Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analaysis: The UK Economy – It’s Not About The Brexit

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analaysis: The UK Economy – It’s Not About The Brexit

From the outside the UK economy looks pretty healthy. Unemployment is low and economic growth has been more consistent than any of its EU peers. Little wonder its politicians regard it as a success story.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,168
    edited November 2018
    This site is so biased.

    It asks me to LEAVE a comment. Why not Remain with a comment?

    And the starter comment (so far)
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    (FPT)

    You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.

    May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.
  • (FPT)

    You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.

    May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.

    Don't go the way of Mr Morden.

    God I loved Vir.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,210
    philiph said:

    This site is so biased.

    It asks me to LEAVE a comment. Why not Remain with a comment?

    And the starter comment (so far)

    When I clicked quote, I was expecting to be told £39bn just to post here.
  • Analysis*
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,306
    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Honestly TSE, before I was packed off to Oxford Ringroad Polytechnic to learn to be an uppity little peasant with ideas above my station, I didn't even know what swearing was, so I didn't, gor blimey, luv a duck.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 71,932
    edited November 2018
    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    edited November 2018
    Survation Scotland poll
    Survation/Scotland in Union:
    Westminster VI
    •SNP 38% (-2)
    •Con 26% (-1)
    •Lab 24% (+1)
    •Lib 8% (+1)

    Panelbase for Scottish Independence Foundation.

    Westminster voting intention (Scotland):
    SNP 37% (-1)
    Con 28% (+1)
    Lab 25% (+1)
    Lib 7% (+1)
    Grn 2% (n/c)
    UKIP 2% (-1)



  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,761
    edited November 2018
    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Isn't that partly at least simply because Labour councils in areas where grammar schools would have maximum beneficial effect have closed them all? [Not that I'm recommending reopening them, but one does need to understand the sample bias]
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,168
    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Well, the private fee paying schools would say that.
    Up to 20% and on average 3% are not comparable measures in an unbiased world.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    I'm sure that's got nothing to do with richer people moving into areas with grammar schools.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,306

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/private-schools-do-more-for-poor-than-grammars-say-heads-80khsnk6c
  • matt said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/private-schools-do-more-for-poor-than-grammars-say-heads-80khsnk6c
    Thanks.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,200
    edited November 2018
    Which Independent Schools are offering the bursaries, is it the day schools which had participated in the Direct Grant Schemes, and what sort of fees are being charged in the first place?

    I can't get past the paywall on that article.
  • Good video but remain unconvinced that savings rates are causal.
  • (FPT)

    You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.

    May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.

    Boris Johnson would be Londo.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035

    Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    If I had a child and there was a nearby grammar I'd totally send them there though.
  • (FPT)

    You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.

    May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.

    Boris Johnson would be Londo.
    He thinks he’s G’Kar.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    If I had a child and there was a nearby grammar I'd totally send them there though.
    I went to one and got the best education that money can't buy. That being said, there were definitely a few students whose parents invested a lot more in tutors, etc, to get them past the 11+.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,675
    wow that was one of the most interesting pieces I have ever watched

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,815
    edited November 2018
    Decent borrowing figures this morning, with a poor October but large revisions to previous months pointing to a steady decrease. £25.5bn as forecast by the OBR is unlikely far off although it can now be beaten with a favourable wind.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    What I hadn't realised until recently is that in some areas - such as in South West London - it isn't simply a case of passing the 11+. They rank the kids who sit it and offer the best grammar school to the kids who get the highest marks.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,855
    Not sure using 2010 is a particularly good baseline for GDP/capita especially when comparing to European countries.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    Except the evidence is that it makes no difference to the standard of surrounding schools.
  • (FPT)

    You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.

    May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.

