.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
I think dull competence is underrated. This may be for personal reasons of course! It is certainly more important than inspiring advocacy albeit I agree that a part of the politician's roll is to create a consensus that his or her ideas are good ones and advocacy certainly helps with that.
At the moment we have dull incompetence.
A leader needs to be able to say:-
- This is who we are - This is what we do - This is how we do it - This is where we are going - This is how we are going to get there
And do so in a way which makes others want to follow.
It needs to be convincing and it needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
It does not need to be Martin Luther King-style oratory. But something a little livelier than the kind of speaking style used by those telling you that you’re held in a queue would help.
I think what you are describing is pretty optimal and it is inevitable that democracies will elect sub optimal people, just as we did in 2017. Democracies that need exceptional skills to run them will fail. They need to be more robust than that. Not every generation will produce a FDR.
Optimal? Jesus! I made sure I could answer these questions when I first set up my last team, 14 years ago. If you can’t answer these questions even vaguely convincingly why would you even try to be in any sort of management position anywhere, let alone in politics?
It was my parting advice to my deputy when he left to lead a team elsewhere. I hope he is following it.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
All I meant was that lots of people (NSS members etc) who identify as secular like to attack or are dismissive of Christianity, when the predominant variety of secular values in the West is stamped with Christianity’s imprint. Secular culture and values in East Asia are quite different.
This is not a simple issue, and no offence was intended
Except it's not stamped with Christianity's input. Its stamped with evolution and Graeco-Roman influence more than anything else.
East Asia evolved differently to us but the difference was not simply Christianity.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
Because of population growth, but that doesn't mean anything. Because of population growth there are nominally more Christians in the UK than there were 100 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the UK is a more Christian country than it was in 1918.
There will be 1.1 billion Christians in Sub Saharan Africa by 2050 compared to 670 million Muslims
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
Perhaps you should consider becoming famous given the performance of many of those who have the job at the moment.
I have so many skeletons in my cupboard (life is for living) that the Daily Mail would have to have special editions every week.
Not that I care two hoots about them. People who have made no mistakes have made no decisions either and have not lived.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
In Africa overall, Christianity is becoming less dominant whilst Islam is growing rapidly. As in Europe, though without the large body of secularism.
In North Africa Islam will continue to dominate. In sub-Saharan Africa the Christian population is set to double by 2050
Because of population growth, but that doesn't mean anything. Because of population growth there are nominally more Christians in the UK than there were 100 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the UK is a more Christian country than it was in 1918.
There will be 1.1 billion Christians in Sub Saharan Africa by 2050 compared to 670 million Muslims
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
Perhaps you should consider becoming famous given the performance of many of those who have the job at the moment.
I have so many skeletons in my cupboard (life is for living) that the Daily Mail would have to have special editions every week.
Not that I care two hoots about them. People who have made no mistakes have made no decisions either and have not lived.
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
Perhaps you should consider becoming famous given the performance of many of those who have the job at the moment.
I have so many skeletons in my cupboard (life is for living) that the Daily Mail would have to have special editions every week.
Not that I care two hoots about them. People who have made no mistakes have made no decisions either and have not lived.
Interesting philosophy; doesn't square with the condemnation of Mr Young's appointment.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nor does Islam or Hinduism and indeed many Protestant Churches and arguably the Jewish leadership in Israel and nor did atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
No I agree of course not but evidently Lord Young believed that Oxbridge was the place for his son. For some reason for a Labour peer to think such a thing.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nor does Islam or Hinduism and indeed many Protestant Churches and arguably the Jewish leadership in Israel and nor did atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao
Thanks to Gibbon, there's a widespread (and completely erroneous) belief that the Romans and Greeks were cultured, 18th century upper class agnostics. In reality, they were every bit as religious as the newly emerging sect of Christians. Far from being religiously tolerant, in every State in the ancient world, atheism (meaning public denial of the State's gods) was a capital offence, and indeed, atheism was the charge that was levelled against Christians.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
No I agree of course not but evidently Lord Young believed that Oxbridge was the place for his son. For some reason for a Labour peer to think such a thing.
