Who will be the new Labour leader?

[edh]

turbobloke said:

Corbyn et al would benefit from a careful consideration of some comments from a former PM, in particular (as near as dammit) that one of the key problems of our age involves being governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas; and that nobody would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions...he had money as well. Vilifying and victimising those who pay for almost everything, including the means to help those in genuine need, while offering nothing more than feelgood emotive rhetoric in return, cannot possibly represent any workable solution for the country's future.

Corbyn has more policy proposals than any of the other candidates, and is shorter on rhetoric. He has surprised me

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Corbyn et al would benefit from a careful consideration of some comments from a former PM, in particular (as near as dammit) that one of the key problems of our age involves being governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas; and that nobody would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions...he had money as well. Vilifying and victimising those who pay for almost everything, including the means to help those in genuine need, while offering nothing more than feelgood emotive rhetoric in return, cannot possibly represent any workable solution for the country's future.

Corbyn has more policy proposals than any of the other candidates, and is shorter on rhetoric. He has surprised me.

I can see what you mean. That said, my comment wasn't about relativity in terms of other candidates - though it's a fair point to make - whereas it was about the nature of his policy proposals and more limited rhetoric. These are unworkable, how far he approaches the unworkability of the Green Party manifesto remains to be seen, he could get close.

[eharding]

Andy Zarse said:

Thus I think being Leader of the Opposition is well beyond his pay scale and it will be a complete misery for him.

It will be pretty hellish for JC, but *much* more hellish for much of the rest of the PLP.

The immediate- to medium-term for Labour looks like being a cross between Reservoir Dogs, the Muppet Movies (all of them) and Citizen Smith.

I, for one, am thoroughly looking forward to it.

[TheExcession]

robinessex said:

So, if elected labour leader, he may turn out to have quite a bite. Personally, I'd love a Labour leader who could stand up in Parliament, and tear the Tories to pieces. Don't care who it is either.

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

My God (I don't have, want nor need a God, but you get the gist), if only the two sides could say to each other 'Well, that seems to be working, it could be improved by doing xyz'. 'We'd like a bit more attention to abc and these are the people we'd like you to consult with'.

This whole idea of the opposition being against EVERYTHING the other side does is insane - how can one as an opposition leader not be allowed to agree with anything the other team did?

Do Labour really disagree 100% with everything the Tories are trying to do, do the Tories really disagree 100% with everything that Labour stand for?

Of course they don't, yet this is what on the front line of the media stage they are fighting for.

It just baffles me - do they not know how to horse trade anymore and just agree on a few issues that might make the world a better place? No, they just slag each other off and make cheap shots at each other.

[anonymous-user]

TheExcession said:

robinessex said:

So, if elected labour leader, he may turn out to have quite a bite. Personally, I'd love a Labour leader who could stand up in Parliament, and tear the Tories to pieces. Don't care who it is either.

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

My God (I don't have, want nor need a God, but you get the gist), if only the two sides could say to each other 'Well, that seems to be working, it could be improved by doing xyz'. 'We'd like a bit more attention to abc and these are the people we'd like you to consult with'.

This whole idea of the opposition being against EVERYTHING the other side does is insane - how can one as an opposition leader not be allowed to agree with anything the other team did?

Do Labour really disagree 100% with everything the Tories are trying to do, do the Tories really disagree 100% with everything that Labour stand for?

Of course they don't, yet this is what on the front line of the media stage they are fighting for.

It just baffles me - do they not know how to horse trade anymore and just agree on a few issues that might make the world a better place? No, they just slag each other off and make cheap shots at each other.

The problem is that the means to an end that government and opposition should be working towards has become the end in itself. All they care about is themselves and what they do, not the objectives that they should be trying to achieve.

[eharding]

TheExcession said:

It just baffles me - do they not know how to horse trade anymore and just agree on a few issues that might make the world a better place? No, they just slag each other off and make cheap shots at each other.

Plenty of Parliamentary horse-trading goes on, just as it always has. The trouble is, if there is general cross-party consensus on a particular issue - say smoking for example - then those who feel they're going to be negatively affected by legislation based on that consensus start screaming about the Cosy Westminster Bubble.

