Obama also said we would have to join a long queue with the EU at the back, and the UK behind them. Japan have listed 15 questions the UK will have difficulty answering until they agree with the EU, and and the threat is big Japanese companies will move UK Production to the EU. China keep saying Hinkley Wood.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
To be eligible:
- You must be under 56 years of age;
- You, or you and your family, must meet all health, character and English ability requirements; and
- You must be able to meet a pass mark of 100 points in the Points System to register an Expression of Interest.
As I understand it 'open door' means if you meet the criteria and get enough points you can go, there is no limit on numbers.
Last edited:
Trouble is Col we live in an instant gratification world. We are not used to waiting for things, like Brexits and trade treaties. Or a promised new football stadium. Impatience rules. And it won't be impatient remainers like me who cause a fuss, it'll be the impatient Brexiters who have a very clear idea of what they want.
Classic example of this discussion just on the local news. The children's services in Alexandra Hospital in Redditch have been closed because doctors have said that the staffing and skill mix are not safe. Not to save cash. The locals are up in arms because now they have to drive 40 minutes to either Warwick or Worcester with their kids. To get a service which was better and safer than the one they were getting in Redditch. One local said 'we live here in Redditch, here is where we need the children's services'. Even though doctors, not managers, have said they are not safe. It's like the people in Stafford who complained endlessly (and correctly) about appalling service standards at their hospital and are now protesting to try and keep it preserved in aspic.
I agree. But with all the doom laden predictions before the vote not coming to fruition (yet) I just get a bit tired of everything being talked down.
Carney either panicked or was trying to say "told you so", but the rate reduction was completely unnecessary and has hit savers even further.
We need to back our nation and economy to be prosperous.
This is a cheery analysis.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
I see Carney is now claiming the credit for avoiding an instant recession.
A lot of the things I think more articulately expressed. Sadly. But the threat of American pharmaceutical companies bullying the UK through awesome lobbying is crap. Trust me, we've tried and failed multiple times, to my secret (when in the office) glee.
A brief history of English education since 1945
First there were grammar schools and secondary moderns and technical colleges. Both my parents went to grammar schools but left at 15/16. To work.
I was the last year group in my area to have the opportunity to go to a grammar school. I did, and like everyone else got there with no extra tuition or coaching, just a primary school education and the 11 plus. I was the first person in either side of my family to go to university, but most of my friends at school left at 16 or 18, only a tiny minority of us went to university (less than 5%). University was essentially free and high quality, but places were limited.
In most places grammar schools were phased out. Both my brothers went to comps, six form college then university. Where there were still a few grammar schools they became more selective as there were fewer places, and people started cramming and paying for private tuition to get in. The grammars started looking like private schools.
Then there was a massive expansion in university places, which became expensive and quality dropped. Lots of places were taken by foreign students who paid more. Everyone was expected to stay in education of some kind until they were 18. Many places at the remaining grammar schools, which are good at getting people into decent universities, go to kids who have been privately educated until 11 or 16. The ones near me are indistinguishable from private schools, except in sport, and they are more selective than them.
The local non grammar state schools are of such variable quality that, hugely reluctantly, both my kids have been educated at (excellent but not faultless) private schools for the majority of their time at school. Both have played sport to county level because of the opportunities they have got there. But I am too scared to calculate what it has cost in hard cash and delayed retirement. They are lucky that we were prepared to do this and could, just, afford to. Do they appreciate it? Of course not.
Now Theresa May wants to expand grammar schools again, in a kind of half hearted way. I benefitted hugely from this system, but I think this is nuts. Either you go for it 100% and make it possible for kids of all backgrounds to get there, without expensive private tuition or via the private education back door, or you forget about it and focus on improving quality in ALL schools. It is perfectly possible to get a great education in a comprehensive school if you do it right. It shouldn't cross any parent's mind to move house to get into a 'good' catchment area.
Apologies for the length of this, but it's a subject close to my heart, and will be for another five years. I don't have any answers, but education is one of the things I can say with confidence that my experience decades ago was better than what is available now (I know that isn't true of everyone) and that isn't right. How could we get something so important so wrong? Politics and ideology, probably.
Just read in the paper that 25% of state school pupils have private tutoring and that rises to 42% in London. Probably not to get into grammar schools but because the parents don't think the state system is good enough to deliver the grades needed to get into the University of Acton East. Bizarrely, even more private school pupils get tutoring, meaning the parents are paying twice. At least I didn't fall into that trap.
