Labour is not Redoubtable :there is no able sniper on the yardarm. However if either of the two budding C-in-Cs wish to emulate Nelson, and win the day, he should remember, ‘England expects.’

Either way, thank goodness I am not playing Hardy!

Rate This: 0  0

I totally agree that a leader is needed, and toute de suite,but presently I tend to think I that we are a little like the waters of the Nigara River, destined for the fall.It is a strange fact the the Niagara is Iroquoin word for Bottomlands, and I do not relish ending there.

One can only hope that the present cloud of despondency will lift, and prove that silver linings are sometimes best delivered in a dark envelope. It would, of course , mean that the envelope would have to be opened, before we found what is inside, and Cameron is keeping his plans pretty much under wraps.

Rate This: 0  0

Well, this doesn’t look any more likely now than it did six months ago. Perhaps the only elections that the Tories are sure of winning are their own.

I don’t know whether you saw the Private Eye cover with David Cameron? About 200 messages ago I speculated on how the press would caricature the winner. I think they’re working this out now (references to Little Lord Fauntleroy etc.)

Rate This: 0  0

Whatever happens, we’re less likely to go to the dogs with a Conservative Leader in power than with the current status quo. Am feeling quite philosophical about it now.

Rate This: 0  0

Nevertheless I wonder how you would convince the Tories that Condorcet voting is not a cunning ploy invented by the Liberal-Democrats?

Rate This: 0  0

In a Condorcet system, a voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. Ranking candidate A above candidate B is interpreted as the statement “I would prefer candidate A to candidate B”.

Condorcet systems tend to elect compromise candidates – one can easily imagine an election with three candidates – a socialist, a free-marked capitalist, and a centrist “it depends on the situation” type. Now suppose that 40% of the electorate are “right wing” and about 40% are “left”, with 20% in the middle. In a FPTP system, you’ll elect whichever of the socialist and the capitalist got the most votes. In an STV system, you’ll eliminate the centrist first, as he’ll have fewest first preferences, and again select whichever of the two extreme candidates got the most votes.

Assuming that all the socialists would rank the capitalist worst, and vice versa, a Condorcet system would tell you that 60% of people preferred the centrist candidate to the capitalist, and 60% of people preferred him to the red, and elect the centrist.

Condorcet methods also have the advantage that they are difficult to vote tactically in. Whilst you can construct situations in which it is to the advantage of the rational voter to vote other than his true preferences, they tend to be highly artificial and rely on detailed knowledge about how the rest of the electorate will order low-ranking candidates. In a practical election (even one of limited scope amongst 200MPs) the way for a voter to get the best result according to his preferences is to vote for the candidates in true order of preference.

Now, I will admit that counting a Condorcet election is more complicated than counting a FPTP or STV one if you’re going to do the count by hand with a table covered in bits of paper. If one enters the ballots into a computer, all counting methods are trivial.

Rate This: 0  0

Ken Clarke was right is saying that opposition to Labour right now should focus on the economy and reforming the way the central government functions. Issues such as the health service, education, crime etc. have to come afterwards. It will be easier to deal with them after the processes of government have been cleaned up and made more efficient.

I see that Davis “and most of the Tories” voted in favour of the Terror Bill and the 90-day detention today. Why? I thought the Tories were against 90-day detention. Was I wrong?

Rate This: 0  0

This pack of squabbling mutiple committee fans, unlike the Scots and Welsh, are not even able to make a final decision on who may smoke where.

How on earth can we expect a FINAL final decision on a workable,acceptable, education policy to be made, which will be in everyone’s interests , not only of the students, but the disenfranchised parents@ These were recently driven to demand tax rebates for non-delivery of an acceptable system of school allocation.

Should not, in all fairness, Labour’s erstwhile excelsior cry of,
” Education ;education ; education “, now more correctly be ,” Education? Obfuscation! Alienation!

Rate This: 0  0

The schools seem to be stuck in some kind of limbo between old and new, having lost the standards and virtues of the old traditional literary education without taking advantage of many of the possibilities that have been opened up by the revolution in the way we now access information. (I’ve even heard of one school board, run by a religious cult, that forbids students to use computers.)

The A-level system was introduced in the 1950s and it has never been superseded, although it was apparent from quite early on that it was an examination for its own sake, rather than for the benefit of young people.

The page below is an interview with five 17-year olds in San Francisco about their internet habits:

http://www.reemer.com/archives/2005/10/08/web_20_conversation_with_five_teenagers/

It would be interesting to know what five average British kids would say in a similar interview. Maybe not much. How many British kids could do a Powerpoint presentation? How many even own a computer? I guess they would all be clutching mobile phones!

[sorry, this all off topic . . .]

Rate This: 0  0

An honest approach to the problems we are trying to solve is required.

Our educational and training systems need to cater for (a) a variety of requirements of society and (b) a variety of requirements on individuals.

Not everyone is going to get everything they want.

A vocational qualification in plumbing is different from an academic qualification in maths in a way that an academic qualification in maths is not different from an academic qualification in history.

A 2.1 degree or better in maths from Cambridge University is different from a 2.1 degree or better in maths from Thames Valley University in a way that A 2.1 degree or better in maths from Cambridge University is not different from a 2.1 degree or better in maths from Swansea University.

Mixed ability academic classes from some age in early double figures onwards don’t work. Either the brightest are neglected and cause trouble or the middle are neglected and cause trouble or the least able are neglected and cause trouble.

Selection for once and for all at 11 may have been too harsh but there are a host of alternatives between that and mixed ability ‘egalitarianism’.

Back in the good old days everyone knew their place and didn’t seek to rise above it. This pernicious myth has been replaced by the equally pernicious myth that anyone can do anything they want if they truly want it so failure in education is no longer the fault of the student. The truth less exciting than both of these is that usually people can do more than they think if they put work in and engage with the probelm, learn from their mistakes and reflect on them.

I am a computer programmer and my qualifications indicate that I am a better programmer than my plimber. His qualifications indicate that he is a better plumber than me. We not equal. If you want a well desinged and tested piece of software then I like to think I am your person. If you want your boiler installed then Garfield is your man. I suspect I know who you would most like to see in midwinter when your pipes burst.

I don’t think Garfield would like to be a programmer and I would rather listen to Margaret Hewiit or Harriet Hodge than be a plumber.

We have moved on to a great degree from the age of deference to a position where it is possible to respect other people for their own achievements and ideas, even though they may not be our achievements or we disagree with the ideas.

Why do we have to build an educational system on the premise of phoney egalitarianism rather than the real needs of society balanced, albeit imperfectly, with the needs of individuals?

Rate This: 0  0