Conversely, when Government and Official Opposition start having it large with a proper Parliamentary Dust-Up, folk start moaning about Punch & Judy politics.

The usual day-to-day business of having Parliament debate and vote on general legislation - and this is where a lot of the inter- and intra-party horse-trading goes on - is as dull as extra-dull ditchwater, and doesn't get lurid media coverage.

Suggest you take time out to read the entire content of Hansard for a week. You'll be desperate for some slagging off and cheap shots before the end of Day 1.

[Halb]

TheExcession said:

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

Such as when M Foot backed M Thatcher on the Falklands.

[turbobloke]

Halb said:

TheExcession said:

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

Such as when M Foot backed M Thatcher on the Falklands.

Compare and contrast with D Cameron backing A Blair on Iraq with J Corbyn wanting to apologise if he's Labour leader.

Also there's this from July "David Cameron has invited acting Labour leader Harriet Harman to a high-level security meeting about the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) extremists" and "Labour has hinted it would not oppose action in Syria, as it did in 2013".

[turbobloke]

Perhaps I should add a PS that I appreciate IDS was in on the act but CMD voted for the war and then as leader reaffirmed support for Blair's war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm

[edh]

turbobloke said:

Halb said:

TheExcession said:

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

Such as when M Foot backed M Thatcher on the Falklands.

Compare and contrast with D Cameron backing A Blair on Iraq with J Corbyn wanting to apologise if he's Labour leader.

Also there's this from July "David Cameron has invited acting Labour leader Harriet Harman to a high-level security meeting about the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) extremists" and "Labour has hinted it would not oppose action in Syria, as it did in 2013".

Greater scrutiny by the Tories might have prevented the Iraq catastrophe. Don't forget that there were warnings about the lack of evidence and rush to war. I never believed the propaganda, neither did Corbyn. I think he comes out on the right side of this one.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Halb said:

TheExcession said:

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

Such as when M Foot backed M Thatcher on the Falklands.

Compare and contrast with D Cameron backing A Blair on Iraq with J Corbyn wanting to apologise if he's Labour leader.

Also there's this from July "David Cameron has invited acting Labour leader Harriet Harman to a high-level security meeting about the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) extremists" and "Labour has hinted it would not oppose action in Syria, as it did in 2013".

Greater scrutiny by the Tories might have prevented the Iraq catastrophe. Don't forget that there were warnings about the lack of evidence and rush to war. I never believed the propaganda, neither did Corbyn. I think he comes out on the right side of this one.

Apart from premature posturing / postering in terms of a promised apology before he's even been elected as leader, yes Corbyn does come out on the right side over eye rack. There were plenty of Conservative supporters who didn't swallow it either, including this one.

[julian64]

edh said:

ooh irony!

How about access to the Law? Disappearing fast under this government unless you have plenty of money

As for grammar schools - I guess you can always go & live in Kent?
Comprehensive state schools can produce great results - look at the London Challenge for evidence. (Not sure that Kent is outperforming the rest of the UK? London is).

Maybe they are talking about equality of access and opportunity? Access to a good local school and healthcare perhaps? Why don't they say it?

As it stands, the phrase is vacuous and the Tories could equally well adopt it.

Sorry that deserves a post. I live in kent, my youngest son passed his eleven plus with flying colours. We were told that there were no grammer schools he could go to in our area and was offered an academy sink school place.

So much for camerons pledge that every child who passes the eleven plus gets a grammer school place. We appealed but were refused in favour of children with failed grades who were within grammer schools catchment areas.

The upshot of which was that even in kent (and not deepest darkest kent but right near the M25) its just tough if you are outside a catchment area regardless of your childs ability.

[robinessex]

TheExcession said:

robinessex said:

So, if elected labour leader, he may turn out to have quite a bite. Personally, I'd love a Labour leader who could stand up in Parliament, and tear the Tories to pieces. Don't care who it is either.

And of course you also need an opposition leader who will stand up and say 'Given the circumstances I fully agree with the PM over his decision to do abc'.