    Will you be returning to Z'ha'dum?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    Except the evidence is that it makes no difference to the standard of surrounding schools.
    Depends which evidence you look at. Some studies have shown that the average level of attainment in areas with grammar schools is lower than in areas without. For the avoidance of doubt, that looks at all pupils in grammar school areas, not just those that didn't get into the grammar schools.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    Except the evidence is that it makes no difference to the standard of surrounding schools.
    I think we have to draw a distinction between a national system of grammar schools - which allowed the great and the good to ignore the plight of secondary moderns - and the modest provision for grammars that currently exists, even in counties they are retained in full (albeit no county is an island) - where the evidence is mixed.
  • I always rather liked Bester.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    So the conclusion from the video is that we should help the economy by switching to Android? ;)
  • tlg86 said:

    What I hadn't realised until recently is that in some areas - such as in South West London - it isn't simply a case of passing the 11+. They rank the kids who sit it and offer the best grammar school to the kids who get the highest marks.

    There are two approaches to grammar school admissions. It isn't necessarily the case that all grammar schools in the area take the same approach.

    One approach is that there is no pass mark for the 11+. Places are offered to the pupils getting the highest scores.

    The other approach is that there is a pass mark. The places are then allocated to those achieving a pass mark using normal admission criteria giving priority for siblings, etc.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,003
    edited November 2018

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






  • Robert - thanks for these videos. They always trigger interesting discussions with my kids (eldest studying economics, middle studying engineering).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/eu-raises-doubts-over-brexit-summit-as-may-holds-brussels-talks

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not travel to Brussels on Sunday unless there is an agreement ready to sign, officials said. This is being interpreted as a warning to other European countries not to demand more additions to the text of the deal as much as a signal to the U.K., one official said.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,600
    Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    I went to grammar school

    I lived on a council estate and I really would not have called my parents as "well educated"

    Both of my brothers also attended the same school.

    This working class family did ok out of them - as did the lad who lived with his mum in a tower block.

    I can only think of one lad who I thought of as well off.

    The idea of my parents having money for tutors actually made me smile.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,509
    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+
    Mine didn't, not that they could have afforded to anyway. I was pretty much the most "working class" boy in my first year at grammar school. That said, when I tell people that I grew up in Surbiton, that my family were owner-occupiers but my parents were bus crew, I get looks of incredulity. But house prices in 1967, even in Surbiton, were not what they are today.

    I dunno if the 11+ is the same these days, but when I took it in 1978 it seemed to be just an IQ test for verbal and mathematical reasoning.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 944

    Good video but remain unconvinced that savings rates are causal.

    Really interesting video Robert. Thanks. Scary charts!

    I'm not an economist and while viewing your video I was persuaded by your argument, which may indeed be valid. But then I come here to the comments and David L questions whether our low savings rate are causal in your argument? David can you expand on that or Robert can you refute David's objection to your argument?

    Ta.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,701
    Laura must be unwell

    Laura Kuenssberg

    Verified account

    @bbclaurak
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Good q from Corbyn - are there any circumstances where UK would leave without a deal - PM avoids answering
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,003
    rpjs said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+
    Mine didn't, not that they could have afforded to anyway. I was pretty much the most "working class" boy in my first year at grammar school. That said, when I tell people that I grew up in Surbiton, that my family were owner-occupiers but my parents were bus crew, I get looks of incredulity. But house prices in 1967, even in Surbiton, were not what they are today.

    I dunno if the 11+ is the same these days, but when I took it in 1978 it seemed to be just an IQ test for verbal and mathematical reasoning.
    I'm sure there are some at the end of the bell curve that don't get tutored these days - certainly tutoring has exploded in the last 10-15 years.

    Actual data would be illuminating.

  • Floater said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    I went to grammar school

    I lived on a council estate and I really would not have called my parents as "well educated"

    Both of my brothers also attended the same school.

    This working class family did ok out of them - as did the lad who lived with his mum in a tower block.

    I can only think of one lad who I thought of as well off.

    The idea of my parents having money for tutors actually made me smile.
    Fifteen years ago I would have said 10% of my intake was tutored (or excessively prepared), I think it's higher now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,100
    edited November 2018
    Nice video Robert - ask any economist about GDP components and they will blanche at the proportion of domestic consumption.

    Did you mean btw that it is a lot less painful to save less than to save more (at 5mins-odd)?

