Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Bercow does stand down then Lindsay Hoyle, surely, will be

2

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    My grammar school education taught me to question the veracity of data produced by those with vested interests :)
    I don't have the answer to the question.

    I just feel that we should stop using anecdotes, and quantify what the improvement in outcomes is for 1, and ask what we can do to stop it having the negative impact of 2.

    We need to quantify it, and we need to be honest about what are acceptable outcomes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218
    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    1. Do private schools benefit rich, but dim, students? Probably yes.
    2 Do private schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the richest 5%? Probably yes.

    1.and 2. are both undesirable so there is no balance to be assessed.
    Ah yes, but private schools also free up the financial resources of state schools. Is there any evidence that state schools perform worse in places where there are lots of private schools?

    Again, we need to see data.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,374
    edited May 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    My grammar school education taught me to question the veracity of data produced by those with vested interests :)
    I don't have the answer to the question.

    I just feel that we should stop using anecdotes, and quantify what the improvement in outcomes is for 1, and ask what we can do to stop it having the negative impact of 2.

    We need to quantify it, and we need to be honest about what are acceptable outcomes.
    I wasn't having a go!

    I just find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,190
    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    So the customs partnership is dead. Long live max fac.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6258797/brexit-theresa-may-max-fac-customs-union/

    It was always a too clever by half civil service wheeze that wouldn't have worked in reality. I'm glad that No. 10 has seen the light.
    Don't count your chickens. Sun spin.
    I've said from the start it wouldn't work. I'm immensely relaxed that it will be dropped as a proposal.

    No 10 have remembered that they're in the driving seat, as the executive.

    But also that the constraints on their remaining the executive is in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the commons.
    I wouldn't rely on that report in the Sun.

    I suspect that a majority in the Commons is in favour of some sort of customs union and this "customs partnership" might be a way to get Commons approval and possibly EU approval. The Max Dev MPs are in a minority in the Commons and in Cabinet.

    Mrs May future is indeed in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the Commons but I think she is secure. I can't see a majority of Tory MPs preferring either Boris or Moggsy over Mrs May. Can you?

    I'm not relying on the report; I'm relying on my own critical faculties. It won't work, and it isn't supported by the people who have the ability to veto it.

    I don't think there are the numbers for a customs union in the commons myself; there have been two votes on it already and the Govt have won both. But it is frankly irrelevant what there is a majority in the commons for, when the executive negotiates international treaties.
    The Times doesn't agree with you>

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-set-for-defeat-in-brexit-vote-on-leaving-customs-union-3vdwntqtp

    It's also likely that a majority of the Cabinet (if not the Brexit sub-committee) is in favour of the Customs Partnership. That's the Government. Not the ERG.


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,262
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    One third of the kids at Eton are funded either from the legacies left by King Henry and the Duke of Newcastle or by the generosity of many hundreds of members of the wider Etonian community.

    That’s 400 poor kids “being screwed” to the tune of £12m per year
    That sounds like complete rubbish Charles.

    Eton's own website says "During the 2015/16 academic year 273 boys (21% of the school) will receive means-tested bursaries averaging a 66% reduction in school fees, with 73 of those pupils paying no fees at all."

    But those are not 'poor kids'; a 66% reduction still leaves over £13k to find p.a. (that's half the average UK salary before tax.) Even those paying no fees at all will have had to pass the common entrance exams (https://www.etoncollege.com/KSpapers.aspx) which a state primary education is not going to set you up for.
    Means tested bursaries are the ones from the Eton community. They don’t include the King’s Scholars (70 boys funded by King Henry) the Newcastle Prizes etc

    (The figures were from my own time so vary a bit year on year)
    Eton don't seem to know about them, or if they do, they don't mention them on their website. Maybe they only advertise them in deprived inner city areas? :wink:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,262
    edited May 2018

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    One third of the kids at Eton are funded either from the legacies left by King Henry and the Duke of Newcastle or by the generosity of many hundreds of members of the wider Etonian community.

    That’s 400 poor kids “being screwed” to the tune of £12m per year
    That sounds like complete rubbish Charles.

    Eton's own website says "During the 2015/16 academic year 273 boys (21% of the school) will receive means-tested bursaries averaging a 66% reduction in school fees, with 73 of those pupils paying no fees at all."

    But those are not 'poor kids'; a 66% reduction still leaves over £13k to find p.a. (that's half the average UK salary before tax.) Even those paying no fees at all will have had to pass the common entrance exams (https://www.etoncollege.com/KSpapers.aspx) which a state primary education is not going to set you up for.
    Means tested bursaries are the ones from the Eton community. They don’t include the King’s Scholars (70 boys funded by King Henry) the Newcastle Prizes etc

    (The figures were from my own time so vary a bit year on year)
    Eton don't seem to know about them, or if they do, they don't mention them on their website. Maybe they only advertise them in deprived inner city areas? :wink:
    Point is, the idea that Eton is some kind of charity for the benefit of poor kids is complete and utter bollocks.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,190
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    .
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    1. Do private schools benefit rich, but dim, students? Probably yes.
    2 Do private schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the richest 5%? Probably yes.

    1.and 2. are both undesirable so there is no balance to be assessed.
    Ah yes, but private schools also free up the financial resources of state schools. Is there any evidence that state schools perform worse in places where there are lots of private schools?

    Again, we need to see data.
    I agree we need to see data rather than fall back on our prejudices.

    My point wasn't that state schools perform worse where there are lots of private schools (I don't know) but that students from private schools crowd out brighter non private school students in entry to the best universities and possibly the best careers.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,374
    edited May 2018
    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    So the customs partnership is dead. Long live max fac.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6258797/brexit-theresa-may-max-fac-customs-union/

    It was always a too clever by half civil service wheeze that wouldn't have worked in reality. I'm glad that No. 10 has seen the light.
    Don't count your chickens. Sun spin.
    I've said from the start it wouldn't work. I'm immensely relaxed that it will be dropped as a proposal.

    No 10 have remembered that they're in the driving seat, as the executive.

    But also that the constraints on their remaining the executive is in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the commons.
    I wouldn't rely on that report in the Sun.

    I suspect that a majority in the Commons is in favour of some sort of customs union and this "customs partnership" might be a way to get Commons approval and possibly EU approval. The Max Dev MPs are in a minority in the Commons and in Cabinet.

    Mrs May future is indeed in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the Commons but I think she is secure. I can't see a majority of Tory MPs preferring either Boris or Moggsy over Mrs May. Can you?

