LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
On schools and social mobility, there's a lot of data and evidence around to support it.
Basics like, around 6% of children are in private schools but they receive 14% of all spending on education.
If you look it up there's a fair bit of research into if it's the background of the kids that makes them more likely to be in elite jobs etc, or if it's the school and most of the evidence points to the private school further helping the child to make the gap bigger. Even the evidence that doesn't points to it being inconclusive, rather than demonstrating the opposite.
It makes sense. Why are you paying thousands of pounds a year if it wasn't walled? If it didn't confer an advantage?!0 -
Careful now W&G, that doesn't fit in with leftiebollox narrative/mythology...wallace_and_gromit said:
Foreign ownership is actually Blair’s legacy. Thatch’s privatisations all involved the government retaining a “golden share” which retained control of the privatised company within the government’s hands in certain circumstances relating to the strategic nature of the underlying activity. Blair (doubtless at brown’s suggestion) cancelled / surrendered such shares, thus facilitating foreign ownership.orraloon said:It's his bedroom wall poster. For to encourage the rightie hand jobbing.
Thatcher may be dead but her legacy lives on. One example: privatised water utilities, mega divis taken by e.g. furrin' pension funds while loading debt on the company accounts. What's wrong with that?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Because some kids aren't suited to being in a school of 2,000+rick_chasey said:On schools and social mobility, there's a lot of data and evidence around to support it.
Basics like, around 6% of children are in private schools but they receive 14% of all spending on education.
If you look it up there's a fair bit of research into if it's the background of the kids that makes them more likely to be in elite jobs etc, or if it's the school and most of the evidence points to the private school further helping the child to make the gap bigger. Even the evidence that doesn't points to it being inconclusive, rather than demonstrating the opposite.
It makes sense. Why are you paying thousands of pounds a year if it wasn't walled? If it didn't confer an advantage?!
Because some kids may need additional help - not all private schools are about top grades.
Because sport, music and drama may be important to the parents or kids
etc, etc0 -
Yeah so you’re conferring advantages to them that plenty can’t afford.Dorset_Boy said:
Because some kids aren't suited to being in a school of 2,000+rick_chasey said:On schools and social mobility, there's a lot of data and evidence around to support it.
Basics like, around 6% of children are in private schools but they receive 14% of all spending on education.
If you look it up there's a fair bit of research into if it's the background of the kids that makes them more likely to be in elite jobs etc, or if it's the school and most of the evidence points to the private school further helping the child to make the gap bigger. Even the evidence that doesn't points to it being inconclusive, rather than demonstrating the opposite.
It makes sense. Why are you paying thousands of pounds a year if it wasn't walled? If it didn't confer an advantage?!
Because some kids may need additional help - not all private schools are about top grades.
Because sport, music and drama may be important to the parents or kids
etc, etc
Come on Dorset.0 -
This was Brussels forced this to happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
Foreign ownership is actually Blair’s legacy. Thatch’s privatisations all involved the government retaining a “golden share” which retained control of the privatised company within the government’s hands in certain circumstances relating to the strategic nature of the underlying activity. Blair (doubtless at brown’s suggestion) cancelled / surrendered such shares, thus facilitating foreign ownership.orraloon said:It's his bedroom wall poster. For to encourage the rightie hand jobbing.
Thatcher may be dead but her legacy lives on. One example: privatised water utilities, mega divis taken by e.g. furrin' pension funds while loading debt on the company accounts. What's wrong with that?0 -
This argument doesn't pass the blush test, I'm sorry.Dorset_Boy said:
Because some kids aren't suited to being in a school of 2,000+rick_chasey said:On schools and social mobility, there's a lot of data and evidence around to support it.
Basics like, around 6% of children are in private schools but they receive 14% of all spending on education.
If you look it up there's a fair bit of research into if it's the background of the kids that makes them more likely to be in elite jobs etc, or if it's the school and most of the evidence points to the private school further helping the child to make the gap bigger. Even the evidence that doesn't points to it being inconclusive, rather than demonstrating the opposite.