Yes, ironic that even in Labour circles Oxbridge still opens doors
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Alternatively:
Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, interviewed Young and made him a conditional offer with a lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. However, as the result of an administrative error he was sent a confirmation that he had been accepted. He was subsequently sent a rejection. His father called the admissions tutor to ask what the situation was and the college decided the appropriate thing to do was to honour the original acceptance, even though it was an error. Subsequently, Young was awarded a first class degree proving that he was worthy of a place at the college.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
No I agree of course not but evidently Lord Young believed that Oxbridge was the place for his son. For some reason for a Labour peer to think such a thing.
Does it matter at this stage; what it does demonstrate is that it's what you know, it’s who you know. Further the place he got was to enable the children of less privileged backgrounds to go to Oxford. Which is another example of Young senior playing the system.
As I’ve posted earlier, unless Toby was, as they say, in his Dad’s ear’ole morning noon and night to get into Oxford, much more criticism should be directed at his father for going along with it!
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nor does Islam or Hinduism and indeed many Protestant Churches and arguably the Jewish leadership in Israel and nor did atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao
Thanks to Gibbon, there's a widespread (and completely erroneous) belief that the Romans and Greeks were cultured, 18th century upper class agnostics. In reality, they were every bit as religious as the newly emerging sect of Christians. Far from being religiously tolerant, in every State in the ancient world, atheism (meaning public denial of the State's gods) was a capital offence, and indeed, atheism was the charge that was levelled against Christians.
Yes, Rome produced great architecture, military leaders and innovations and baths and mosaics but it also produced gladiators and wild animals fighting to the death and crucifixions and had its own gods
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Then your ire should be directed at the admissions tutor for having the scheme to bring in "people who weren’t ‘conventional Oxbridge material'".
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Then your ire should be directed at the admissions tutor for having the scheme to bring in "people who weren’t ‘conventional Oxbridge material'".
Yes, let's recall him from (probable) retirement, and then sack him !
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nor does Islam or Hinduism and indeed many Protestant Churches and arguably the Jewish leadership in Israel and nor did atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao
Thanks to Gibbon, there's a widespread (and completely erroneous) belief that the Romans and Greeks were cultured, 18th century upper class agnostics. In reality, they were every bit as religious as the newly emerging sect of Christians. Far from being religiously tolerant, in every State in the ancient world, atheism (meaning public denial of the State's gods) was a capital offence, and indeed, atheism was the charge that was levelled against Christians.
Yes, Rome produced great architecture, military leaders and innovations and baths and mosaics but it also produced gladiators and wild animals fighting to the death and crucifixions and had its own gods
I'd add the Roman civil legal system to its achievements. It's probably Rome's most enduring legacy.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
No I agree of course not but evidently Lord Young believed that Oxbridge was the place for his son. For some reason for a Labour peer to think such a thing.
Does it matter at this stage; what it does demonstrate is that it's what you know, it’s who you know.
No it doesn't. It shows a sharp-elbowed (Labour peer) parent calling whomever needs to be called to sort out an issue.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nor does Islam or Hinduism and indeed many Protestant Churches and arguably the Jewish leadership in Israel and nor did atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao
Thanks to Gibbon, there's a widespread (and completely erroneous) belief that the Romans and Greeks were cultured, 18th century upper class agnostics. In reality, they were every bit as religious as the newly emerging sect of Christians. Far from being religiously tolerant, in every State in the ancient world, atheism (meaning public denial of the State's gods) was a capital offence, and indeed, atheism was the charge that was levelled against Christians.
Yes, Rome produced great architecture, military leaders and innovations and baths and mosaics but it also produced gladiators and wild animals fighting to the death and crucifixions and had its own gods
I'd add the Roman civil legal system to its achievements. It's probably Rome's most enduring legacy.
