"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
Depends on the subject, if it is A* in further maths versus B in the history of art then it is the A* star every time.
Lol - I don't think many inner-city comps offer A-level History of Art
I meant an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive in the same subject obvs.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
Only people who show up count. If Leavers boycott it in their millions as you suggest (and I don't think you are right, for the record) then it's their loss – they are conceding defeat.
I do however agree that No Deal won't be on the paper as it's nebulous and undefined (and, quite probably, impossible).
This is the best available deal short of remaining in the EU
You've gone from Dealer to Norway+ to Remain within a week. I expect we'll see that happen a lot next week.
Almost but not quite. TM deal is my preferered choice but Norway seems so close to remain, we may as well remain and take the EU on from within
The irony is that at this time, Merkel has virtually gone and Macron is plummeting faster than the pheasants mentioned earlier. Maybe UK could have a lot of influence inside the EU
Norway is not on offer from the EU
EFTA is looking unlikely as they are worrying that our Euroscepticism would be at odds with their Europhilia (they like the EU to a large extent)
So it is May's Deal, Remain or No Deal.
That is it. If Parliament will not countenance May's Deal or No Deal, then we only have one option left, but all these other deals people talk about are not going to happen.
Well there is the obvious option of a second referendum offering those three choices - but otherwise, I agree entirely.
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
Why not Remain?
It might not be the gift of us after the CJEU ruling.
Oh I a sure the powers that be have realised that actually letting people have a choice over how they are governed is a terribly bad idea as it gives them ideas above their station. Far better if we went back to the 19th century and limited the franchise to those who could be trusted to make the right decisions.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
Yes, let's have quotas for all professions too. Law, banking and medicine and journalism must take a set proportion by region, socioeconomic background etc regardless of merit
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
I agree except that they'll skip another referendum and just remain as it will be their "only option".
Is there a mechanism where a cross-party majority of MPs can vote to remain when faced with a no deal Brexit?
We’ll be an international laughing stock if we revoke Article 50, and rightly so having handled Brexit so incompetently. This Gov, which has no real conservative policies, has demonstrated only how inept they are and have succeeded in nothing but make Corbyn look credible. You have to be really pathetic to do that.
Revoking article 50 and letting Brussels tell our MPs what to do probably suits our MPs but doesn’t suit those of us who voted Leave who will rightly feel a sense of betrayal by a Parliament that is clearly unfit for purpose.
Not exactly. It's made the saner MPs on the political spectrum all the way from Emily Thornberry to Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke look credible. Particularly Clarke, for voting against A50. Apparently 90 MPs did so. I assume it was mainly the SNP, PC and L.Dems.
I agree with you about Grieve,not about the others. Grieve is the only MP who has given any thought to the issues and thought through how to achieve what he wants - even though what he wants is not what I want. Everyone else in parliament has been totally inept
On current evidence Grieve seems to be the most able of the lot of them.
I thought it had already been decided that it can be revoked?
I am obviously not keeping up!
That was the opinion of the ECJ's advocate general, made in accordance with the ECJ's instructions. In 80% of cases the court's final rulings are substantially similar to the Advocate's opinion.
I would not expect the ECJ's ruling to be substantially different, but they might try to plug a few minor holes in the opinion before making it a ruling.
One thing that might be very useful is if the gold-plate the opinion with more clarity in what might and might not be considered abusive/bad faith when it comes to A50.
Okay, understood. Many thanks for the explanation @grabcocque
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
I agree except that they'll skip another referendum and just remain as it will be their "only option".
Is there a mechanism where a cross-party majority of MPs can vote to remain when faced with a no deal Brexit?
I would prefer that, as it would be more honest than giving a the voters a choice between Remain and a Deal which they'd just voted down, which they don't want to implement, and which hardly anyone would be campaigning for.
The key takeaway from the Oxbridge stats - as it is every year - is that state school educated kids miss out at every stage, being less likely to take A-levels, less likely to make the minimum grades, less likely to get the very best grades, less likely to apply to Oxbridge, as well as less likely to get in (they actually outperform at Oxbridge thereafter I think).
