The UK Politics Thread [Wot did Jez do now...]

[GS]

It's a fairly spectacular mishandling. Again.

[phonics]

I wouldn't call 'Ken Livingstone talking nonsense' as something you can blame on the Labour party imo. Who has ever been able to stop Ken Livingstone from expressing his stupid opinions?

[GS]

Corbyn's given him prominence and important appointments (like running the Labour defence review before they had to sack him from it). Apparently, there were serious discussions in Corbyn's team about suspending John Mann as well if Livingstone was suspended. I don't even know where to start with that.

[phonics]

Corbyn's given him prominence and important appointments (like running the Labour defence review before they had to sack him from it)

Literally no-one knows let alone cares about that but absolute dweebs. That doesn't matter.

[Lewis]

Jezza was in Hull today apparently. I would have loved a selfie with him.

[GS]

Literally no-one knows let alone cares about that but absolute dweebs. That doesn't matter.

It's indicative of the dreadful judgement at the top of the Labour party.

[Byron]

#somehowaboutLabour

[Henry]

Jezza was in Hull today apparently. I would have loved a selfie with him.

Likewise, although in a non-ironic way.

[Jimmy Floyd]

'Manage the story', they say. Poor old Alastair Campbell must be turning in Dr David Kelly's grave.

[Yevrah]

Gotten involved in what a Labour MP and their party members do and say? You what?

How are Labour embroiled in an anti-semitic shit-off? It's absolutely unbelievable.

[Kikó]

It seems like all the parties are just bored mid cycle so just trying to out shit each other. Liberal democrats to win 2020.

[niko_cee]

In many ways John Mann seems an admirable bloke, but he always seems to manage to come across as a ranting pillock when I really don't think he ought to. It's hard to imagine what old Toad Hall thought he was doing other than, well, causing a total shitstorm for no apparent reason.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The decent Labour MPs (oxymoron, but meh) should split off and form a proper party and leave the children behind. More than four of them, I mean. The whole lot.

[GS]

They'd never do it, but it's probably the only way to circumvent the continued self-immolation of "the membership". They've completely lost the plot, and they have nowhere to go from here.

[Yevrah]

The opposition party of this country in a shitstorm over anti-semitism. I still can't believe it.

[Lewis]

If somebody like Yvette Cooper stood in the next election as 'Sane Labour', actual Labour could win her seat with the Yorkshire Ripper (that is probably even more the case with the trendy London seats people like Chuka Umunna hold). That is why none of them will walk away, because without the Labour brand they are nobodies.

[GS]

It's quite conveniently timed, because if they finish third in Scotland and get drubbed in the local elections then the membership can blame the media conspiracy over this and pretend it's only a matter of time until their "real opposition to the Tories" takes hold and the disenfranchised masses vote en masse for them in 2020. It was ever thus.

At some point, they have to accept the party needs a complete fucking overhaul because they've been a shambles in one way or another since Blair resigned.

[GS]

If somebody like Yvette Cooper stood in the next election as 'Sane Labour', actual Labour could win her seat with the Yorkshire Ripper (that is probably even more the case with the trendy London seats people like Chuka Umunna hold). That is why none of them will walk away, because without the Labour brand they are nobodies.

This is true. A decent comparison is the SNP, who could have pinned a yellow ribbon on any living mammal and had it storm a previously safe Labour seat in 2015.

Right on time, the Welsh Labour party have told Corbyn to stay away for the run-in because they've based their campaign on 'strong leadership' and 'that's a difficult sell with Jeremy'.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Don't 'Socialist Labour' pick up loads of votes when they stand against the Speaker, because people reckon they are Labour?

Their best bet would be to go back to their roots/party name but it's basically just a liberal outrage campaigning vessel these days, if that.

[Lewis]

The 'grassroots' of any party are mental, because these days who, other than nutcases, gives their time and money to a political party in return for fuck all? From a pointless, Political Class perspective, the trick is to minimise their involvement (see: 'Hillary'), otherwise the bores and the cranks ruin it (see: 'The Donald').

[Boydy]

Ken Livingstone cites Marxist book in defence of Israel comments

http://gu.com/p/4tmjk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

He's still digging. Fucking hell.

[GS]

Well, that Labour recovery lasted:

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 38% (+5)
LAB: 30% (-2)
UKIP: 15% (-2)
LDEM: 5% (-)
GRN: 4% (-1)
(via Opinium / 26 - 29 Apr)

[GS]

There's more anti-semitism stories from elected Labour officials today. This guy appears particularly intolerant: http://order-order.com/2016/05/02/labour-councillor-israel-behind-isis-zionist-jews-are-a-disgrace-to-humanity/

That said, it does feel like a bit of a drip feed of these stories now. It can't help before the local elections.

[phonics]

Back when the prime minister was threatening to leave the EU in 2012 (oh how times change), team Cameron decided the best way to get what they wanted from German chancellor Angela Merkel ahead of a meeting in November 2012 was a charm offensive:

Wooing Merkel is a major pre-occupation... she is coming to a private dinner in Number 10 that evening. Cameron has an idea: 'Why don't we show her a PowerPoint and give some of it in German?' The team likes the idea: it is a way of engaging her and injecting humour and informality.

... Hurriedly a presentation is cobbled together, including pictures of Cameron and Merkel hugging.


While the pictures were designed to show the strength of the pair's friendship, according to another anecdote Seldon describes in his book, Merkel wasn't impressed.

Tired of Cameron's posturing, she apparently let rip at the dinner, telling the prime minister how European leaders really saw him:

You keep putting yourself up as an opponent and we all hate you and isolate you.

Well. That went well then.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/david-cameron-once-tried-to-woo-angela-merkel-over-eu-negotiations-by-making-a-powerpoint-of-them-hugging--ZkKD1x3gfZ

Greatest PM of our generation of whatever nonsense one of our resident Conservatives once said.

[Boydy]

Who the fuck thought that was a good idea? :D

[GS]

On balance, one would say that Cameron is a good / very good PM, regardless of stupid episodes like that.

[GS]

Three in five hours. Fucking hell, lads.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/02/third-labour-councillor-suspended-over-hitler-tweet/

[Boydy]

Do local councillors really count? They're all idiots anyway.

[GS]

They are idiots, but they're not the likes of you spending three quid to join the party. They're public representatives of the party. I suspect the issue is more that these comments have been made on public 'social media sites', and nobody appears to have followed it up i.e. it's been tacitly tolerated by 'the leadership', whether that be at a local or national level.

If you prefer someone more high profile, you can have this of Seamus Milne praising Hamas' spirit of resistance - http://order-order.com/2016/04/29/seumas-milne-praises-hamas/.

[Boydy]

It actually only cost me a quid to join as a student. :humb:

[GS]

Khan v Goldsmith has turned into a quite embarrassing shit off. Here's Khan following up Goldsmith's shite over the weekend with his own borderline racism: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3572015/Sadiq-Khan-branded-unfit-London-Mayor-emerges-called-moderate-Muslim-s-Uncle-Toms.html

[ItalAussie]

On balance, one would say that Cameron is a good / very good PM, regardless of stupid episodes like that.

I'd certainly say he's been very effective at implementing his plans. That's a more meaningful statement than sweeping value judgements, I think.

[Lewis]

Other than turning out to be a bit of a personality vacuum, I'm not sure what Zac Goldsmith is supposed to have done wrong other than improve upon how Labour goes about appealing to voters' ethnicity. So he tried to send leaflets to Indians. Has he held any segregated rallies yet?

[GS]

There was a quite vicious PMQs today, where Corbyn was invited thrice to retract his statement calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends". He didn't, although he made a half-arsed half-attempt at it by the end of it. Most of it was just pointless whinging about the London Mayor's election.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Cameron is a joke at PMQs now. He didn't even answer most of the quite reasonable questions.

[John Arne]

Cameron is a joke at PMQs now. He didn't even answer most of the quite reasonable questions.

I only saw a little bit, but everyone question I saw, whether it be on social mobility, education or the NHS, Cameron just linked every answer back to Corbyn being mates with Hamas.

