• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

I personally agree with your views on religion Scara. I went to a COE school and at around the age of 7 I asked questions like 'If GHod exists then who created GHod?' and was cobbed of with the same old answers you hear from people who have read a book, retranslated and amended over a couple of thousand years by random people, which was probably just accounts of a schizophrenic having a few hallucinations anyway.

But religion in the west is on a rapid decline in most places. The only western exception I can think of is the US where they have this constitutional 'One Nation Under GHod' cobblers that they don't seem to want to grow out of.

Isn't it better to have more people in the western world where the chances are they may turn atheist (I for one know many migrants both Christian and Muslim who assimilated to the UK and rejected their faith) rather than in a nation where they are told their doctrine is the work of a mighty deity?

You assume adequate integration here, no?

Is that a safe assumption?

In, the world will only be a better place if more countries formed together like the EU.

The nation state has done a lot of good for the world (as well as a lot of bad of course). Weakening the nation state is not without problems and what you talk about as the only way for the world to be a better place seems to do just that. It's largely untested and seems to have obvious downsides.

It was a blog post linked from the comments on a Spectator article - can't even find the Spectator article now.

The general gist of it was that Sanders would obviously ruin the US economy and Trump is a very risky unknown. 5 years is quite a long time in economic prediction terms, and if we do leave the EU, the first few years will be the most vital. Keep a strong economy and they will continue to need our demand, tie up too closely to a tanking US economy and our spend might be low enough that we have a weak hand against the EU.

Do you think Sanders would be worse for the US economy than Bush (jr.)?

Continued de-regulation of wall street and corporations could easily be much worse for the US economy than Sanders (imo). This seems pretty much a given with Trump, though actually predicting what he will do is difficult.

As a quick example... How much do you think the war on drugs is harming the US economy? Directly and indirectly. Untreated addiction. Black market. Crime. Incarcerations... It's somewhere between a metric fudge ton and absolutely staggering in my uneducated estimation. Sanders might just be someone that might just do something about this problem. Will any of the republicans? Will Clinton?

Edit: It's obviously a much too complex issue to get really into. And I certainly don't have the knowledge to change minds. But the US economy isn't doing great (understatement of the year) and what's gotten them there hasn't been a Sanders approach.
 
Do you think Sanders would be worse for the US economy than Bush (jr.)?

Continued de-regulation of wall street and corporations could easily be much worse for the US economy than Sanders (imo). This seems pretty much a given with Trump, though actually predicting what he will do is difficult.

As a quick example... How much do you think the war on drugs is harming the US economy? Directly and indirectly. Untreated addiction. Black market. Crime. Incarcerations... It's somewhere between a metric fudge ton and absolutely staggering in my uneducated estimation. Sanders might just be someone that might just do something about this problem. Will any of the republicans? Will Clinton?

Edit: It's obviously a much too complex issue to get really into. And I certainly don't have the knowledge to change minds. But the US economy isn't doing great (understatement of the year) and what's gotten them there hasn't been a Sanders approach.
I think that large scale changes to an economy (especially away from that country's natural centre ground) are almost always a bad idea.

I think that Trump might be a dangerous outlier, he might be more moderate if he wins the nomination - I suspect the markets would be wary of him too though. Sanders is just as likely to scare the markets, the US doesn't do socialism - it's just not in the country's nature. IMO that's why it's been so successful for so long (recent years excepted).

Clinton (as distasteful as she is on a personal level) is probably the best (safest) thing for a US economy right now IMO. I suspect the markets would probably agree.
 
The Europe Debate....Pensions.

1995 - women's state pension age to be equalised
Following pressure from Europe, the Conservative Government was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women. The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.

This was the catalyst for pensions to be raised in our country.Not sure about Scotland.LOL

2007 - further rises in pension age to 66, 67, and then 68 introduced

The Labour Government passed a new law to raise state pension age to 66 between April 2024 and April 2026, then to 67 between April 2034 and April 2036 and to 68 between April 2044 and April 2046.


Not everyone is in a state of good health at 65..its 67 now for some. Also, jobs are harder to find as you get older.
Shouldn't we have some leisure before we die?

Again we [ordinary folk] have no say.
 
The Europe Debate....Pensions.

1995 - women's state pension age to be equalised
Following pressure from Europe, the Conservative Government was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women. The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.

