As someone that does not follow Czech politics at all do we have a dog in this fight? Who is Zeman and where is he likely to stand on Brexit? Is this a spread of the Poland/Hungary issues or is he more mainstream?
In Prague right now there are people raging about 'rustics' and 'carrot crunchers' and predicting house price falls and rises in the price of pesto and hummus.
The BBC's thoughts on Zeman:
◾In his outspoken remarks on immigration he once said that Muslims were "impossible to integrate" into Europe ◾In the EU, he has fiercely opposed sanctions against Moscow and has made improving relations with China a priority
TBH it looks like another really crap choice for the electorate. It is concerning that democracy keeps leaving people a choice between bad and chronic. This is not going to make dealing with Poland and Hungary any easier is it?
The Visegrad group have a fundamentally different vision of the EU and are increasingly unafraid to voice it. It's an interesting clash.
Die Welt have good, concise coverage of the issues:
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
Isn't Zeman the incumbant President seeking re-election?
Which makes comparisons with UKIP seem odd.
It's more a reflection of his views. You might say he is the Donald Trump of the Czech Republic. Keen for closer links to Russia and China, anti (Islamic) immigration, climate change sceptic, prone to make controversial comments.
His opponent is seemingly making his concession speech now. Shame my Czech isn't better.
Isn't Zeman the incumbant President seeking re-election?
Which makes comparisons with UKIP seem odd.
It's more a reflection of his views. You might say he is the Donald Trump of the Czech Republic. Keen for closer links to Russia and China, anti (Islamic) immigration, climate change sceptic, prone to make controversial comments.
That seems a more apt comparison.
As for how it will change things for us, I doubt it will at all considering he was already the President and his views are replicated across the Visegrad nations.
When it comes to primary schools all I have heard for the last 2 decades is teachers screaming about how we should not have the State imposing centralised assessments or targets. It is a bit rich to them moan when they get their wishes.
In the secondary system, the target culture is not merely endemic - thanks, again, to Gove - but the centralised assessment criteria are still there and now totally nonsensical, as I have just demonstrated by quoting the one for History. It says that the better your performance, the worse your grade. I imagine it will not be like that in practice, but something akin to sanity can be achieved only by ignoring Gove and his acolytes.
What is genuinely puzzling is that so many of his more fervent admirers cannot see that because he is such a bad administrator he has often ended up doing the precise opposite of what he intended.
Michael Gove did a good job of zapping what was wrong in schools in 2010. Unfortunately, his attempts to come up with good replacement systems were stupidly rushed, often badly administered, and let down by a disastrous choice of allies.
Comparisons to Brexit are only to be expected.
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
Sure- up to a point. The system in general, and exams in particular, were a debased mess in 2010, and the "blob" critique has a lot of truth. However, when the new science GCSEs were only confirmed after many schools had started teaching them, and there were significant (if picky) factual errors which are now officially in the government guidance, one can't help think that, having let the bull (rightly) run round the China shop, someone else needed to tidy up.
What's even more frustrating is that Greening seemed to be at least trying to do that. Her reward was to be sacked by a time expired Prime Minister moved to a less important role which she rightly refused.
I'm reminded of Mark Carlisle and John Macgregor in my mother's time.
As someone that does not follow Czech politics at all do we have a dog in this fight? Who is Zeman and where is he likely to stand on Brexit? Is this a spread of the Poland/Hungary issues or is he more mainstream?
In Prague right now there are people raging about 'rustics' and 'carrot crunchers' and predicting house price falls and rises in the price of pesto and hummus.
The BBC's thoughts on Zeman:
◾In his outspoken remarks on immigration he once said that Muslims were "impossible to integrate" into Europe ◾In the EU, he has fiercely opposed sanctions against Moscow and has made improving relations with China a priority
TBH it looks like another really crap choice for the electorate. It is concerning that democracy keeps leaving people a choice between bad and chronic. This is not going to make dealing with Poland and Hungary any easier is it?
The Visegrad group have a fundamentally different vision of the EU and are increasingly unafraid to voice it. It's an interesting clash.
Die Welt have good, concise coverage of the issues:
As someone that does not follow Czech politics at all do we have a dog in this fight? Who is Zeman and where is he likely to stand on Brexit? Is this a spread of the Poland/Hungary issues or is he more mainstream?