    Edit: ah I see you mean if there has to be a reversal ie while it lasts?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    Except the evidence is that it makes no difference to the standard of surrounding schools.
    Depends which evidence you look at. Some studies have shown that the average level of attainment in areas with grammar schools is lower than in areas without. For the avoidance of doubt, that looks at all pupils in grammar school areas, not just those that didn't get into the grammar schools.
    I have usually referenced the Sutton Trust study from 2008


    "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."
  • I always rather liked Bester.


    Named after arguably the best Sci-Fi writer of all time. He may not have written many novels but Alfred Bester's stories were all perfect gems of science fiction.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    This is the thing though. Even if it could be showed that overall Grammar Schools do no harm, it still isn't an argument for them, because of their manifest inefficient allocation of resources vs an Academy.
  • TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 475
    Why doesn't the gun recoil after firing? I call fake!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Laura must be unwell

    Laura Kuenssberg

    Verified account

    @bbclaurak
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Good q from Corbyn - are there any circumstances where UK would leave without a deal - PM avoids answering

    There’s obviously a fault in her programming. Reboot!
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    +++ SYSTEM MALFUNCTION +++

    BBC POLITICAL RESPONDENT ACCIDENTALLY SAYS SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT LABOUR

    SEND CORRECTIVE DRONES IMMEDIATELY

    SUSPECT UNIT TO BE TERMINATED AND REPLACED

    +++ MESSAGE ENDS +++
  • For Dura Ace from pervious thread.

    Are you sure NATO are operating in Somalia these days? A close friend of mine (a British Colonel) has just finished a tour in Somalia (he got back yesterday after 8 months away) as a military liaison but he was part of an EU mission not NATO. He was awarded an EU medal but was commenting about how he cannot wear it on his uniform in the UK.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited November 2018
    DUP is withhholding supply from the government again today:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/20/dup-orders-mps-ignore-agreement-vote-conservatives-withdrawing/

    This time the Labour whips have been told too, so expect many more shenanigans.
  • DUP is withhholding supply from the government again today:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/20/dup-orders-mps-ignore-agreement-vote-conservatives-withdrawing/

    This time the Labour whips have been told too, so expect many more shenanigans.

    Have they actually withheld supply? I might be wrong, but I don't think a Confidence & Supply agreement obliges them to vote with the government on every amendment, especially minor ones such as one calling for an impact assessment. I think they are carefully judging this to make clear they are disgruntled (or more than usually disgruntled) without bringing the edifice crashing down, so far at least.
  • I see that Robert has branched out into horror films.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,091
    "Dog accused of ‘racist hate crime’ for pooing outside someone’s front door"

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/18/dog-accused-of-racist-hate-crime-for-pooing-outside-someones-front-door-8151924/
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,600

    +++ SYSTEM MALFUNCTION +++

    BBC POLITICAL RESPONDENT ACCIDENTALLY SAYS SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT LABOUR

    SEND CORRECTIVE DRONES IMMEDIATELY

    SUSPECT UNIT TO BE TERMINATED AND REPLACED

    +++ MESSAGE ENDS +++

    LMAO
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,347

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/eu-raises-doubts-over-brexit-summit-as-may-holds-brussels-talks

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not travel to Brussels on Sunday unless there is an agreement ready to sign, officials said. This is being interpreted as a warning to other European countries not to demand more additions to the text of the deal as much as a signal to the U.K., one official said.

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    Except the evidence is that it makes no difference to the standard of surrounding schools.
    Depends which evidence you look at. Some studies have shown that the average level of attainment in areas with grammar schools is lower than in areas without. For the avoidance of doubt, that looks at all pupils in grammar school areas, not just those that didn't get into the grammar schools.
    I have usually referenced the Sutton Trust study from 2008


    "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."
    I'm aware of that study and I'm not saying the other studies are definitive. However, there are some showing the overall level of achievement is lower in areas with grammar schools. This appears to be driven poorer pupils who don't get into grammar schools perform significantly worse than their peers in areas with no grammar schools (1.2 grades lower on average across all GCSE subjects according to the Education Policy Institute).

