Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ‘Peak Corbyn’ is a myth providing false reassurance to his opp

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited May 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ‘Peak Corbyn’ is a myth providing false reassurance to his opponents

As the dust settles on the 2018 local elections, it is clear that Labour did not hit the heights that they hoped to hit. A very strong showing in London offset somewhat by a frustrating lack of progress for the party in the rest of the country. The projected national vote share produced by the BBC suggested a tie, with a share of 35% each for Labour and the Conservatives (Rallings and Thrasher on the other hand gave the Tories a one point lead). A full recap of the results can be found on last weekend’s Polling Matters podcast at the end of this post.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 67,569
    I agree with Keiran.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,384
    edited May 11
    Second! Like Corbyn....and Remain...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,384
    Therefore, the idea that we have reached ‘Peak Corbyn’ feels very premature with a fair amount of wishful thinking thrown in for good measure.

    Yep - but its striking how some of the "Peak Corbyn" comments are coming from the Jews inside the Labour party.....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    edited May 11
    It is important for the Tories to ensure that, whether Keiran is right or not, people continue to believe that a Corbyn Government is a possibility. He remains the best weapon the Tories have in their arsenal. Which, all things considered, is a sad indictment of the Tories as well as of Labour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 11
    Certainly Corbyn is miles behind the 10%+ NEV leads Cameron and Blair had in local elections before they came to power and well short of the lead he needs for a majority.

    However it is still possible he could cobble together a confidence and supply deal with the SNP, the LDs and the Greens if Labour and the Tories were tied at the next general election as they were last Thursday in the NEV
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396
    edited May 11
    The swing toward Labour looks to be almost negligible - but there has been a swing to the opposition in every election since 1983. (1983 was the last time there was a swing to the governing party).

    Corbyn only needs a 1.2% swing to have a lead (Similiar to 2005 for the Tories), and there is almost nil (In fact it is in his favour in terms of becoming PM) electoral bias in the system right now, certainly not against Labour.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,824
    Students take Tory win for granted. Off-topic already but that was the Racing Post headline from 1996 reporting that students pooled their grants (whatever they are) to stake £3,000 at Ladbrokes' 11/4 that the government would win the vote on the Scott report (arms for Iraq, Matrix Churchill, economical with the actualite).

    The gamble was landed by one vote after the DUP voted to prop up the Conservative government. Plus ca change...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731
    The question is not whether we have reached peak Corbyn, although I hope we have.

    The question is whether the Tories can win a majority.

    On the only real data we have, they cannot.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,732
    Keiran is right that to call "peak Corbyn" on the back of a mini-slump in the polls and some suboptimal locals is poor analysis. Some of it is wishful thinking, and there's a bit of that within both the Conservatives and the Labour internal opposition.

    But of course the phrase isn't really meant as analysis. It's propaganda, largely internal to the Labour Party. It's been a fairly successful meme so far. It also gives the Labour moderates some more cover for their continued acquiescence to his leadership.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 11

    The question is not whether we have reached peak Corbyn, although I hope we have.

    The question is whether the Tories can win a majority.

    On the only real data we have, they cannot.

    The new Yougov gives a 5% Tory lead compared to 2% at the last general election, a swing of 1.5% to the Tories which would see them win a small majority of about 14, gaining 17 Labour seats but losing 2 to the LDs
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,366
    Minority govts all round? Yay!!

    How would being a minority govt affect the Corbyn Plan to nationalise everything? Surely he would be hamstrung from day one?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,478
    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396
    THe exciting thing is you never quite know till Big Ben bongs and the TV pundits look at each other completely startled and try to work out just how THAT result came about...

    The 2010s have produced exciting results, much better than the snoozefests of 2001 & 5.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 801
    Think of this as a martingale expression, or the value of a buy option. The greater the volatility, the higher the price of the option.

    Thus even though the current value of Corbyn is lower than previously, the volatility in the political landscape means that an option to buy Corbyn could well have increased.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,366
    Scott_P said:
    You could not make it up. It is stuff like this that convinces me that none of our politicians are fit for purpose.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 801
    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,133
    HYUFD said:

    The question is not whether we have reached peak Corbyn, although I hope we have.