In Prague right now there are people raging about 'rustics' and 'carrot crunchers' and predicting house price falls and rises in the price of pesto and hummus.
The BBC's thoughts on Zeman:
◾In his outspoken remarks on immigration he once said that Muslims were "impossible to integrate" into Europe ◾In the EU, he has fiercely opposed sanctions against Moscow and has made improving relations with China a priority
TBH it looks like another really crap choice for the electorate. It is concerning that democracy keeps leaving people a choice between bad and chronic. This is not going to make dealing with Poland and Hungary any easier is it?
The Visegrad group have a fundamentally different vision of the EU and are increasingly unafraid to voice it. It's an interesting clash.
Die Welt have good, concise coverage of the issues:
That's a slightly misleading summary of what happened. Apparently Macdonnell said he wanted accountants to swear a 'Hippocratic' oath to ensure businesses paid the maximum not the minimum amount of tax. Hodges jokingly suggested that perhaps it would be easier to have a 100% tax on profits and somebody agreed with him.
While it still reveals in stark clarity why somebody of the calibre of Mr Lynch Mob should not be allowed near the levers of power, it is therefore Hodges himself who has tweeted it, not the Corbynistas.
(And Macdonnell is still by a distance the ablest member of the Shadow Cabinet, which says a quite a lot about the truly preternatural uselessness of the rest.)
Isn't Zeman the incumbant President seeking re-election?
Which makes comparisons with UKIP seem odd.
True. How often do UKIP get re-elected?
They won the one vote to them that really mattered.
And in terms of the European Parliament regularly - PR elections served them well but first past the post not at all. Oddly post 2019 their only elected representatives may actually be on the London Assembly!
That's a slightly misleading summary of what happened. Apparently Macdonnell said he wanted accountants to swear a 'Hippocratic' oath to ensure businesses paid the maximum not the minimum amount of tax. Hodges jokingly suggested that perhaps it would be easier to have a 100% tax on profits and somebody agreed with him.
While it still reveals in stark clarity why somebody of the calibre of Mr Lynch Mob should not be allowed near the levers of power, it is therefore Hodges himself who has tweeted it, not the Corbynistas.
(And Macdonnell is still by a distance the ablest member of the Shadow Cabinet, which says a quite a lot about the truly preternatural uselessness of the rest.)
I'm not hugely in to the complexities of company law, but wouldn't such a development breach the fiduciary duty of directors to shareholders?
That's a slightly misleading summary of what happened. Apparently Macdonnell said he wanted accountants to swear a 'Hippocratic' oath to ensure businesses paid the maximum not the minimum amount of tax. Hodges jokingly suggested that perhaps it would be easier to have a 100% tax on profits and somebody agreed with him.
While it still reveals in stark clarity why somebody of the calibre of Mr Lynch Mob should not be allowed near the levers of power, it is therefore Hodges himself who has tweeted it, not the Corbynistas.
(And Macdonnell is still by a distance the ablest member of the Shadow Cabinet, which says a quite a lot about the truly preternatural uselessness of the rest.)
I do hope John McDonnell has never had an ISA account or bought anything duty free.
That's a slightly misleading summary of what happened. Apparently Macdonnell said he wanted accountants to swear a 'Hippocratic' oath to ensure businesses paid the maximum not the minimum amount of tax. Hodges jokingly suggested that perhaps it would be easier to have a 100% tax on profits and somebody agreed with him.
While it still reveals in stark clarity why somebody of the calibre of Mr Lynch Mob should not be allowed near the levers of power, it is therefore Hodges himself who has tweeted it, not the Corbynistas.
(And Macdonnell is still by a distance the ablest member of the Shadow Cabinet, which says a quite a lot about the truly preternatural uselessness of the rest.)
I'd rather have someone who's inept but harmless, like May, than someone who's able and harmful, like Macdonnell.
Is anyone else quite relieved by the lack of Govt. meddling/no huge increase in the passing of laws recently? Upside to snap election and minority government....
That's a slightly misleading summary of what happened. Apparently Macdonnell said he wanted accountants to swear a 'Hippocratic' oath to ensure businesses paid the maximum not the minimum amount of tax. Hodges jokingly suggested that perhaps it would be easier to have a 100% tax on profits and somebody agreed with him.