"We invest lots of money into education - you could say we are very good friends of education... just like he is friends with Hamas!!" raaah rahhhh rahhh

[GS]

The problem is that Corbyn isn't a strong enough performer to stop Cameron acting the cunt. If there was someone competent across from him, he wouldn't be able to get away with it. As it is, he knows he can smack Corbyn around like a bullied child and nothing will come of it.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Elections today. I gave all three of my votes to the residents in the locals, and for Surrey PCC I voted for our legendary mad hat incumbent who is independent but on the ballot it says something like 'Zero tolerance policing - crime off our streets!'

He is totally unfit for any sort of public office, which is why he is perfect for that bollocks job. If he trolls the Tories by winning a second term I might lol myself to death.

[Kikó]

I'm going to vote later. Labour seem to think I support them because I had some correspondence over TTIP with Thornberry and helpfully told me how to vote Labour with 3 x's.
Now to decide which mental to go for http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/library/Democracy/Publicity/Public-notices/2016-2017/(2016-04-01)-North-East-London-Constituency-Candidates-2016.pdf

[Boydy]

We've got the assembly elections here today too. I'll go vote after work. It'll be for some small 'other' (as opposed to unionist or nationalist - they have to designate themselves as one of the three in the assembly if elected) party. It's preferential as well so I'll probably number it down to the reasonable nationalists and unionists and leave out the current big two dickheads.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

http://s32.postimg.org/ckiql5vph/snp.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[Jimmy Floyd]

The twitter masthead they put up of their 'Scots' columnist every week is absolute comedy gold.

https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/727921766287413248

[Disco]

Surely that's a pisstake, it's like reading a Rab C Nesbitt screenplay.

[phonics]

Any one planning on watching Pestons new show? I quite liked him when he was the economics bloke during the CREDIT CRUNCH (ah, remember the days?) but there's something about him now I find incredibly annoying.

[John]

http://i64.tinypic.com/2jg9thg.jpg

:harold:

[Raoul Duke]

Voted for Sadiq and Lib Dems for mayor.

[Magic]

http://i64.tinypic.com/2jg9thg.jpg

:harold:

:D

They really are thick cunts.

[Kikó]

Sadiq for mayor, Galloway as second(!). Libs for councillor and greens for assembly. Consistency sucks.

[Boydy]

Galloway? :D

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

I trust the man is still a raving lunatic?

[Lewis]

I think we only had the police and crime wanker election round here, so I never bothered.

[John]

I got a right dirty look off the SNP campaigner chap who always sets up outside the polling station because I didn't take a leaflet off him. Same man and same growl as when I told him to get fucked at the referendum.

[Boydy]

Some old man tried to give me a leaflet for someone, I didn't even see who before I said 'no thanks' and he reacted all like 'oh, fine!' in a pissy voice as I walked on by. It was probably for the DUP or TUV.

I don't think they should be allowed to leaflet right by the entrance. Especially here. The village is pretty much entirely proddy but there are probably some catholics around just outside or something. Must be a bit uncomfortable coming in to vote. Same goes for other places that would be the other way around too.

Also, how much good is leafleting outside actually going to do? Surely most people know who they're going to vote for already?

[Magic]

Can't believe people don't postal vote more?

[Kikó]

I'm sure it'll be a laugh. Boydy

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Can't believe people don't postal vote more?

I do. Saves a lot of crap.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The rates are very high in Scotland and the North East, i.e. a place full of lazy cunts miles from civilisation. Should be banned in my opinion other than for extreme cases. In 'ethnic' communities the 'community leaders' just fill out everyone's postal vote ballots for them.

[Shindig]

They've moved my voting station closer to me but like fuck am I voting for a PCC.

[GS]

I voted for the DUP.

I don't like voting for them but I'm fully tooled up if it prevents McGuinness as First Minister. It might only be titular, but I'd really rather not be having that.

[Lewis]

Finally.

[Boydy]

Finally.

:D

[Jimmy Floyd]

Ruth Davidson donning everyone and now destined for a career donning the SNP.

Excellent stuff from Corbz, just not shit enough that the knives will not be out.

[Henry]

I don't got a vote in the north right now, but I invited/cajoled/pressured my other half to vote for SDLP and Greens.

[phonics]

The 'He's a dirty terrorist' campaign has worked out well

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChxM9A0WUAACAr0.jpg

[Jimmy Floyd]

The irony being that he IS a dirty terrorist, but Zac's campaign pointed this out in the most retarded way ever.

[Henry]

Gorgeous George not doing so good.

[Magic]

Lol @ me voting Labour thinking they were the only reasonable choice for opposition for the SNP.

People must have faith in Ruth Davidson, as tank-riding lesbians go against pretty much every 'TORIE' image people have in Scotland.

[Lewis]

The London election is such a political wanker issue. Not just because nobody outside of London cares, but it doesn't even matter who wins. What do you actually get to do, and how much of a fucking retard would you have to be to slow London down when Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson managed not to? In four or eight years will the average person be able to buy a house in London? No. Will it still be making more money than everywhere else combined? Yes. Fuck it. Vote for George Galloway.

[Jimmy Floyd]

London mayor is more about making it habitable than anything to do with the economy. Stuff like transport and affordable housing are always right up on the agenda. The mayor is important, as if you left this stuff to bent London councils they would end up selling the bus service to JP Morgan.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This bullshit on twitter about people being proud to be a Londoner because they've elected Sadiq Khan needs to end. Fair enough if you're a Labour supporter, or a particular fan of his, but the bloke's a fucking wrong 'un with a very, very dubious background that people seem willing to gloss over in the name of teaching the world to sing.

Probably a better mayor than Goldsmith, mind.

[Lewis]

It's allowed them to go back to thinking that the Conservatives monopolise the racism.

[Magic]

Sharia to be implemented by 2018. :drool:

[phonics]

This bullshit on twitter about people being proud to be a Londoner because they've elected Sadiq Khan needs to end. Fair enough if you're a Labour supporter, or a particular fan of his, but the bloke's a fucking wrong 'un with a very, very dubious background that people seem willing to gloss over in the name of teaching the world to sing.

Probably a better mayor than Goldsmith, mind.


I understand that you could say, "He's defended proper wrong uns" but is that not what a civil rights / defense lawyer is supposed to do? The ACLU (American I know, I just cant reference the UK version) have to defend bad people but its a matter of freedom of speech etc. (I realise there's no right to free speech in the UK.)

[Jimmy Floyd]

His whole family are, shall we say, on the wrong side. Oh what's that, his dad's a bus driver? Oh, what a lovely story.

Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham) is an example of a decent, honest Labour Muslim. Not this shifty wanker.

[ItalAussie]

What do you mean the wrong side? There's nothing I can see on Wiki.

[Spoonsky]

The former Labour MP and minister, 45, becomes London's third mayor after Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

What?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Tony Blair invented the post in 2000.

[Magic]

What do you mean the wrong side? There's nothing I can see on Wiki.

They're brown, mate.

[John Arne]

Yeah, I had a quick google... Every negative things was either about his brother, and a speechwriter who he sacked.
What else had he done?

[Jimmy Floyd]

For the tip of the iceberg, you can look into his dealings with Babar Ahmed.

I'm not saying he'll be a bad mayor, more that he's a bad man and the sanctimony upon his election is misplaced.

[John Arne]

For the tip of the iceberg, you can look into his dealings with Babar Ahmed.

I'm not saying he'll be a bad mayor, more that he's a bad man and the sanctimony upon his election is misplaced.

Granted, I only read two articles and Ahmad's wiki - but it seems that Khan particularly fought against the Ahmad's extradition to the US - which seems fair enough given the reasons the US claimed jurisdiction.
Even Ahmad's conviction seems questionable (2 articles backing the Taliban in 2001).

What specifically has Khan done that is so "wrong"?

I'm not being arsey here - im genuinely interested, as I know nothing about the guy.

[Toby]

The mayor is important


Tony Blair invented the post in 2000.

Much has changed since I was last here.

[Magic]

Omg he's back. :drool:

P.s I won poster of the year.

[Boydy]

Tony Blair did actually invent the post, tbf.

Where've you been, Toby?

Magic didn't win anything.

[Spoonsky]

Tony Blair invented the post in 2000.

:cab:

London is a city. Cities have mayors. Don't they?

[Lewis]

We have corrupt councils full of nobodies, but eventually they will force mayors on all the big cities.