    I'm not relying on the report; I'm relying on my own critical faculties. It won't work, and it isn't supported by the people who have the ability to veto it.

    I don't think there are the numbers for a customs union in the commons myself; there have been two votes on it already and the Govt have won both. But it is frankly irrelevant what there is a majority in the commons for, when the executive negotiates international treaties.
    The Times doesn't agree with you>

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may-set-for-defeat-in-brexit-vote-on-leaving-customs-union-3vdwntqtp

    It's also likely that a majority of the Cabinet (if not the Brexit sub-committee) is in favour of the Customs Partnership. That's the Government. Not the ERG.


    Erm, weren't you just suggesting I shouldnt believe what I read in the papers?

    I'm working on past votes. How many past votes in the commons on the Customs union have the government lost?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218
    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,374
    edited May 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    It's true. I suspect because we're schooled in rhetoric that suggests that people respond better to emotion than data. :)

    Joking apart, I much prefer hearing about the views of people who keep changing their minds about issues; they're by definition unentrenched, and therefore well worth listening to.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,942
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    Was it you who posted a Jeff Bezos quote recently that said when data and anecdotes don't agree, it usually turns out that the anecdotes are right?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218
    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    .
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    1. Do private schools benefit rich, but dim, students? Probably yes.
    2 Do private schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the richest 5%? Probably yes.

    1.and 2. are both undesirable so there is no balance to be assessed.
    Ah yes, but private schools also free up the financial resources of state schools. Is there any evidence that state schools perform worse in places where there are lots of private schools?

    Again, we need to see data.
    I agree we need to see data rather than fall back on our prejudices.

    My point wasn't that state schools perform worse where there are lots of private schools (I don't know) but that students from private schools crowd out brighter non private school students in entry to the best universities and possibly the best careers.
    Where is your evidence for that assertion?

    And let's just imagine that private schools were banned, would that not simply result in wealthy parents getting their kids tutored, which would have the same result.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,078

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    One third of the kids at Eton are funded either from the legacies left by King Henry and the Duke of Newcastle or by the generosity of many hundreds of members of the wider Etonian community.

    That’s 400 poor kids “being screwed” to the tune of £12m per year
    That sounds like complete rubbish Charles.

    Eton's own website says "During the 2015/16 academic year 273 boys (21% of the school) will receive means-tested bursaries averaging a 66% reduction in school fees, with 73 of those pupils paying no fees at all."

    But those are not 'poor kids'; a 66% reduction still leaves over £13k to find p.a. (that's half the average UK salary before tax.) Even those paying no fees at all will have had to pass the common entrance exams (https://www.etoncollege.com/KSpapers.aspx) which a state primary education is not going to set you up for.
    Means tested bursaries are the ones from the Eton community. They don’t include the King’s Scholars (70 boys funded by King Henry) the Newcastle Prizes etc

    (The figures were from my own time so vary a bit year on year)
    Eton don't seem to know about them, or if they do, they don't mention them on their website. Maybe they only advertise them in deprived inner city areas? :wink:
    They are very well aware of the King Henry VI Foundation! The King’s Scholars live in Eton College...everyone else is in boarding houses in town.

    And my point was not that Eton is a charity for the benefit of the poor. It’s that if somebody is talented and motivated enough to want to go a way will be found to pay their fees.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218

    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    Was it you who posted a Jeff Bezos quote recently that said when data and anecdotes don't agree, it usually turns out that the anecdotes are right?
    No.

    And I don't believe it.

    Successful investors are the ones who change their minds when the data invalidates their beliefs. Unsuccessful ones are people who cling to worldviews - often immaculately argued and constructed ones - in the teeth of evidence.

    The degree of cognitive dissonance (and we all suffer from it to some extent) is what determines successful investing.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Foxy said:
    Britain is one of the few countries in Euorivision that doesn't submit one of our top 100 performers, because the musical scene in this country is far superior.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218
    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:
    Britain is one of the few countries in Euorivision that doesn't submit one of our top 100 performers, because the musical scene in this country is far superior.
    Isn't that because none of our top 100 performers would be seen dead doing Eurovision?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,942
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    Was it you who posted a Jeff Bezos quote recently that said when data and anecdotes don't agree, it usually turns out that the anecdotes are right?
    No.

    And I don't believe it.

    Successful investors are the ones who change their minds when the data invalidates their beliefs. Unsuccessful ones are people who cling to worldviews - often immaculately argued and constructed ones - in the teeth of evidence.

    The degree of cognitive dissonance (and we all suffer from it to some extent) is what determines successful investing.
    I think his point was more subtle than that. He was arguing that if you have a lot of anecdotes which go against your data, they are often an indication that you are looking at the wrong thing or measuring in the wrong way. I.e. not using anecdotes to support your worldview but using them to prompt you to look a bit more deeply and ask different questions about your assumptions.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,374

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    Was it you who posted a Jeff Bezos quote recently that said when data and anecdotes don't agree, it usually turns out that the anecdotes are right?
    No.

    And I don't believe it.

    Successful investors are the ones who change their minds when the data invalidates their beliefs. Unsuccessful ones are people who cling to worldviews - often immaculately argued and constructed ones - in the teeth of evidence.

    The degree of cognitive dissonance (and we all suffer from it to some extent) is what determines successful investing.
    I think his point was more subtle than that. He was arguing that if you have a lot of anecdotes which go against your data, they are often an indication that you are looking at the wrong thing or measuring in the wrong way. I.e. not using anecdotes to support your worldview but using them to prompt you to look a bit more deeply and ask different questions about your assumptions.
    My experience (data driven and anecdotal) of software development is that if you have anecdotal user issues, they're much more significant than if you have data which says you don't. I was only working in that line for 18 months but every time the data disagreed with the users, it was because the data was wrong.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    Was it you who posted a Jeff Bezos quote recently that said when data and anecdotes don't agree, it usually turns out that the anecdotes are right?
    No.

    And I don't believe it.

    Successful investors are the ones who change their minds when the data invalidates their beliefs. Unsuccessful ones are people who cling to worldviews - often immaculately argued and constructed ones - in the teeth of evidence.

    The degree of cognitive dissonance (and we all suffer from it to some extent) is what determines successful investing.
    I think his point was more subtle than that. He was arguing that if you have a lot of anecdotes which go against your data, they are often an indication that you are looking at the wrong thing or measuring in the wrong way. I.e. not using anecdotes to support your worldview but using them to prompt you to look a bit more deeply and ask different questions about your assumptions.
    That's quite profound. I've changed my mind. Anecdotes matter.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,190
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    .
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    1. Do private schools benefit rich, but dim, students? Probably yes.
    2 Do private schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the richest 5%? Probably yes.