First there were grammar schools and secondary moderns and technical colleges. Both my parents went to grammar schools but left at 15/16. To work.
I was the last year group in my area to have the opportunity to go to a grammar school. I did, and like everyone else got there with no extra tuition or coaching, just a primary school education and the 11 plus. I was the first person in either side of my family to go to university, but most of my friends at school left at 16 or 18, only a tiny minority of us went to university (less than 5%). University was essentially free and high quality, but places were limited.
In most places grammar schools were phased out. Both my brothers went to comps, six form college then university. Where there were still a few grammar schools they became more selective as there were fewer places, and people started cramming and paying for private tuition to get in. The grammars started looking like private schools.
Then there was a massive expansion in university places, which became expensive and quality dropped. Lots of places were taken by foreign students who paid more. Everyone was expected to stay in education of some kind until they were 18. Many places at the remaining grammar schools, which are good at getting people into decent universities, go to kids who have been privately educated until 11 or 16. The ones near me are indistinguishable from private schools, except in sport, and they are more selective than them.
The local non grammar state schools are of such variable quality that, hugely reluctantly, both my kids have been educated at (excellent but not faultless) private schools for the majority of their time at school. Both have played sport to county level because of the opportunities they have got there. But I am too scared to calculate what it has cost in hard cash and delayed retirement. They are lucky that we were prepared to do this and could, just, afford to. Do they appreciate it? Of course not.
Now Theresa May wants to expand grammar schools again, in a kind of half hearted way. I benefitted hugely from this system, but I think this is nuts. Either you go for it 100% and make it possible for kids of all backgrounds to get there, without expensive private tuition or via the private education back door, or you forget about it and focus on improving quality in ALL schools. It is perfectly possible to get a great education in a comprehensive school if you do it right. It shouldn't cross any parent's mind to move house to get into a 'good' catchment area.
Apologies for the length of this, but it's a subject close to my heart, and will be for another five years. I don't have any answers, but education is one of the things I can say with confidence that my experience decades ago was better than what is available now (I know that isn't true of everyone) and that isn't right. How could we get something so important so wrong? Politics and ideology, probably.
Just read in the paper that 25% of state school pupils have private tutoring and that rises to 42% in London. Probably not to get into grammar schools but because the parents don't think the state system is good enough to deliver the grades needed to get into the University of Acton East. Bizarrely, even more private school pupils get tutoring, meaning the parents are paying twice. At least I didn't fall into that trap.
Last edited:
I passed the 11+ but went to Wren as all my friends went their instead of Clement Danes. I had a great time at Wren but learned nothing except the most important thing, life!
Seeing as I have the thread to myself, let's turn to those cute vermin, foxes. Apparently there are 33,000 urban foxes in the UK and 225,000 rural ones. Of the urban ones, approximately 32,500 live within a mile of my house.
Increasing numbers of people are trying to keep foxes as pets. Breeding them is unregulated. They cannot be tamed, toilet trained, taught anything and they stink. They are wild animals, totally different from dogs which are all descended from wolves and have had millennia of breeding and training to make then fantastic companions (I am a big fan of dogs). A fox can become dependant on a human for food but won't give much back. Even when it wags its tail it is a sign of submission, not pleasure. When the owners get bored of these creatures which will **** all over their house and bite strangers, they can't fend for themselves in the wild.
I like wildlife and think fox hunting is naff. But control of their numbers is sensible and keeping them as pets idiotic.
Thank you for your patience.
Increasing numbers of people are trying to keep foxes as pets. Breeding them is unregulated. They cannot be tamed, toilet trained, taught anything and they stink. They are wild animals, totally different from dogs which are all descended from wolves and have had millennia of breeding and training to make then fantastic companions (I am a big fan of dogs). A fox can become dependant on a human for food but won't give much back. Even when it wags its tail it is a sign of submission, not pleasure. When the owners get bored of these creatures which will **** all over their house and bite strangers, they can't fend for themselves in the wild.
I like wildlife and think fox hunting is naff. But control of their numbers is sensible and keeping them as pets idiotic.
Thank you for your patience.
Last edited:
Just to reinforce one of your points. I'm very close to someone who was planning to go to Holland Park Comprehensive in 1969. What he didn't know is that his working class parents had been approached by his junior school regarding trying for an ILEA-sponsored place at a central London day public school, instead. So, he went down to Blackfriars, was interviewed by the Head (no tests, just a chat) and awarded a place. Which he took.