    My personal view is that, given the mixed results from studies, the case for grammar schools is not proven either way, for or against.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 475
    “Conservative former sports minister Tracey Crouch and Labour's Alison McGovern, Louise Haigh and Stephanie Peacock were also kitted out for the kickabout and posed for photos, including making use of the despatch boxes and Speaker's chair” - but trust the Scotsman to make it an ‘SNP Bad’ headline!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    AndyJS said:

    "Dog accused of ‘racist hate crime’ for pooing outside someone’s front door"

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/18/dog-accused-of-racist-hate-crime-for-pooing-outside-someones-front-door-8151924/

    When I lived in Atlanta, we had a Labrador that we had bought from some hillbillies. She barked and growled at African Americans but not at white ones. Ironically she was a black labrador.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 40,941
    edited November 2018
    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,386

    This is the thing though. Even if it could be showed that overall Grammar Schools do no harm, it still isn't an argument for them, because of their manifest inefficient allocation of resources vs an Academy.

    In what way ?
    A far as I’m aware, the per pupil funding is precisely the same as other state schools (allowing for various in FSM numbers).
  • Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    I thought he wanted the vote BEFORE the summit where it would be signed off by EU27 leaders and the PM?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,622
    edited November 2018
    Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
  • The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.

    Are you sure?

    s.13 says:

    (2) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (1)(b) [the meaningful vote] to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the withdrawal agreement being concluded on behalf of the EU in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    I think the HoC motion will be after Commission approval though.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,091
    "John McDonnell claims Queen could ask Labour to form government

    UK party ready to form minority administration if Brexit chaos leaves Tories unable to rule"

    https://www.ft.com/content/1bfa2ed4-ed7d-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,210

    Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
    I think the European Parliament have to ratify as well - really would cause a problem if they didn't, but would be a major breach of faith for an agreed deal to be voted down now, as Guy Verhofstedt has been the link rep to the negotiating team, to indicate any issues that the EU parliament would struggle with. So should be a formality.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    edited November 2018
    AndyJS said:

    "John McDonnell claims Queen could ask Labour to form government

    UK party ready to form minority administration if Brexit chaos leaves Tories unable to rule"

    https://www.ft.com/content/1bfa2ed4-ed7d-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0

    The DUP might be on strike for supply to the Tories, but they sure as hell ain't going to give confidence to Corbyn.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    Scott_P said:
    Actually that might be true - their plan is a permanent customs union with the EU I think - because essentially the Labour WA IS the backstop; and it isn't just a WA in Labour's case but a permanent state of affairs. Forever paying to the EU to be in the customs union - it is even more BINO than May's plan.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,386
    Some potentially encouraging news for leavers:
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/South-Korea-strives-to-beat-Japan-and-China-to-UK-trade-deal

    SEOUL -- South Korea is striving to beat Asian rivals Japan and China to a free trade deal with the U.K., once the nation leaves the European Union.

    The trade ministry in Seoul hosted a hearing Wednesday to discuss the economic benefits of a post-Brexit deal with the U.K., South Korea's second-largest trade partner in the EU.

    "It is important who can strike a better deal [with the UK] more quickly," said Park Chun-il, a director at Korea International Trade Association. "l think the government is moving timely to be prepared in advance."...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Actually that might be true - their plan is a permanent customs union with the EU I think - because essentially the Labour WA IS the backstop; and it isn't just a WA in Labour's case but a permanent state of affairs. Forever paying to the EU to be in the customs union - it is even more BINO than May's plan.
    That's wrong because the permanent relationship is beyond the scope of the WA. They can change the political declaration to indicate a closer relationship but they'd still need to agree to the backstop.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Actually that might be true - their plan is a permanent customs union with the EU I think - because essentially the Labour WA IS the backstop; and it isn't just a WA in Labour's case but a permanent state of affairs. Forever paying to the EU to be in the customs union - it is even more BINO than May's plan.
    It still doesn't make sense.