[Magic]

:cab:

London is a city. Cities have mayors. Don't they?

No it's a shit American conception.

[Spoonsky]

I never knew that, interesting.

[Shindig]

Nah, we've had Mayors for centuries. They open hospital wings and village fares whilst the MPs are dealing with expense allegations.

[Dela]

Lord Mayors are alright, as it's important to have someone around to wear stupid costumes and hand out oversized keys to reasonably successful sportsmen.

[randomlegend]

The SATs this year are a fucking joke. They should just bin them.

At least they've u-turned on forcing everyone to be academies (for now).

[Lewis]

The only way kids (who are stupid) can be stressing about testing is because their dickhead teachers have built them up to be far more important than they actually are.

[randomlegend]

They aren't stupid, they know full well they are "important".

The teachers are under massive pressure for the class to 'perform' and therefore have to structure what they do around preparing for SATs, and the kids very quickly pick up on that. I think most teachers would love to not feel like they have to teach to tests, but (especially with how lol the ones are they brought in this year) they have little choice.

[Lewis]

I don't remember building everything towards them. Maybe that's why I donned them shitless, because everyone else was too stressed to perform.

[randomlegend]

That's because there wasn't the same pressure on schools/teachers as there is now, which is part of the point.

There are many other issues with them but I've been talking to terminally ill people all day and I'm no longer in the mood.

[John Arne]

Teaching is probably the second toughest job in the country to be fair.

[John Arne]

Making 7yr olds do such formal tests is fucking stupid.

Is China that much of an inspiration?

[Lewis]

That was back in the days of Conservative spending plans as well, when we all had rickets and the school roof had been sold off, so I suppose they had bigger problems.

[GS]

They aren't stupid, they know full well they are "important".

The teachers are under massive pressure for the class to 'perform' and therefore have to structure what they do around preparing for SATs, and the kids very quickly pick up on that. I think most teachers would love to not feel like they have to teach to tests, but (especially with how lol the ones are they brought in this year) they have little choice.

You're working to the assumption that all teachers are great, dedicated, hard working and innovative. Some are, but plenty aren't. Testing is perfectly legitimate - not only does it identify kids who are struggling, but it can subsequently help to pinpoint the reasons e.g. struggling in maths only or, where the entire class do shit, identifying that the teacher in question maybe isn't very good and allowing solutions to be developed. Without testing, or allowing teachers to just do what they want, you might only realise the teacher is shit / the kids aren't where they should be at a point where it's too late to allow them to catch up.

Teachers, like doctors and nurses, is now generally prefixed with "our fantastic", and are thus a subsection of the professional workforce it is anathema to criticise in any way, shape or form.

[Boydy]

Someone's bitter that he's never going to hear 'our fantastic accountants'.

[GS]

We work in the private sector, and are thus to be feared on account of buying into capitalism.

Public sector workers are, apparently, providing a valuable altruistic public service and evidence of incompetence, laziness or general twattery can be ascribed to Tory smear and 'completely isolated' individualistic wanker.

Joking aside, testing is vital because it's the only sensible 'track' you have on how things are progressing. You can't just let them paint all day, much as that might be a feasible strategy in a fantasyland where everyone in teaching is a top, TOP lad.

[Yevrah]

I think our aversion to testing is down to the same reasons we're shit at penalty shoot-outs, as a nation, we're rubbish at handling pressure.

[ItalAussie]

You're working to the assumption that all teachers are great, dedicated, hard working and innovative. Some are, but plenty aren't. Testing is perfectly legitimate - not only does it identify kids who are struggling, but it can subsequently help to pinpoint the reasons e.g. struggling in maths only or, where the entire class do shit, identifying that the teacher in question maybe isn't very good and allowing solutions to be developed. Without testing, or allowing teachers to just do what they want, you might only realise the teacher is shit / the kids aren't where they should be at a point where it's too late to allow them to catch up.

Teachers, like doctors and nurses, is now generally prefixed with "our fantastic", and are thus a subsection of the professional workforce it is anathema to criticise in any way, shape or form.Testing is, in general, not a very good way to determine student progress.

I say that as someone who regularly tests students, because there's no less worse way out there to assess individual capabilities within large university classes. But too much high-stakes testing, especially at school level, just leads to "teaching to the test", which massively short-changes students. It leads to the prioritization of test-taking skills in place of genuine intellectual curiosity.

I'm not saying you can't test students, but it shouldn't be the centerpiece of their education. Especially at school level, continuing assessment is a much more effective way for students to learn, and for teachers to assess the level of understanding the students possess.

[John Arne]

I think testing, and stressing 7 year olds just has the complete opposite effect of what we want.

We want children to enjoy learning, to have a thirst for knowledge and want to learn. By having tests such as these at such a young age, you are just pushing children in the wrong direction - they are starting to hate school before it's even begun. Teachers can still plan their own weekly, more informal tests, of course.

[randomlegend]

I never said we shouldn't test kids.

I said the SATs THIS YEAR have been an unmitigated disaster for all concerned and should be binned off.

They've done shit like changing the marking criteria for the written exam from 'best fit' to having to provide evidence for every single objective at one level before you can be said to have achieved it and considered for the next one. You could quite literally have a kid in the class who writes better than Shakespeare, but if they haven't used an exclamation mark in any piece of work they are judged to be 'below the expected standard'.

That's another thing they've done - got rid of levels and changed it to 'below', 'at' or 'above' the expected standard. There will always be lower ability kids who can't reach the 'expected standard'. Before they could see progress through primary school, maybe getting a level 1 at ks1 SATs and a level 3 at ks2 SATs. Now they are never anything other than 'below the expected standard' I.e. not good enough. If you want to demoralise a kid and turn them of to school, that's got to be the ideal way to go about it.

And that's before you even get started on that ridiculous fucking grammar test and two of the papers being leaked.

[Kikó]

We should test the kids and if they're not ready for a career by the time they're ten then throw them into the sea.

In it together.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I always thought SATs were just a test of teachers rather than kids, as part of the quite brilliant focus on the adults that has dominated education policy under both parties since the 60s.

[Lewis]

You're more than likely to get your 'genuine intellectual curiosity' from elsewhere, so schools might as well standardise to some extent. The problem is that the world would stop spinning if our fantastic teachers (in schools, and certainly in universities) had to accept that they aren't solely responsible for all of the learning ever.

[GS]

Testing is, in general, not a very good way to determine student progress.

I say that as someone who regularly tests students, because there's no less worse way out there to assess individual capabilities within large university classes. But too much high-stakes testing, especially at school level, just leads to "teaching to the test", which massively short-changes students. It leads to the prioritization of test-taking skills in place of genuine intellectual curiosity.

I'm not saying you can't test students, but it shouldn't be the centerpiece of their education. Especially at school level, continuing assessment is a much more effective way for students to learn, and for teachers to assess the level of understanding the students possess.

A university situation simply isn't comparable to primary level education.

As Lewis notes, schools do not exist as the sole origin of learning and are there to progress certain, 'foundational' aspects of a child's development. This is particularly relevant for KS1 (or what used to constitute KS1 if they've changed it). Allowing a 'free rein' to teachers of highly variable quality will lead to plenty of children simply being left behind as some of the teachers in question inevitably indulge themselves and 'new' ideas (which end up not working), and others, who are shit, take it as an opportunity to let kids 'paint' all day while they sit and play snake on their phone.

Teaching "to the test" is far from ideal, but it ensures that certain basics are well covered and hammered home. It's laying a foundation, and making sure that teachers who are failing to do this can be identified early. You may be able to implement wider curricula at certain high performing schools where teaching quality is proven, but a nationwide standardisation is the least bad option you have when considering the numbers in question in the national context.

It provides the most effective safety net you have to ensure that children are not left at the mercy of teacher quality, which is already going to exist as a significant variable in a child's development.

[randomlegend]

A university situation simply isn't comparable to primary level education.

As Lewis notes, schools do not exist as the sole origin of learning and are there to progress certain, 'foundational' aspects of a child's development. This is particularly relevant for KS1 (or what used to constitute KS1 if they've changed it). Allowing a 'free rein' to teachers of highly variable quality will lead to plenty of children simply being left behind as some of the teachers in question inevitably indulge themselves and 'new' ideas (which end up not working), and others, who are shit, take it as an opportunity to let kids 'paint' all day while they sit and play snake on their phone.