My God (I don't have, want nor need a God, but you get the gist), if only the two sides could say to each other 'Well, that seems to be working, it could be improved by doing xyz'. 'We'd like a bit more attention to abc and these are the people we'd like you to consult with'.

This whole idea of the opposition being against EVERYTHING the other side does is insane - how can one as an opposition leader not be allowed to agree with anything the other team did?

Do Labour really disagree 100% with everything the Tories are trying to do, do the Tories really disagree 100% with everything that Labour stand for?

Of course they don't, yet this is what on the front line of the media stage they are fighting for.

It just baffles me - do they not know how to horse trade anymore and just agree on a few issues that might make the world a better place? No, they just slag each other off and make cheap shots at each other.

Quite, I agree. I'm sure the public would be much more amicable to politicians who genuinely seemed to be doing the best for the country, even if it means agreeing with the opposition on occasions. Take the refuge crisis. It’s so important, I’m sure the country would applaud a combined efforts between the two major political parties, with a resolution favourable to THIS country, that offers help to those who DESPERATELY need it.

[Andy Zarse]

julian64 said:

edh said:

ooh irony!

How about access to the Law? Disappearing fast under this government unless you have plenty of money

As for grammar schools - I guess you can always go & live in Kent?
Comprehensive state schools can produce great results - look at the London Challenge for evidence. (Not sure that Kent is outperforming the rest of the UK? London is).

Maybe they are talking about equality of access and opportunity? Access to a good local school and healthcare perhaps? Why don't they say it?

As it stands, the phrase is vacuous and the Tories could equally well adopt it.

So much for camerons pledge that every child who passes the eleven plus gets a grammer school place. We appealed but were refused in favour of children with failed grades who were within grammer schools catchment areas.

I've very little time for Cameron, but when did he ever make such a pledge? AFAIUI the Tories are not especially pro-grammar schools and have instead staked political capital on the free Schools movement (and which incidentally you could join if you are dissatisfied with the alternatives).

Also I just wonder how do you know the places were taken by children with "failed grades"?

[turbobloke]

Andy Zarse said:

julian64 said:

edh said:

ooh irony!

How about access to the Law? Disappearing fast under this government unless you have plenty of money

As for grammar schools - I guess you can always go & live in Kent?
Comprehensive state schools can produce great results - look at the London Challenge for evidence. (Not sure that Kent is outperforming the rest of the UK? London is).

Maybe they are talking about equality of access and opportunity? Access to a good local school and healthcare perhaps? Why don't they say it?

As it stands, the phrase is vacuous and the Tories could equally well adopt it.

So much for camerons pledge that every child who passes the eleven plus gets a grammer school place. We appealed but were refused in favour of children with failed grades who were within grammer schools catchment areas.

I've very little time for Cameron, but when did he ever make such a pledge? AFAIUI the Tories are not especially pro-grammar schools and have instead staked political capital on the free Schools movement (and which incidentally you could join if you are dissatisfied with the alternatives).

Also I just wonder how do you know the places were taken by children with "failed grades"?

It does seem as though the Tories are not particularly pro-grammar schools.

What may have happened in julian64's situation is that in Kent, like other LAs with selection and I think there are about 20 of them, the admissions routine is that a pupil needs to achieve an average score above (say) 120 across a couple of entrance tests to get in. If any one school or all grammar schools in that area are massively popular and thousands of children 'pass' i.e. score above 120, then any one school and perhaps all schools simply work down the list starting at the highest score until their admissions number is reached, then they stop. So a potential grammar school pupil scoring 121 may not get a place if there are already enough pupils to fill all available places who scored 122 up.

This happens in Cheltenhamshire where there is one co-ed grammar school, Pates' Grammar. It happens to be one of the most successful in the country, which is no surprise as the severe competition for places means it ends up being not seletive but super-selective each year. You may well need to score 130+ to get in even though the notional 11 plus 'pass' score could be 120 or whatever.