    The EU want a backstop before a FP is agreed.

    Labour's proposals are a FP, they still ned a backstop before that conversation happens.

    They could have agreed a backstop which is their end state, but then they have a backstop and no need for a FP, not a FP without a backstop.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057
    The only people dumber than American gun-owners are those who think that is a genuine piece of footage....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Actually that might be true - their plan is a permanent customs union with the EU I think - because essentially the Labour WA IS the backstop; and it isn't just a WA in Labour's case but a permanent state of affairs. Forever paying to the EU to be in the customs union - it is even more BINO than May's plan.
    It still doesn't make sense.

    The EU want a backstop before a FP is agreed.

    Labour's proposals are a FP, they still ned a backstop before that conversation happens.

    They could have agreed a backstop which is their end state, but then they have a backstop and no need for a FP, not a FP without a backstop.
    If I've misunderstood this then Labour's top team definitely will have.
  • The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.

    Not sure about your first paragraph. The deal if it is signed will be signed subject to ratification. The Council representing the 27 on Sunday will, if they agree to sign, actually pass it through the Council. That leaves HOC and the Commission who Barnier works for so they will not reject it

    You do not know that the meaningful vote will reject it. If the meaingful vote, as seems likely, is sequenced with amendments first, a second referendum will certainly be put forward and if it falls that ends a second vote. Of course if it passes and then the meaningful vote on the deal is subject to the second referendum and the government would have to put legislation to the HOC to that effect.

    However, in the circumstances the second referendum falls the choice then becomes deal or no deal.

    It is at that point the deal is likely to pass

    It is for these reasons I believe that TM may win the day

    I make this comments, hopefully without reflecting bias in my view but based on probable outcomes

    And as they say, other views are no doubt available
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    Slovenia: Head of center-right SDS (EPP) Janez Janša announces his party would seek an advisory referendum on the UN Global Compact for Migration, STA reports.
  • Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
    No, it's the EP that needs to ratify; the Commission has no role in approving or rejecting the deal (which makes sense given, as you say, that the Commission nominee was negotiating the deal in the first place).
  • TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    Every child I know at grammar school (and many who failed the 11+) either;

    a) went to a fee-paying private primary school where the focus was solely on passing the test
    b) had a private tutor or
    c) had a parent able to tutor them

    It is no longer question of all the kids ust turning up and sitting the test one day without any prior warning, as apparently it was in the 1970s. Only about 50% of kids round here even sit the test as the rest are not entered by their (mainly working class) parents. It is very unlikely that a 10-year-old could pass the non-Verbal reasoning part of the test without some prior practice, even adults would struggle. State primary schools do not teach this and are barred from preparing their kids specifically for the test.

    Grammar schools take 23% of the brightest kids and most motivated parents away from surrounding schools. In doing so they take away many of the best role models and most aspirational people. Grammar schools prevent social mobility rather than enhancing it.



  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057
    AndyJS said:

    "Dog accused of ‘racist hate crime’ for pooing outside someone’s front door"

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/18/dog-accused-of-racist-hate-crime-for-pooing-outside-someones-front-door-8151924/

    My previous dog crapped outside Maggie's house in Chester Square.

    I was mortified.

    (Plod outside was rather amused though....)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,220
    Nigelb said:

    Some potentially encouraging news for leavers:
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/South-Korea-strives-to-beat-Japan-and-China-to-UK-trade-deal

    SEOUL -- South Korea is striving to beat Asian rivals Japan and China to a free trade deal with the U.K., once the nation leaves the European Union.

    The trade ministry in Seoul hosted a hearing Wednesday to discuss the economic benefits of a post-Brexit deal with the U.K., South Korea's second-largest trade partner in the EU.

    "It is important who can strike a better deal [with the UK] more quickly," said Park Chun-il, a director at Korea International Trade Association. "l think the government is moving timely to be prepared in advance."...

    This is replication of the existing EU-Korea deal.
  • TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Grammar schools are wonderful for the "well educated, but not so rich parents" to send the sprogs to.
    They adversely affect ordinary working class families perhaps.