Teaching "to the test" is far from ideal, but it ensures that certain basics are well covered and hammered home. It's laying a foundation, and making sure that teachers who are failing to do this can be identified early. You may be able to implement wider curricula at certain high performing schools where teaching quality is proven, but a nationwide standardisation is the least bad option you have when considering the numbers in question in the national context.

It provides the most effective safety net you have to ensure that children are not left at the mercy of teacher quality, which is already going to exist as a significant variable in a child's development.

Which is exactly what was already there, before these changes.

[GS]

Right. Well refine them and get on with it without this nonsense then.

[phonics]

Refine what?

[randomlegend]

That doesn't mean anything :D

I suspect you've just taken your hobby of trying to annoy me for your own amusement back up, because I don't believe you're this stupid.

[Jimmy Floyd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36263685

Her Maj is a bit of a don when it comes to stuff like this.

[phonics]

I saw Dave call the Nigerians "fantastically corrupt" the other day. All in all, it's been a good week for BBC hot mics.

[Lewis]

The Chinese seem to bring out the best in the Royal Family. The 'appalling old waxworks' is the best political quote since the war, and the rest of his account was pretty perceptive as well (not least on Tony Blair).

[Pepe]

When are you finally putting her down? Or will you do a Cuba and pretend she is still alive for the next 100 years?

[Lewis]

You don't even joke about that, mate.

[GS]

That doesn't mean anything :D

I suspect you've just taken your hobby of trying to annoy me for your own amusement back up, because I don't believe you're this stupid.

If you accept the principle of examinations and testing for the reasons I outlined, then we / they / the horrid Tories should refine the testing process and crack on. Hard as it is to believe, I have better things to do that annoy a medical student over school testing.

On a separate note, I was reading some of the reviews of PMQs earlier and the comment was made that Jezza rambled constantly, allowing Dave the Rave to 'cherrypick' the parts he wanted to answer and thus avoid a particularly difficult session. Having just watched it, I can see their point. Corbyn is a seriously unimpressive Commons performer, and he's basically giving him a free pass every week. I'm in a phase of thinking Cameron is a wanker, so it would be nice if someone with a bit of a cutting edge could take over at PMQs. Perhaps they could draft someone like Hilary Benn in for a week, like the time Arsene Wenger took Yaya Toure on trial.

[randomlegend]

If you accept the principle of examinations and testing for the reasons I outlined, then we / they / the horrid Tories should refine the testing process and crack on. Hard as it is to believe, I have better things to do that annoy a medical student over school testing.


It is hard to believe on your previous form.

They haven't 'refined' them. They've fucked them up. They've mad big changes which have made things much worse. I dunno why you find it so hard to accept the government can do anything badly.

[GS]

It is hard to believe on your previous form.

They haven't 'refined' them. They've fucked them up. I dunno why you find it so hard to accept the government can do anything badly.

That's not what I'm saying. If the exam as structured this year is shit, you don't bin the test off - you refine the process for next year and future years, improve it and get on with things. You don't bin the whole concept of testing off because they've fucked one examination up this year.

[randomlegend]

Ohhhhhhhh, that's not what I meant.

I meant the results for THIS YEAR should be binned off because they've been such a disaster. Not that you bin the concept of testing entirely because one year has been a failure. The changes they've come in with should be reverted as well, because they are just in the wrong direction.

Apologies, I obviously wasn't clear.

[GS]

I agree.

It's a shame it took us about a day to get to the point of realising we actually held the same view, more or less. :moop:

[Lewis]

People are getting awfully pissy about the idea of 'government interference' in the BBC, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it depends on the state for its revenues. Why doesn't the government offer to never bother them again in return for no longer enforcing the licence fee?

[Henry]

When are you finally putting her down? Or will you do a Cuba and pretend she is still alive for the next 100 years?

I for one look forward to the day of Charles' coronation when the credibility of the whole thing will hopefully implode.

[GS]

People are getting awfully pissy about the idea of 'government interference' in the BBC, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it depends on the state for its revenues. Why doesn't the government offer to never bother them again in return for no longer enforcing the licence fee?

This is it. It is a de facto state entity. Providing they have editorial independence for their news coverage, and can be investigated for any breaches of impartiality, then ensuring that they don't piss the rest of their budget up the wall on things like Formula 1 (I mean, fucking seriously) seems entirely reasonable.


I for one look forward to the day of Charles' coronation when the credibility of the whole thing will hopefully implode.

I really don't get why it bothers you so much. It has no practical impact on day to day governance. It's not a 'drain' on the public finances, so there is simply no worthwhile reason to amend the current system.

[Boydy]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/12/13/341404D500000578-3586768-image-a-2_1463055036886.jpg

:D

She won some Tesco vouchers.

As much as I dislike the concept of monarchy, even I quite like her. She seems like an old dear.

[GS]

Whatever your view of the monarchy, the Queen is genuinely great. Even the colonies aren't prepared to move towards republics during her reign. Under Charles it might be different, but hopefully he'll shut the fuck up and get on with it. If he had the sense, he'd do a token couple of years and then abdicate.

[Lewis]

I said to my mother the other day that I probably won't live to see King George VII, and she nearly had a breakdown struggling to get her head around it. Prince William is only five years older than me, and they go on forever, so why would I expect to?

[Henry]

I really don't get why it bothers you so much. It has no practical impact on day to day governance. It's not a 'drain' on the public finances, so there is simply no worthwhile reason to amend the current system.

Principle is a worthwhile reason.

[GS]

It's really not. You wouldn't change the system of government, so you'd end up electing a head of state to do what she does. Devoid of substantive power, this individual would no doubt use the thing as a giant ego trip and we would be subjected to the cyclical farce of electioneering from what would no doubt be a highly suspect list of candidates as anyone of substance would presumably run for an office with actual power.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Charles is a boss. I don't get why nobody sees that he's a boss either. I prefer him to William. Long may he eventually reign.

[GS]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/14/labour-struggling-attract-working-class-voters-analysis-fabian-society?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics

All as expected, really.

[phonics]

If the Monarchy and the massive amount of land they own aren't a drain on public finances, can we stop attacking the BBC for spending a couple of million on Gary Lineker then?

[Lewis]

The Crown Estate makes honking amounts of money for the state, which the Queen gets about a tenner of.

[phonics]

According to GS, the BBC makes honking amounts of money for the state by employing people and selling their product abroad so I'm not seeing your point.

[GS]

The BBC take £3.7bn from the state to begin with, so that's not comparable with the use of private capital and equity. We lose heavily, in financial terms, from the BBC. It should be viewed as a de facto public sector employer.

[GS]

If the Monarchy and the massive amount of land they own aren't a drain on public finances, can we stop attacking the BBC for spending a couple of million on Gary Lineker then?

On this specific point, we do very well out of the monarchy in financial terms. If one restricts the discussion solely to the financial sphere, there's no case to answer.

Where one cites emotional arguments, that's a different question. I think our system of government actually works quite well, and there's simply no reason to change. The big selling point of a constitutional monarchy is that the sovereign is above party politics. They 'do the job' because duty compels it, not to massage an ego and we're spared the recurring nightmare of presidential campaigning for a position absent genuine power and meaning. One need only look at the wholly lacklustre line up in Ireland's 2011 presidential election. The line-up included a poet and broadcaster, a Dragons Den businessman, a former IRA army commander and a Eurovision song contest participant. That's all fair and well, but I would much rather have a sovereign fulfilling the necessary constitutional duties than engage in the farce of a presidential campaign with William Hague, Peter Jones, Gusty Spence and Katrina (absent the Waves).

If you want a far bigger, and more immediate, democratic problem, one should look at the House of Lords where the Liberal Democrats, with 8 MPs, are using their second chamber membership to try and derail government policy. Similarly, whatever your views on benefit changes, Labour and the Lib Dems mobilising their second chamber membership to defeat the elected government from the Commons was a far greater problem and the sort of shite that led to the Parliament Act in the first place. The 'progressives' would be going ballistic if it was Tory lords attempting to derail Labour majority government legislation.

[phonics]

You really are a walking contradiction. It's incredible.

edit: No, I'm not interested in going into this further.