Indeed though we have Greece to thank for democracy
"Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. "
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
I imagine what applies to Toby Young applies to others as well. I would only be surprised that people might be surprised that nepotism is rife amongst our institutions as they seem reluctant to see it for what it is, if the discussion on this forum is anything to go by.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
No I agree of course not but evidently Lord Young believed that Oxbridge was the place for his son. For some reason for a Labour peer to think such a thing.
Does it matter at this stage; what it does demonstrate is that it's what you know, it’s who you know.
No it doesn't. It shows a sharp-elbowed (Labour peer) parent calling whomever needs to be called to sort out an issue.
Indeed though we have Greece to thank for democracy
I think our version of Parliamentary democracy does not owe much, except the name, to the Greek example. The messy way it evolved, through a series of compromises and franchise extensions, without any conscious plan, shows that, to me anyway.
It probably owes rather more to the consultative practices of the Dark Age Germanic tribes, but it is difficult to be sure of course.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
I imagine what applies to Toby Young applies to others as well. I would only be surprised that people might be surprised that nepotism is rife amongst our institutions as they seem reluctant to see it for what it is, if the discussion on this forum is anything to go by.
Cameron of course got into the Conservative Central Office Research Department after a call from a family friend at Buckingham Palace.
As mentioned David Miliband got into Oxford after his A Level grades fell short thanks to his academic father's intervention. Though like Young both achieved Oxford 1sts
Indeed though we have Greece to thank for democracy
I think our version of Parliamentary democracy does not owe much, except the name, to the Greek example. The messy way it evolved, through a series of compromises and franchise extensions, without any conscious plan, shows that, to me anyway.
It probably owes rather more to the consultative practices of the Dark Age Germanic tribes, but it is difficult to be sure of course.
The average citizen of 5th century BC Athens probably would probably regard our systems as disguised oligarchies, rather than democracies.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Though would Toby Young really have been so harmed if he had gone to Bristol instead of Oxford or David Miliband had he gone to Manchester?
No I agree of course not but evidently Lord Young believed that Oxbridge was the place for his son. For some reason for a Labour peer to think such a thing.
Does it matter at this stage; what it does demonstrate is that it's what you know, it’s who you know.
No it doesn't. It shows a sharp-elbowed (Labour peer) parent calling whomever needs to be called to sort out an issue.
And the difference is?
I dare say I could get the name and number of the Oxford admissions tutors out of the phone book and call them, were I minded to do so. That Lord Young seems to have known them sped up the process a bit.
Are you saying that had it been Bob Jones and not Lord Young it would have been a different outcome, well none of us know that. Oxford admissions tutors I imagine would not be tin eared to such a situation whoever it involved. But of course none of us can be sure.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
I imagine what applies to Toby Young applies to others as well. I would only be surprised that people might be surprised that nepotism is rife amongst our institutions as they seem reluctant to see it for what it is, if the discussion on this forum is anything to go by.
How is it nepotism? That the tutors wanted to do their mate Lord Young a favour? Perhaps. Unlikely IMO although of course we shall never know.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Then your ire should be directed at the admissions tutor for having the scheme to bring in "people who weren’t ‘conventional Oxbridge material'".
I don't have any ire. Toby Young is a lucky man. It's a luck that comes from privilege, which others don't have.
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Then your ire should be directed at the admissions tutor for having the scheme to bring in "people who weren’t ‘conventional Oxbridge material'".
I don't have any ire. Toby Young is a lucky man. It's a luck that comes from privilege, which others don't have.
I agree bloody Labour peers. We should abolish them. I mean which party does one have left to have affiliation to if the Labour Party behaves in so flagrantly elitist a fashion. The SWP?
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Then your ire should be directed at the admissions tutor for having the scheme to bring in "people who weren’t ‘conventional Oxbridge material'".
I don't have any ire. Toby Young is a lucky man. It's a luck that comes from privilege, which others don't have.
