Earl Aelfheah

I think Cameron was just in the right place at the right time - for all the reasons you say. Much like May actually, who won the leadership by just keeping quite on the sidelines and letting everyone else implode. Blair (love him or loathe him) was the only prime minister in recent memory who actively won an election by engaging and exciting large numbers of people.

The fact that there is little room to move over left actually makes it more important that people don't whip out and block off those waiting to come over.

Does seem a bit off sending someone door to door asking for personal information.

It's perfectly clear that if you're turning left, you have to wait until you've passed the bus lane before moving across. People whizzing up the inside in order to undertake is dangerous.

Unfortunately government always favour large grandiose vanity projects.

That sounds preplanned as opposed to opportunistic.

As soon as the sun is over the yard arm you're good. Well into drinky time now.

.

Alan Medic - don't get me started on that one. The amount of nepotism I see is unbelievable.

I can't believe it's to distract from Brexit - I mean that's going to be a hell of a slow burner. The sh*t isn't going to really hit the fan for at least another year or two. I honestly think there is just a lot of stuff made up on the hoof without that much thought given to it depressingly.

What happened to evidence based policy? Government Ministers should take a Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. Big systematic changes should always be trialed and outcomes properly analysed, before being implemented more widely. Shake ups in health and education should only be made on the basis of good evidence that they'll be effective, otherwise patients and children suffer, just to ministers can enjoy tinkering. There is just so much random on the hoof policy announced, seemingly based on little more than the 24 hour news cycle and the wim of some minster or other. Where are the grown ups?

I wonder whether, in the absence of a viable opposition, she's looking to create one within her own party.

It's funny you bought this up as I'd noticed the same thing. Don't like the wide screens particularly, but doesn't seem to be much choice. I think it's because a lot of people (students) use their laptops for watching TV / films.

A quick google suggests that at least in some cases people use their phone at arms length / on speaker because of fears of radiation.

It would have been hard (even for him) not to have come out on top considering the proposal under discussion.

Flat white, espresso, cortado, latte or what though?

The place in Denmark hill station and boloungerie jade. Anetto can be hit and miss depending on who's serving

True

Yeah, what is that about.. holding the phone out in front of you and talking on speaker? Why do people do that?

I don't think reducing the deficit was / is easy. I do think they painted themselves into a corner by ring fencing certain budgets and I also think they cut too quickly at the beginning which along with their dire warnings about the state of the economy, slowed the recovery (which was well underway) considerably. Luckily they recognised this themselves and slowed the cuts as you say. The fact is that Labour warned them that they were cutting too far, too fast, and was roundly mocked by Osborne (who then later did exactly what they'd been proposing in terms of the rate of deficit reduction). In many other areas they made pretty terrible choices. That doesn't mean *all* areas, of course. But overall, Cameron and Osborne will not go down in history as great leaders IMO.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Evidence is that > > grammar schools are bad for social mobility and > > bring overall attainment down. > > A few things. Firstly - that's not evidence, > that's an assertion. Secondly, if you look at the > painstakingly non-partisan Full Fact summary you > linked to, they're careful to refer to the > "current" and "existing" grammar system. (What > happens when a lot more grammar places free up? > What shape will the new grammars take?) Thirdly - > the conclusion they draw is very qualified, it's > really not that black and white - it includes > words like "slightly" and "marginally" in front of > "worse" or "better". (I mean, why are the > comprehensives in Kent worse than in other areas?) > Finally - social mobility is a generally good > idea, but it's only one aspect of what education > is about. It's an assertion based on evidence and analysis (not my own: http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/). Its true that full fact talk about the current system, that's what they've based their anaylsis on (what else could it be based upon). As you say, they are incredibly careful to be objective and stick to the facts. By the same token, they are of course cautious in their conclusions, but never the less are clear that the assertion that grammars are good for social mobility is not evidence based. That said, all the analysis of the long term pilot of grammar schools in England (not just Kent btw), come to the same conclusions - that attainment goes down and that social mobility is harmed. If it might only be a marginally worse system, is that a good reason to re-introduce it? The most important thing here though, is that the burden of proof when making a huge change to the existing system, sits with those proposing the change. Why would you totally uproot the education system, with no evidence that it will (as has been suggested) improve social mobility - indeed with all existing evidence seemingly showing the opposite. You suggest that we can't be sure until we role out grammars across the whole country - but on what... a hunch? Nostalgia?

The driver who regularly parks with just less than a car length away from the next nearest car and the barrier in my street. Thereby taking two very generous spaces and turning them into one.

Ha! Had totally forgotten about El Paso

Osborne repeatedly missed his own targets on which he asked us to judge him. I will, thanks George. Sure, he did bring down the deficit, but more slowly than Labour had said they would - a rate which Obsorne had claimed would be disastrous. Both him and Cameron talked down the economy in the early days of their first term and did a lot of damage in the process. All to make political capital by suggesting that Labour had crashed the economy and left us 'like Greece'. They repeatedly took decisions which weren't thought through and weren't in the national interest in exchange for small, short term political gains. Cameron's decision to gamble on Brexit was cavalier. Oh, and then there's Libya of course. Any achievements are well outweighed by their failures. The net result, is probably worse than nothing. I believe that history will judge both him and Osborne rather badly.

Very littke was achieved (dint be so literal). osbourne failed by his own standards.