This was the catalyst for pensions to be raised in our country.Not sure about Scotland.LOL

2007 - further rises in pension age to 66, 67, and then 68 introduced

The Labour Government passed a new law to raise state pension age to 66 between April 2024 and April 2026, then to 67 between April 2034 and April 2036 and to 68 between April 2044 and April 2046.


Not everyone is in a state of good health at 65..its 67 now for some. Also, jobs are harder to find as you get older.
Shouldn't we have some leisure before we die?


Again we [ordinary folk] have no say.

If we die "on the job" no pension payout, innit?
Money saved from the pot so the Government can spend it elsewhere...lovely jubbly
 
If we die "on the job" no pension payout, innit?
Money saved from the pot so the Government can spend it elsewhere...lovely jubbly

I wish and it is probably my main reason for disliking the EU is that the lazy oiks in other countries get to retire so much earlier than us but we have to follow all their rules. Make the lazy bricks in Greece and France retire the same age as us if we do have to have all their stupid fcuking laws.
 
Will be interesting seeing the results of the election in Germany, the first major country to have an election since the migrant crisis in Europe.

I think Merkel had better get the new arrivals registered to vote as soon as possible of she might be in real trouble at a general election, I am of course not suggesting that her open door policy had anything to do with attracting a new large voting base for future elections.
 
Every school to become an academy, ministers to announce
chriscook.png

Chris Cook Policy editor, Newsnight
_88785498_gingerthinkstock.jpg
Image copyright Thinkstock
Plans to force all schools in England to become academies are to be outlined in the Budget on Wednesday.

The Department for Education is expected to publish draft legislation as early as Thursday, BBC Newsnight has learned.

The move would end the century-old role of local authorities as providers of education.

An aide to the education secretary has declined to comment.

Back in October, David Cameron said he wanted "every school an academy… and yes - local authorities running schools a thing of the past".

At the autumn statement a month later, the official document stated that the government wanted: "The next step towards the government's goal of ending local authorities' role in running schools and all schools becoming an academy".

The proposals under consideration by Education Secretary Nicky Morgan owe much to a pamphlet by Policy Exchange, the Conservative-aligned think-tank, which proposes mass-converting the remaining local authority schools into academies.

That document proposed the change for mainstream schools, but did not deal with the future of special schools.

_88782865_025398288.jpg
Image copyright European Photopress
Image caption Nicky Morgan is said to be considering the changes
Local authorities, in truth, have not "run" any mainstream schools since the early 1990s. They, instead, supervise them and offer them back-office services. The principal advantages to school leaders of academy status are that they are exempt from the national curriculum and the national pay regulations for teachers.

This report, in short, would mean the end of the national curriculum and national pay scales. By forcing the local authorities out of mainstream education, it would also finally unpick the local authority system of schools put in place in England by Arthur Balfour's Conservative government in 1902.

The proposals have been attacked by unions, local authorities and by the Labour party.

Lucy Powell, shadow education secretary, said: "There is no evidence to suggest that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement... In some parts of the country where standards remain a concern, all schools are already academies, yet the government has no other school improvement strategy."

The changing academy programme
This proposal would mark a third phase in the academy programme.

Before 2010, around 200 schools were opened as academies or converted into them.

These were struggling schools that required fast turnaround or were opening in areas of educational weakness. To that end, these "sponsor academies" were given exemptions from the national curriculum and on teachers' pay to help them adapt to tougher-than-usual circumstances.

From 2010 to the present, however, schools have been allowed to become academies if they wish to do so. These are known as "converter academies" - and were then Education Secretary Michael Gove's big change to the system.

This was a popular programme (partly because academies got extra cash for converting). So at the last count, there were 3,381 state secondaries, of which 2,075 were academies.

_88782867_004572033.jpg
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Former education secretary Michael Gove set out his new vision for schools in 2010
There remains, however, a big rump of schools which remain conventional local authority schools - particularly in the primary phase of education, where the cash incentives to convert were much weaker.

At the last full count, a year ago, there were 16,766 primary schools, of which 2,440 were academies. The remainder remain attached to the local authorities.

The think tank report, Primary Focus, proposes that the government "convert all primary schools into academies, and then ask each school to join an academy 'chain' by 2020". The remaining LA secondaries, it proposes, should be encouraged along the same tracks, although there should be less pressure to join an academy chain.

The Policy Exchange piece proposes an end to the local authority as we know it, with its reduction to a rump provider of specialist services. It continues: "Any Local Authority that wishes to maintain a school provision service and run a chain or offer support to schools within a chain must spin out as a mutual or social enterprise and become a legally separate entity."