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
Rubbish. Yougov has Deal 50% Remain 50% and Deal 62% No Deal 38% but Remain on just 52% to 48% for No Deal.
Deal v No Deal first question, winner faces Remain best option
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
I agree except that they'll skip another referendum and just remain as it will be their "only option".
Is there a mechanism where a cross-party majority of MPs can vote to remain when faced with a no deal Brexit?
I would prefer that, as it would be more honest than giving a the voters a choice between Remain and a Deal which they'd just voted down, which they don't want to implement, and which hardly anyone would be campaigning for.
As a leaver I would prefer it too as it would then be clear that the EU is in charge and we've no chance of leaving regardless of what the voters actually want.
I thought it had already been decided that it can be revoked?
I am obviously not keeping up!
That was the opinion of the ECJ's advocate general, made in accordance with the ECJ's instructions. In 80% of cases the court's final rulings are substantially similar to the Advocate's opinion.
I would not expect the ECJ's ruling to be substantially different, but they might try to plug a few minor holes in the opinion before making it a ruling.
One thing that might be very useful is if the gold-plate the opinion with more clarity in what might and might not be considered abusive/bad faith when it comes to A50.
Okay, understood. Many thanks for the explanation @grabcocque
Any idea why the ECJ advocate general makes their decision before the court does? Seems a bit odd.
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
"Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are."
Er... How did 'Leave' get on the 2016 ballot then?
"You know, Rees-Mogg, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage." "That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?" "Maybe you're not keeping up on current events. We just got our asses kicked, pal!"
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
Rubbish. Yougov has Deal 50% Remain 50% and Deal 62% No Deal 38% but Remain on just 52% to 48% for No Deal.
Deal v No Deal first question, winner faces Remain best option
Deal might win if there were anyone left to campaign for it, and Parliament could be trusted to implement it (which means the Commons would have to bind themselves to rubber stamp every bit of legislation that the government came up with to implement it)
This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.
Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).
I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.
But this is simply untrue. There is a solution that does respect the border issue and which both sides of the negotiation are agreed to. It may not be perfect but to claim that no solution exists and use that as an excuse to cancel Brexit is just dishonest.
And anyone advocating Remain now certainly cannot be said to be respecting the referendum.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
No deal won’t get on the ballot . The EC won’t sanction that question as it’s too vague .
We keep being told that 'Leave' was too vague but it still got on the ballot.
I'd have thought that's the obvious example of what goes wrong when a vague concept appears on a referendum ballot paper.
Hate to say it, but we can learn from the Irish on their abortion / gay marriage referendums. Government proposes changes it supports, works up all the details, asks electorate to endorse or reject.
In 2016 the great big and ill advised British public in a great big and ill advised referendum voted to leave the European Union under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate. Which it has now done. So the WA should be ratified and we should get on pronto with negotiating the very important future trading relationship, preferably with a really talented girl or boy heading it up.
C'est ca. It really is.
I am about to telephone Mogg, Grieve, Starmer and (if I feel up to it) Soubry to tell them exactly this.
Be surprised if they still play up on Tuesday after our conversation.
I'd have thought that's the obvious example of what goes wrong when a vague concept appears on a referendum ballot paper.
Hate to say it, but we can learn from the Irish on their abortion / gay marriage referendums. Government proposes changes it supports, works up all the details, asks electorate to endorse or reject.
Only “deal” and “no deal” are within the gift of the British electorate.
And since Parliament seems to plan to ignore them on the former, why should we expect any different on the latter?
I don't see how No Deal could ever be on a ballot paper. For one thing, Parliament will never agree to implement it, so could not risk it being an option.
Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are.
The referendum will be Remain vs May Deal, Brexiteers will boycott it by their millions, Remain will win by a landslide, UK will remain but on a referendum with zero legitimacy.
"Secondly, it'd never pass the electoral commission's clarity tests, since it's not clear to anyone what No Deal actually means and what the consequences are."
