Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why the war on wokeism won’t work for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    If you say so
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    Would you prefer a thread on invading Scotland with tanks? Him displaying his expertise on the intricacies of the relationship between Sweden’s eight parliamentary parties? His timetable for switching between white wine/salad diet and red wine/root vegetable diet? Or a thousand other oft-repeated old classics.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,355
    edited August 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    edited August 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?
    No. Absolutely not. There were some threads back hijacked by unbelievably tedious religious arguments which made watching paint dry seem super-exciting.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    And you claim you don't rehash arguments or complain about me doing so.

    You do it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    Oh the irony.
    I don't rehash arguments from old threads straight onto the next one unlike you no.

    However obviously the same arguments will often apply on the same topic
    Clearly I haven't read the rules of PB which says if you post something at the end of a thread I'm not allowed to respond in the next thread. Could you forward those rules please because most of us seem unaware of them.
    Most people who aren't as obsessive as you would realise endlessly rehashing old arguments onto the next thread again and again is relentlessly tedious whether within the rules or not
    Lack of self-awareness on a truly industrial scale.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
    No need to apologise for putting me in that category . At least you didn't put me in the dim category. Obviously I don't agree, but one's self perception can be misleading.

    I like your redefinition of 'dim'.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
    The Trinity is bollocks. Discuss.
  • dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Truss has already stated she will alleviate the energy bills for domestic consumers and is looking at increasing allowances

    Again I would suggest that taking a single suggestion and assuming that is it is unwise as everyone may well find out in the next fortnight
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,338
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I think that, generally, people just don't see the change that is taking place in elite culture. This is as true for PB as it is for real life. To take one example, my son's school (and most of the parents in it) are hopelessly and tragically out of date with regard to gender norms. I recently did some work for a local authority who seriously contemplated suing someone who accused them of racial discrimination. I went to a party with neighbours where people were freely stereotyping Chinese people. All things that could potentially lead people on the path to deep trouble, but they stumble forward in spectacular ignorance.

    It isn't some fringe elite issue, some random 'culture war', resucitation of old S28 arguments etc. They are issues that go to the heart of politics and society; a moral crusade or cultural revolution that can have truly devastating consequences if you find yourself on the wrong side of.

    I am personally in the category of being a 'woke sceptic' but I am not 'anti woke'. If I was forced in to choosing a side though - woke vs anti woke, it would be the latter. This is noticeably where most 'woke sceptical' people who try and actively engage with this issue end up.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,536
    .
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
    Ever heard of Kunning-Druger?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    And you claim you don't rehash arguments or complain about me doing so.

    You do it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    Oh the irony.
    I don't rehash arguments from old threads straight onto the next one unlike you no.

    However obviously the same arguments will often apply on the same topic
    Clearly I haven't read the rules of PB which says if you post something at the end of a thread I'm not allowed to respond in the next thread. Could you forward those rules please because most of us seem unaware of them.
    Most people who aren't as obsessive as you would realise endlessly rehashing old arguments onto the next thread again and again is relentlessly tedious whether within the rules or not
    Irony meters just exploded all around the world. @hyufd accusing someone else of being obsessive.

    You have no self awareness at all.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241
    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    I think you'd have a few backbenchers making speeches begging for some additional targeted support, but whether it comes to a rebellion on a vote depends on whether such dissidents can find common ground with the opposition - perhaps on an amendment calling for a universal credit increase?

    I think anything more than that would take time to come to fruition.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?
    No. Absolutely not. There were some threads back hijacked by unbelievably tedious religious arguments which made watching paint dry seem super-exciting.
    It was a joke!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
    I'm guessing you knew that was a joke?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Liz herself is not of course going to produce a budget; her Chancellor is.

    If the next budget, in a few weeks time, is as described I think that we will see rebellions, possibly defections, but the budget will pass.
    Whether, as the Parliamentary term continues and the situation deteriorates, we shall see the Conservative party in Parliament collapse into factional infighting is a different matter.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
    The Trinity is bollocks. Discuss.
    You lucky chap, most of us make do with duality in that department
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    NeilVW said:

    If any PBer wants the url to make a purchase pm me, I promise everything will be kept discreet.


    No Johnson figure to make a pair?
    Sans six-pack.
    I'm seeing Johnson with an NLAW, held at a jaunty angle, and decorated with a Peppa pig icon.
    One for DALL.E?


    Not even DALL.E could portray The Oaf in a more ludicrous fashion than he has already achieved himself in real life.