    1.and 2. are both undesirable so there is no balance to be assessed.
    Ah yes, but private schools also free up the financial resources of state schools. Is there any evidence that state schools perform worse in places where there are lots of private schools?

    Again, we need to see data.
    I agree we need to see data rather than fall back on our prejudices.

    My point wasn't that state schools perform worse where there are lots of private schools (I don't know) but that students from private schools crowd out brighter non private school students in entry to the best universities and possibly the best careers.
    Where is your evidence for that assertion?

    And let's just imagine that private schools were banned, would that not simply result in wealthy parents getting their kids tutored, which would have the same result.
    Evidence for Cambridge
    https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

    About a third of admissions to Cambridge are from private schools.

    Kids of wealthy parents are always going to be advantaged by their upbringing and tutoring but that isn't an excuse to do it on an industrial scale using private schools.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,158
    Barnesian said:



    Evidence for Cambridge
    https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

    About a third of admissions to Cambridge are from private schools.

    Kids of wealthy parents are always going to be advantaged by their upbringing and tutoring but that isn't an excuse to do it on an industrial scale using private schools.

    Does that say anything about how bright each cohort is?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    Anazina said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    I think it's hard to argue against grammar schools and support setting within comprehensives. Particularly when setting is used to dump 38 kids into top set maths.
    Utter rubbish. Setting in comps works because you can move up sets if you improve.

    In the grammar system you are done for if you flunk at age 11.
    Not quite true, most grammars have an entry at 13 and 16 too
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    edited May 2018

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    The number of pupils in grammar schools today is greater than it was in 1979 when Thatcher came to power.

    Thatcher was a passionate supporter of grammar schools and patron of the Grammar Schools Association with Graham Brady, it was thanks to her the rate of closure of Grammar Schools slowed dramatically allowing for that increase. She also strongly supported private schools too and sent her son to Harrow and she was sympathetic to a Swedish style education voucher system.

    Thatcher on education 'Mrs. Thatcher attacked the Government's recent announcement that money would not be available for new schools which would not fit into a comprehensive system, and discarded this as “educational blackmail” .
    “We would welcome experiments and new policies” , she said, “but we are against closing Grammar schools for a kind not yet proved. These schools are not being closed because they are bad, but because they are good.”
    “We believe that grammar schools should continue to be a vital part of education and that secondary modern schools should offer opportunities for non-academic children, as long as there is an easy transfer to the grammar school. There must be a freedom of choice” .

    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101466
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    .
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    1. Do private sst 5%? Probably yes.

    1.and 2. are both undesirable so there is no balance to be assessed.
    Ah yes, but private schata.
    I agree we need to see data rather sities and possibly the best careers.
    Where is your evidence for that assertion?

    And let's just imagine that private schools were banned, would that not simply result in wealthy parents getting their kids tutored, which would have the same result.
    Evidence for Cambridge
    https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

    About a third of admissions to Cambridge are from private schools.

    Kids of wealthy parents are always going to be advantaged by their upbringing and tutoring but that isn't an excuse to do it on an industrial scale using private schools.
    Not all private schools cater for the academic, many non academic private schools do not have competitive entrance exams but focus on extra curricula activities and turning out polite well rounded pupils.

    Wanting to ban private schools is as pointless as wanting to ban Waitrose or BMWs, the problem with education in this country is we still have too many state schools which are inadequate or require improvement (and yes I know a small proportion of private schools are in this category too) not that we have too many private schools providing a good product
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,190
    Who doesn't like Lindsay Hoyle? He is gracious, fair and efficient.

    If Bercow does stand down then Lindsay Hoyle, surely, will be his successor. If Bercow doesn't step down until 2022, will Lindsay Hoyle still be his successor?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,287

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    Edit - of course you do typify the attitude of the EU, who also apparently can't get their admittedly rather empty heads round the fact we're leaving and the world won't actually end as a result however painful for both of us in the short term. What I can't understand is why they're so anxious to inflict a punishment beating on us that not only dramatically increases the risks to themselves but effectively rules out the possibility of us ever rejoining.

    The EU treat the 2016 referendum with the lack of reverence it deserves. The negotiations don't get to be carried out in an atmosphere of subservience to the wishes of people who voted for Brexit, which is itself negotiable and not a law of physics.
    Again showing the utter disdain that both you and the EU apparently have for democracy. People are to be allowed to vote but only if they vote in support of the EU. They'll be beating people with truncheons at the polling stations next whilst you stand on the sidelines and cheer.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,287

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    Just another of any examples of TSE's astonishing hypocrisy. In TSE world a good education should only be the preserve of those who can afford to pay for it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,287
    rcs1000 said:


    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.


    The answers (with detailed supporting data) were given in a very extensive Sutton Trust report in 2008.

    One of the key conclusions they made was:

    "We have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school. Hence, on the basis of KS4 performance at least, there do not appear to be strong grounds for abolishing selection as it currently operates"

    Grammar schools improve the grades of their students (by around 0.75 of a grade per subject) without reducing the grades of the surrounding schools.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 25,953
    The local election results in map form:

    https://russ.garrett.co.uk/election-2018/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 25,953
    edited May 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    My grammar school education taught me to question the veracity of data produced by those with vested interests :)
    I don't have the answer to the question.

    I just feel that we should stop using anecdotes, and quantify what the improvement in outcomes is for 1, and ask what we can do to stop it having the negative impact of 2.

    We need to quantify it, and we need to be honest about what are acceptable outcomes.
    Difficult question: if comprehensive schools make outcomes more equal compared to grammar schools but only by "bringing down" the brightest pupils rather than "bringing up" the less bright ones, would it still be a good idea because the overall outcome is more equality? (Personally I'd say no).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,708
    British Shipyards for British Ships!



    Almost worth doing to see the howls of rage from the Nats when the contracts aren't awarded to the Clyde (because the river isn't wide enough...) in another Tory plot to do down Scotland....
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,602
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    The education research establishment is overwhelmingly left wing and hostile to selection - this inevitably colours the research.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,708
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    The education research establishment is overwhelmingly left wing and hostile to selection - this inevitably colours the research.
    From the Sutton Trust report:

    Most of these studies suffer from limitations of methodology, data or interpretation; some are quite serious.......and researchers’ apparent preconceptions all undermine the trustworthiness of their results.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,708

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    I wasn't having a go!

    I find it very frustrating when antis use selective data; which they almost always do.

    I keep changing my mind about grammar schools.