    The question is whether the Tories can win a majority.

    On the only real data we have, they cannot.

    The new Yougov gives a 5% Tory lead compared to 2% at the last general election, a swing of 1.5% to the Tories which would see them win a small majority of about 14, gaining 17 Labour seats but losing 2 to the LDs
    Surely makes more sense to compare it to the 7% lead Yougov's final poll had
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    Weren't the 2016 local elections Peak Corbyn? Only time he's finished ahead of the Tories.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711

    HYUFD said:

    The question is not whether we have reached peak Corbyn, although I hope we have.

    The question is whether the Tories can win a majority.

    On the only real data we have, they cannot.

    The new Yougov gives a 5% Tory lead compared to 2% at the last general election, a swing of 1.5% to the Tories which would see them win a small majority of about 14, gaining 17 Labour seats but losing 2 to the LDs
    Surely makes more sense to compare it to the 7% lead Yougov's final poll had
    Yougov have adjusted again I think post 2017 and don't forget in 2015 Yougov underestimated the Tories and overestimated Labour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    A few more grammar schools in working class industrial areas and coastal towns would certainly be sendible
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396

    HYUFD said:

    The question is not whether we have reached peak Corbyn, although I hope we have.

    The question is whether the Tories can win a majority.

    On the only real data we have, they cannot.

    The new Yougov gives a 5% Tory lead compared to 2% at the last general election, a swing of 1.5% to the Tories which would see them win a small majority of about 14, gaining 17 Labour seats but losing 2 to the LDs
    Surely makes more sense to compare it to the 7% lead Yougov's final poll had
    You'd have hoped the polling companies would have dropped the whole "add 5% to the Tory score" stuff that they put in place in response to 1992 and to a lesser extent 2015 though ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 11

    Weren't the 2016 local elections Peak Corbyn? Only time he's finished ahead of the Tories.

    Corbyn beat Cameron once yes, May has beaten Corbyn twice and drawn once
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,824
    HYUFD said:

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    A few more grammar schools in working class industrial areas and coastal towns would certainly be sendible
    You know why Mrs Thatcher was so keen on abolishing grammar schools? To abolish secondary moderns.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,968
    FPT @AlastairMeeks

    You said parliament can set negotiating boundaries for the government

    It can’t (except by passing a law which would be ridiculous). All it can do is express its wishes - and sack the executive if it fails to comply. It can’t compel the executive to do anything.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,384
    Roger said:

    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum

    Remain campaigners have been fined £19,000 for failing to declare their spending properly during the EU referendum campaign.

    The Liberal Democrats were fined £18,000 by the Electoral Commission, near the legal maximum fine of £20,000, mainly for “failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts for 80 payments”.

    “Where the rules are not followed, transparency is lost which is not in the public interest or as parliament intended,” said Bob Posner, the Commission’s legal counsel.

    Meanwhile, the official Remain campaign, then known as Britain Stronger in Europe, now Open Britain, has paid a £1,250 fine imposed for not providing three invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than individual payments.


    https://www.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8



  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,741
    Charles said:

    FPT @AlastairMeeks

    You said parliament can set negotiating boundaries for the government

    It can’t (except by passing a law which would be ridiculous). All it can do is express its wishes - and sack the executive if it fails to comply. It can’t compel the executive to do anything.

    The recent amendments are to a law that is being passed, so it’s not that ridiculous.
  • HYUFD said:

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    A few more grammar schools in working class industrial areas and coastal towns would certainly be sendible
    My grandfather was headmaster of a private boys school in Blackpool that - through the direct grant - acted as a grammar school. It sent more working class boys per capita to Oxbridge in the 50s and 60s that Manchester Grammar School did. He was very proud of how it acted as a springboard for bright local boys to get into the professions, the forces and public service. That was lost when the direct grant scheme was abolished.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    edited May 11

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    While the general point you make is absolutely correct, as far as the specific current policy proposal is concerned, I don't think you can draw that conclusion.