Er... How did 'Leave' get on the 2016 ballot then?
I thought it had already been decided that it can be revoked?
I am obviously not keeping up!
That was the opinion of the ECJ's advocate general, made in accordance with the ECJ's instructions. In 80% of cases the court's final rulings are substantially similar to the Advocate's opinion.
I would not expect the ECJ's ruling to be substantially different, but they might try to plug a few minor holes in the opinion before making it a ruling.
One thing that might be very useful is if the gold-plate the opinion with more clarity in what might and might not be considered abusive/bad faith when it comes to A50.
Okay, understood. Many thanks for the explanation @grabcocque
Any idea why the ECJ advocate general makes their decision before the court does? Seems a bit odd.
It is a strange system. There are actually 11 Advocate Generals rather than just 1. I am not sure how they decide which one will make the decision.
We have been told by HoC officials that you can't put down binding amendments to a non binding vote. So were they wrong? Or are all these amendments simply wasting time?
It's up to Mr Speaker to decide whether the amendments are effective and in order. I strongly expect an ERG-er to make a Point of Order asking for Bercow's ruling on whether the Swire amendment is effective and in order, and if so how.
TBH, if he's allowing the Benn amendment, he should really allow the government amendment. They're both stupid, non-effective, wrecking amendments IMHO.
It wasn't so much as to whether amendments are effective but whether or not they can actually be enforced in a non binding motion.
This is partly what the Dominic Grieve amendment was about - it says parliamentary rules stating that neutral motions cannot be amended should not be applied to government motions on Brexit. So the amendments are admissible. Whether they are binding or not is less clear, but I think the expectation is that the government will in practice have to accept any direction given by parliament using this mechanism, provided it is actually feasible I suppose.
"You know, Rees-Mogg, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage." "That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?" "Maybe you're not keeping up on current events. We just got our asses kicked, pal!"
and, of course
"Consider that a divorce"
'Grieve, you son of a bitch, E.U got you pushing too many pencils?'
We have been told by HoC officials that you can't put down binding amendments to a non binding vote. So were they wrong? Or are all these amendments simply wasting time?
It's up to Mr Speaker to decide whether the amendments are effective and in order. I strongly expect an ERG-er to make a Point of Order asking for Bercow's ruling on whether the Swire amendment is effective and in order, and if so how.
TBH, if he's allowing the Benn amendment, he should really allow the government amendment. They're both stupid, non-effective, wrecking amendments IMHO.
It wasn't so much as to whether amendments are effective but whether or not they can actually be enforced in a non binding motion.
This is partly what the Dominic Grieve amendment was about - it says parliamentary rules stating that neutral motions cannot be amended should not be applied to government motions on Brexit. So the amendments are admissible. Whether they are binding or not is less clear, but I think the expectation is that the government will in practice have to accept any direction given by parliament using this mechanism, provided it is actually feasible I suppose.
It's the only amendment which has made sense in the whole debate. Swire and Benn's are nonsense.
I'd have thought that's the obvious example of what goes wrong when a vague concept appears on a referendum ballot paper.
Hate to say it, but we can learn from the Irish on their abortion / gay marriage referendums. Government proposes changes it supports, works up all the details, asks electorate to endorse or reject.
If only, if only, we'd done the same with Brexit.
Then there would never have been a referendum and the hatred of the EU would have continued to grow. What we are seeing right now is the result of the imbalance between the views of the electorate and the views of Parliament.
They got to the right result for all the wrong reasons.
Seeing Scalia and Thomas voting for an Equal Protection violation was one of those things I thought I’d never see.
A decision process so bad and nakedly partisan they made it non-precedent making in full recognition of what they were doing.
I will mock to their face anyone who claims Scalia and Thomas made rulings strictly by their consistent interpretation of the Constitution through their judicial careers.