[GS]

You really are a walking contradiction. It's incredible.

It would be nice if you explained yourself.

[Lewis]

It's pointless making a case for the monarchy beyond the FACT that it works and that everyone likes it. It obviously doesn't stand up to any rational arguments (which is why the Charles should stand aside for William people are stupid), because it is basically daft in the same way that watching twenty-two people kicking a ball around is daft; but it works and everyone likes it.

[GS]

edit: No, I'm not interested in going into this further.

Presumably because you can't muster a coherent argument.

[phonics]

It's been nearly eight years. I think 95% of your opinions are bollocks formed by narrative and/or when it comes to the religious side of things, mental. I'm not going to spent my Saturday evening debating it.

[Boydy]

Michael D. Higgins > Elizabeth II

[Pepe]

It's pointless making a case for the monarchy beyond the FACT that it works and that everyone likes it. It obviously doesn't stand up to any rational arguments (which is why the Charles should stand aside for William people are stupid), because it is basically daft in the same way that watching twenty-two people kicking a ball around is daft; but it works and everyone likes it.

I like that explanation much better. I still don't quite get how it 'works' (as in, what the fuck does it actually do) but it doesn't seem to do any harm beyond being lol to outsiders like me.

[Pepe]

Btw I've filled a petition to trademark the term 'Snakeplaining.'

[Boydy]

Snakesplaining, surely. You've got to have 'splaining' as the suffix, not 'plaining'.

[Pepe]

You're right, Snakesplaining it is.

[Lewis]

I like that explanation much better. I still don't quite get how it 'works' (as in, what the fuck does it actually do) but it doesn't seem to do any harm beyond being lol to outsiders like me.

I mean more historically, since its supposed safeguards against shitehawks running the show don't seem to be working these days; but it has definitely been a big part of the place not periodically falling to bits over the past few centuries (like France), so we probably owe it another three-hundred years.

[Pepe]

I always figured the only thing it does is remind you of the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE, to make sure people feel important and stay patriotic and whatnot. I guess that's as good a reason as any. I still find it lol, although not as lol as the US military, which seems to mostly serve the same goal while costing much, much more.

[GS]

It's been nearly eight years. I think 95% of your opinions are bollocks formed by narrative and/or when it comes to the religious side of things, mental. I'm not going to spent my Saturday evening debating it.

At least I'm capable of forming an argument and supporting it.


I always figured the only thing it does is remind you of the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE, to make sure people feel important and stay patriotic and whatnot. I guess that's as good a reason as any. I still find it lol, although not as lol as the US military, which seems to mostly serve the same goal while costing much, much more.

Our progression towards constitutional monarchy since the act of union with Scotland has gone a long way to protecting the country from the sort of constitutional convulsions undergone by other countries on the continent (alright, France). On a practical level, no sovereign has withheld royal assent since 1708. Gridlock in the American system, where you have two legislative bodies and a wholly separate executive all seeking to implement your own political agenda is a good example of why the Westminster system of government is more effective at getting things done.

[GS]

Michael D. Higgins > Elizabeth II

I was reading the Irish Daily Mail today, as you do, and there was OUTRAGE because his wife had made some quite outspoken comments on abortion, which have managed to piss off a lot of people. Not that she's a separate figure in her own right, she was literally only invited to speak at an event solely because her husband is the President. We avoid shite like this, thankfully.

[Disco]

I was reading the Irish Daily Mail today, as you do, and there was OUTRAGE because his wife had made some quite outspoken comments on abortion, which have managed to piss off a lot of people. Not that she's a separate figure in her own right, she was literally only invited to speak at an event solely because her husband is the President. We avoid shite like this, thankfully.

Prince Philip says hi, and probably makes reference to potatoes or bogs or something.

[GS]

They're usually unguarded statements that are inadvertently recorded, they're not examples of someone using the office of their spouse to provide a platform for highly contentious views on a sensitive issue. She was participating in a debate, invited because she was "the wife of the President" rather than because she is a leading figure in her own field. That's perfectly fine, but the Presidency in Ireland is supposed to be above 'party politics', nor should it politically interfere.

She can, of course, say what she wants when he leaves office. Martin McAleese did some good work on the peace process up here in fairness, although that was very much "behind the scenes" diplomacy with the loyalists.

[niko_cee]

Highly controversial? You'd think she was advocating shoving the aborted foetuses back in. Ah no, it's Ireland.

[GS]

Abortion is a seriously contentious issue on the island, north and south. They only changed the law in the south about three or four years ago to loosen some of the more stringent restrictions, whilst they still haven't changed it here. The legacy of the church, particularly in rural areas, means that it's an issue requiring sensitive handling. It's certainly divisive, although if you handle it 'correctly' then you will surely get to where you want to be with a sensible policy much sooner than if you presume to preach to people who presumably hold genuine and sincere views on it.

[Henry]

Michael D. Higgins > Elizabeth II

This. The predictable anti-Irish attitude aside.

[GS]

This. The predictable anti-Irish attitude aside.

It is certainly not anti-Irish. If you suggested imposing a monarchy on a country which didn't have one, or indeed in resurrecting a long-dead monarchy (e.g. France), it would never have legitimacy, would never work and thus a presidential system would be the way forward. Where a monarchy exists and has done for centuries, particularly in the Westminster system, that is a very different question. There are no circumstances arising which would justify a change in the UK. Indeed, there a number of advantages to the monarchy (for example: financial, the avoidance of using the position for party political purposes) for the UK and its system of government which create an overwhelming case, in my view, for its continuance.

Long may they reign.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I always figured the only thing it does is remind you of the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE, to make sure people feel important and stay patriotic and whatnot. I guess that's as good a reason as any. I still find it lol, although not as lol as the US military, which seems to mostly serve the same goal while costing much, much more.

We had a monarchy long before the Empire and we'll have one long afterwards as well. Monarchs are basically elected anyway, as we could always 'elect' to overthrow them if we wanted, as we did briefly in the 1600s, before realising the alternative was far worse.

[Henry]

Yeah, a civil war being much more reasonable than an election.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Well they didn't have elections then, other than joke ones which you could only vote in if your ancestors had killed the right people 300 years earlier.

[Magic]

What's with this recent trend of comparing current stuff to historical, incomparable stuff?

[Henry]

Well they didn't have elections then, other than joke ones which you could only vote in if your ancestors had killed the right people 300 years earlier.

You're talking about what we could do now, to justify the stupid comment that they effectively are elected.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The sad truth for republicans is that people like having them, so you'll have to take your faultless logic elsewhere.

[Lewis]

The best thing about the English Civil War is that they only wanted to prove a point, presumably because nobody wanted to have to break it to Charles.

[GS]

What's with this recent trend of comparing current stuff to historical, incomparable stuff?

If Hitler had compared his proposal to invade Russia with Napoleon's effort 129 years earlier then perhaps he wouldn't have got to the gates of Moscow before watching his armies start to freeze to death.

Historical precedent, such as it is, can be important.


The sad truth for republicans is that people like having them, so you'll have to take your faultless logic elsewhere.

I don't understand why people get annoyed about it, but there's always a hardcore of holier-than-thous who believe their "principles" are somehow purer than everybody else's. Henry falls into this category, unfortunately.

[Magic]

Yeah Hitler was a psychopath though.

[GS]

That's debatable.

[Spoonsky]

If Hitler had compared his proposal to invade Russia with Napoleon's effort 129 years earlier then perhaps he wouldn't have got to the gates of Moscow before watching his armies start to freeze to death.

Historical precedent, such as it is, can be important.

I'd argue that this is a simplistic view to take. If he had gone straight to Moscow instead of heading south and getting stuck in Stalingrad he might well have won Russia / the war. Hitler wasn't ignorant of Napoleon, he went to the fellow's grave in Paris and obviously was aware of the precedent in Russia.

Someone more knowledgeable can back me up or contradict me on this.