    Given that the additional funding is tied to the kind of change in admissions policies in favour of FSM children that has been seen in Birmingham, I don't think you can draw any such conclusion from the reports you cite (which incidentally highlight the point I made about the disproportionate and negative effect on grammar school statistics of Kent, and to a slightly lesser extent, Buckinghamshire).
    If anything, the proposed policy might improve the social mix in Kent.

    I note also this comment, ...even if quotas and lower qualifying scores are introduced as an interim measure, the ultimate goal should be to reduce and ultimately eliminate the attainment gap before age 11 through interventions in the early years and at primary school., which suggests a degree of utopian thinking.

    (Edit - though, again, the general point is quite correct, and the influence of excellent primary education is arguably far greater than any tinkering around with secondary provision.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 11

    HYUFD said:

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    A few more grammar schools in working class industrial areas and coastal towns would certainly be sendible
    You know why Mrs Thatcher was so keen on abolishing grammar schools? To abolish secondary moderns.
    In far too many less prosperous areas we now have effectively 100% secondary moderns rather than 25% grammar school and 75% secondary modern.

    As I have also said repeatedly there are now more pupils in grammar schools than there were in 1979, the rate of decline in grammar school attendance began to be reduced under Thatcher's premiership
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711

    HYUFD said:

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    A few more grammar schools in working class industrial areas and coastal towns would certainly be sendible
    My grandfather was headmaster of a private boys school in Blackpool that - through the direct grant - acted as a grammar school. It sent more working class boys per capita to Oxbridge in the 50s and 60s that Manchester Grammar School did. He was very proud of how it acted as a springboard for bright local boys to get into the professions, the forces and public service. That was lost when the direct grant scheme was abolished.
    A tragedy when it was abolished yes
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    Scott_P said:
    Anyone offering themselves as the best candidate to represent the people of Lewisham?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,719
    Oh Help To Buy:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-house-prices-average-earning-ratio-latest-unaffordable-housing-crisis-a8323086.html

    I declare an interest as a non-home owner. It would be nice for the government to produce a target for what it thinks the house price to earnings ratio ought to be. 4? 5? 6? 7? Not simple I know but then inflation targeting isn't that simple either.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,802
    Roger said:

    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum

    The LD's already fined for the Remain campaign.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,032

    Roger said:

    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum

    Remain campaigners have been fined £19,000 for failing to declare their spending properly during the EU referendum campaign.

    The Liberal Democrats were fined £18,000 by the Electoral Commission, near the legal maximum fine of £20,000, mainly for “failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts for 80 payments”.

    “Where the rules are not followed, transparency is lost which is not in the public interest or as parliament intended,” said Bob Posner, the Commission’s legal counsel.

    Meanwhile, the official Remain campaign, then known as Britain Stronger in Europe, now Open Britain, has paid a £1,250 fine imposed for not providing three invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than individual payments.


    https://www.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8



    You missed this one:
    "Conservative Party fined £70,000 following investigation into election campaign expenses"
    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/conservative-party-fined-70,000-following-investigation-into-election-campaign-expenses
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616
    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 11

    Oh Help To Buy:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-house-prices-average-earning-ratio-latest-unaffordable-housing-crisis-a8323086.html

    I declare an interest as a non-home owner. It would be nice for the government to produce a target for what it thinks the house price to earnings ratio ought to be. 4? 5? 6? 7? Not simple I know but then inflation targeting isn't that simple either.

    The Bank of England has now capped lending at 4.5 times earnings for 90% of Bank and Building Society mortgage loans
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,760

    HYUFD said:

    Fpt:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    A few more grammar schools in working class industrial areas and coastal towns would certainly be sendible
    My grandfather was headmaster of a private boys school in Blackpool that - through the direct grant - acted as a grammar school. It sent more working class boys per capita to Oxbridge in the 50s and 60s that Manchester Grammar School did. He was very proud of how it acted as a springboard for bright local boys to get into the professions, the forces and public service. That was lost when the direct grant scheme was abolished.
    I would reintroduce the scheme, but make the remission of fees means-tested, so it was less of a bounty for the middle classes.