Practical problems
There are a few implementation issues here. The biggest of these is very simple - we do not have enough good academy chains as it is. There is plenty of demand for school support services at the moment and some existing school chains are extremely weak; Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector, has recently started to worry more about them.

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "It is hard to see how the government's plans will work when there aren't enough high quality multi-academy trusts to cope with thousands more schools and some trusts are performing as poorly as the worst local authorities according to Sir Michael Wilshaw."

This proposal would also create a lot of work for the Department for Education, which has struggled with its existing workload. Since 2010, its role has gone from being a strategic body to deciding on rules for individual schools. The skills of its employees have not kept up.

Indeed, even the two most important things a Whitehall department must do, keeping to its budget and being accountable for spending, have proved beyond it. The free school programme showed that even the relatively simple task of opening new schools was extremely trying for them.

The Local Government Association, which represents the boroughs, has expressed concern about school accountability.

Roy Perry, chairman of the LGA's Children and Young People Board, said: "It's vital that we concentrate on the quality of education and a school's ability to deliver the best results for children, rather than on the legal status of a school...

"The LGA opposes both forced academisation, and giving significant powers relating to education to unelected civil servants with parents and residents unable to hold them to account at the ballot box."

Furthermore, this proposal would force the DfE to go ahead with plans to fix a number of awkward funding problems - for example, at what level it ought to fund small schools or schools with expensive private finance deals, for example. At the moment, local authorities absorb those problems. "Academisation" would remove that buffer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35814215

========

Thoughts? Is it realistic that this can be done across ALL schools in the UK AND in the suggested timeframe?
 
Every school to become an academy, ministers to announce
chriscook.png

Chris Cook Policy editor, Newsnight
_88785498_gingerthinkstock.jpg
Image copyright Thinkstock
Plans to force all schools in England to become academies are to be outlined in the Budget on Wednesday.

The Department for Education is expected to publish draft legislation as early as Thursday, BBC Newsnight has learned.

The move would end the century-old role of local authorities as providers of education.

An aide to the education secretary has declined to comment.

Back in October, David Cameron said he wanted "every school an academy… and yes - local authorities running schools a thing of the past".

At the autumn statement a month later, the official document stated that the government wanted: "The next step towards the government's goal of ending local authorities' role in running schools and all schools becoming an academy".

The proposals under consideration by Education Secretary Nicky Morgan owe much to a pamphlet by Policy Exchange, the Conservative-aligned think-tank, which proposes mass-converting the remaining local authority schools into academies.

That document proposed the change for mainstream schools, but did not deal with the future of special schools.

_88782865_025398288.jpg
Image copyright European Photopress
Image caption Nicky Morgan is said to be considering the changes
Local authorities, in truth, have not "run" any mainstream schools since the early 1990s. They, instead, supervise them and offer them back-office services. The principal advantages to school leaders of academy status are that they are exempt from the national curriculum and the national pay regulations for teachers.

This report, in short, would mean the end of the national curriculum and national pay scales. By forcing the local authorities out of mainstream education, it would also finally unpick the local authority system of schools put in place in England by Arthur Balfour's Conservative government in 1902.

The proposals have been attacked by unions, local authorities and by the Labour party.

Lucy Powell, shadow education secretary, said: "There is no evidence to suggest that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement... In some parts of the country where standards remain a concern, all schools are already academies, yet the government has no other school improvement strategy."

The changing academy programme
This proposal would mark a third phase in the academy programme.

Before 2010, around 200 schools were opened as academies or converted into them.

These were struggling schools that required fast turnaround or were opening in areas of educational weakness. To that end, these "sponsor academies" were given exemptions from the national curriculum and on teachers' pay to help them adapt to tougher-than-usual circumstances.

From 2010 to the present, however, schools have been allowed to become academies if they wish to do so. These are known as "converter academies" - and were then Education Secretary Michael Gove's big change to the system.

This was a popular programme (partly because academies got extra cash for converting). So at the last count, there were 3,381 state secondaries, of which 2,075 were academies.

_88782867_004572033.jpg
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Former education secretary Michael Gove set out his new vision for schools in 2010
There remains, however, a big rump of schools which remain conventional local authority schools - particularly in the primary phase of education, where the cash incentives to convert were much weaker.

At the last full count, a year ago, there were 16,766 primary schools, of which 2,440 were academies. The remainder remain attached to the local authorities.