Down the road in Gloucester there are several grammar schools, including single sex, and it's easier to get a grammar school place there to the extent that pupils from Cheltenhamshire whose parents know the score will apply to Pates' and a Gloucester school to hedge their bets. Often with successful outcome albeit with extra travelling to pay for.

Sorry to hear of your child's experience julian64.

[julian64]

Andy Zarse said:

I've very little time for Cameron, but when did he ever make such a pledge? AFAIUI the Tories are not especially pro-grammar schools and have instead staked political capital on the free Schools movement (and which incidentally you could join if you are dissatisfied with the alternatives).

Also I just wonder how do you know the places were taken by children with "failed grades"?

Hes made that pledge on a number of occasions that I have heard.

My wife and I are in an education blackspot in kent, my wife worked with children in the catchment area of the grammer school in question. We therefore knew quite a few of the parents and children who went through the appeals process, she even supported some of the children in doing the applications. We therefore got quite a good picture of who was accepted on appeal and who was refused and why.

The child outside the catchment didn't stand a chance against a child with failed grades within the catchment area. Even if we demonstarted we were closer to the school than some of those within the catchment area.

Knowledege like this is why some parents fiddle the rules by renting property within a catchment because its sometimes the only argument that works.

[turbobloke]

Hi julian64, as per my previous post, catchment is no use with grammar schools, the test score is everything and if pupils 'pass' but don't get a high enough score anyway, they won't get in regardless of where they live. There are pupils who live on the same road as a Gloucester grammar that may 'pass' but don't get a place due to pupils in Glos living ten or more miles away who score higher. Once again, sorry to hear of your experiences.

[Andy Zarse]

julian64 said:

Hes made that pledge on a number of occasions that I have heard.

My wife and I are in an education blackspot in kent, my wife worked with children in the catchment area of the grammer school in question. We therefore knew quite a few of the parents and children who went through the appeals process, she even supported some of the children in doing the applications. We therefore got quite a good picture of who was accepted on appeal and who was refused and why.

The child outside the catchment didn't stand a chance against a child with failed grades within the catchment area. Even if we demonstarted we were closer to the school than some of those within the catchment area.

Knowledege like this is why some parents fiddle the rules by renting property within a catchment because its sometimes the only argument that works.

A quick search of Google throws up no such pledge, and to be fair to Dave he can't just magic up grammar places out of thin air, especially when the last five years were spent in coalition with Cleggy's lot who were anti-grammar.

I did however come across this article, which references Kent grammars and I hope it may be of some interest to you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957401/Ca...

As to your own kid, I'm sorry to hear he missed out, it sounds very unfair. I'm still very surprised though that any grossly over-subscribed grammar school should select pupils who have failed to reach the required standards, heedless of where they live.

[turbobloke]

Andy Zarse said:

As to your own kid, I'm sorry to hear he missed out, it sounds very unfair. I'm still very surprised though that any grossly over-subscribed grammar school should select pupils who have failed to reach the required standards, heedless of where they live.

Far be it for me to suggest a misunderstanding, but there may be one operating here... A grammar school will do no more and no less than work down the list of scores up to its admissions number, and an oversubscribed school will reach that cut-off point while still well above the 'pass' score.

There's no location location location involved like there is for non-selective academies and community schools where oversubscription criteria include such factors as distance of the home from the school, siblings at the school and so on.

[Andy Zarse]

turbobloke said:

Andy Zarse said:

As to your own kid, I'm sorry to hear he missed out, it sounds very unfair. I'm still very surprised though that any grossly over-subscribed grammar school should select pupils who have failed to reach the required standards, heedless of where they live.

Far be it for me to suggest a misunderstanding, but there may be one operating here... A grammar school will do no more and no less than work down the list of scores up to its admissions number, and an oversubscribed school will reach that cut-off point while still well above the 'pass' score.

There's no location location location involved like there is for non-selective academies and community schools where oversubscription criteria include such factors as distance of the home from the school, siblings at the school and so on.

Sorry yes, a misunderstanding. Probably my poor English, after all I did have the same English teacher as Jeremy Corbyn

I only mentioned location in reference to Julian's comment about parents renting houses near a school to trick the system.