    The main negative impact is all the energy and focus that shifts onto them instead of improving the quality of other schools.
    Except the evidence is that it makes no difference to the standard of surrounding schools.
    Depends which evidence you look at. Some studies have shown that the average level of attainment in areas with grammar schools is lower than in areas without. For the avoidance of doubt, that looks at all pupils in grammar school areas, not just those that didn't get into the grammar schools.
    I have usually referenced the Sutton Trust study from 2008


    "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."
    I'm aware of that study and I'm not saying the other studies are definitive. However, there are some showing the overall level of achievement is lower in areas with grammar schools. This appears to be driven poorer pupils who don't get into grammar schools perform significantly worse than their peers in areas with no grammar schools (1.2 grades lower on average across all GCSE subjects according to the Education Policy Institute).

    My personal view is that, given the mixed results from studies, the case for grammar schools is not proven either way, for or against.
    That does seem a fair view. Obviously with my two kids going to grammars I have a fairly personal view on it which I am inclined to find evidence to support.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Actually that might be true - their plan is a permanent customs union with the EU I think - because essentially the Labour WA IS the backstop; and it isn't just a WA in Labour's case but a permanent state of affairs. Forever paying to the EU to be in the customs union - it is even more BINO than May's plan.
    It still doesn't make sense.

    The EU want a backstop before a FP is agreed.

    Labour's proposals are a FP, they still ned a backstop before that conversation happens.

    They could have agreed a backstop which is their end state, but then they have a backstop and no need for a FP, not a FP without a backstop.
    Except that the EU perversely refuses to agree the final relationship at this stage, and certainly wouldn't accept that any backstop in the withdrawal agreement could be a permanent settlement. This is because it would be 'cherry picking' - giving us full access to the Single Market without the obligations. It's bonkers, of course; any rational counterparty would have started by discussing and agreeing the end point and then discussed what transitional arrangements were necessary to get there. But we are stuck with their daft approach.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839
    edited November 2018

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    Every child I know at grammar school (and many who failed the 11+) either;

    a) went to a fee-paying private primary school where the focus was solely on passing the test
    b) had a private tutor or
    c) had a parent able to tutor them

    It is no longer question of all the kids ust turning up and sitting the test one day without any prior warning, as apparently it was in the 1970s. Only about 50% of kids round here even sit the test as the rest are not entered by their (mainly working class) parents. It is very unlikely that a 10-year-old could pass the non-Verbal reasoning part of the test without some prior practice, even adults would struggle. State primary schools do not teach this and are barred from preparing their kids specifically for the test.

    Grammar schools take 23% of the brightest kids and most motivated parents away from surrounding schools. In doing so they take away many of the best role models and most aspirational people. Grammar schools prevent social mobility rather than enhancing it.

    I think the role model argument is bollocks. My state comp put the wrong 'uns in with us geeks to try to "inspire" them. All it achieved was to piss off the rest of us.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,622
    edited November 2018

    Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
    No, it's the EP that needs to ratify; the Commission has no role in approving or rejecting the deal (which makes sense given, as you say, that the Commission nominee was negotiating the deal in the first place).
    The EU Parliament is represented by the commission, surely
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    Should we move on to "the climate" ?
  • AndyJS said:

    "John McDonnell claims Queen could ask Labour to form government

    UK party ready to form minority administration if Brexit chaos leaves Tories unable to rule"

    https://www.ft.com/content/1bfa2ed4-ed7d-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0

    If the Tories lost a parliamentary VoNC (which I think is highly unlikely, but let's run with it), then my guess is that HMQ probably would ask Corbyn to form a government, unless the DUP were already clear that they would back a different Tory administration, and that administration could be in place within days. Corbyn would be jumping up and down for the chance and wouldn't be worried about embarrassing the Palace (indeed, you could expect noises off to be talking about Tory bias there). With that sort of pressure, and with the general historic precedent that the monarch usually calls the LotO when a government falls and (pre-FTPA) it didn't want to go to the country, the easiest option would be to invite him to form a government and to put it to the test in the House.
  • Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
    No, it's the EP that needs to ratify; the Commission has no role in approving or rejecting the deal (which makes sense given, as you say, that the Commission nominee was negotiating the deal in the first place).
    The EU Parliament is represented by the commission, surely
    No, the Council was represented by the Commission in the talks.