While it still reveals in stark clarity why somebody of the calibre of Mr Lynch Mob should not be allowed near the levers of power, it is therefore Hodges himself who has tweeted it, not the Corbynistas.
(And Macdonnell is still by a distance the ablest member of the Shadow Cabinet, which says a quite a lot about the truly preternatural uselessness of the rest.)
I do hope John McDonnell has never had an ISA account or bought anything duty free.
For many small and medium sized business owners of course there is already a tax which totally wipes out profits - it's called business rates.
Anyway called it pretty much spot on - 99.4% counted and Zeman will finish with about 51.5% now.
Often with betting on elections it's trying to second-guess the opinion polls and work out who has the "shyest" support.
Not about to start betting on next Italy PM just yet as that seems to be anyone's guess right now - assuming the centre-right fall short of a majority it will all come down to the post-election horsetrading.
Hannan is fairly well informed. He just gets things wrong most of the time. He's obviously never done anything difficult in the real world. He's a bit like a schoolboy who has read a lot.
It’s quite the paradox. Many Tory MPs are plotting to remove a leader who won an election (albeit by the skin of her teeth), has them on 40% in the polls, and still has plenty of goodwill in the country at large. This is part of the problem with our incestuous Westminster political and media culture; MPs and journalists talk themselves into catastrophising when there is no sense of crisis amongst the public.
She should stay until June 2019, then trigger a long leadership contest over the summer.
I quite agree, though like you I fear that the view at Westminster is not the same at all.
I also have no fear that we'll go for close alignment under May - the slapdown of Hammond this week, and indeed his own speech Davos, suggests he has lost the argument.
The Tory infighting is between the idealists and the pragmatists, the Royalists and the Roundheads. May and Hammond are both pragmatic Roundheads and are on the same side. Rees-Mogg is an idealistic Royalist.
I suspect the so-called slapdown of Hammond is window dressing to satisfy the idealists while the real pragmatic work goes on.
EDIT: A civil war will follow. Someone will lose their head.
The civil war will come, if not before, at the end of the "transition" period (actually no such thing). We will have burnt up our negotiating time without getting close to an agreement. People will say, "put this thing to bed. We're going for Norway.". Or even, "This is just not working." Then we'll have the cries of betrayal. Alternatively the 48 letters get sent and a hardliner is installed. We're about to crash out without a deal and panic sets in.
The line about "FTA, no CU, no FoM and no payments, but maximum access" works to paper over the cracks in the Conservative Party. It plays to the agenda of the biggest faction in the party, the Leavers, while not unduly alarming the others. It's a very tricky negotiating position and I doubt it will hold. The problem is, if it doesn't, Tory civil war will probably break out.
Isn't Zeman the incumbant President seeking re-election?
Which makes comparisons with UKIP seem odd.
True. How often do UKIP get re-elected?
They won the one vote to them that really mattered.
And in terms of the European Parliament regularly - PR elections served them well but first past the post not at all. Oddly post 2019 their only elected representatives may actually be on the London Assembly!
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I have a feeling the academy chains could be the next big scandal to engulf May's fragile government.
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I have a feeling the academy chains could be the next big scandal to engulf May's fragile government.
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I have a feeling the academy chains could be the next big scandal to engulf May's fragile government.
Some fine, upstanding people associated with them:
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I have a feeling the academy chains could be the next big scandal to engulf May's fragile government.
Any particular reason for that?
This kind of stuff is bubbling away underground imho:
Mr. Song, with the result so close you can cite almost anything. What's telling is that Remain had almost all the advantages and managed to lose.
A year before the vote, Ipsos Mori put Remain 44% ahead. That was an outlier, but the typical lead for Remain was about 20%.
And yet we see no move since the vote, nearly 2 years ago, despite Project Fear on the economy proving false, at least so far.
Some sections of the electorate are more swingy than others. The voters who took Leave from 40% to 52% plainly disliked the EU, but were worried about the consequences of leaving, and were hoping that Cameron would achieve a good deal.
Mr. Song, with the result so close you can cite almost anything. What's telling is that Remain had almost all the advantages and managed to lose.
While that is true, I think that if Boris had taken the other side (and apparently he agonised about this) it would have been enough to swing it the other way.
Mr. Song, with the result so close you can cite almost anything. What's telling is that Remain had almost all the advantages and managed to lose.