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
"You know, Rees-Mogg, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage." "That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?" "Maybe you're not keeping up on current events. We just got our asses kicked, pal!"
and, of course
"Consider that a divorce"
'Grieve, you son of a bitch, E.U got you pushing too many pencils?'
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
Indeed. Can't see how this wins friends and influences swing voters in those States though. They are 2 states the Don needs to win.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
Yes, let's have quotas for all professions too. Law, banking and medicine and journalism must take a set proportion by region, socioeconomic background etc regardless of merit
No need - if the Universities selected fairly the rest would fall into place.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Thank you for your well-argued post. Very persuasive - I'm almost tempted.
Think of the advantages. A whole wedge of people convinced that their belief trumps detailed facts and experience - a massive public education opportunity awaits when the ports gridlock. We'll have weeks of disruption to food, fuel and medicines. A get fit scheme for people out of fuel as they leg it round various supermarkets trying to find fresh produce.
i) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow ii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow iii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow iv) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow v) Seeks to change the legal truth of the WA, should be rejected by Bercow vi) Out of line with WA, should be rejected by Bercow vii) Field - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow viii) Baron - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow ix) Daniel Kawczynski - Ridiculous, will be rejected
Kawczynski ii); Mann; Cable all legally meaningless I think. But perhaps not out of order.
x) Daniel Kawczynski Fishing - In order, doesn't change anything legally, will be likely heavily defeated. xi) Mann - Standards. In order, legally meaningless. Should be adopted by the Gov't as a means to get pro Brexit Labour rebels onside. xii) Cable - In order (I think), will probably be allowed by Bercow. Could well see the Gov't win the meaningful vote if passed, legally doesn't mean much I think.
xiii) Swire - Complete nonsense, should be rejected by Bercow
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Certain schools, however, limit the applications to Oxbridge to one of their students per college I presume because the colleges feel it wouldn't look great to admit a slew of public schoolboys from the same place.
We have been told by HoC officials that you can't put down binding amendments to a non binding vote. So were they wrong? Or are all these amendments simply wasting time?
It's up to Mr Speaker to decide whether the amendments are effective and in order. I strongly expect an ERG-er to make a Point of Order asking for Bercow's ruling on whether the Swire amendment is effective and in order, and if so how.
TBH, if he's allowing the Benn amendment, he should really allow the government amendment. They're both stupid, non-effective, wrecking amendments IMHO.
It wasn't so much as to whether amendments are effective but whether or not they can actually be enforced in a non binding motion.
This is partly what the Dominic Grieve amendment was about - it says parliamentary rules stating that neutral motions cannot be amended should not be applied to government motions on Brexit. So the amendments are admissible. Whether they are binding or not is less clear, but I think the expectation is that the government will in practice have to accept any direction given by parliament using this mechanism, provided it is actually feasible I suppose.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Well, I wouldn't move to a worse system, which is what you are advocating.
Thank you for your well-argued post. Very persuasive - I'm almost tempted.
Think of the advantages. A whole wedge of people convinced that their belief trumps detailed facts and experience - a massive public education opportunity awaits when the ports gridlock. We'll have weeks of disruption to food, fuel and medicines. A get fit scheme for people out of fuel as they leg it round various supermarkets trying to find fresh produce.
Get fit and smart with Brexit!
There is a small part of me that thinks "Hard Brexit - bring it on, that'll teach the headbangers".
But then again, I like many others I know would be a bit scuppered if certain medicines are delayed or in short supply. So let's be sensible shall we?