    That is, I’d offer 10 per cent remission of fees if family income is 60 k or more, but 100 per cent if family income is 20 k or less. With the saving, I’d increase the number of direct grant places from 25 to 50 per cent.

    I would run this scheme in a few selected areas of the country (e.g., North West, South Wales) and look at the effect over a 5 year period.

    I think the latter is necessary so as to demonstrate that it works (in the sense of offering better social mobility).

    I think the amount of money needed to try this out is tiny, and the system could be implemented quickly.
  • All you are saying is that there is a long time until the next election and the future is uncertain. True, but nevertheless peak Corbyn IMO was Summer / Autumn last year. The shine has gone off him. He can never again present himself as a fresh, new candidate. He is under scrutiny he never was before. His ambiguous but essentially pro-Brexit stance is a turn-off for many. Of course, the Tories could implode over Brexit, but they have a record of sticking together (a realignment on the centre-left is actually more likely, though not probable).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    The majority of our top professions are dominated by the privately educated?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,195
    I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.

    We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    That’s one view... any others?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885

    Scott_P said:
    Anyone offering themselves as the best candidate to represent the people of Lewisham?
    Don't be silly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,384
    felix said:

    Roger said:

    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum

    The LD's already fined for the Remain campaign.
    And the Remain campaign itself....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885
    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    That’s one view... any others?
    Yes, May wants to keep Kippers onboard.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,539
    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,760
    edited May 11

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    You missed out that is very helpful for Labour politicians who can then claim that their children are State-school educated (vide Harriet Harman).

    Here’s Harriet speaking: “This is a state school that my son will be going to.”
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616
    HYUFD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    The majority of our top professions are dominated by the privately educated?
    In which case, increasing Grammar School provision will have no effect... unless you’re suggesting that the sons and daughters of top professionals could go to Grammar School rather than private school and still follow in the parent’s footsteps...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    They've gone up massively above inflation in the last couple of decades, most of the fees on fancy sporting facilities I believe.
    Hopefully the likes of these will flourish: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/21/britains-first-cut-price-private-school-will-charge-parents/

    From memory my private school (King Henry VIII) had lower fees but better results than others within say a 20 mile radius (Princethorpe, Warwick).
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,732

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    You missed out that is very helpful for Labour politicians who can then claim that their children are State-school educated (vide Harriet Harman).

    Here’s Harriet speaking: “This is a state school that my son will be going to.”
    A state school with a chapel, a swimming pool and an Eton Fives court. Quite the trifecta.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470

    I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.

    We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.

    The bright kids need to be given an education commensurate with their abilities and, very importantly, not be in the same classroom as a bunch of scummy yobs who will disrupt the lesson and hold back the able. Not a separate school, just a separate classroom. Mixed ability classes has to be the most stupid idea in education ever proposed and, amazingly, far too often adopted.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616
    edited May 11
    Plenty of suggestions so far as to the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve... thankfully, nobody has trotted out the usual guff that working class kids whose parents don’t give a shit about their education will suddenly be inspired to do so by there being a local Grammar...

    Edited for Grammar...lol, I went to a state comp.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    Roger said:

    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum

    Funny I didn't see you making the same comment when the Lib Dems and Remain were fined for their breaches of electoral law over the referendum.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 11
    Rexel56 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    The majority of our top professions are dominated by the privately educated?
    In which case, increasing Grammar School provision will have no effect... unless you’re suggesting that the sons and daughters of top professionals could go to Grammar School rather than private school and still follow in the parent’s footsteps...
    A bit of that certainly but a bright but poor child is more likely to get into a top profession and top university from a grammar school than any comprehensive school bar the most outstanding
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)

    You mean a dead cat that has passed its 11-plus?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,451
    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)

    Yes.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,195

    I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.

    We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.

    The bright kids need to be given an education commensurate with their abilities and, very importantly, not be in the same classroom as a bunch of scummy yobs who will disrupt the lesson and hold back the able. Not a separate school, just a separate classroom. Mixed ability classes has to be the most stupid idea in education ever proposed and, amazingly, far too often adopted.
    Indeed. I went to a comprehensive. although a reasonable one back in the 90s, and it would seem idiotic for most of the classes to not be streamed/set.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)

    You mean a dead cat that has passed its 11-plus?
    So cynical.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885

    I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.