[Lewis]

Napoleon wanted to win a decisive battle (preferably without having to travel very far), agree to peace on his terms having proven what he was all about, and then leave. He obviously never got the battle he wanted, so he cooked up capturing Moscow as an alternative, expecting to bowl in and dictate terms to what he hoped would be a bunch of chumps just sitting there in awe of him. Obviously that never happened either. By contrast, Adolf Hitler wanted to hoover up European Russia and keep it forever, which meant advancing across a broad front and securing their new possessions. Moscow was important as a railway and manufacturing hub (and no doubt a propaganda coup), but invading with the sole intention of capturing it would have sunk the rest of their plan, as would any decision to assign it overwhelming priority. In terms of what they actually wanted to do in the first place, the Nazi invasion plan was pretty perfect. They just lost.

Charles XII of Sweden is probably the better direct comparison with Hitler, because there is some suggestion that he wanted to partition Russia once he had battered their armies one at a time, which he was more than capable of doing, and would more than likely have caused the discontent present at the time to have boiled over into an almighty seethe against Peter the Great and thrown everything into MELTDOWN.

[GS]

I'd argue that this is a simplistic view to take. If he had gone straight to Moscow instead of heading south and getting stuck in Stalingrad he might well have won Russia / the war. Hitler wasn't ignorant of Napoleon, he went to the fellow's grave in Paris and obviously was aware of the precedent in Russia.

Someone more knowledgeable can back me up or contradict me on this.

I wasn't being serious - it was another "Hitler reference" for the sake of making one.

[GS]

Natalie Bennett is stepping down as leader of the Green Party. Quite possibly the least impressive political figure you're likely to see.

[Magic]

Boyd will be gutted.

[Lewis]

I'd like to see how a bloke would go leading the Greens. Putting aside the practical difficulties of finding somebody credible in their legions of hippies and wankers, would the lolness of their policies be more or less apparent without some soppy woman nattering about it?

[Magic]

As long as she's not a fat lesbian...shit forgot about Ruth 'the Don' Davidson.

[GS]

I'd like to see how a bloke would go leading the Greens. Putting aside the practical difficulties of finding somebody credible in their legions of hippies and wankers, would the lolness of their policies be more or less apparent without some soppy woman nattering about it?

I saw a review recently of the Scottish leaders' debate where Patrick Harvie was described as (to paraphrase) fucking useless. Their policies don't get much oxygen, largely because they're seen in most places outside Brighton as a protest vote, they're not going to win so who cares about specifics - TREES etc.

Caroline Lucas will win the leadership if she runs, and you'd imagine she'd join the ranks of Leanne Wood et al in terms of speaking in sternly, matronly tones against Nigel Farage in the next leader's debate. They're not going to have mass appeal, and presumably if there was any danger of them moving from a protest vote to an actual party of consequence their policies would get more scrutiny and they'd be laughed out of the building.

[Lewis]

When I went to watch the local debate across the road during the last election the Green bloke was clearly the most intelligent there, but he was a baldy scientist, so you just know that he yearns for a progressive version of Moonraker. On the other hand, some nasal woman sitting there advocating permanent recession is inherently less threatening.

[GS]

As long as she's not a fat lesbian...shit forgot about Ruth 'the Don' Davidson.

Ruth Davidson's actually quite an impressive public speaker, and she ran a competent campaign. Given what she's working with in terms of Tory perception in Scotland, she did quite well. Kezia Dugdale is a butch lesbian as well, but she's just shit. Caroline Lucas, to be fair, is impressive enough - even if I do think she is mental.

[Magic]

Dugdale is a hateful cunt. The SNP have basically re-established the Tories in Scotland, that's it. If you'd have said that 10...nay even 5 years ago you'd have been sectioned. Labour are dead in the UK.

[GS]

When I went to watch the local debate across the road during the last election the Green bloke was clearly the most intelligent there, but he was a baldy scientist, so you just know that he yearns for a progressive version of Moonraker. On the other hand, some nasal woman sitting there advocating permanent recession is inherently less threatening.

Again, I think it's just that people see them as a party of protest so they don't really care. UKIP successfully made the move from party of protest to party of consequence (sort of) through strong performances in the European elections. Granted they only won one seat, but they took 3.8m votes in the last election. They were subjected to some scrutiny, and the unfortunate reality for those who would cry RACIST is that it would appear their vote ultimately proved stable i.e. people learnt more and didn't run for the hills. I doubt you could say the same for the Greens.

[Lewis]

I bet the Greens' absolute core is as solid as the UKIP one. Places like Norwich and other pockets of the country that would be wealthy enough to ride out a famine are bang up for it, and would happily see Labour lose forever if they could still smug it out.

[GS]

I bet the Greens' absolute core is as solid as the UKIP one. Places like Norwich and other pockets of the country that would be wealthy enough to ride out a famine are bang up for it, and would happily see Labour lose forever if they could still smug it out.

Possibly. I'd wager the UKIP vote core is stronger. This is quite interesting reading: here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Voter_demogr aphics)

Your average Green voter is under 29, educated, renting privately and reading the Guardian. So Boydy, basically. Your average UKIP voter is a male over 60, poorly educated, low social status and living in social housing. I suspect the latter is a stronger 'core' of voter, largely because Labour have consistently neglected issues in the north. They've long treated the northern seats as places where they could pin a red rosette on any breathing mammal and win the seat, whilst the Greens are probably struggling to create a clear narrative for themselves other than TREES etc.

UKIP are talking about issues that matter to your average bloke over 60 from a post-industrial town where Polish Jeff and his family have taken his daughter's social house and his son's job at the local factory. In that context, who gives a fuck about 'renewable energy'?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I know someone who is a Conservative/Green swing voter. Get that in your focus group and smoke it.

[GS]

I know someone who is a Conservative/Green swing voter. Get that in your focus group and smoke it.

We had transfer votes in the local elections here from Alliance to UKIP. I'm unconvinced that people undertaking such transfers are fully cognisant of how the system works.

[Raoul Duke]

The Greens could, in theory be doing alright - the issues they (should) give a fuck about are some of the key topics of the day - climate change, renewable energy and associated stuff like fracking etc., but they get sidetracked by loads of wishy-washy dream-catcher bollocks.

[GS]

They're issues most people genuinely don't give a shit about. Or if they do give a shit, nowhere near enough that it's going to swing a vote. Fracking especially is really a local issue.

[Jimmy Floyd]

They should really abandon the left wing element and become a catch all environmental and conservation party. They do absolutely nothing for wildlife, for example, or really know anything about the countryside at all. It's a party run by urban timewasters who talk a much better game than they play.

[GS]

It's because everyone rural is voting for the Tories.

"They don't know what's best for them."

[GS]

I was watching the first half-hour of the BBC's 2015 election coverage again, with the exit poll etc., and the level of seething from Paddy Ashdown and Harriet Harman is something else.

[Boydy]

That's pretty sad.

[John]

What an odd way to spend an evening.

[Lewis]

It's a shame that the old board and old thread appears to be officially finished.

[The Merse]

Ruth Davidson's actually quite an impressive public speaker, and she ran a competent campaign. Given what she's working with in terms of Tory perception in Scotland, she did quite well. Kezia Dugdale is a butch lesbian as well, but she's just shit. Caroline Lucas, to be fair, is impressive enough - even if I do think she is mental.

Even a Tory-baiting, Scots independence sympathising fuck like me can respect Davidson. She's not a bad character by modern standards and offers decent candour, even if I might not find everything that she espouses completely palatable. She has a certain honesty that is devoid of most of the Tories.

[The Merse]

I was watching the first half-hour of the BBC's 2015 election coverage again, with the exit poll etc., and the level of seething from Paddy Ashdown and Harriet Harman is something else.

Seem to recall particularly enjoying Ashdown's difficulty in pulling anything positive out through gritted teeth. Might do the same, always enjoy re-watching current affairs with retrospective bias.

[GS]

That's pretty sad.

It was a result of clicking through a series of things after reading that Ed Miliband has managed to drop to the 40th most influential person in Doncaster. It was very interesting actually, being able to look back on it with knowledge of how it all panned out.

[GS]

Even a Tory-baiting, Scots independence sympathising fuck like me can respect Davidson. She's not a bad character by modern standards and offers decent candour, even if I might not find everything that she espouses completely palatable. She has a certain honesty that is devoid of most of the Tories.

It's not just the Tories, it's most politicians. I see even some of the SNP lot have been embroiled in particularly unpleasant personal stories recently e.g. slander (and having to pay a five figure sum in recompense) and extra-marital affairs.