The think tank report, Primary Focus, proposes that the government "convert all primary schools into academies, and then ask each school to join an academy 'chain' by 2020". The remaining LA secondaries, it proposes, should be encouraged along the same tracks, although there should be less pressure to join an academy chain.

The Policy Exchange piece proposes an end to the local authority as we know it, with its reduction to a rump provider of specialist services. It continues: "Any Local Authority that wishes to maintain a school provision service and run a chain or offer support to schools within a chain must spin out as a mutual or social enterprise and become a legally separate entity."

Practical problems
There are a few implementation issues here. The biggest of these is very simple - we do not have enough good academy chains as it is. There is plenty of demand for school support services at the moment and some existing school chains are extremely weak; Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector, has recently started to worry more about them.

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "It is hard to see how the government's plans will work when there aren't enough high quality multi-academy trusts to cope with thousands more schools and some trusts are performing as poorly as the worst local authorities according to Sir Michael Wilshaw."

This proposal would also create a lot of work for the Department for Education, which has struggled with its existing workload. Since 2010, its role has gone from being a strategic body to deciding on rules for individual schools. The skills of its employees have not kept up.

Indeed, even the two most important things a Whitehall department must do, keeping to its budget and being accountable for spending, have proved beyond it. The free school programme showed that even the relatively simple task of opening new schools was extremely trying for them.

The Local Government Association, which represents the boroughs, has expressed concern about school accountability.

Roy Perry, chairman of the LGA's Children and Young People Board, said: "It's vital that we concentrate on the quality of education and a school's ability to deliver the best results for children, rather than on the legal status of a school...

"The LGA opposes both forced academisation, and giving significant powers relating to education to unelected civil servants with parents and residents unable to hold them to account at the ballot box."

Furthermore, this proposal would force the DfE to go ahead with plans to fix a number of awkward funding problems - for example, at what level it ought to fund small schools or schools with expensive private finance deals, for example. At the moment, local authorities absorb those problems. "Academisation" would remove that buffer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35814215

========

Thoughts? Is it realistic that this can be done across ALL schools in the UK AND in the suggested timeframe?
About time too.

Local councils are full of trots and teaching unions have far too much power - most teachers can tell you stories of at least one lazy/incompetent, unsackable colleague (often the union rep!).
 
About time too.

Local councils are full of trots and teaching unions have far too much power - most teachers can tell you stories of at least one lazy/incompetent, unsackable colleague (often the union rep!).

I believe your wife is a teacher, is that correct?

If so, what does she think and what's the general consensus at her school?
 
I believe your wife is a teacher, is that correct?

If so, what does she think and what's the general consensus at her school?
Her position is slightly different as she has spent the large proportion of her career working in Portsmouth (fudge knows why). Portsmouth council decided to stay independent from Hampshire County Council and run its own schools. Due to the incompetence of the local council, Portsmouth has the educational standards of the North West in the South East.

So she's very much for local councils staying the fudge out of the way when it comes to schooling. She's also very much in favour (as are most good teachers) of unions being unable to stop under performing teachers from getting sacked.

Where her and my opinions differ is that she isn't so keen on removing national pay grades for teachers - I think it's a great idea. I think that's a lot of self-preservation in there for her though - she's rightly proud of her contribution to our income and wants to keep it as high as possible. I, on the other hand, see her input as a significant but not essential part of our combined income.
 
On the budget as a whole, what a fudging horror show - comrade George is clearly under the impression this is North Korea or something.

Not content with raping British business with the "way more than they're worth" wage, the Trot in sheep's clothing now shouts about giving us a tax cut whilst rubbing his hands and stealing it all back in NIC. fudging thief.
 
The Tory obsession with kicking the disabled continues. Even some of their own are getting sick of it now:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...get-sparks-tory-backbenchers-call-for-rethink

...It also emerged on Wednesday that the Conservative Disability Group posted a message saying its website was “temporarily closed owing to Disability Cuts and the resignation because of these of Webmaster Graeme Ellis”.

Ellis said he was a lifelong Conservative supporter until Wednesday afternoon but the PIP cuts were the last straw. He said his message to Conservative MPs thinking about rebelling was: “Please do it, show that you care and you will end up saving lives.”

He told the Guardian: “I will never vote Conservative again and I’ve never voted for anyone else but today it has destroyed my faith in the party … My work is about advice and guidance on benefits and some of the phone calls I’ve had from some of my clients this afternoon after the budget have made me want to cry.