Does it though? Or did he simply take advantage of a scheme devised by the admissions tutor and proceeded to ace an interview?
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
He also had an interview, which provides them with additional evidence to make their choice. He also received a letter informing him in error that he had been admitted, which is probably what saved him.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
If there are limited numbers and people are offered a below standard requirement, which they fail to meet and get their powerful dads to sort it out, it means the requirements become more difficult for everyone else as they now have fewer places available and someone won't now get one. I said someone who met their tougher requirements was denied a place. That wasn't accurate. Apologies.
Then your ire should be directed at the admissions tutor for having the scheme to bring in "people who weren’t ‘conventional Oxbridge material'".
I don't have any ire. Toby Young is a lucky man. It's a luck that comes from privilege, which others don't have.
Yes, you can add Seb Corbyn to that 'privilege' too as he is Chief of Staff to the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, a post he got while being the son of the Leader of the Labour Party, an advantage most other candidates would not have had on their CV
Nope. You are circulating the arguments, not me. My starting point is that you make decisions based on what you know at the time, not with the benefit of a hindsight that becomes apparent much later on. Anyone can hit the jackpot by throwing the dice but if selection by picking names at random is better than selection by process there's a problem with the process. You need to know and evaluate the process. With Toby Young the process seems to be who he knows.
Utterly wrong. The panel is looking for the ability to get firsts. They select someone. He gets a first. That looks like the system working perfectly, and any other claim falls foul of Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because not everything is as simple as it possibly could be, but it leaves you struggling in a way you wouldn't be if he failed prelims.
The facts are these: Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, made Young a conditional offer with a much lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. His dad, a member of the House of Lords, phoned the admissions tutor and he was admitted after all. Someone else who actually met his much tougher entrance requirements and who didn't have a powerful parent to phone on his behalf will have been denied a place to accommodate Young. That isn't a system "working" or otherwise. It is preferential treatment based on who you know.
Shades of Diane Abbott of course - a Labour peer (did you mention that) phoned up on behalf of his darling son to try to get him into elitist Oxbridge. Nice touch.
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
I imagine what applies to Toby Young applies to others as well. I would only be surprised that people might be surprised that nepotism is rife amongst our institutions as they seem reluctant to see it for what it is, if the discussion on this forum is anything to go by.
You've not actually produced any evidence.
You've selectively curated the facts in a way that might support a case. But there are other, more natural, interpretations that don't support your argument
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Please, God, no. They'll spend all their time bleating on about zionist conspiracies and the like.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
You do know there is a student on the board don't you?
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
Ruth Carlson is a current student at Surrey University, where she is a Student Ambassador for civil engineering. She has experience as a course representative, as a former president of the Surrey University Women’s Football Team and has also worked in other institutional and regional representative forums
Looks like a reasonable student representative, albeit not from the heavily politicised union
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Comments
It has absolutely no bearing on his qualification for the post.
While he is a slightly odd choice, he is not an indefensible one. And as one of thirteen members of a board of a slightly obscure quango, I don't think he's going to do a vast amount of damage.
I'd be far more interested in getting an explanation of how (for example) either Justine Greening or Angela Rayner are particularly qualified to be in charge of the nation's education...
Let’s keep it all secret then. After all it’s only public money and public functions that are involved.
Remit, desired attributes, who was chosen, lines of accountability and terms of appointment are all public
Who was considered is - quite rightly - confidential
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
Interesting perspective here on the origin of the Iran protests btw. There too they have a problem with cronyism and favoritism:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/948465379608801281
Now, back to the grindstone.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
I believe the solution involves raising interest rates, slowly. Since the Fed in the US is doing this we should follow suit in time. More details on my blog post here:
http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/sub-saharan-africa/
I also think that governments should actively look for possible candidates - such as people like my brother-in-law - rather than rely only on those who apply. A lot of people might not even consider applying for such posts. Reaching out beyond the usual charmed circle (ads in local papers, for instance) or those in the know might not be a bad thing.
