Monday 24th September 2018
Posted: Mon 24 Sep, 2018 7:03 am
Morning all.
A large number of primary schools are still LA controlled so councils shouldn't be past the point of no return regarding expertise and structures but funding will be important, as you say. I think the main thing is allowing councils to build new schools where they are needed and allowing them to take back failing academies if they are best placed to do that. As long as academies are properly audited and properly regulated there is no reason not to continue with them, but as long as councils are responsible for ensuring overall provision it's essential they have more control and input than they do now. As we've seen with the railways, when provision becomes fragmented who is ultimately responsible for providing a service becomes obscured and you end up in a place where no one has the overall control necessary to ensure the implementation of a seamless service.RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.
Off to library but a quick comment - new money if Rayner's proposals for councils to take a bigger role in education. Most have been so hollowed out over the past few years from cuts by the DfE that they can barely fulfil their statutory duties that they have now let alone take on new ones.
I don't know how true it is nationally but around these parts (Wolvo) despite a lot of secondaries becoming academies they have tended to group together around local authority services. The model here has tended to be that there is either a lead school that builds a local Multi-Academy Trust (which is what we've done - initially because we were asked by the authority to step in and stop another LA school being taken over by either a national chain or a regional 'issue' - cough thomas telford cough) or schools have become academies in partnership with Wolverhampton University working quietly in partnership with the LA. A lot of LA services and procedures have continued - all of the schools sign up to LA-wide policies on admissions, exclusions and so on. It's certainly the case that all of the schools continue to buy in to the LEA services on libraries, technology, safeguarding and so on. I think it may be the case more generally that LEAs have quietly carried on doing various aspects of their jobs.Willow904 wrote:A large number of primary schools are still LA controlled so councils shouldn't be past the point of no return regarding expertise and structures but funding will be important, as you say. I think the main thing is allowing councils to build new schools where they are needed and allowing them to take back failing academies if they are best placed to do that. As long as academies are properly audited and properly regulated there is no reason not to continue with them, but as long as councils are responsible for ensuring overall provision it's essential they have more control and input than they do now. As we've seen with the railways, when provision becomes fragmented who is ultimately responsible for providing a service becomes obscured and you end up in a place where no one has the overall control necessary to ensure the implementation of a seamless service.
Not so long ago Labour (well, Keir Starmer at any rate) was arguing that a similar choice May was offering parliament of accepting the negotiated deal or crashing out with no deal didn't constitute a meaningful vote. And they were right.McDonnell: new Brexit referendum should not include remain option
Shadow chancellor says he would back second referendum but only if it is a ‘vote on the deal itself’
gilsey wrote:The headline on AS blog
McDonnell says staying in EU will not be option if Labour holds second Brexit referendum - Politics live
What he actually said
Q: So you are not promising the people the option of staying in.
McDonnell says parliament would decide the question.
McDonnell suggests staying in the EU would not be an option in any second referendum staged by Labour.
This is not the "people's vote" that Labour members are asking for, partly because the whole process is so confusing. McDonnell is talking about a vote on the withdrawal deal. Yes, he's saying let's re-negotiate rather than just leave with no deal, but how can you have a referendum between a deal or something else, maybe, but we can't tell you what it will be yet? And what things are Labour expecting to be able to change? An extra £10bn off the divorce bill? Slightly better rights for EU citizens? Something better for Ireland than Ireland and the EU are already demanding?Asked about the issue on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, McDonnell said: “If we don’t get a general election then yes, we’ll go for a people’s vote.”
Quizzed about what options should be part of a second referendum question, he said: “My view at the moment is that parliament will decide what will be on that ballot paper. We’ll be arguing that it should be a vote on the deal itself, and then enable us to go back and do the negotiations.”
As the deadline nears, the noise increases and the Brexit options get starker. Theresa May’s strategy of kicking the can down the road, fudging the long-term relationship with the EU in the hope of maintaining Conservative party unity – which I have explained before – might just work, but is probably going to fail. The options are then chaos, or another vote. Here is why, how it is all likely to play out, and what it might mean.