    But to turn your comment around, almost everyone in favour seems to rely almost entirely on personal anecdote.
    The education research establishment is overwhelmingly left wing and hostile to selection - this inevitably colours the research.
    From the Sutton Trust report:

    Most of these studies suffer from limitations of methodology, data or interpretation; some are quite serious.......and researchers’ apparent preconceptions all undermine the trustworthiness of their results.
    It might be nice to think that detached, objective researchers would collect data about the effects of selection, analyse them neutrally, and dispassionately report their findings. Even the most casual acquaintance with the research on selection would show that this is not how it is. The issues are so politically charged and commitment to existing beliefs appears so strong that the data can seem almost irrelevant. In this debate, evidence is more often used as a garnish or rhetorical flourish than as a foundation for decision making. Is it possible that the elaborate and sophisticated analyses reported in the literature are no more than a front for pure prejudice?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,421

    British Shipyards for British Ships!



    Almost worth doing to see the howls of rage from the Nats when the contracts aren't awarded to the Clyde (because the river isn't wide enough...) in another Tory plot to do down Scotland....

    The Clyde is plenty wide enough at Govan but the MARS FSS vessels wouldn't physically fit on the slipway with T26 currently under construction. The Scotstoun yard is at capacity with the River class patrol boat work creation scheme. Relatively new Rivers are being retired for lack of crew at roughly the same rate they're being built which begs the question as to why we're building new ones in the first place.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    So the customs partnership is dead. Long live max fac.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6258797/brexit-theresa-may-max-fac-customs-union/

    It was always a too clever by half civil service wheeze that wouldn't have worked in reality. I'm glad that No. 10 has seen the light.
    Don't count your chickens. Sun spin.
    I've said from the start it wouldn't work. I'm immensely relaxed that it will be dropped as a proposal.

    No 10 have remembered that they're in the driving seat, as the executive.

    But also that the constraints on their remaining the executive is in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the commons.
    I wouldn't rely on that report in the Sun.

    I suspect that a majority in the Commons is in favour of some sort of customs union and this "customs partnership" might be a way to get Commons approval and possibly EU approval. The Max Dev MPs are in a minority in the Commons and in Cabinet.

    Mrs May future is indeed in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the Commons but I think she is secure. I can't see a majority of Tory MPs preferring either Boris or Moggsy over Mrs May. Can you?

    I'm not relying on the report; I'm relying on my own critical faculties. It won't work, and it isn't supported by the people who have the ability to veto it.

    I don't think there are the numbers for a customs union in the commons myself; there have been two votes on it already and the Govt have won both. But it is frankly irrelevant what there is a majority in the commons for, when the executive negotiates international treaties.
    Finally, someone who gets it!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,864
    AndyJS said:



    Difficult question: if comprehensive schools make outcomes more equal compared to grammar schools but only by "bringing down" the brightest pupils rather than "bringing up" the less bright ones, would it still be a good idea because the overall outcome is more equality? (Personally I'd say no).

    Ah but suppose it does both. Then what?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,864
    HYUFD said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    The number of pupils in grammar schools today is greater than it was in 1979 when Thatcher came to power.

    Thatcher was a passionate supporter of grammar schools and patron of the Grammar Schools Association with Graham Brady, it was thanks to her the rate of closure of Grammar Schools slowed dramatically allowing for that increase. She also strongly supported private schools too and sent her son to Harrow and she was sympathetic to a Swedish style education voucher system.

    Thatcher on education 'Mrs. Thatcher attacked the Government's recent announcement that money would not be available for new schools which would not fit into a comprehensive system, and discarded this as “educational blackmail” .
    “We would welcome experiments and new policies” , she said, “but we are against closing Grammar schools for a kind not yet proved. These schools are not being closed because they are bad, but because they are good.”
    “We believe that grammar schools should continue to be a vital part of education and that secondary modern schools should offer opportunities for non-academic children, as long as there is an easy transfer to the grammar school. There must be a freedom of choice” .

    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101466
    Look at the date of that speech: 1966. Four years later, in government, Mrs Thatcher set a new world record for closing grammar schools; a record that still stands.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,708
    edited May 2018
    Dura_Ace said:

    British Shipyards for British Ships!



    Almost worth doing to see the howls of rage from the Nats when the contracts aren't awarded to the Clyde (because the river isn't wide enough...) in another Tory plot to do down Scotland....

    The Ministry of Defence has been allocated £12.7 million in 2018-19 for essential EU exit preparations. This will fund preserving three Off-Shore Patrol Vessels, should they be needed to control and enforce UK waters and fisheries.

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-03-13/132371/

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,518
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer...
    In Kent, almost certainly yes. Elsewhere in the country, questionable, to extremely unlikely, depending on the relative number of grammar schools.
    There area very few areas in the country, which still have grammar schools, that have anywhere near as many as Kent proportionally.

    A minor expansion (or reduction) in grammar school places would make very little difference.

    I’d be strongly in favour of reform which retained the absolute number of grammar school places (or even increased them), but distributed them evenly across the country. The net benefit would be significant.
    Of course it’s not a politically realistic policy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,518
    On topic, had Bercow decided to go when he originally promised, he’d have a reasonable chance of being remembered, on balance, as a good and reforming Speaker.
    By clinging on he makes that increasingly unlikely.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    So the customs partnership is dead. Long live max fac.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6258797/brexit-theresa-may-max-fac-customs-union/

    It was always a too clever by half civil service wheeze that wouldn't have worked in reality. I'm glad that No. 10 has seen the light.
    Don't count your chickens. Sun spin.
    I've said from the start it wouldn't work. I'm immensely relaxed that it will be dropped as a proposal.

    No 10 have remembered that they're in the driving seat, as the executive.

    But also that the constraints on their remaining the executive is in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the commons.
    I wouldn't rely on that report in the Sun.

    I suspect that a majority in the Commons is in favour of some sort of customs union and this "customs partnership" might be a way to get Commons approval and possibly EU approval. The Max Dev MPs are in a minority in the Commons and in Cabinet.

    Mrs May future is indeed in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the Commons but I think she is secure. I can't see a majority of Tory MPs preferring either Boris or Moggsy over Mrs May. Can you?

    I'm not relying on the report; I'm relying on my own critical faculties. It won't work, and it isn't supported by the people who have the ability to veto it.