    From Article 50(2):

    In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  • Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
    No, it's the EP that needs to ratify; the Commission has no role in approving or rejecting the deal (which makes sense given, as you say, that the Commission nominee was negotiating the deal in the first place).
    The EU Parliament is represented by the commission, surely
    Nope they are separate bodies. As I have always understood it :

    The European Council is the Executive
    The European Parliament is the legislature
    The European Commission is the Civil Service

    approximately anyway.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,761
    edited November 2018

    If the Tories lost a parliamentary VoNC (which I think is highly unlikely, but let's run with it), then my guess is that HMQ probably would ask Corbyn to form a government, unless the DUP were already clear that they would back a different Tory administration, and that administration could be in place within days. Corbyn would be jumping up and down for the chance and wouldn't be worried about embarrassing the Palace (indeed, you could expect noises off to be talking about Tory bias there). With that sort of pressure, and with the general historic precedent that the monarch usually calls the LotO when a government falls and (pre-FTPA) it didn't want to go to the country, the easiest option would be to invite him to form a government and to put it to the test in the House.

    The general historic precedent is that the monarch takes soundings as to who if anyone can command a majority, and only appoints someone as PM if he or she is likely to be able to do so. So unless Corbyn can tell the monarch (or actually the palace advisers) that he thinks he has enough support to win any confidence vote, he won't be appointed PM. In practice that would mean that Labour would have had to get agreement from the SNP, Plaid and the LibDems, and at least a promise of abstention from the DUP. Ain't very likely.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839

    Scott_P said:

    AnneJGP said:

    This raises a point that interests me (apols if it's already been covered, there are far too many comments for me to keep up with them).

    What happens if our parliament accepts the deal as it currently is, and then other parties in the EU insist on changes to it?

    The deal will no longer be what our MPs voted to accept.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    This was the point DD was making earlier this week
    As I understand it if it is signed off on Sunday it is only the Commission left to ratify it. As Barnier works for the Commission it not expected to fall there
    No, it's the EP that needs to ratify; the Commission has no role in approving or rejecting the deal (which makes sense given, as you say, that the Commission nominee was negotiating the deal in the first place).
    The EU Parliament is represented by the commission, surely
    Nope they are separate bodies. As I have always understood it :

    The European Council is the Executive
    The European Parliament is the legislature
    The European Commission is the Civil Service

    approximately anyway.
    The European Council is the Senate
    The European Parliament is the Democratic Body (whatever that means)
    The European Commission is the Executive

    At least, that's what Delors wanted.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,003

    The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.

    Is momentum now pushing towards the vote passing ?

    Brexiteers being peeled off, Ken Clarke voting in favour - just needs a concession or two for the DUP and May could be home and hosed. No doubt with a few Labour MPs staying away or backing her.

    Odds moving in Mays favour I think.
  • TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    Every child I know at grammar school (and many who failed the 11+) either;

    a) went to a fee-paying private primary school where the focus was solely on passing the test
    b) had a private tutor or
    c) had a parent able to tutor them

    It is no longer question of all the kids ust turning up and sitting the test one day without any prior warning, as apparently it was in the 1970s. Only about 50% of kids round here even sit the test as the rest are not entered by their (mainly working class) parents. It is very unlikely that a 10-year-old could pass the non-Verbal reasoning part of the test without some prior practice, even adults would struggle. State primary schools do not teach this and are barred from preparing their kids specifically for the test.

    Grammar schools take 23% of the brightest kids and most motivated parents away from surrounding schools. In doing so they take away many of the best role models and most aspirational people. Grammar schools prevent social mobility rather than enhancing it.



    That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.
This discussion has been closed.