  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
  • kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
    The Trinity is bollocks. Discuss.
    It may be to you but to millions of Christians it is their faith

    The late Dave Allen had the best comment on this at the end of his shows

    'May your God go with you'
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Truss has already stated she will alleviate the energy bills for domestic consumers and is looking at increasing allowances

    Again I would suggest that taking a single suggestion and assuming that is it is unwise as everyone may well find out in the next fortnight
    AIUI it she said she will “look at the situation” at the time before making a decision.
    Which everyone has taken to mean what you take it to mean. Which is understandable as it is blindingly obvious to almost everybody that these bills are unaffordable.
    My question is. What if it doesn't?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 555

    The Trinity is bollocks. Discuss.

    The Three in Two ? A novel interpretation...

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Tres said:

    .

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
    Ever heard of Kunning-Druger?
    Tres said:

    .

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
    Ever heard of Kunning-Druger?
    Yes


    “The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
    The darling of those who wish to explain why incompetent people don’t know they’re unskilled, the Dunning-Kruger effect may actually just be a data artefact.”


    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    I've just been wondering if I could make some money by flogging "Never snogged a Socialist" T-shirts, to level the playing field.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
    The Trinity is bollocks. Discuss.
    You lucky chap, most of us make do with duality in that department
    Not Franco’s wee moustachioed pal.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Truss has already stated she will alleviate the energy bills for domestic consumers and is looking at increasing allowances

    Again I would suggest that taking a single suggestion and assuming that is it is unwise as everyone may well find out in the next fortnight
    AIUI it she said she will “look at the situation” at the time before making a decision.
    Which everyone has taken to mean what you take it to mean. Which is understandable as it is blindingly obvious to almost everybody that these bills are unaffordable.
    My question is. What if it doesn't?
    I will give you a response as soon as the new Chancellor has provided details to the HOC in the next couple of weeks or so

    As you suggest everything else is speculation
    .
    And I would just say if Truss fails on this I will condemn her and the conservative party completely
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    kjh said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?
    No. Absolutely not. There were some threads back hijacked by unbelievably tedious religious arguments which made watching paint dry seem super-exciting.
    It was a joke!
    I know. I just wanted to put a stake through its heart.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    The emerging experience of the US is that point where "wokeism" becomes a significant political problem for the left and/or governing parties is where it becomes linked to child abuse. Until then it is a niche issue which most people are not bothered about.

    On the broader issue, I think that the tories will be more effective in their "war on woke" as the opposition party. If the 'wokeism' is seen as coming from a left wing government, then it can become something its opponents rally around in opposition. The fact is, that for all their claims to the contrary, they have been in government for 12 years and have themselves been responsible for a lot of the 'woke' agenda.

    Some of the transgender stuff is definitely starting to cross over into child abuse, which is why it’s such a controversial subject.

    The political problem in the UK, watching from afar, is more one of inaction against the creeping spread of the wokery around the public sector, especially the escalating cost of the thousands of trainers and officers pushing the agenda. When the Home Office is hiring diversity managers, you can bet that the mandarins are doing their best to keep this from Ms Patel. It’s another symptom of the growing lack of control that ministers actually have over the departments they lead.

    How many thousands of trainers and officers pushing woke agendas do you think that there are in the public sector? I genuinely have no idea. In our private sector company of 450 people we have an HR department of three. They spend all their time trying to hire and people in the business. Like offering work from home, a commitment to diversity is now a key element in attracting and retaining staff. What the Daily Mail would call wokery is just part and parcel of the battle for talent.

    And therein lies the problem. Woke has no definition. It basically means "stuff I don't like or which makes me feel uncomfortable". And because of that a harmless public sector HR project that, for example, talks about inclusivity in the workplace becomes just as "woke" and dangerous as allowing blokes to claim they are women so they can get into women only places.

    You’re intellectually lazy Woke is a contemporary religion, like an updated Islam or Christianity, which means it is vast, and touches many things, in good and bad ways - often really bad. It is therefore amorphous and hard to define in a sentence or two

    That doesn’t mean it does not exist, nor does it make Woke trivial. Quite the opposite

    When defining Woke I find this infographic highly useful




    https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1458781564964331520?s=21&t=Kz7_F9FBFs5AhJsrH309Qg
    Bit of a hodgepodge there. Just wrong about climate change, I am surprised if you really align with it on drugs, homelessness is I imagine a woke issue in the states, not here. Your and their main beef seems to be positive discrimination in education and employment? Fair enough but when I was an undergraduate the right wing Rhodes scholars were singing from exactly the same hymn sheet. OK fair enough it doesn't work, but nor does denying that the difference between being black vs white in 2022 remains a problem. Hilarious ly they do deny that, racism has apparently been abolished by statute. So that's OK. And on trans issues my sense is that common sense is prevailing.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,005

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When we have a grown-up political system. Which means no FPTP.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,536
    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    .