    I don't think there are the numbers for a customs union in the commons myself; there have been two votes on it already and the Govt have won both. But it is frankly irrelevant what there is a majority in the commons for, when the executive negotiates international treaties.
    Finally, someone who gets it!
    Neither of you get that it is open to Parliament to set the negotiating boundaries for the executive, were it so to choose. Given the government has been so contemptuous of Parliament when losing non-binding votes, it is unsurprising that it is now running into trouble on this front.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,864
    HYUFD said:

    [Margaret Thatcher] also strongly supported private schools too and sent her son to Harrow

    Wikipedia reports that Mark Thatcher's time at Harrow was well-spent. He left with three O-levels and now he's a Sir and a millionaire. This is not to sneer but a reminder that public schools used not to be the academic hot-houses they mainly are today. Rather they were places to become gentlemen and learn to use a knife and fork and network.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,228
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: practice for the Spanish Grand Prix starts today. Tricky race to call.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,517
    Simples. PMQ's ran more smoothly because Hoyle doesn't like the sound of his own voice/being on TV. Bercow does.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,565
    The elections watchdog has referred the chief executive of Leave.EU to police on suspicion of breaking electoral law, The Times can reveal.

    The Electoral Commission concluded last month that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Liz Bilney had delivered an incomplete and incorrect spending return for the Brexit campaign group after the referendum.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/leave-eu-campaign-chief-liz-bilney-faces-police-scrutiny-over-incorrect-spending-f5jlqdr6m
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,512
    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,566

    rcs1000 said:


    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.


    The answers (with detailed supporting data) were given in a very extensive Sutton Trust report in 2008.

    One of the key conclusions they made was:

    "We have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school. Hence, on the basis of KS4 performance at least, there do not appear to be strong grounds for abolishing selection as it currently operates"

    Grammar schools improve the grades of their students (by around 0.75 of a grade per subject) without reducing the grades of the surrounding schools.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf
    The evidence is that poorer pupils, even the bright ones, do not get into Grammar schools in the first place:

    https://fullfact.org/education/poorer-children-are-less-likely-go-grammar-schools/

    Indeed, the reason that it is richer middle class people are the prime supporters of Grammar schools is that they believe that their kids will be advantaged as a resilt, and why poorer voters oppose them for the same reason.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,512
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, had Bercow decided to go when he originally promised, he’d have a reasonable chance of being remembered, on balance, as a good and reforming Speaker.
    By clinging on he makes that increasingly unlikely.

    An occupational hazard for very many politicians
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,515
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.
    2 is the reason why parents collectively don't like grammar schools. There are more losers than winners, on the numbers.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 16,469
    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Indeed. It's economically questionable as well since it means money from productive working age people is flowing to unproductive older retired people. Wealth is being concentrated in the wrong hands.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 28,441
    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Very well put. My old house has just been rented by a divorcee in her early 40s.

    There do seem to be an awful lot of them around.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,801
    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,708

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    Facebook analysed Vote Leave advertising on Facebook during the referendum and concluded that not only did Vote Leave NOT use the data wrongly appropriated by CA, but that we COULD NOT HAVE DONE. So far, no correction from Observer/C4.

    https://dominiccummings.com/2018/05/10/on-the-referendum-24g-grandstanding-mps-and-the-zoolander-inquiry/
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,900
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    @TheScreamingEagles - I don't recall grammar schools being a central part of last year's GE.

    Grammar schools are actually quite popular I think, it was the fox hunting and 'dementia tax' that did the Tories in.
    Edit: Their merits are debateable (In the truest sense of the word), but I think they're popular - particularly amongst the sort of demographic the Conservatives are targetting.
    I think grammar schools are only popular in the sense that a lot of people are vaguely in favour of them if you ask them. A small number of people have strong opinions on them for as long as they have kids who are affected. Those are as likely to be opposed as in favour. So I

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    It was a good story. The whistle blowers were credible and obviously believed that something unacceptable was going on. I have no idea what it was, but the fact that their legal team was able to get them off the hook on a technicality makes no difference to the take home message that the Leave vote was supported by the well funded and unscrupulous.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 28,441
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,801

    It was a good story. The whistle blowers were credible and obviously believed that something unacceptable was going on. I have no idea what it was, but the fact that their legal team was able to get them off the hook on a technicality makes no difference to the take home message that the Leave vote was supported by the well funded and unscrupulous.

    And Hitler's Diaries were quite convincing, in their own way....

    You have no idea, period.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,900
    edited May 2018

    It was a good story. The whistle blowers were credible and obviously believed that something unacceptable was going on. I have no idea what it was, but the fact that their legal team was able to get them off the hook on a technicality makes no difference to the take home message that the Leave vote was supported by the well funded and unscrupulous.

    And Hitler's Diaries were quite convincing, in their own way....

    You have no idea, period.

    I said I have no idea. And neither do you. Or any of us.

    Likewise the only thing I know about Al Capone was he didn't pay his taxes.

    Funnily enough as it happens I am a chemist and I would be able to conclusively debunk the Hitler diaries. But I take your point.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,410

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    The absence of evidence simply shows how cunning they are.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 16,469
    Sean_F said:

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    The absence of evidence simply shows how cunning they are.
    Bloody Jews.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,518
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:


    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.


    The answers (with detailed supporting data) were given in a very extensive Sutton Trust report in 2008.

    One of the key conclusions they made was:

    "We have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school. Hence, on the basis of KS4 performance at least, there do not appear to be strong grounds for abolishing selection as it currently operates"

    Grammar schools improve the grades of their students (by around 0.75 of a grade per subject) without reducing the grades of the surrounding schools.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf
    The evidence is that poorer pupils, even the bright ones, do not get into Grammar schools in the first place...
    To be fair, this announcement of increase in funding is tied to increasing access for children from poorer families. Looked at in isolation, it is likely to have a significantly greater impact on improving grammar admissions policies in this respect than the small increase in student numbers is to have any deleterious effect on other schools.

    There has probably been more change in grammar admissions policies (outside of Kent) in the last five years than there has is the previous decade at least.

    And again, the overwhelming proportion of grammar schools which are situated in Kent completely distorts any statistical evidence on the effect of grammar schools nationally.
    No one is suggesting replicating the Kent system - which is deeply flawed - elsewhere in England.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,576
    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Swing to/against the Tories vs housing affordability would be an interesting scatter plot.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,471
    edited May 2018
    Dr Fox,

    Grammar schools are always a touchy subject, and as sociology hardly qualifies as an 'ology' anyway, proper data is always hard to collect. So an anecdote and a reflection.

    In 1960, I went to the local grammar school from a council estate where it was almost unknown. From our class of thirty boys, only one other went (and another went across at thirteen).

    Two of my brothers also passed the 11-plus and one failed and went to the secondary modern,.