If electing Boris saw Grieve, Soubry and Wollaston defect to the LDs that may even expand Boris' lead with Tory members even further
They are now ready to go. One of the Stop Boris group even met his constituency party chairman last week to seek approval for his sitting as an independent MP. Permission was granted, he says, because his local party members hate Boris even more than he does.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
i) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow ii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow iii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow iv) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow v) Seeks to change the legal truth of the WA, should be rejected by Bercow vi) Out of line with WA, should be rejected by Bercow vii) Field - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow viii) Baron - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow ix) Daniel Kawczynski - Ridiculous, will be rejected
Kawczynski ii); Mann; Cable all legally meaningless I think. But perhaps not out of order.
x) Daniel Kawczynski Fishing - In order, doesn't change anything legally, will be likely heavily defeated. xi) Mann - Standards. In order, legally meaningless. Should be adopted by the Gov't as a means to get pro Brexit Labour rebels onside. xii) Cable - In order (I think), will probably be allowed by Bercow. Could well see the Gov't win the meaningful vote if passed, legally doesn't mean much I think.
xiii) Swire - Complete nonsense, should be rejected by Bercow
Are the amendments published on the parliament website somewhere? I couldn’t see a list after a quick search.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Well, I wouldn't move to a worse system, which is what you are advocating.
In 2016 the great big and ill advised British public in a great big and ill advised referendum voted to leave the European Union under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate. Which it has now done. So the WA should be ratified and we should get on pronto with negotiating the very important future trading relationship, preferably with a really talented girl or boy heading it up.
No, in 2016 the British public voted unconditionally to leave the European Union. There was no conditionality in it. You are saying that we voted to leave only on whatever terms could be negotiated, which amounts to saying is that 17.4m voted to let the EU set the terms on which we are permitted to leave.
It is true though that the UK Goverment, or at least the PM, has given every impression of interpreting the the vote in the way you say, which is why we have got well and truly shafted.
In 2016 the great big and ill advised British public in a great big and ill advised referendum voted to leave the European Union under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate. Which it has now done. So the WA should be ratified and we should get on pronto with negotiating the very important future trading relationship, preferably with a really talented girl or boy heading it up.
C'est ca. It really is.
I am about to telephone Mogg, Grieve, Starmer and (if I feel up to it) Soubry to tell them exactly this.
Be surprised if they still play up on Tuesday after our conversation.
The argument is that voters and MPs were deluded rather than willful when they voted for Brexit and A50. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, they may want a rethink.
i) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow ii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow iii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow iv) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow v) Seeks to change the legal truth of the WA, should be rejected by Bercow vi) Out of line with WA, should be rejected by Bercow vii) Field - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow viii) Baron - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow ix) Daniel Kawczynski - Ridiculous, will be rejected
Kawczynski ii); Mann; Cable all legally meaningless I think. But perhaps not out of order.
x) Daniel Kawczynski Fishing - In order, doesn't change anything legally, will be likely heavily defeated. xi) Mann - Standards. In order, legally meaningless. Should be adopted by the Gov't as a means to get pro Brexit Labour rebels onside. xii) Cable - In order (I think), will probably be allowed by Bercow. Could well see the Gov't win the meaningful vote if passed, legally doesn't mean much I think.
xiii) Swire - Complete nonsense, should be rejected by Bercow
Are the amendments published on the parliament website somewhere? I couldn’t see a list after a quick search.
I'm not sure, am just going off the text as described on the website. Kawczynski ii, Mann and Cable ii don't immediately appear to be out of order to me.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Certain schools, however, limit the applications to Oxbridge to one of their students per college I presume because the colleges feel it wouldn't look great to admit a slew of public schoolboys from the same place.
Didn’t see that in my time - there were even two of us from one state grammar who got in to BNC.
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
What are they doing ?
Do you remeber when Republicans lost the North Carolina governorship election two years ago the NC GOP state legislature majority passed a bunch of laws stripping the govenor of power? Well the Wisconsin GOP are doing the same, on steroids. Stripping the govenor and attorney General of power, setting up a shadow board of education that can overrule the real board of education etc.
All passed in a bill that was voted on about an hour before sunrise.
The reason why Oxbridge has got away with it for so long is that there is a disproportionate amount of their alumni on both Tory and Labour benches. This may change now, of course, as Corbyn was far too thick to get into any university, let alone Oxford or Cambridge, in spite of his private prep school and top grammar school education
In 2016 the great big and ill advised British public in a great big and ill advised referendum voted to leave the European Union under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate. Which it has now done. So the WA should be ratified and we should get on pronto with negotiating the very important future trading relationship, preferably with a really talented girl or boy heading it up.