Don't disagree but they really are on a hiding to nothing either way now.Willow904 wrote:I have been critical of Labour sitting on the fence re soft/hard Brexit but the question of further referendums, when there is no obvious time to have one or what on, is one area they should have stuck to the fence.
That goes back to the idea that it is impossible to reconsider the referendum result now that we know what it will actually mean, and I don't think that makes any sense. I've always thought we need to be slow to ignore it, but if we are going to give people the opportunity to have another say it makes no sense to say 'this terrible terrible deal or a catastrophic no deal at all'.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow
I agree with much you say and in particular with your assertion that "a further referendum is a distraction".
I also agree that most of those campaigning for a People's Vote are imagining Remain as an option.
But surely it would be conceivable to have a Referendum that was basically do you support May's deal or not? Yes or No?
This would be very interesting, and fraught with risk, because it would require unity around Soft Brexit and Remain that has been almost completely absent.
That's why they don't really care about the problem Willow foresees, that we won't know what the deal is, we'll only have the 'political declaration'.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:most of those campaigning for a People's Vote are imagining Remain as an option.
Which kind of means, as Willow said above, that they've walked into a conservative trap, committing to something that just isn't what people were looking for and will upset and alienate people with opinions on all sides.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Surely all Labour's thoughts on Brexit are aimed at parliamentary arithmetic if May honours the "meaningful vote" on her deal. <snip>
I only disagree to the extent that describing it as a conservative trap attributes to the tories a level of competence that's surely unwarranted.adam wrote:Which kind of means, as Willow said above, that they've walked into a conservative trap, committing to something that just isn't what people were looking for and will upset and alienate people with opinions on all sides.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Surely all Labour's thoughts on Brexit are aimed at parliamentary arithmetic if May honours the "meaningful vote" on her deal. <snip>
That's true. But the political weather they are making by headlining this at their conference - or at the very least by allowing the press to headline this as one issue from their conference - has something of that effect.AnatolyKasparov wrote:They haven't "committed" to anything yet.
I'm just trying to think through what might actually happen in the House during the meaningful vote and how the Tory rebels can be offered a way forward. This is unlikely to be through voting down the Deal as such, because that would probably provoke a General Election. But a vote FOR the deal as long as there is a Referendum on it is another matter.adam wrote:Which kind of means, as Willow said above, that they've walked into a conservative trap, committing to something that just isn't what people were looking for and will upset and alienate people with opinions on all sides.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Surely all Labour's thoughts on Brexit are aimed at parliamentary arithmetic if May honours the "meaningful vote" on her deal. <snip>
Unfortunately the meaningful bit of the meaningful vote wasn't locked in because Grieve fluffed it. Reject the deal and you risk crashing out with no deal. It would in some ways be better for Labour if May fails to get a deal, there is potential for them to benefit from the fallout without being a party to creating the chaos. Remaining in the EU also becomes marginally more possible if there is no exit deal on offer. Of course, not getting a deal could also result in us ending up leaving without one, so I'm not exactly rooting for one, but it at least puts the responsibility for what happens next firmly back on the party that got us into this mess.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Surely all Labour's thoughts on Brexit are aimed at parliamentary arithmetic if May honours the "meaningful vote" on her deal.
Labour needs to have a position that all it's own MPs can and will vote for and that will encourage the Tory rebels to do the right thing. Those rebels are highly unlikely to bring down the Government, but would love a People's Vote on the deal.
Still an old leftie at heart?PorFavor wrote:Bit odd to see Margaret Beckett so warmly applauding John McDonnell's Clause IV references.
I'm rather ambivalent about Margaret Beckett. I thought she did quite a good job after John Smith's death. And compared (later) to Harriet Harman in similar situations . . .AnatolyKasparov wrote:Still an old leftie at heart?PorFavor wrote:Bit odd to see Margaret Beckett so warmly applauding John McDonnell's Clause IV references.