It makes sense. Why are you paying thousands of pounds a year if it wasn't walled? If it didn't confer an advantage?!
Because some kids may need additional help - not all private schools are about top grades.
Because sport, music and drama may be important to the parents or kids
etc, etc
0 -
0
-
I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.0
-
0
-
Lazy grifter lazily grifting.kingstongraham said:What is going on?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I have no idea what your 3rd point is but I disagree with the 2nd point as I think for too long nobody has explained why so many 2nd generation immigrants are so anti-immigration.rick_chasey said:I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.
Another unasked question is why are so many brexiteers catholic0 -
rjsterry said:
Lazy grifter lazily grifting.kingstongraham said:What is going on?
And GB 'News' just being a mouthpiece of Torbrexit loons. If Ofcom doesn't wake up and do what a regulator ought to do, then there's no point in them at all.0 -
I still can't believe it, he was good in Lewis.0
-
You’re a commuter, not someone travelling long distances to get to the “London Office”rick_chasey said:
Plenty of people can’t and don’t work on the train.wallace_and_gromit said:
The original planning / justification for what was named HS2 was apparently capacity. But when the politicians got involved, they wanted it to sound more sexy, so the decision was taken to sell the concept to the public based on speed. Who isn’t impressed by the thought of British trains speeding British workers through British countryside at 400kph? Whereas who is impressed by addressing bottlenecks on existing lines? Rhetorical questions both, obviously.surrey_commuter said:
why don't you consider that you have been mugged off by a retro fitted capacity argument?rick_chasey said:
It's almost pointless discussing this with you when you won't consider **capacity**.surrey_commuter said:
that is one factor but speccing it to run trains at 240mph seems to be a bigger one.rick_chasey said:Was reading that apparently a lot of the extra costs that have spiralled for HS2 have come from Tory MPs in the Chilterns who are demanding a lot more tunnels to protect views etc.
It seems poignant that the original budget was £33bn to build the Y shaped high speed line yet they have already spent that and need to spend the same again to get it completed from the Scrubs to Brum.
At £33bn it was a marginal call on a ROI basis so my theory is that the interested parties blagged a low number on the basis they would spend hard and fast so that it was uncancellable.
Ignore the sunk costs and ask yourself whether at east £30bn is worth it to build a railway from west london to Brum, a journey so short that the trains will only reach top speed for 7 mins until they have to start slowing down again.
UK rails are used vastly more than pretty much any other railway in the the developed world. 70% of all delays are in some part down to congestion.
Every f*cking day there's a signalling problem or a points failure. It's almost certainly in part because they're used so much, way beyond design.
But no, let's wang on about how speed is the problem.
It's 2023, of course you need a f*cking fast train. Trains are unbearably slow in this country.
The millions of hours wasted by this godawful transport system.
why did they design and build it to world beating specs so trains could run fast if it was all about capacity?
Given the voters dislike / distrust of expensive projects given years of late, over-budget projects that taxpayers bail out, a further decision was taken to factor in the time savings from faster journeys as additional economic benefits. All those saved 40 minutes between London and Leeds soon add up.
This started to unravel when it was highlighted that most folk travelling on the proposed hs2 routes work on the train already, so saving 40 minutes here and there isn’t much of an issue. I can only assume that those who took the decision to rely on the economic benefits of saved time are high-ranking wasters who don’t work on their train journeys, but that’s by the by.
So the argument then reverted to “it’s about capacity, not speed”.
I certainly can’t and a quick glance around the carriage this morning I’d put the proportion of people working as around 1/10
from a remote northern outpost. HS2 was never about you working on the train.