That Guido Fawkes website has been doing some of its own digging recently. There's obviously this controversy (although surprisingly little mainstream coverage) over alleged Tory election expenses. It's transpired that there's quite a lot of examples of Labour and Lib Dem candidates / MPs who were engaged in equally shady practices.


Seem to recall particularly enjoying Ashdown's difficulty in pulling anything positive out through gritted teeth. Might do the same, always enjoy re-watching current affairs with retrospective bias.

Aye, he wasn't best pleased. It's quite interesting where they've ended up really, because I suspect half the electorate couldn't tell you who Tim Farron is or what the Lib Dems even exist for any more. They have the same number of MPs as the DUP, for fuck sake. I suspect they might actually be done for, because why would you bother voting for them.

[Lewis]

I would love it - love it - if Andy Burnham fucks this Manchester thing up. Rubber-faced twat.

[phonics]

GS has absolutely brutalized the definition of very interesting there.

[GS]

He's absolutely shit, but then Manchester City Council has 95 Labour councillors for only 96 seats so it would presumably take a monumental fuck up for the official Labour candidate not to walk it.

[Lewis]

The stupid bastard has been having a go at the BBC for giving the 'London perspective' on immigrants, and claiming that Northerners laugh at kids who want to be doctors. Feel the Burn[ham].

[GS]

Begin Operation Monumental Fuck Up. Repeat. Begin Operation Monumental Fuck Up.

I watched Corbyn's response to the Queen's Speech earlier, by the way. Christ he's dismal.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Burnham said he wanted to 'put the swagger back into the Manchester music scene'. I'm genuinely baffled.

[GS]

I don't understand what he's thinking when he suggests that anyone showing ambition in the north is laughed at. It's genuinely patronising, really.

[Boydy]

Burnham said he wanted to 'put the swagger back into the Manchester music scene'. I'm genuinely baffled.

He's going to get Oasis to reform.

[Boydy]

Maybe they just laughed at him when he used to tell people he was going to Prime Minister.

They probably still do.

[Lewis]

His best one was his sob story about having to move to London for work when he was younger. You didn't have to be a political researcher for the party you joined when you were fourteen, you wanker.

[Boydy]

How's that job search in Hull going?

[GS]

London has more jobs. It's a capital and the largest city. This happens everywhere. Get over it.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Maybe he's going to do what Bez used to do for the Happy Mondays. Although too many shouts of 'Ccccaaall the ccccoppsss' in Mancunian local politics might backfire.

[Lewis]

My job search is failing everywhere, so blaming Hull is pointless. As for Our Andy, that ponce Steerpike (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/is-andy-burnham-telling-the-whole-truth-about-his-time-outside-westminster/) pieced his backstory together, and he did an internship, worked for a publisher, and then got a job with Tessa Jowell because somebody recommended him to her. Proper hard life.

[GS]

He probably sees it as a route to winning the leadership one day, the flip-flopping wanker.

[Kikó]

Burnham is such a plastic Scouse. Complete nonentity.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Michael Deacon, aka the best political sketch writer working today, skewered him a while back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12143038/Labour-are-finally-listening-on-immigration-...-and-heres-the-proof.html


I stop a woman in the street.

“Hello, normal woman,” I say. “I’m Andy Burnham, and I like ice cream and watching the telly. I’m here to stand in silence while your lips move. Do you think Labour have got it wrong on immigration?”

“I’m not all that bothered about immigration,” she says. “The reason I wouldn’t vote Labour is I don’t like your leader.”

“I see,” I say, making sure not to smile. “Who would you rather we’d picked to be our leader? Anyone in particular?”

“Good question,” she says. “The other three candidates were even worse.”

Obviously it’s important to canvass the public’s views on immigration, but there are times when you encounter real ignorance and prejudice.

[phonics]

Five G4S (https://www.theguardian.com/business/g4s) Lincolnshire police control room staff have been suspended after allegations that they were making hundreds of 999 calls at quiet times to improve their perceived performance.

The five call handling staff, who are believed to include the Lincolnshire force control room manager, are understood to have made more than 600 bogus “test calls” in order to meet their target of answering 92% of calls within 10 seconds or less.


The suspended officers were all former Lincolnshire police employees who transferred to G4S four years ago when the private security company took over a £200m contract – the largest ever – to run the force’s back-office services. G4S has claimed the contract saves the force £6m a year and hailed it as a potential model for the rest of British policing.


A Lincolnshire police spokesman said an investigation was started in January after its anti-corruption unit received an internal allegation that staff within the control room were calling 999 at quiet times to ensure calls were picked up quickly to improve perceived performance.

This is why private firms and especially G4S should never be allowed to be in charge of public services ever. If they are seen to be 'underperforming' ie getting paid less. They will lie, cheat and steal their way to get that money. At least with the public sector it's just incompetence.

[GS]

That's a lack of internal control, first and foremost.

[Jimmy Floyd]

G4S having contracts like that is the result of everyone spouting off about wanting to sack all the pen pushers and 'back office staff' on the public payroll without actually realising how important they are.

[GS]

Having seen the administrative side of the public sector, I'm convinced you could sack tens of thousands of them without consequence. You'd just cut holidays to normal levels and require those who were left to actually do a full day's work.

[GS]

The sad truth for republicans is that people like having them, so you'll have to take your faultless logic elsewhere.

Ipsos MORI did some polling on satisfaction levels with the Royal Family:

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales: +60
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge: +73
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth: +81

The House of Windsor. :cool:

[Lewis]

Who are the sickos not satisfied with the Queen?

[GS]

It's only 5%, so one suspects it's Jeremy Corbyn, that lad the BBC are obliged to reference from Republic every time there's a story about the monarchy, Henry and one or two other embittered republican types.

Long may she reign.

[ItalAussie]

Sickeningly subservient. :D

A place for everything and everything in its place, I suppose.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Greg Norman probably had higher approval ratings than that in the late 80s.

[The Merse]

Ipsos MORI did some polling on satisfaction levels with the Royal Family:

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales: +60
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge: +73
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth: +81

The House of Windsor. :cool:

What question was actually posed?

I don't understand how intelligent people approve of the concept of a royal family in modern society, but I can understand them approving of the way they've conducted themselves.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Elizabeth II does her job as Queen. Or something very similar to that. I saw it earlier but can't be arsed to look again.

[The Merse]

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Elizabeth II does her job as Queen. Or something very similar to that. I saw it earlier but can't be arsed to look again.

I'm satisfied.

I'm also an ardent republican who detests the notion of being subject to any individual(s) by way of it being their birth right.

[GS]

You lads realise that it isn't 1528 any more, I would hope.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You just want the 'Prince of Wales' title to be vacated.

[The Merse]

You lads realise that it isn't 1528 any more, I would hope.

Yes, OK - of course it's not, of course there's no real power there, but the pomp and ceremony, the income, swearing allegiance, etc. It has no place in a democratic meritocracy.

[GS]

The pomp and ceremony, the income etc. all combine to generate a significant net positive contribution to the Treasury.

On the subject of swearing allegiance - one should consider it in the context of the institution itself, rather than the individual. I presented what I believe are some fairly reasonable arguments as to why the institution, where one already exists, is preferable to the recurring farce of electing a head of state with no actual power.

[ItalAussie]

The treasury thing is a blind. It basically counts tourists to the UK, assuming that they'd simply vanish without the knowledge that a Queen is sitting in the palace they're looking at.

But in the end, any monarchy/republic debate has to come down to the same (absolutely correct) line Jimmy took in the Scotland debate. It shouldn't about things like economics, tourism, or bureaucracy. It's about who you want to be as a people.

I'm obviously a supporter of the republic in the context of Australia, which is a very different thing (although I am opposed to the idea of monarchies in general, of course). Having a foreign head of state is a step removed from having a monarch who is one of your own. That said, I think QE2 has been relatively benign as far as monarchs could go, so my objections to her aren't personal.

[GS]

The treasury thing is a blind. It basically counts tourists to the UK, assuming that they'd simply vanish without the knowledge that a Queen is sitting in the palace they're looking at.

But in the end, any monarchy/republic debate has to come down to the same (absolutely correct) line Jimmy took in the Scotland debate. It shouldn't about things like economics, tourism, or bureaucracy. It's about who you want to be as a people.