    Our parents valued education despite having none past fourteen, and having the support of a stable family made a big difference to us. The nuclear family is much less common now for a variety of reasons. (respect for education had eroded when our kids went to school - It was cool to call them swots).

    Comparing with my brother, the facilities at the secondary school were very similar and the teachers were equivalent; we had a few real duffers too. But the big difference was the discipline. I hated it at the time, but looking back, it helped a lot. It also gave me aspiration, a feeling I could go on, something my brother lacked a little. And expectations were high.

    We were deprived, I suppose. My parents never owned a car, a house, or even a passport, but they had ambition for their kids without it turning into obsession. I was lucky when I chose my parents, but some things can't be righted by legislation.



  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,925

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    This bit was missing:
    "Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 for breaches of electoral law during the EU referendum campaign, with the head of the pro-Brexit group referred to police.

    The Electoral Commission announced the findings of its investigation on Friday, with Leave.EU found to have incorrectly reported what it spent at the EU referendum.


    It exceeded its statutory spending limit and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns.

    The group, which was not the official Brexit campaign, failed to include at least £77,380 in its spending return.

    This means Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit by at least 10%, although the Electoral Commission believes the unlawful overspend may have been considerably higher.

    Officials also found the group, which was initially endorsed by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage and was founded by businessmen Arron Banks and Richard Tice, inaccurately reported three loans it received.

    In addition, Leave.EU failed to provide the required invoice or receipt for 97 payments of more than £200, totalling £80,224.

    During the course of its investigation, the Electoral Commission said it found "reasonable grounds to suspect" Leave.EU's chief executive Liz Bilney committed criminal offences.

    She has been referred to the Metropolitan Police."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,708
    Sean_F said:

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    The absence of evidence simply shows how cunning they are.


    Full rant mode.....the detail that her central allegation of Facebook & CA has proved to be junk, but a minor inconvenience....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    edited May 2018
    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Yes but even on that chart there are still almost 4 million families who are home owners or home buyers compared to 1.8 million privately renting so still about double the number of owners to renters even if the gap has narrowed, hence outside London where a small majority do now rent the Tories do generally still have a clear lead

    It should also be noted the biggest proponents of NIMYBISM and opponents of building new houses are the LDs and not the Tories
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,287
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:


    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.


    The answers (with detailed supporting data) were given in a very extensive Sutton Trust report in 2008.

    One of the key conclusions they made was:

    "We have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school. Hence, on the basis of KS4 performance at least, there do not appear to be strong grounds for abolishing selection as it currently operates"

    Grammar schools improve the grades of their students (by around 0.75 of a grade per subject) without reducing the grades of the surrounding schools.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf
    The evidence is that poorer pupils, even the bright ones, do not get into Grammar schools in the first place:

    https://fullfact.org/education/poorer-children-are-less-likely-go-grammar-schools/

    Indeed, the reason that it is richer middle class people are the prime supporters of Grammar schools is that they believe that their kids will be advantaged as a resilt, and why poorer voters oppose them for the same reason.
    Immaterial. If Grammar schools improve the grades of those who attend without reducing the grades of those who don't - which is what the Sutton Trust report says - then they are overall improving the education of our children. Objections after that is established just come down to the old left wing meme of lowest common denominator - you would rather have everyone getting worse results overall as long as everyone gets equal chance to do badly. It is the politics of envy writ large.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,287

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    So the customs partnership is dead. Long live max fac.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6258797/brexit-theresa-may-max-fac-customs-union/

    It was always a too clever by half civil service wheeze that wouldn't have worked in reality. I'm glad that No. 10 has seen the light.
    Don't count your chickens. Sun spin.
    I've said from the start it wouldn't work. I'm immensely relaxed that it will be dropped as a proposal.

    No 10 have remembered that they're in the driving seat, as the executive.

    But also that the constraints on their remaining the executive is in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the commons.
    I wouldn't rely on that report in the Sun.

    I suspect that a majority in the Commons is in favour of some sort of customs union and this "customs partnership" might be a way to get Commons approval and possibly EU approval. The Max Dev MPs are in a minority in the Commons and in Cabinet.

    Mrs May future is indeed in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the Commons but I think she is secure. I can't see a majority of Tory MPs preferring either Boris or Moggsy over Mrs May. Can you?

    I'm not relying on the report; I'm relying on my own critical faculties. It won't work, and it isn't supported by the people who have the ability to veto it.

    I don't think there are the numbers for a customs union in the commons myself; there have been two votes on it already and the Govt have won both. But it is frankly irrelevant what there is a majority in the commons for, when the executive negotiates international treaties.
    Finally, someone who gets it!
    Neither of you get that it is open to Parliament to set the negotiating boundaries for the executive, were it so to choose. Given the government has been so contemptuous of Parliament when losing non-binding votes, it is unsurprising that it is now running into trouble on this front.
    No it is not. The only thing Parliament can do is refuse to ratify any final agreement. Constitutionally they have absolutely no right to dictate or limit the Executive in conducting negotiations and concluding treaties.

    It is wrong but at the moment it is the law. I would be very happy if they changed it but at the moment that is a whole other constitutional argument that no one in the party leaderships seems to want to have.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 818
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Yes but even on that chart there are still almost 4 million families who are home owners or home buyers compared to 1.8 million privately renting so still about double the number of owners to renters even if the gap has narrowed, hence outside London where a small majority do now rent the Tories do generally still have a clear lead

    It should also be noted the biggest proponents of NIMYBISM and opponents of building new houses are the LDs and not the Tories
    The Tories legislating against divorce would be a big step towards helping the housing crisis amongst the middle aged.. Could bring it in retrospectively.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    edited May 2018
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:


    1. Do grammar schools benefit bright, but poor, students? Probably yes.
    2. Do grammar schools have a negative impact on the results of the next 50% of students below the brightest 20%? Probably yes.

    Does 1 outweigh 2? Well, we need to see the numbers to know the answer.

    Any discussion based around feelings rather than data must be discarded.


    The answers (with detailed supporting data) were given in a very extensive Sutton Trust report in 2008.

    One of the key conclusions they made was:

    "We have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school. Hence, on the basis of KS4 performance at least, there do not appear to be strong grounds for abolishing selection as it currently operates"

    Grammar schools improve the grades of their students (by around 0.75 of a grade per subject) without reducing the grades of the surrounding schools.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf
    The evidence is that poorer pupils, even the bright ones, do not get into Grammar schools in the first place:

    https://fullfact.org/education/poorer-children-are-less-likely-go-grammar-schools/

    Indeed, the reason that it is richer middle class people are the prime supporters of Grammar schools is that they believe that their kids will be advantaged as a resilt, and why poorer voters oppose them for the same reason.
    Typical left-wing spin, grammar schools get far higher numbers of pupils into Oxbridge and the Russell Group than comprehensive schools do and also more pupils into the top professions.