No, in 2016 the British public voted unconditionally to leave the European Union. There was no conditionality in it. You are saying that we voted to leave only on whatever terms could be negotiated, which amounts to saying is that 17.4m voted to let the EU set the terms on which we are permitted to leave.
It is true though that the UK Goverment, or at least the PM, has given every impression of interpreting the the vote in the way you say, which is why we have got well and truly shafted.
Deluded.
Or did you at any point think the UK alone could dictate the terms of the exit?
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Certain schools, however, limit the applications to Oxbridge to one of their students per college I presume because the colleges feel it wouldn't look great to admit a slew of public schoolboys from the same place.
Didn’t see that in my time - there were even two of us from one state grammar who got in to BNC.
My apologies I should have been clearer, the school in question is Slough Grammar. No idea how long the policy has been in effect.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
Of course in the case of some of the most wealthy colleges you run the risk of them simply deciding to withdraw from the public sector.
In 2016 the great big and ill advised British public in a great big and ill advised referendum voted to leave the European Union under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate. Which it has now done. So the WA should be ratified and we should get on pronto with negotiating the very important future trading relationship, preferably with a really talented girl or boy heading it up.
No, in 2016 the British public voted unconditionally to leave the European Union. There was no conditionality in it. You are saying that we voted to leave only on whatever terms could be negotiated, which amounts to saying is that 17.4m voted to let the EU set the terms on which we are permitted to leave.
It is true though that the UK Goverment, or at least the PM, has given every impression of interpreting the the vote in the way you say, which is why we have got well and truly shafted.
Deluded.
Or did you at any point think the UK alone could dictate the terms of the exit?
Others are arguing this when they say the leave deal should have been fleshed out before the referendum. Takes two to tango etc.
Thank you for your well-argued post. Very persuasive - I'm almost tempted.
Think of the advantages. A whole wedge of people convinced that their belief trumps detailed facts and experience - a massive public education opportunity awaits when the ports gridlock. We'll have weeks of disruption to food, fuel and medicines. A get fit scheme for people out of fuel as they leg it round various supermarkets trying to find fresh produce.
Get fit and smart with Brexit!
There is a small part of me that thinks "Hard Brexit - bring it on, that'll teach the headbangers".
But then again, I like many others I know would be a bit scuppered if certain medicines are delayed or in short supply. So let's be sensible shall we?
Like you, there are moments during a sleepless night when sometimes I wonder whether the twin benefits of extinguishing the rabidly anti-European virus and seeing the Tory Party banished from power for a generation would make proceeding to exit with no deal worthwhile. But no-one who cares about our country could seriously consider doing so for such political of reasons.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
I have to agree with the police officer. Without extensive training, entering water in such situations can be very very dangerous and often kill the rescuer. look how frequently people get killed trying to rescue dogs or children
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
What are they doing ?
Do you remeber when Republicans lost the North Carolina governorship election two years ago the NC GOP state legislature majority passed a bunch of laws stripping the govenor of power? Well the Wisconsin GOP are doing the same, on steroids. Stripping the govenor and attorney General of power, setting up a shadow board of education that can overrule the real board of education etc.
All passed in a bill that was voted on about an hour before sunrise.
The metaphors write themselves.
I really don't understand why the US allows these lame-duck sessions (or indeed Presidencies) at all. I understand the historical reasons, but it's time to move on (and, indeed, count the votes a bit more quickly too).
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Are there any? I'd be surprised.
I knew a department manager who only wanted to recruit from his old university. FCGI
Thank you for your well-argued post. Very persuasive - I'm almost tempted.
Think of the advantages. A whole wedge of people convinced that their belief trumps detailed facts and experience - a massive public education opportunity awaits when the ports gridlock. We'll have weeks of disruption to food, fuel and medicines. A get fit scheme for people out of fuel as they leg it round various supermarkets trying to find fresh produce.