These promises are often unfunded and over a period of time the country becomes indebted to unmanageable levels leading to financial and political collapse.
Not difficult to visualise that a few mature western democracies are nearing the endgame
Young's capacity and willingness to educate and inform himself on educational issues appears to be more than adequate.
It is his judgment that I would question - but that, of course, is a matter of opinion.
A leader needs to be able to say:-
- This is who we are
- This is what we do
- This is how we do it
- This is where we are going
- This is how we are going to get there
And do so in a way which makes others want to follow.
It needs to be convincing and it needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
It does not need to be Martin Luther King-style oratory. But something a little livelier than the kind of speaking style used by those telling you that you’re held in a queue would help.
"treasonous... unpatriotic... bad shit"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff
Don't they normally interview their applicants before giving them an offer - an interview that he presumably must have done very well in to be given the offer. They must have seen what they were looking for in him and the fact he went on to get a first is not simply hindsight but also vindication of the admissions process for him. It's not simply hindsight, they had something already to base their decision on.
It's a shame Bertrand Russell didn't use 'car' instead of 'teapot'.
This is not a simple issue, and no offence was intended
Boris and Bercow the two for a few hundred return this year. Last year was Corbyn (And the year before iirc)
Edit: Incidentally, it seems to me that Bercow has been doing his job well recently, and a lot of the criticism of him has died down. It used to look as though he had some personal grudge against Cameron but he seems to treat May and Corbyn fairly.
It was my parting advice to my deputy when he left to lead a team elsewhere. I hope he is following it.
Anyway lunch awaits.
Till later. Thanks all.
East Asia evolved differently to us but the difference was not simply Christianity.
Not that I care two hoots about them. People who have made no mistakes have made no decisions either and have not lived.
Great piece, btw.
And do you know for sure someone else was denied because of him?
As Charles has mentioned, you could arguably say that without such a learned, confident, educated parent, such a call might not have been made. But I'm sure you would do the same thing for your son if such a cock-up presented itself in your household, no?
Oxford University, which has a lot of competition for each place, interviewed Young and made him a conditional offer with a lower than normal entrance requirement. Which he failed to reach. However, as the result of an administrative error he was sent a confirmation that he had been accepted. He was subsequently sent a rejection. His father called the admissions tutor to ask what the situation was and the college decided the appropriate thing to do was to honour the original acceptance, even though it was an error. Subsequently, Young was awarded a first class degree proving that he was worthy of a place at the college.
Further the place he got was to enable the children of less privileged backgrounds to go to Oxford. Which is another example of Young senior playing the system.
As I’ve posted earlier, unless Toby was, as they say, in his Dad’s ear’ole morning noon and night to get into Oxford, much more criticism should be directed at his father for going along with it!
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21946846/side-strain-rules-chris-woakes-sydney-test
That's not necessarily what happens.
The gruel, it gets thinner.
It probably owes rather more to the consultative practices of the Dark Age Germanic tribes, but it is difficult to be sure of course.
As mentioned David Miliband got into Oxford after his A Level grades fell short thanks to his academic father's intervention. Though like Young both achieved Oxford 1sts
Are you saying that had it been Bob Jones and not Lord Young it would have been a different outcome, well none of us know that. Oxford admissions tutors I imagine would not be tin eared to such a situation whoever it involved. But of course none of us can be sure.
You've selectively curated the facts in a way that might support a case. But there are other, more natural, interpretations that don't support your argument
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
What about the anti-semitic one?
no, wait, that doesn't narrow it down at all, does it?
Betting post
Single To Win
No @ 2/9 Scottish Independence Specials - Will There Be Another Independence Referendum Before The End Of 2020?
https://www.ft.com/content/a2a45356-ef9f-11e7-bb7d-c3edfe974e9f?desktop=true
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42544011
Looks like a reasonable student representative, albeit not from the heavily politicised union
Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Even got a modest boost. 0.23/1