    We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.

    The bright kids need to be given an education commensurate with their abilities and, very importantly, not be in the same classroom as a bunch of scummy yobs who will disrupt the lesson and hold back the able. Not a separate school, just a separate classroom. Mixed ability classes has to be the most stupid idea in education ever proposed and, amazingly, far too often adopted.
    Indeed. I went to a comprehensive. although a reasonable one back in the 90s, and it would seem idiotic for most of the classes to not be streamed/set.
    1970s comprehensive for me. No streaming until 3rd year. Madness.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885
    MaxPB said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)

    Yes.
    Well they've certainly managed to get the word 'traitors' off DM front page.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616
    HYUFD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    The majority of our top professions are dominated by the privately educated?
    In which case, increasing Grammar School provision will have no effect... unless you’re suggesting that the sons and daughters of top professionals could go to Grammar School rather than private school and still follow in the parent’s footsteps...
    A bit of that certainly but a bright but poor child is more likely to get into a top profession and top university from a grammar school than any comprehensive school bar the most outstanding
    My experience as a secondary school Governor is that poor children who have supportive parents can flourish at any good or outstanding non-selective school. If they are not reaching top professions, may I suggest that is down to the recruitment practices of the firms involved (e.g. requiring internships in central London).

    The problem of low achievement arises where schools are inadequate and the governors and local authority aren’t bothered or are incompetent. This affects children across the ability ranges and family background. The solution is to drive up standards across underperforming schools and how best to do so is where the focus and investment should be. Gove has the right instincts, and accountability is part of the answer; unfortunately, the current inspection regime is counterproductive due to its punitive nature.

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,154

    Roger said:

    After the substantial fine for breaking election rules imposed on the cheating lying bastards at Leave EU the only appropriate action is a re-run of the Referendum

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum

    Remain campaigners have been fined £19,000 for failing to declare their spending properly during the EU referendum campaign.

    The Liberal Democrats were fined £18,000 by the Electoral Commission, near the legal maximum fine of £20,000, mainly for “failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts for 80 payments”.

    “Where the rules are not followed, transparency is lost which is not in the public interest or as parliament intended,” said Bob Posner, the Commission’s legal counsel.

    Meanwhile, the official Remain campaign, then known as Britain Stronger in Europe, now Open Britain, has paid a £1,250 fine imposed for not providing three invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than individual payments.


    https://www.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8



    And does anyone think such trivial sums in all cases made the slightest difference to the result.

    And we should never forget the £9.4 million taxpayer funded propaganda leaflet which was sent By the government to every UK household promoting remain.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,824
    edited May 11
    Pulpstar said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    They've gone up massively above inflation in the last couple of decades, most of the fees on fancy sporting facilities I believe.
    Hopefully the likes of these will flourish: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/21/britains-first-cut-price-private-school-will-charge-parents/

    From memory my private school (King Henry VIII) had lower fees but better results than others within say a 20 mile radius (Princethorpe, Warwick).
    Ironically there are studies that say for success in life, it is fancy sports facilities you need more than top grades. Teamwork and beating the French were learned on the playing fields of Eton. Except that these days the fancy sports kit is likely to be the individual-use running, weights and cycling machines rather than team sports so it is back to square one.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616

    I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.

    We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.

    The bright kids need to be given an education commensurate with their abilities and, very importantly, not be in the same classroom as a bunch of scummy yobs who will disrupt the lesson and hold back the able. Not a separate school, just a separate classroom. Mixed ability classes has to be the most stupid idea in education ever proposed and, amazingly, far too often adopted.
    Classroom behaviour is a function of the quality of the school’s leadership, not the backgrounds of the kids who happen to be there.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 837

    Minority govts all round? Yay!!

    How would being a minority govt affect the Corbyn Plan to nationalise everything? Surely he would be hamstrung from day one?