“It’s not been explained properly and vulnerable people are all thinking they are going to be affected immediately. I’ve had one person said he’s going to kill himself. My job is becoming more and more difficult because it’s soul destroying and not because of the clients. The proposed cuts in PIP and drop in taxation for those that are fortunate enough to be better off are just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
 
The Tory obsession with kicking the disabled continues. Even some of their own are getting sick of it now:
What makes you think it's an obsession with kicking the disabled rather than the disabled also having to face cuts just like everyone else?

He told the Guardian: “I will never vote Conservative again and I’ve never voted for anyone else but today it has destroyed my faith in the party … My work is about advice and guidance on benefits and some of the phone calls I’ve had from some of my clients this afternoon after the budget have made me want to cry.

“It’s not been explained properly and vulnerable people are all thinking they are going to be affected immediately. I’ve had one person said he’s going to kill himself. My job is becoming more and more difficult because it’s soul destroying and not because of the clients.

Not sure it's the government's job to do people's thinking for them.

The proposed cuts in PIP and drop in taxation for those that are fortunate enough to be better off are just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
What tax cut would that be? The one on PAYE that's been more than swallowed up by an increase in NIC? Or the massive new tax on business that means we don't make enough profits to pay ourselves a decent wage?
 
About time too.

Local councils are full of trots and teaching unions have far too much power - most teachers can tell you stories of at least one lazy/incompetent, unsackable colleague (often the union rep!).

They will become unaccountable, inconsistent and tiered.
Ofsted currently has no legal power to inspect Acadamy chains.
 
About time too.

Local councils are full of trots and teaching unions have far too much power - most teachers can tell you stories of at least one lazy/incompetent, unsackable colleague (often the union rep!).

This is such a stereotype and is not borne out by reality at all. Heaps of teachers in the state system vote Tory, GHod knows why?
 
This is such a stereotype and is not borne out by reality at all. Heaps of teachers in the state system vote Tory, GHod knows why?
Agreed.

And "most employees" can you tell you of a colleague that takes the tinkle and is lazy too.

One difference between the private and public sector (I'm sure Scars will disagree. My view is from my experience of managing operations and performance in the private sector and in central Gov.) is that the public sector cannot afford to have the coasters so the recruitment process has to be really stringent. People still get managed out, but the private sector (medium SMEs and below aside) can afford to carry a coaster for a while. The public sector cannot as there is I. A real desire to use public money efficiently II. Robust scrutiny of the use of public money.
The stereotype of the public sector being underperforming, inflexible layabouts is outdated and ignorant.
And this is especially true of teachers and drs/nurses.

"Most teachers" will also tell you about the 70+ hours a week they work and the very low wage that goes with it
(put the skillset of being educated to Masters level, presenting to difficult clients, delivering client education, managing performance and behaviour Into the private sector and see what salary is possible)
 
Nicky Morgan. Discuss.......

(I do wonder if a. She knows she isn't getting any further in politics so is giving herself a media profile for those future slots on This Week or b. The Tory's are making her go on QT and hanging her out to dry)
 
Agreed.

And "most employees" can you tell you of a colleague that takes the tinkle and is lazy too.

One difference between the private and public sector (I'm sure Scars will disagree. My view is from my experience of managing operations and performance in the private sector and in central Gov.) is that the public sector cannot afford to have the coasters so the recruitment process has to be really stringent. People still get managed out, but the private sector (medium SMEs and below aside) can afford to carry a coaster for a while. The public sector cannot as there is I. A real desire to use public money efficiently II. Robust scrutiny of the use of public money.
The stereotype of the public sector being underperforming, inflexible layabouts is outdated and ignorant.
And this is especially true of teachers and drs/nurses.

"Most teachers" will also tell you about the 70+ hours a week they work and the very low wage that goes with it
(put the skillset of being educated to Masters level, presenting to difficult clients, delivering client education, managing performance and behaviour Into the private sector and see what salary is possible)

There are a hell of a lot of blurred lines in terms of the stereotypes of what actually happens to those working in "Private sector" and "Public sector", much like "Left" and "Right" wing....three rights make a left anyway...

Sadly the extremist in both camps ramp up the stereotypes for their own gains..
 
Nicky Morgan. Discuss.......

(I do wonder if a. She knows she isn't getting any further in politics so is giving herself a media profile for those future slots on This Week or b. The Tory's are making her go on QT and hanging her out to dry)

Why do you ask this? What happened on QT (apart from her trying to use her stare to hypnotise people lol:p)?
 
Back