Get fit and smart with Brexit!
There is a small part of me that thinks "Hard Brexit - bring it on, that'll teach the headbangers".
But then again, I like many others I know would be a bit scuppered if certain medicines are delayed or in short supply. So let's be sensible shall we?
Like you, there are moments during a sleepless night when sometimes I wonder whether the twin benefits of extinguishing the rabidly anti-European virus and seeing the Tory Party banished from power for a generation would make proceeding to exit with no deal worthwhile. But no-one who cares about our country could seriously consider doing so for such political or reasons.
Comments
I meant an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive in the same subject obvs.
Also if it meant the extreme remainer frothers leave then it would mean the Tory party represents their voters a lot better.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
I do however agree that No Deal won't be on the paper as it's nebulous and undefined (and, quite probably, impossible).
Is there a mechanism where a cross-party majority of MPs can vote to remain when faced with a no deal Brexit?
You have to see this as a cycle.
Deal v No Deal first question, winner faces Remain best option
Er... How did 'Leave' get on the 2016 ballot then?
"You know, Rees-Mogg, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage."
"That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
"Maybe you're not keeping up on current events. We just got our asses kicked, pal!"
and, of course
"Consider that a divorce"
Hate to say it, but we can learn from the Irish on their abortion / gay marriage referendums. Government proposes changes it supports, works up all the details, asks electorate to endorse or reject.
If only, if only, we'd done the same with Brexit.
In 2016 the great big and ill advised British public in a great big and ill advised referendum voted to leave the European Union under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate. Which it has now done. So the WA should be ratified and we should get on pronto with negotiating the very important future trading relationship, preferably with a really talented girl or boy heading it up.
C'est ca. It really is.
I am about to telephone Mogg, Grieve, Starmer and (if I feel up to it) Soubry to tell them exactly this.
Be surprised if they still play up on Tuesday after our conversation.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Robinson/status/1070951562728652800
I will mock to their face anyone who claims Scalia and Thomas made rulings strictly by their consistent interpretation of the Constitution through their judicial careers.
Pause.
Which universe am I in at the moment? Because this one is weirding me out.
Get fit and smart with Brexit!
My opinion on all the proposed amendments
First 9 are a nonsense:
i) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow
ii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow
iii) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow
iv) Wrecking, should be rejected by Bercow
v) Seeks to change the legal truth of the WA, should be rejected by Bercow
vi) Out of line with WA, should be rejected by Bercow
vii) Field - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow
viii) Baron - Tries to amend WA, should be rejected by Bercow
ix) Daniel Kawczynski - Ridiculous, will be rejected
Kawczynski ii); Mann; Cable all legally meaningless I think. But perhaps not out of order.
x) Daniel Kawczynski Fishing - In order, doesn't change anything legally, will be likely heavily defeated.
xi) Mann - Standards. In order, legally meaningless. Should be adopted by the Gov't as a means to get pro Brexit Labour rebels onside.
xii) Cable - In order (I think), will probably be allowed by Bercow. Could well see the Gov't win the meaningful vote if passed, legally doesn't mean much I think.
xiii) Swire - Complete nonsense, should be rejected by Bercow
When suddenly a lack of training is not a problem - oh and then they charge you with assault.
But then again, I like many others I know would be a bit scuppered if certain medicines are delayed or in short supply. So let's be sensible shall we?
It is true though that the UK Goverment, or at least the PM, has given every impression of interpreting the the vote in the way you say, which is why we have got well and truly shafted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/wisconsin-debacle-wasnt-worth-it-gop/577522/
All passed in a bill that was voted on about an hour before sunrise.
The metaphors write themselves.
Macron applying arbitary execution of the Jeune Gillets?
Or did you at any point think the UK alone could dictate the terms of the exit?
I have to agree with the police officer. Without extensive training, entering water in such situations can be very very dangerous and often kill the rescuer. look how frequently people get killed trying to rescue dogs or children