    Corbyn has gratefully accepted every hand up he has been given within the party and country and then consolidated his power base very effectively. A hand up from the LDs or Nats on the basis that Corbyn in coalition couldn't do much damage would be the very same naivety that got him on the Labour leadership ballot in the first place.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,586
    Sabotage of cabotage in fact.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    More detail on the partial collapse of North Korea's nuclear teat facility:

    https://phys.org/news/2018-05-radar-reveals-mountain-collapse-north.html
    According to Dreger, the new information suggests the following scenario: The explosion occurred more than a quarter mile (450 meters) below the summit of Mt. Mantap, vaporizing granite rock within a cavity about 160 feet (50 meters) across and damaging a volume of rock about 1,000 feet (300 meters) across. The blast likely raised the mountain six feet (2 meters) and pushed it outward up to 11 feet (3-4 meters), though within minutes, hours or days the rock above the cavity collapsed to form a depression.
    Eight and a half minutes after the bomb blast, a nearby underground cavity collapsed, producing the 4.5-magnitude aftershock with the characteristics of an implosion.
    Subsequently, a much larger volume of fractured rock, perhaps 1 mile (1-2 kilometers) across, compacted, causing the mountain to subside to about 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) lower than before the blast…
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,586
    North Korea's nuclear teat facility.
    We gotta wean them off it.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,586
    Mt. Mantap is the nuclear teat facility!
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 837
    Reposted on this thread
    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Education Policy Institute has recently undertaken some very good research into grammar schools:

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/11-plus-access-grammar-schools/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

    https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility-analysis-policy-options/

    This suggests that expanding existing grammar schools is more likely to adversely impact non grammar school pupils in those areas than setting up a new grammar school in a region where there are no grammar schools.

    Certainly we could do with a few more grammar schools in seaside coastal towns and working class industrial areas
    This is the nub for me. Any expansion of Grammar schools needs to retain a grammar / comprehensive style system rather than expanding too far and heralding the de facto return of the secondary modern: I am favourably inclined to grammars, but opposed to secondary moderns. I am also open to specialisation at 14 as an alternative, but that is a much more fundamental reform.

    If going down the grammar route though, I would require LEAs to provide between around 3-6% of age 11 places at grammars, and refuse expansion in LEAs already over that limit. I might consider a slightly higher limit at age 13/14, and permit transfers in at that point.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,077
    A graph of Corbyn's poll rating as best PM would suggest we have seen "peak best PM rating in polling" for Corbyn.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,305
    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    That’s one view... any others?
    To improve social mobility by providing a route for the clever children of poor parents to receive a good education, achieve strong exam results, go to a Russel University and thence get a top job.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 616

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    That’s one view... any others?
    To improve social mobility by providing a route for the clever children of poor parents to receive a good education, achieve strong exam results, go to a Russel University and thence get a top job.
    I see, so non-selective schools would not be required to provide a good education then?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    geoffw said:

    North Korea's nuclear teat facility.
    We gotta wean them off it.

    Excellent.
    I have all the best typos...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885
    Scott_P said:
    Oh FFS. Farage in House of Commons for DUP? Is there no end to the madness...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    A couple of days late, but RIP Anne V. Coates, a remarkable film editor - and argument in favour of nepotism (she was the niece of J. Arthur Rank, who found her first job..):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/anne-v-coates-oscar-winning-film-editor-of-lawrence-of-arabia-dies-at-92/2018/05/09/4941a71a-539e-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?
    While making “Out of Sight,” she became friends with the film’s star, George Clooney, telling him her job was “saving an actor’s performance.”

    “George thought that was funny,” Ms. Coates told the Los Angeles Times. “Jennifer Lopez, who was the female lead, came by and George said, ‘This is the editor, Anne Coates, who is going to save your performance.’ Jennifer did not think it was funny.”…
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,425
    HYUFD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    The majority of our top professions are dominated by the privately educated?
    In which case, increasing Grammar School provision will have no effect... unless you’re suggesting that the sons and daughters of top professionals could go to Grammar School rather than private school and still follow in the parent’s footsteps...
    A bit of that certainly but a bright but poor child is more likely to get into a top profession and top university from a grammar school than any comprehensive school bar the most outstanding
    Except that poor but bright kids are far less likely to get into Grammar school in the first place.