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
    Ever heard of Kunning-Druger?
    Tres said:

    .

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    As for the threader, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall

    This is the same error OGH made vis a vis “the EU as an issue”. Because it never appeared as “the EU” in the top 5 public concerns, he dismissed it. Oops

    Woke and the Culture Wars are highly unlikely to significantly influence the next UK GE. There are more pressing issues for now

    But the one after that? Very possible. For evidence we just need to look at the USA, which is 10 years deeper into the KulturKrieg. Elections (eg Virginia) are already being won and lost on Woke, it might decide the presidency in 2024 (either way)

    On this I agree with you also. Not because I think woke is an issue, unlike you (depending upon how you define 'issue'), but because it can become an issue (whether it should be or not).

    If many more become of your view, it would be utterly stupid of people like me, who think you are wrong, to ignore it. We would be sticking our heads in the sand.
    Look at De Santis. A cunning and successful politician who would surely be the GOP prez nominee (and likely president) if the odious Trump wasn’t in the way

    “Florida is where Woke comes to die”

    He attacks Wokeness at all times. Because he knows it’s a very important issue which agitates voters. He doesn’t do it because he’s a weird crank

    I suspect a lot of the dismissal of Wokeness on here comes from people who simply don’t understand it, because they are

    1. Too old to really grasp a strange new thing
    2. A bit dim
    3. On the left, so they are blind to its implications as they see it as a purely good thing with some silly interpretations. Like “political correctness gone mad” in the 80s. This is so wrong. Woke is way way more profound than that. It’s a new way of perceiving human society
    I accept the first part of your post. I'm guessing you know more about it than me.

    Re the 2nd half of your post (why people here don't understand it) I think that is too simplistic. With one obvious exception, people who post here are not dim. I agree they do tend to be older, although not particularly older than you and many will have younger children. I have a 21 and 26 year old. One working in HR the other doing a Ph.D. at Cambridge living with a girlfriend doing the same. So both immersed in potential woke. Not a dicky bird on it.

    Regarding point 3 I accept that could be the case because that is my view so it would be silly to deny it as a possibility. However I am one who really gets upset by political correctness so you would think I would be wound up by woke and I'm not.
    I’ve got you down as 1. Sorry


    You’re right about “dim”. It’s the wrong word. PB-ers are obviously brighter than average. I was actually looking for a better word but got bored and used “dim”

    A better analysis would be “despite their intelligence, some PBers have a striking and curious inability to see the importance of underlying issues, and to extrapolate from current events”

    OGH’s constant misguided dismissal of the EU “as an issue” is a classic example. It’s a weird form of intellectual myopia.

    Or they’re just dimmer than me
    Ever heard of Kunning-Druger?
    Yes


    “The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
    The darling of those who wish to explain why incompetent people don’t know they’re unskilled, the Dunning-Kruger effect may actually just be a data artefact.”


    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real
    I guess not then. Kunning-Druger is more of a hypothesis.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,338
    edited August 2022

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    I agree that activism has resulted in positive change in this respect.
    However, I think this leads people to the conclude that all activism in this area is good; and they then overlook the detail of what is going on and the ideas behind it.
    I think this is behind the embrace of 'woke' amongst many PB'ers.
  • dixiedean said:

    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.

    I have said consistently if that is the case it is over for Truss and the conservatives
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,241

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    Oh please, god. Let it stop. Not grammar schools again.
    How about religion instead?

    Noooooooo please !
    The Trinity is bollocks. Discuss.
    I've read a little about the history of Byzantium, and the English History podcast I'm listening to has reached the early Stuart period, and it's hard to assimilate just how important questions on religious details were to people. It was a major event when the Latin Mass was replaced by a service in English, and Catholic traditionalists fought hard to resist it, but eventually the Catholic church abandoned the Latin Mass itself, albeit not that long ago.

    This creates a real barrier to understanding people's motivations in the past, and perhaps indeed for the present, for those still exercised by the minutiae of religious doctrine, or some other tenet of non -religious belief. What does Truss really believe, and how will it affect how she governs?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,878

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,355
    edited August 2022

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    @IshmaelZ


    I said that infographic is “highly useful” and not “highly accurate” for the reason you say. I don’t agree with it in several places, especially climate change, but it gives a real sense of the wide pervasiveness of Woke, which really is more like a religion, or an extreme yet successful and overarching political creed


    Perhaps the best comparison is Fascism. Defining Fascism is notoriously hard. Experts famously disagree. No one knows where it begins or ends

    Yet we know it exists?