While that is true, I think that if Boris had taken the other side (and apparently he agonised about this) it would have been enough to swing it the other way.
I don't think Boris would have added much to the Remain campaign, but taking him away from the Leave side would have denied them a significant advantage. Boris is pretty much the only senior Brexit politician for whom 'weird' isn't pretty much the first word that comes to mind, as it does for Gove, Redwood, IDS, JRM, Bone et al.
Mr. Song, with the result so close you can cite almost anything. What's telling is that Remain had almost all the advantages and managed to lose.
While that is true, I think that if Boris had taken the other side (and apparently he agonised about this) it would have been enough to swing it the other way.
I don't think Boris would have added much to the Remain campaign, but taking him away from the Leave side would have denied them a significant advantage. Boris is pretty much the only senior Brexit politician for whom 'weird' isn't pretty much the first word that comes to mind, as it does for Gove, Redwood, IDS, JRM, Bone et al.
On the other hand if Leave had still won, it might have led to Andrea Leadsom becoming PM.
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I agree with pretty well all that - but note there are now a whole new set of vested interests developing in academy chains...
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I agree with pretty well all that - but note there are now a whole new set of vested interests developing in academy chains...
One great irony is that faith schools, pilloried just a few years ago, are coming out of this best. Several Dioceses have set up MATs which have no profit motive and often benefit from the diocesan advisors’ years of experience. One describes itself as “we just do what the LA used to and ought to do”.
I’ve even heard of a couple of secular schools sign up with Diocesan MATs because they’re a better alternative to neglect from an underfunded LA, or interference from an aggressive commercial MAT.
Not without reason. There are/were powerful vested interests in both cases determined to frustrate the project by running it into the long grass. Gove rightly realised that the reforms would only go through and stick if he didn't engage in endless nit-picking consultations. But the price of that was that not every detail was properly thought through or consistent.
But the vested interests in many cases have won.
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
I agree with pretty well all that - but note there are now a whole new set of vested interests developing in academy chains...
I have to agree with you on the academy changes. They have caused choas at a local authority level particularly in regards to decreasing inclusion for pupils with SEND. Its also difficult now to formulate any overarching strategy or vision as different chains seek to "play off" against one another.
As someone that does not follow Czech politics at all do we have a dog in this fight? Who is Zeman and where is he likely to stand on Brexit? Is this a spread of the Poland/Hungary issues or is he more mainstream?
In Prague right now there are people raging about 'rustics' and 'carrot crunchers' and predicting house price falls and rises in the price of pesto and hummus.
The BBC's thoughts on Zeman:
◾In his outspoken remarks on immigration he once said that Muslims were "impossible to integrate" into Europe ◾In the EU, he has fiercely opposed sanctions against Moscow and has made improving relations with China a priority
TBH it looks like another really crap choice for the electorate. It is concerning that democracy keeps leaving people a choice between bad and chronic. This is not going to make dealing with Poland and Hungary any easier is it?
The Visegrad group have a fundamentally different vision of the EU and are increasingly unafraid to voice it. It's an interesting clash.
Die Welt have good, concise coverage of the issues:
I would guess that Austria will now be aligned with the Visegrad Group.
Ultimately, the Visegrad group can't muster a blocking minority. So they'll not be able to affect the direction of travel in any meaningful sense other than via the CoM (which is not to be sniffed at of course).
Well I've just done my bit for the British economy. We've just booked a wedding venue and catering company. Future tip for the unmarried, don't have a big wedding and don't let your future mother in law have any say whatsoever.
As someone that does not follow Czech politics at all do we have a dog in this fight? Who is Zeman and where is he likely to stand on Brexit? Is this a spread of the Poland/Hungary issues or is he more mainstream?
In Prague right now there are people raging about 'rustics' and 'carrot crunchers' and predicting house price falls and rises in the price of pesto and hummus.
The BBC's thoughts on Zeman:
◾In his outspoken remarks on immigration he once said that Muslims were "impossible to integrate" into Europe ◾In the EU, he has fiercely opposed sanctions against Moscow and has made improving relations with China a priority
TBH it looks like another really crap choice for the electorate. It is concerning that democracy keeps leaving people a choice between bad and chronic. This is not going to make dealing with Poland and Hungary any easier is it?