    It is a primary school that Poor but bright kids fall behind the well off but dim, and the latter that get into Grammar school ahead of them. See the first graph in this report:


    https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-broader-determinants-health-early-childhood-development
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?

    Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
    That’s one view... any others?
    To improve social mobility by providing a route for the clever children of poor parents to receive a good education, achieve strong exam results, go to a Russel University and thence get a top job.
    How do you go about giving those children the private tuition ahead of sitting the 11-plus? Otherwise, there is no level playing field.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,586

    Scott_P said:
    Oh FFS. Farage in House of Commons for DUP? Is there no end to the madness...
    Please God let it happen. Is there a vacancy?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    Scott_P said:
    It seems as though patriotism is not, after all, the last refuge of a scoundrel.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,129
    MaxPB said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)

    Yes.
    I would rather discuss Brexit than Grammar Schools :o
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    Rexel56 said:

    I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.

    We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.

    The bright kids need to be given an education commensurate with their abilities and, very importantly, not be in the same classroom as a bunch of scummy yobs who will disrupt the lesson and hold back the able. Not a separate school, just a separate classroom. Mixed ability classes has to be the most stupid idea in education ever proposed and, amazingly, far too often adopted.
    Classroom behaviour is a function of the quality of the school’s leadership, not the backgrounds of the kids who happen to be there.
    I agree that the right sort of leadership in the school can reduce the level of classroom disruption. But isn't it better to get the troublemakers out of the way, so that those who want to learn can learn, and the teacher can focus on teaching rather than classroom management?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885
    geoffw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh FFS. Farage in House of Commons for DUP? Is there no end to the madness...
    Please God let it happen. Is there a vacancy?
    I doubt he would join unless someone has given him the nod there might be at some point not too far away.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,586

    MaxPB said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB traitors (without ermine) :D

    Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit? ;)

    Yes.
    I would rather discuss Brexit than Grammar Schools :o
    Would you like it hot, cold or just right?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,195
    geoffw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh FFS. Farage in House of Commons for DUP? Is there no end to the madness...
    Please God let it happen. Is there a vacancy?
    If he's with the DUP does that mean he's whipped to vote with the tories under the dUP/Tory agreement?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    Bottas monstering the field, including Hamilton, in FP1.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 837
    On topic: The other factor to consider is the balance of compromising to win vs putting forward policies you really believe in. That Corbyn remains competitive whilst his intercontinental-holidaying young-green-leftist support base think he represents all the policies they believe in (he doesn't), means they are very, very happy.

    They were told Corbyn couldn't win, wouldn't get close. It was another Project Fear, probably ultimately with some truth, but now being restated at the point where Umunna now stands in the slipping sand and not feeling that credible.

    The right line of attack against Corbyn is his beliefs, not his winningestness.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,889

    geoffw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh FFS. Farage in House of Commons for DUP? Is there no end to the madness...
    Please God let it happen. Is there a vacancy?
    If he's with the DUP does that mean he's whipped to vote with the tories under the dUP/Tory agreement?
    He'll do whatever the fuck he wants.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all as he's going to need a new gravy train now that his MEP racket is almost over.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,384
    Anyone cross referenced support for Grammar Schools with marginals?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396
    BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems.
    The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885
    Dura_Ace said:

    geoffw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh FFS. Farage in House of Commons for DUP? Is there no end to the madness...
    Please God let it happen. Is there a vacancy?
    If he's with the DUP does that mean he's whipped to vote with the tories under the dUP/Tory agreement?
    He'll do whatever the fuck he wants.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all as he's going to need a new gravy train now that his MEP racket is almost over.
    Hasn't he being lobbying for the MEPs to continue being paid during the transition period (which could well be five years or more at this rate)?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,667
    Is the policy of fifty years ago really relevant ?
    Rather a lot has changed since then.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,281
    Mr. B, not paying attention to it, but wonder if first practice is of limited use in assessing pace.
This discussion has been closed.