0 -
There were ways and means of preventing overseas takeovers. IIRC, the French declared Danone’s yoghurts to be of strategic national importance to prevent a takeover. Though of course one of the UK’s problems in the eu was overzealous implementation of things that sensible eu nations either ignored, “re-interpreted” or put under a long term review before implementing.First.Aspect said:
Aside from the ones that were time limited anyway, is surrendering the golden shares anything to do with Maastricht, though? i.e. State control in some industries being illegal under EU law?wallace_and_gromit said:
Foreign ownership is actually Blair’s legacy. Thatch’s privatisations all involved the government retaining a “golden share” which retained control of the privatised company within the government’s hands in certain circumstances relating to the strategic nature of the underlying activity. Blair (doubtless at brown’s suggestion) cancelled / surrendered such shares, thus facilitating foreign ownership.orraloon said:It's his bedroom wall poster. For to encourage the rightie hand jobbing.
Thatcher may be dead but her legacy lives on. One example: privatised water utilities, mega divis taken by e.g. furrin' pension funds while loading debt on the company accounts. What's wrong with that?
Not something I know about - all I can do is find multiple hugely wordy academic publications on the issue from a quick google search, which I probably can't understand anyway.
0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what your 3rd point is but I disagree with the 2nd point as I think for too long nobody has explained why so many 2nd generation immigrants are so anti-immigration.rick_chasey said:I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.
Another unasked question is why are so many brexiteers catholic
Bluntly if you are brown and want to get support in a right wing party you have to double down on your anti immigration credentials to compensate for the fact everyone assumes because your parents were immigrants you’ll be pro immigrant.
0 -
I don’t agree.rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what your 3rd point is but I disagree with the 2nd point as I think for too long nobody has explained why so many 2nd generation immigrants are so anti-immigration.rick_chasey said:I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.
Another unasked question is why are so many brexiteers catholic
Bluntly if you are brown and want to get support in a right wing party you have to double down on your anti immigration credentials to compensate for the fact everyone assumes because your parents were immigrants you’ll be pro immigrant.
My best guess is that they don’t see potential immigrants as a homogeneous lump and so don’t see any link between their own parents right to come here and the undeserving hordes.
The points remains that we should be able to have a grown up discussion0 -
The whole point of the original report is that all spending is under review.rick_chasey said:
That's the plan.pblakeney said:
They have, they will, or it's being scrutinised and may not happen at all?rick_chasey said:
It's pretty good actually. They'll build a "Cambridge South" station too.pblakeney said:
Bad news within that report though...pangolin said:Good news for Rick, there are plans afoot to connect Cambridge via rail to... Milton Keynes...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66937239
"But with capital spending squeezed, all major transport projects are now being carefully scrutinised."
TBH, my bike rides are more or less a tour of villages who have signs up opposing the development, but what can ya do?
Crazy. It makes the place more attractive, not less.
Throw in the objections you mention and then things get shaky.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The whole thing is a stack of false assumptions.surrey_commuter said:
I don’t agree.rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what your 3rd point is but I disagree with the 2nd point as I think for too long nobody has explained why so many 2nd generation immigrants are so anti-immigration.rick_chasey said:I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.
Another unasked question is why are so many brexiteers catholic
Bluntly if you are brown and want to get support in a right wing party you have to double down on your anti immigration credentials to compensate for the fact everyone assumes because your parents were immigrants you’ll be pro immigrant.
My best guess is that they don’t see potential immigrants as a homogeneous lump and so don’t see any link between their own parents right to come here and the undeserving hordes.
The points remains that we should be able to have a grown up discussion
A single homogeneous national culture does not exist here or anywhere else. It is not static but constantly evolving. The relatively tiny number of immigrants through the asylum system will have minimal influence on the direction of that evolution but may add incrementally to it. That evolution does not represent a threat to be resisted, let alone something a government should concern itself with. That way lies prescribed forms of dress, patterns of speech, approved and prohibited forms of art and so on. I think we can all think of places that attempt such control.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Imagine thinking that you could judge the mood of the entire country on the basis of narrowly scraping a win in a by-election.
It would be like the LibDems basing their whole national strategy on opposing housing development.... oh, wait.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Especially a by-election where you lost virtually all of your previously healthy majorityrjsterry said:Imagine thinking that you could judge the mood of the entire country on the basis of narrowly scraping a win in a by-election.
