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

[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

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

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.

[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]

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/...-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.