    The reason some middle class voters are so supportive of comprehensive schools is that they can buy their child a place at an outstanding or good comprehensive or academy in an expensive catchment area and top up with church attemdance if necessary if it is a faith school while poorer pupils have to go to the 'requires improvement' or 'inadequate' comprehensive or academy in the poorer part of town.

    Indeed most polls have a majority supporting keeping existing grammar schools and a plurality wanting more and that is consistent across social classes albeit a plurality of Labour voters want to end selective education completely
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,727
    So in 2010 the Conservatives did no better among the ABC1s than they did in 1997.

    Epic fail for the 'Cameron Project'.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,410
    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    By the same token, public schools screw poor children full stop.

    Nah, we ensure money isn't spent by the state on the best but spent on the less fortunate.

    The parents of public schoolchildren are patriots and enduring financial hardship for the greater good.
    I'm not being funny but I find it incredibly difficult to argue against grammar schools (A form that discriminates against slower developers) having had a form of education that is discriminatory (Private education).

    Do you not feel similar internal contradictions ?

    I think if one argues against the existence of grammar schools then it is logically consistent to argue against fee paying schools. And I can't do that.
    Hands up all those who believe in equality of opportunity. If you do, how can you support public schools?
    People should be able to spend their money on whatever they like. If state education is inadequate, that needs addressing, but that’s a separate matter.

    The aim should be to make private schools redundant rather than outlawed.
    Even in an ideal world, I would not wish to make them redundant.
    Why not? If the state school was superb what would be the point of them?
    I think it's always good to have alternatives.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,241
    As someone who believes that religion should have no place in education, it is the proposed expansion of faith schools that really annoys me.

    As for grammar schools, we all know that pushy middle class parents pay for private tutoring to get their kids through the 11-plus. An inbuilt disadvantage for working class kids.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,727
    Has anyone else had trouble loading the PB comments during the last couple of days ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000

    HYUFD said:

    Theresa May must go now.

    She has learned nothing from last year's disaster.

    What's a working class northern public schoolby like you got against grammar schools? Do they force-feed pinapple pizzas?
    They screw poor children that don't get into grammar schools.

    Mrs Thatcher saw that when she was Education Secretary when she closed and merged so many and refused to undo her great work when she was PM even with stonking majorities.

    Smashing the unions, creating the single market, and closing so many grammar schools were Mrs T's finest achievements.
    The number of pupils in grammar schools today is greater than it was in 1979 when Thatcher came to power.

    Thatcher was a passionate supporter of grammar schools and patron of the Grammar Schools Association with Graham Brady, it was thanks to her the rate of closure of Grammar Schools slowed dramatically allowing for that increase. She also strongly supported private schools too and sent her son to Harrow and she was sympathetic to a Swedish style education voucher system.

    Thatcher on education 'Mrs. Thatcher attacked the Government's recent announcement that money would not be available for new schools which would not fit into a comprehensive system, and discarded this as “educational blackmail” .
    “We would welcome experiments and new policies” , she said, “but we are against closing Grammar schools for a kind not yet proved. These schools are not being closed because they are bad, but because they are good.”
    “We believe that grammar schools should continue to be a vital part of education and that secondary modern schools should offer opportunities for non-academic children, as long as there is an easy transfer to the grammar school. There must be a freedom of choice” .

    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101466
    Look at the date of that speech: 1966. Four years later, in government, Mrs Thatcher set a new world record for closing grammar schools; a record that still stands.
    Thatcher did not set the ball rolling on closing any grammars, that was mainly local Labour councils and Heath's policy of refusing to oppose them which as Education Secretary she had to implement.

    Once PM the rate of grammar school closures fell dramatically and there are now more pupils in grammar schools than there were in 1979 when Thatcher came to power
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,241

    Has anyone else had trouble loading the PB comments during the last couple of days ?

    Several posters have reported problems
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,035


    It was a good story. The whistle blowers were credible. It was written up well. However, it was somewhat hindered by the fact it just wasn't true.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,410
    Re private schools, I do think " why bother"? If you can afford £40,000 p.a. Out of after-tax income to educate three children, you can afford to move to wherever the best State schools are, and pay for the best private tuition.

    A lot of the fees just go on ever more elaborate facilities.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    edited May 2018
    So the class divide is still there but the middle classes are far less Tory than they were in 1974 and over a third of them now vote Labour
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,515
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    @TheScreamingEagles - I don't recall grammar schools being a central part of last year's GE.

    Grammar schools are actually quite popular I think, it was the fox hunting and 'dementia tax' that did the Tories in.
    Edit: Their merits are debateable (In the truest sense of the word), but I think they're popular - particularly amongst the sort of demographic the Conservatives are targetting.
    The Conservatives' problem is that grammar schools are popular with the older demographic that largely vote for them. They are not popular with the parent demographic that they need to win over.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Yes but even on that chart there are still almost 4 million families who are home owners or home buyers compared to 1.8 million privately renting so still about double the number of owners to renters even if the gap has narrowed, hence outside London where a small majority do now rent the Tories do generally still have a clear lead

    It should also be noted the biggest proponents of NIMYBISM and opponents of building new houses are the LDs and not the Tories
    The Tories legislating against divorce would be a big step towards helping the housing crisis amongst the middle aged.. Could bring it in retrospectively.
    Reversing the 19th century legalisation of divorce would certainly stop the need for a new house to be found for mother and children and a new flat for father and would keep them all under the same roof though of course in practical terms will never happen
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,727
    I find it interesting that the Conservative polling is so resilient with the government not looking impressive and the economy only crawling along.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 679
    Quite apart from the arguments of choice and inequality, grammars will pose a resource-planning issue in rural areas. There are already (mostly pretty good) comps struggling for numbers round me, and bussing 10-20 per cent of their pupils to towns 10+ miles away will do nothing to help. Most secondaries in my area are already at the small end of what's considered viable, and splitting the customer base by ability (or how you spend your Sunday morning), will either close them or leave them spending an unacceptable proportion of their revenue keeping the building open.