The Visegrad group have a fundamentally different vision of the EU and are increasingly unafraid to voice it. It's an interesting clash.
Die Welt have good, concise coverage of the issues:
I would guess that Austria will now be aligned with the Visegrad Group.
Ultimately, the Visegrad group can't muster a blocking minority. So they'll not be able to affect the direction of travel in any meaningful sense other than via the CoM (which is not to be sniffed at of course).
The EU assumes member states support liberal democracy and the rule of law. Recently that assumption has looked shaky, particularly in Eastern Europe. None of the Eastern countries will jeopardize their membership of the EU - they get too much out of it - but they can be.uncooperative.
Well I've just done my bit for the British economy. We've just booked a wedding venue and catering company. Future tip for the unmarried, don't have a big wedding and don't let your future mother in law have any say whatsoever.
Remember the golden rule: he who pays the gold, makes the rules.
Comments
Die Welt have good, concise coverage of the issues:
http://www.dw.com/en/rising-nationalism-and-the-eus-split-with-the-east/a-42073959
The new History A-level is in many crucial respects easier than the old one - to take an obvious example. Moreover it is not being marked very well and there are dramatic inconsistencies between boards and even within boards.
The GCSEs are proving a total shambles, phased in over years so there is confusion over who does which one and still prepared so hurriedly there are often serious mistakes in them (as, again, I have highlighted).
The Academy system is getting beyond a joke, and driving accountability ever more towards Whitehall and the 'blob' parts that have taken them over and further away from parents.
And OFSTED is not merely not increasing standards, the workload involved in inspections - which is still effectively compulsory despite repeated denials because of the actual real-world guidelines inspectors follow - means it is actively depressing them both by taking time away from useful things like planning and marking and by driving the teachers out of the profession.
What is really depressing is that all these ideas were great in theory but so badly implemented as to be disastrous. Academies, in particular, were a brilliant idea right up until the responsibility was taken away from governors and given to 'chains', pretty much none of whom had the least idea what they were doing (so far, so like an LEA) and most of whom were in it for the money alone (a significant deterioration from an LEA).
Remember, teachers voted Conservative in 2010 and Labour in 2015. We have to deal with the consequences of Gove's messiah complex and we are not happy.
His opponent is seemingly making his concession speech now. Shame my Czech isn't better.
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24#live
As for how it will change things for us, I doubt it will at all considering he was already the President and his views are replicated across the Visegrad nations.
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
sacked by a time expired Prime Ministermoved to a less important role which she rightly refused.I'm reminded of Mark Carlisle and John Macgregor in my mother's time.
While it still reveals in stark clarity why somebody of the calibre of Mr Lynch Mob should not be allowed near the levers of power, it is therefore Hodges himself who has tweeted it, not the Corbynistas.
(And Macdonnell is still by a distance the ablest member of the Shadow Cabinet, which says a quite a lot about the truly preternatural uselessness of the rest.)
And in terms of the European Parliament regularly - PR elections served them well but first past the post not at all. Oddly post 2019 their only elected representatives may actually be on the London Assembly!
Often with betting on elections it's trying to second-guess the opinion polls and work out who has the "shyest" support.
Not about to start betting on next Italy PM just yet as that seems to be anyone's guess right now - assuming the centre-right fall short of a majority it will all come down to the post-election horsetrading.
Mr. Carpet, think Five Star will get most seats? I have a tiny bet at evens on that.
The line about "FTA, no CU, no FoM and no payments, but maximum access" works to paper over the cracks in the Conservative Party. It plays to the agenda of the biggest faction in the party, the Leavers, while not unduly alarming the others. It's a very tricky negotiating position and I doubt it will hold. The problem is, if it doesn't, Tory civil war will probably break out.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/david-meller-takes-leave-of-absence-from-his-own-academy-trust/
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/academy-ceo-pay-salaries-soar-but-who-comes-out-on-top/
Bit like Uni VCs pay - it will blow up eventually.
Mr. D, indeed. The old 0.1% spike in inflation springs to mind.
The consequence of Osbrowne economics boosting debt fueled consumption is that doing the right thing now gets few votes.
I’ve even heard of a couple of secular schools sign up with Diocesan MATs because they’re a better alternative to neglect from an underfunded LA, or interference from an aggressive commercial MAT.
Pay for it yourself, and have total control.