This school kept the new intake who hadn't been to prep school in their own class for the first year. This was just as well, because - despite their potential - they were miles behind the prep school kids in knowledge, confidence and attitude towards learning. By the end of year one they could hold their own.
There is no way this persons parents could have afforded to pay for their bright kid to go to this school. They could barely afford the uniform, let alone anything else. If the school had insisted on these ILEA-sponsored kids taking an entrance exam (like the prep school kids did) they would never have passed it. The thought his parents could have afforded extra classes for their 10 year old in order to pass an entrance exam was ridiculous.
That boys parents would never have been able to compete with better-off parents to prepare their child for the competition to get into "a better school". It still goes on today at those state schools which are considered by their parents to give their children a better education. Places are competed for and children can be "prepared" to get in. Ever wondered what "preparatory school" actually means? There is no even playing field that gives all children a fair chance of winning a place. Money talks.
That's why a return to Grammar schools would be wrong. Let's make all schools good and give all children a chance.
Bloomberg.com
David Davis, the U.K.'s new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, made a statement to the House of Commons this week on the meaning of "Brexit means Brexit." Commentators were roundly unimpressed. If I may be allowed to say, their apparent determination to be unimpressed is beginning to grate.
To be sure, the complaints were partly justified: Davis could have said more about basic objectives. But Britain is at the start of a long negotiation. Neither he nor anybody else can know, much less dictate, the outcome. At this point it's ridiculous to demand a detailed description of Britain's future relationship with the EU.
The press continues to focus on the government's declared aim of restoring national control of immigration policy -- contrary to the EU's core principle of free movement of workers -- while maintaining maximum access to the union's single market. The EU's standard position has been that you cannot have both. To be a member of the single market you have to accept free movement.
Davis doubtless had this in mind when he told a questioner: "This government is looking at every option but the simple truth is that if a requirement of membership is giving up control of our borders, I think that makes it very improbable." Commentators took note: Davis wants to pull Britain out of the single market.
Next, one of Prime Minister Theresa May's officials was asked to clarify. Britain wants the best deal it can get, the official explained, and leaving the single market is not yet government policy. "He [Davis] is setting out his opinion…aying something is probable or improbable is not policy." Consternation ensued: May just slapped Davis down.
Let's recap. According to this popular line of commentary, Davis managed both to waffle meaninglessly and make a crucial policy commitment -- one on which May promptly stomped. Government in disarray. Brexit fiasco. Rending of garments.
What nonsense. If -- repeat, if -- the EU keeps insisting that membership of the single market is inseparable from free movement of workers, then resuming control of immigration will indeed mean no longer being a member. (That's, you know, a tautology.) If May then decided that retaining membership of the single market mattered more than restoring national control of immigration, that would indeed be news. So far, like Davis, she's consistently said the opposite.
The real question is whether any deal can be achieved that restores national control of immigration, while maintaining preferential access to, as opposed to formal membership of, the single market. Much of the U.K. press has assumed the EU's position to be that any such deal is impossible, and accepts that policy without questioning it.
This is plainly wrong. The U.K. could propose a very liberal agreement on immigration, one that nonetheless asserted its right of control, and the EU could decide this was liberal enough to be squared with unimpeded access to the single market.
Granted, this best and mutually advantageous outcome is pretty unlikely, partly because of British anti-immigrant sentiment, and partly because the EU is rarely quick to act in its own best interests. Even so, a second-best compromise ought to be achievable. And if the EU simply refuses to budge -- insisting on free movement in return for preferential access -- let's at least be clear that it will be making a (bad) choice, not surrendering to logical necessity.
It's a shame, but not that much of a mystery, that Britain's Brexit commentators can't be bothered to point this out. British analysts and commentators have been closely aligned in the view that Brexit was not just an error but an act of contemptible stupidity. They're still wedded to their role as cheerleaders for the Remain campaign, and heavily invested in the idea that disaster must now follow. This militates against constructive criticism of U.K. policy and any kind of criticism of the EU. Expect good news about the British economy to be played down and, so far as possible, every new development to be rendered as proof of Tory disarray and impending doom.
Well, the Tories are somewhat in disarray, Britain may very well have made the wrong choice, and things could go badly from here. All that is true. At the same time, Davis is right: The situation affords opportunities. Post-Brexit, the country has big choices to make and so does the European Union -- and how well or badly things turn out for both sides depends on those choices. My feeling is that the country would be better served by an even-handed weighing of these possibilities than by affirming the stupidity of Brexit supporters and contemplating, with such steady satisfaction, the horror that lies ahead.