Reforms to Labour leadership elections and the selection process for would-be MPs have been supported by delegates despite splits between constituency parties and unions.
Changes to the leadership contest rules were approved by 63.9% to 36.1% while changes to the candidate selection process for Westminster elections were approved by 65.3% to 34.7%.
I've just read this and it is good on where we're at, but I'm not sure it offers much insight into what May is going to do now she's finally run out of road! Her policy appears to be procrastination......and that's it!adam wrote:Good piece by Jim Gallagher of Glasgow University on the LSE Brexit Blog
May’s Brexit luck ran out at Westminster this autumn
As the deadline nears, the noise increases and the Brexit options get starker. Theresa May’s strategy of kicking the can down the road, fudging the long-term relationship with the EU in the hope of maintaining Conservative party unity – which I have explained before – might just work, but is probably going to fail. The options are then chaos, or another vote. Here is why, how it is all likely to play out, and what it might mean.
Government publishes latest set of no deal Brexit planning papers
The government has published its latest set of no deal Brexit planning papers.
They are all here, on the gov.uk website, alongside the papers published on the first two release days.
(Politics Live, Guardian)
Looming chaos all round then ! I notice the bbc is now relying on the IEA for quotes, as a 'change' from JR-M...Willow904 wrote:Rod Rosenstein reportedly about to be sacked. Things are starting to reach boiling point in the Mueller investigation, it seems.
In other words, totally normal?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is unspeakably bad from Julia Hartley-Brewer
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually, I think the "be careful what we wish for" bit is quite true. The whole "Brexit" issue is now in vicious circle territory. The possibilities (another referendum and possible outcomes\General Election and possible outcomes\Labour winning and possible outcome on a deal (which could itself lead to the need, let alone a call, for another referendum - so perhaps having one sooner rather than later is not sensible)) are so convoluted and hostage to fortune that it's impossible for me (or anyone else?) to plot a safe path.Jack Maidment
✔
@jrmaidment
John McDonnell has sort of clarified his second Brexit vote comments.
He said: "Keir is right. We are keeping all the options on the table."
Asked if that included Remain: "...we are saying respect the past referendum and I just tell you we have to be careful what we wish for."
4:56 PM - Sep 24, 2018 (Politics Live, Guardian)
Still waiting........Willow904 wrote:Rod Rosenstein reportedly about to be sacked. Things are starting to reach boiling point in the Mueller investigation, it seems.
Exactly what I would have written if I had the energyPorFavor wrote:Actually, I think the "be careful what we wish for" bit is quite true. The whole "Brexit" issue is now in vicious circle territory. The possibilities (another referendum and possible outcomes\General election and possible outcomes\Labour winning and possible outcome on a deal (which could itself lead to the need, let alone a call, for another referendum - so perhaps having one sooner rather than later is perhaps not sensible)) are so convoluted and hostage to fortune that it's impossible for me (or anyone else?) to plot a safe path.Jack Maidment
✔
@jrmaidment
John McDonnell has sort of clarified his second Brexit vote comments.
He said: "Keir is right. We are keeping all the options on the table."
Asked if that included Remain: "...we are saying respect the past referendum and I just tell you we have to be careful what we wish for."
4:56 PM - Sep 24, 2018 (Politics Live, Guardian)
Sorry for the rather rambling post. Perm any one from . . .
BinnedPorFavor wrote:Don't know what was going on with "my" last post. I'd bin it if I could.
Here are the 10 things agreed: Check out @ToryFibs’s Tweet: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;AnatolyKasparov wrote:There were 10 such motions in all, the other 8 were approved by 98-99% of delegates. Speaks for itself really.
Next year's conference will have an NEC that is more sympathetic to automatic reselection - no surprise if it is then back on the agenda.
[youtube]KXDtQcuA5Bo[/youtube]PorFavor wrote:[youtube]6VxoXn-0Ezs[/youtube
If rather inaccurate on the personal details front . . .