One can look at the Crown Estate accounts and see they're generating a net profit for the Treasury - it's not as if one must infer this from the number of foreigners taking pictures that I'm required to dodge on Westminster Bridge every time I go over.

[ItalAussie]

One can look at the Crown Estate accounts and see they're generating a net profit for the Treasury - it's not as if one must infer this from the number of foreigners taking pictures that I'm required to dodge on Westminster Bridge every time I go over.

Are you assuming that the land would disappear with the monarchy?

[GS]

Are you assuming that the land would disappear with the monarchy?

What?

[ItalAussie]

What?

I presume most of the money they make in their estate is based on their role as land-owners. Lands which presumably wouldn't turn into empty void upon the vacation of the monarchy.


EDIT: Although I do want to reiterate the point that I don't consider financial arguments for or against the monarchy to be anywhere near the most important reason to want to keep/remove the institution. Not because I think they're wrong in substance, but just because it shouldn't matter. Identity is more important than budget lines.

[GS]

Assets of that nature would presumably be under the remit of the National Trust, thus carrying out the same function as at present.

We wouldn't start building a load of crap social housing on any of it.

[ItalAussie]

Assets of that nature would presumably be under the remit of the National Trust, thus carrying out the same function as at present.

We wouldn't start building a load of crap social housing on any of it.

In which case, the royals themselves have very little to do with the associated treasury boost, which would presumably continue in their absence.

In the end, their role is ceremonial, and on a deeper level, philosophical. Financial arguments, however incorrect they are, just aren't the crux of the issue.

[phonics]

The one, the only, Tony B has come out and said that he 'underestimated the forces of destabilization'.

What a wanker.

Although two years ago he was saying 'We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that "we" caused this' so I guess we can call it growth.

[GS]

In which case, the royals themselves have very little to do with the associated treasury boost, which would presumably continue in their absence.

In the end, their role is ceremonial, and on a deeper level, philosophical. Financial arguments, however incorrect they are, just aren't the crux of the issue.

Not for you, but for others the notion that they are 'scroungers' continues to be used as an argument.

I have some sympathy with your view in terms of their role. I suspect I would feel differently if the monarchy wasn't well established and well liked. But given it is both established and well liked, I don't see any justification whatsoever for questioning our system for generations yet. Even if there was a modern-day abdication crisis law 1936.


The one, the only, Tony B has come out and said that he 'underestimated the forces of destabilization'.

What a wanker.

Although two years ago he was saying 'We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that "we" caused this' so I guess we can call it growth.

Laying the groundwork for his defence after the Chilcot report sticks the boot in, no doubt.

[The Merse]

Not for you, but for others the notion that they are 'scroungers' continues to be used as an argument.

I have some sympathy with your view in terms of their role. I suspect I would feel differently if the monarchy wasn't well established and well liked. But given it is both established and well liked, I don't see any justification whatsoever for questioning our system for generations yet. Even if there was a modern-day abdication crisis law 1936.



Laying the groundwork for his defence after the Chilcot report sticks the boot in, no doubt.

I agree with Ital. It's very much a question of who we want to be as a people.

The economic argument is always ridiculous as it's incredibly difficult to forecast, and I should think the history and well preserved residences would continue to be a draw. They're not freeloaders from the perspective that I'm sure they'd benefit financially from deposition through multimedia deals and compound investment off the back of that.

My issue is that it's ludicrous to have a reverential relationship with a head of state that is unaccountable and appointed by lineage. Never mind that there's also the sexism debate to be had too.

Behead them all.

[Pepe]

But in the end, they are 'scroungers' aren't they? In that they get paid to do absolutely nothing. That the monarchy™ generates income does not change that fact. As Ital says, the palace and the guards that don't move and all that shite would still generate money whether you have a queen or not (check Versailles.) I also agree that that's not the main argument to be had, of course.

[Pepe]

I don't see any justification whatsoever for questioning our system.

GS's response to everything.

[GS]

Again, I think you're making the mistake of equating the more dictatorial monarchies of centuries past with modern constitutional monarchy. The 'Succession to the Crown Act 2013' updated male-preference primogeniture for absolute primogeniture - so the 'sexism' issue you cite (which I presume is in relation to the succession) doesn't apply any more.

You should read the theory about the "King's Two Bodies". It looks at how the concept of monarchy developed. In short, the monarch has 'two bodies': 1) the body politic; that is, their actual person, and 2) the body spiritual; that is, the actual institution itself and what it represents. The latter can best be summed up by "the king is dead - long live the king". The monarch may die, but the institution itself continues and offers stability irrespective of who sits 'on the throne'. The reverential relationship you cite would have been, I suspect, in both contexts in past centuries. In the present day, it should very much be considered in the context of the latter. You're not 'pledging allegiance' to the monarch as an individual, you are pledging allegiance to the institution which should be considered synonymous with the country and what it stands for.

The final point is that the head of state in a constitutional democracy adopts a wholly ceremonial role. There is nothing, as such, they should be held accountable for providing they do not make public statements on policy. To that end, they can act as a genuine unifying figure in a way that an elected representative simply cannot. They'll, presumably, have a long record in public life and will have made statements or held positions which a significant number of people are likely to disagree with. They cannot be truly representative in the way the monarch in this country can be.

In a well-timed article, this might prompt some thinking: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/return-of-the-kings-are-we-about-to-enter-a-golden-age-of-monarchy/

[GS]

But in the end, they are 'scroungers' aren't they? In that they get paid to do absolutely nothing. That the monarchy™ generates income does not change that fact. As Ital says, the palace and the guards that don't move and all that shite would still generate money whether you have a queen or not (check Versailles.) I also agree that that's not the main argument to be had, of course.

That the monarchy generates income does change this fact, although I won't pretend that there aren't certain branches of the royal house which can be categorically excused from the label.

If we stick to the 'high profile' branch: Last year, the Queen (who's 90) carried out 341 separate royal engagements. The Duke of Edinburgh (who's 95, for fuck sake) carried out 250. That, plus the income generated, does mean the scroungers label isn't accurate.


GS's response to everything.

I do believe I've outlined a number of reasons why, rather than just making a short baseless statement in the manner you would be more accustomed to.

[phonics]

At least you could put a number on Scottish Oil. GS is just saying the word "income" over and over again as if it's fact.

[Jimmy Floyd]

But in the end, they are 'scroungers' aren't they? In that they get paid to do absolutely nothing. That the monarchy™ generates income does not change that fact. As Ital says, the palace and the guards that don't move and all that shite would still generate money whether you have a queen or not (check Versailles.) I also agree that that's not the main argument to be had, of course.

They don't do absolutely nothing. They have a very specific job to go around representing the state and the country at things, representing not only today's state but the weight of the history of Britain, and making people feel good, and they do it very well, aside from Prince Andrew who is a ghastly cunt.

Money is irrelevant.

[Pepe]

They don't do absolutely nothing. They have a very specific job to go around representing the state and the country at things, representing not only today's state but the weight of the history of Britain, and making people feel good, and they do it very well, aside from Prince Andrew who is a ghastly cunt.

Money is irrelevant.

That's the main thing isn't it?

I agree that the money is irrelevant. I even said so.

As for representing the state, couldn't you just pay Lewis minimum wage to go do that? Heard his good at histories.

[Lewis]

http://www.benswithen.co.uk/images/1991b.jpg

'You wot mate?'

[Pepe]

You could bring Yevrah (has anyone seen him?) with you to extol the virtues of British queuing and supermarkets.

[Davgooner]

'Royal engagements'

Fuck sake. It's pretty gruelling stuff I'd imagine, being ferried about in luxury attending banquets, shaking hands and occasionally giving really, really shit speeches. All the while embarrassing the nation which pays for their continued existence.

[Bartholomert]

For what it's worth the only British people I've ever met who want to do away with the monarchy, have been bitter self-hating cultural Marxists types, forever not quite good enough to be accepted into the status quo, who view mass immigration/'multiculturalism' and loss of Western values/exceptionalism as positive cultural enrichment or at least justified retiribution for Europe's colonial legacy.

Aka weirdos who don't appreciate Britain's temporary God-mode dominance of the rest of the world and wrongfully reject that the objective height of civilization was the Victorian Era/values