It would be like the LibDems basing their whole national strategy on opposing housing development.... oh, wait.0 -
They're struggling to understand that it isn't core Tory values that got them elected, so no matter how authentically Tory they are, it is unlikely to appeal to a majority.0
-
…0
-
Rather like Corbyn was just a far left candidate, Sunak is pretty right-wing compared to other Tory leaders so it's all he can really do.TheBigBean said:They're struggling to understand that it isn't core Tory values that got them elected, so no matter how authentically Tory they are, it is unlikely to appeal to a majority.
It's not in his nature to swing towards the centre.0 -
She's not wrong that an awful lot of people think integration of immigrants is poor and if you go to the places where the asylum speakers end up, there is a lot of genuine ghettoisation, so let's not pretend that it's all hunky dory either.rjsterry said:
The whole thing is a stack of false assumptions.surrey_commuter said:
I don’t agree.rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what your 3rd point is but I disagree with the 2nd point as I think for too long nobody has explained why so many 2nd generation immigrants are so anti-immigration.rick_chasey said:I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.
Another unasked question is why are so many brexiteers catholic
Bluntly if you are brown and want to get support in a right wing party you have to double down on your anti immigration credentials to compensate for the fact everyone assumes because your parents were immigrants you’ll be pro immigrant.
My best guess is that they don’t see potential immigrants as a homogeneous lump and so don’t see any link between their own parents right to come here and the undeserving hordes.
The points remains that we should be able to have a grown up discussion
A single homogeneous national culture does not exist here or anywhere else. It is not static but constantly evolving. The relatively tiny number of immigrants through the asylum system will have minimal influence on the direction of that evolution but may add incrementally to it. That evolution does not represent a threat to be resisted, let alone something a government should concern itself with. That way lies prescribed forms of dress, patterns of speech, approved and prohibited forms of art and so on. I think we can all think of places that attempt such control.
0 -
I raise you an immigrant ghetto, one council estate.rick_chasey said:
She's not wrong that an awful lot of people think integration of immigrants is poor and if you go to the places where the asylum speakers end up, there is a lot of genuine ghettoisation, so let's not pretend that it's all hunky dory either.rjsterry said:
The whole thing is a stack of false assumptions.surrey_commuter said:
I don’t agree.rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what your 3rd point is but I disagree with the 2nd point as I think for too long nobody has explained why so many 2nd generation immigrants are so anti-immigration.rick_chasey said:I have come to the conclusion that Braverman's speech is actually a pretty common view and too many commenters are commenting on her own background, which is a very good reason why she delivered it in a way that put a lot of people off.
Another unasked question is why are so many brexiteers catholic
Bluntly if you are brown and want to get support in a right wing party you have to double down on your anti immigration credentials to compensate for the fact everyone assumes because your parents were immigrants you’ll be pro immigrant.
My best guess is that they don’t see potential immigrants as a homogeneous lump and so don’t see any link between their own parents right to come here and the undeserving hordes.
The points remains that we should be able to have a grown up discussion
A single homogeneous national culture does not exist here or anywhere else. It is not static but constantly evolving. The relatively tiny number of immigrants through the asylum system will have minimal influence on the direction of that evolution but may add incrementally to it. That evolution does not represent a threat to be resisted, let alone something a government should concern itself with. That way lies prescribed forms of dress, patterns of speech, approved and prohibited forms of art and so on. I think we can all think of places that attempt such control.0 -
Look I think what she says is awful but we’re all in cloud cuckoo land is we this she’s not articulating what a lot of people think.
0 -
Tru dat. This is why politicians like her are so dangerous.rick_chasey said:Look I think what she says is awful but we’re all in cloud cuckoo land is we this she’s not articulating what a lot of people think.
0 -
Otoh, her comments are clearly ridiculous. Someone who's entire identity is a whacking great mix of "multiculturalism", saying it doesn't work...
0 -
I don't believe her identity is anything to do with multiculturalism at all. It's pretty close to being the opposite of it.Jezyboy said:Otoh, her comments are clearly ridiculous. Someone who's entire identity is a whacking great mix of "multiculturalism", saying it doesn't work...
0