    Like previous Govian bright ideas on education (eg binning off local education authorities), it seems entirely aimed at tackling left-wing dogma in urban areas - fair enough, you get elected, that's your right - while ignoring the debilitating effect it's likely to have in Tory heartlands. They should be careful what they wish for.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,241
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Yes but even on that chart there are still almost 4 million families who are home owners or home buyers compared to 1.8 million privately renting so still about double the number of owners to renters even if the gap has narrowed, hence outside London where a small majority do now rent the Tories do generally still have a clear lead

    It should also be noted the biggest proponents of NIMYBISM and opponents of building new houses are the LDs and not the Tories
    The Tories legislating against divorce would be a big step towards helping the housing crisis amongst the middle aged.. Could bring it in retrospectively.
    Reversing the 19th century legalisation of divorce would certainly stop the need for a new house to be found for mother and children and a new flat for father and would keep them all under the same roof though of course in practical terms will never happen
    The government could set up frat houses for the divorced men to share. Beer, Sky Sports and porn 24/7. Problem solved.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000

    As someone who believes that religion should have no place in education, it is the proposed expansion of faith schools that really annoys me.

    As for grammar schools, we all know that pushy middle class parents pay for private tutoring to get their kids through the 11-plus. An inbuilt disadvantage for working class kids.

    Faith schools tend to get above average results. We need more of them and more grammar schools.
    Indeed you can also go to grammars at 13 or 16 if you get good GCSEs and selection by academic ability or even faith is probably better than selection by house price and catchment area which is the alternative.

    It is inadequate or requires improvement state schools we need to deal with not those already good or outstanding as most grammar and faith schools are.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,241
    HYUFD said:

    As someone who believes that religion should have no place in education, it is the proposed expansion of faith schools that really annoys me.

    As for grammar schools, we all know that pushy middle class parents pay for private tutoring to get their kids through the 11-plus. An inbuilt disadvantage for working class kids.

    Faith schools tend to get above average results. We need more of them and more grammar schools.
    Indeed you can also go to grammars at 13 or 16 if you get good GCSEs and selection by academic ability or even faith is probably better than selection by house price and catchment area which is the alternative.

    It is inadequate or requires improvement state schools we need to deal with not those already good or outstanding as most grammar and faith schools are.
    Schools achieving good results yes. Schools trying to indoctrinate hocus-pocus into impressionable children no.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,066

    Bang goes any chance of journalism awards for that story then, Guardian....
    That's lucky as they'd only be competing with themselves after their brilliant sleuthing on the Windrush fiasco
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,727
    Pulpstar said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Tories' problem, in a single statistic:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43504015

    Swing to/against the Tories vs housing affordability would be an interesting scatter plot.
    I'll have a guess that Copeland, Derbyshire NE, Mansfield, Middlesbrough South, Stoke South and Walsall N do not have expensive housing.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,287

    HYUFD said:

    As someone who believes that religion should have no place in education, it is the proposed expansion of faith schools that really annoys me.

    As for grammar schools, we all know that pushy middle class parents pay for private tutoring to get their kids through the 11-plus. An inbuilt disadvantage for working class kids.

    Faith schools tend to get above average results. We need more of them and more grammar schools.
    Indeed you can also go to grammars at 13 or 16 if you get good GCSEs and selection by academic ability or even faith is probably better than selection by house price and catchment area which is the alternative.

    It is inadequate or requires improvement state schools we need to deal with not those already good or outstanding as most grammar and faith schools are.
    Schools achieving good results yes. Schools trying to indoctrinate hocus-pocus into impressionable children no.
    Yep agree entirely.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657
    edited May 2018

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:


    I wouldn't rely on that report in the Sun.

    I suspect that a majority in the Commons is in favour of some sort of customs union and this "customs partnership" might be a way to get Commons approval and possibly EU approval. The Max Dev MPs are in a minority in the Commons and in Cabinet.

    Mrs May future is indeed in the hands of the largest party in the elected chamber of the Commons but I think she is secure. I can't see a majority of Tory MPs preferring either Boris or Moggsy over Mrs May. Can you?

    I'm not relying on the report; I'm relying on my own critical faculties. It won't work, and it isn't supported by the people who have the ability to veto it.

    I don't think there are the numbers for a customs union in the commons myself; there have been two votes on it already and the Govt have won both. But it is frankly irrelevant what there is a majority in the commons for, when the executive negotiates international treaties.
    Finally, someone who gets it!
    Neither of you get that it is open to Parliament to set the negotiating boundaries for the executive, were it so to choose. Given the government has been so contemptuous of Parliament when losing non-binding votes, it is unsurprising that it is now running into trouble on this front.
    No it is not. The only thing Parliament can do is refuse to ratify any final agreement. Constitutionally they have absolutely no right to dictate or limit the Executive in conducting negotiations and concluding treaties.

    It is wrong but at the moment it is the law. I would be very happy if they changed it but at the moment that is a whole other constitutional argument that no one in the party leaderships seems to want to have.
    Parliament can change the law. It has the opportunity to do so now in relation to the Brexit negotiations. It might take it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,515
    edited May 2018
    This is a weird story. Random dude submitted a post office change of address form to redirect mail for UPS' corporate headquarters to his private apartment, so he could rifle cheques and credit cards. It took UPS three months to notice what was going on.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/11/man-changed-address-of-ups-headquarters-to-his-own-apartment
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,620
    On grammar schools, I think I’d trust Peter Lampl over (i) politicians and (ii) random nutters on the internet.

    Peter Lampl’s motivation for founding the Trust:

    "When I came back from the States," he recalls, " I went to dinner at my old college, Corpus Christi, which used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, many of them my best friends. I was told they weren’t coming through any more."

    I have had interactions with the Sutton Trust and I think it is a genuinely impressive organisation that is willing to cross political boundaries (whether right or left) to try and improve social mobility.

    Estelle Morris wrote : "Given a free hand, he’d re-create the grammar schools. He wants to repeat for others what worked for him. I admire that. “

    Estelle Morris diagnosis is right -- Lampl believes grammar schools work and is essentially trying to recreate them.

    Of course, if those dismissing grammar schools had done as much work as Peter Lampl in driving forward social mobility, I might have some respect for them.

    For example, returning to the matter of Welsh students, Lampl has done far more to get Welsh students to Oxbridge than anything by the vacuous Welsh Government (which has presided over a fall in Welsh education as measured by international organisations).
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,727
    nunuone said:
    ' Data obtained by the BBC shows a jump in the capital from 827 offences in 2012 to more than 23,000 last year.

    More than 40% of those crimes happened in just two boroughs.

    A Metropolitan Police superintendent said the surge in Camden and Islington was "disappointing", but new measures were helping to reduce offending. '
This discussion has been closed.