David Davis, the U.K.'s new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, made a statement to the House of Commons this week on the meaning of "Brexit means Brexit." Commentators were roundly unimpressed. If I may be allowed to say, their apparent determination to be unimpressed is beginning to grate.
To be sure, the complaints were partly justified: Davis could have said more about basic objectives. But Britain is at the start of a long negotiation. Neither he nor anybody else can know, much less dictate, the outcome. At this point it's ridiculous to demand a detailed description of Britain's future relationship with the EU.
The press continues to focus on the government's declared aim of restoring national control of immigration policy -- contrary to the EU's core principle of free movement of workers -- while maintaining maximum access to the union's single market. The EU's standard position has been that you cannot have both. To be a member of the single market you have to accept free movement.
Davis doubtless had this in mind when he told a questioner: "This government is looking at every option but the simple truth is that if a requirement of membership is giving up control of our borders, I think that makes it very improbable." Commentators took note: Davis wants to pull Britain out of the single market.
Next, one of Prime Minister Theresa May's officials was asked to clarify. Britain wants the best deal it can get, the official explained, and leaving the single market is not yet government policy. "He [Davis] is setting out his opinion…
Let's recap. According to this popular line of commentary, Davis managed both to waffle meaninglessly and make a crucial policy commitment -- one on which May promptly stomped. Government in disarray. Brexit fiasco. Rending of garments.
What nonsense. If -- repeat, if -- the EU keeps insisting that membership of the single market is inseparable from free movement of workers, then resuming control of immigration will indeed mean no longer being a member. (That's, you know, a tautology.) If May then decided that retaining membership of the single market mattered more than restoring national control of immigration, that would indeed be news. So far, like Davis, she's consistently said the opposite.
The real question is whether any deal can be achieved that restores national control of immigration, while maintaining preferential access to, as opposed to formal membership of, the single market. Much of the U.K. press has assumed the EU's position to be that any such deal is impossible, and accepts that policy without questioning it.
This is plainly wrong. The U.K. could propose a very liberal agreement on immigration, one that nonetheless asserted its right of control, and the EU could decide this was liberal enough to be squared with unimpeded access to the single market.
Granted, this best and mutually advantageous outcome is pretty unlikely, partly because of British anti-immigrant sentiment, and partly because the EU is rarely quick to act in its own best interests. Even so, a second-best compromise ought to be achievable. And if the EU simply refuses to budge -- insisting on free movement in return for preferential access -- let's at least be clear that it will be making a (bad) choice, not surrendering to logical necessity.
It's a shame, but not that much of a mystery, that Britain's Brexit commentators can't be bothered to point this out. British analysts and commentators have been closely aligned in the view that Brexit was not just an error but an act of contemptible stupidity. They're still wedded to their role as cheerleaders for the Remain campaign, and heavily invested in the idea that disaster must now follow. This militates against constructive criticism of U.K. policy and any kind of criticism of the EU. Expect good news about the British economy to be played down and, so far as possible, every new development to be rendered as proof of Tory disarray and impending doom.
Well, the Tories are somewhat in disarray, Britain may very well have made the wrong choice, and things could go badly from here. All that is true. At the same time, Davis is right: The situation affords opportunities. Post-Brexit, the country has big choices to make and so does the European Union -- and how well or badly things turn out for both sides depends on those choices. My feeling is that the country would be better served by an even-handed weighing of these possibilities than by affirming the stupidity of Brexit supporters and contemplating, with such steady satisfaction, the horror that lies ahead.
What does your friend do now? Interesting to see if this assumed leg up in education may have benefitted him in later life. Wasn't Holland Park one of those comprehensives that went all radical about that time?
I think I agree with your last sentence. But I would need to be thoroughly convinced of the quality of the education before I threw my own kids into the system.
It also depends on the kids themselves as well. I did OK leaving school at 15. Others can end up at university and still cant get anywhere in life!
TBH, the benefit of attending a public school wasn't the point of my post. If we move back to a grammar school and secondary modern system, we'll end up with wealthy parents doing the best for their children and putting in the money and time to get their offspring to the required entrance standard so they get those places. The offspring of less wealthy people will not be able to afford to do the same, so their equally talented children will not get the education their potential deserves. They deserve better. We as a society deserve to aim higher.
I believe you're right about Holland Park. I didn't go there, but had friends who did. It was one of the first comprehensive schools, I believe, and my friends who attended in the early '70s seemed to get a pretty decent education.