    Wokeness is the new Fascism of the Left. Discuss
  • Mango said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When we have a grown-up political system. Which means no FPTP.
    Why
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,698
    As shit is pumped on to the beaches whilst its bosses prosper, energy becomes completely unaffordable whilst its bosses prosper and Public Sector services get worse and worse whilst the Tory leaches invade and make a killing.

    Jezza is proved right over and over again (like a modern day Cassandra)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Truss has already stated she will alleviate the energy bills for domestic consumers and is looking at increasing allowances

    Again I would suggest that taking a single suggestion and assuming that is it is unwise as everyone may well find out in the next fortnight
    AIUI it she said she will “look at the situation” at the time before making a decision.
    Which everyone has taken to mean what you take it to mean. Which is understandable as it is blindingly obvious to almost everybody that these bills are unaffordable.
    My question is. What if it doesn't?
    I will give you a response as soon as the new Chancellor has provided details to the HOC in the next couple of weeks or so

    As you suggest everything else is speculation
    .
    And I would just say if Truss fails on this I will condemn her and the conservative party completely
    Obviously completely agree she has to get this right straight from the off. Its even more pressingly defining than Brexit was for the Bozmagog.
    If she flunks and does not quickly u turn i think we will see 4 things
    1) mass unrest
    2) mass non payment of biils as a civil movement
    3) energy suppliers consquently folding
    4) a lot of deaths from freezing, hunger, other unthinkables

    Its simply that stark
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Truss has already stated she will alleviate the energy bills for domestic consumers and is looking at increasing allowances

    Again I would suggest that taking a single suggestion and assuming that is it is unwise as everyone may well find out in the next fortnight
    AIUI it she said she will “look at the situation” at the time before making a decision.
    Which everyone has taken to mean what you take it to mean. Which is understandable as it is blindingly obvious to almost everybody that these bills are unaffordable.
    My question is. What if it doesn't?
    I will give you a response as soon as the new Chancellor has provided details to the HOC in the next couple of weeks or so

    As you suggest everything else is speculation
    .
    And I would just say if Truss fails on this I will condemn her and the conservative party completely
    Obviously completely agree she has to get this right straight from the off. Its even more pressingly defining than Brexit was for the Bozmagog.
    If she flunks and does not quickly u turn i think we will see 4 things
    1) mass unrest
    2) mass non payment of biils as a civil movement
    3) energy suppliers consquently folding
    4) a lot of deaths from freezing, hunger, other unthinkables

    Its simply that stark
    We agree completely
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
    Truss has made clear she would at least end the ban on the establishment of new grammar schools Blair introduced

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/liz-truss-suggests-will-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-pm/
  • dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    The budget will pass whatever it contains. The government has a good working majority, even if some members are anxiously researching NHS dental provision.

    There might be a leadership challenge sooner rather than later, but not in September, however poor the budget turns out to be. Look for support for Labour motions, and polls tanking before conference, and turnout for Boris's fringe speech, which will no doubt be entirely supportive of the government but will remind people he is alive.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited August 2022

    dixiedean said:

    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.

    I have said consistently if that is the case it is over for Truss and the conservatives
    Indeed.
    I was interested in thinking through how that may play out though.
    There are a huge number of Tory MP's backing Sunak who has promised more. Boris has said huge help will be coming.
    And yet the mandate from the membership is to basically do bugger all about bills.
    Does the Conservative Party split?
    As I said. It's a thought experiment because I think it's utterly unsustainable.
    So much so, that nobody seems to have considered it even as a possibility.
    But it surely is one.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    Not only misogynistic, I suspect, but, when "appropriate", racist.

    I sincerely hope this post is not interpreted as being critical of Mr G! Those were the times!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,878

    I've just been wondering if I could make some money by flogging "Never snogged a Socialist" T-shirts, to level the playing field.

    Never tongued a Trot and Wouldn’t bum a Bolshevik also possibilities.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Thought experiment.
    Suppose Liz Truss means what she says.
    And produces a Budget which cuts VAT and business rates, and a few other taxes too, but produces no "handouts" whatsoever regarding energy prices, to either businesses or individuals.
    What happens next?
    Does the Budget pass? Do we see rebellions, defections or an instant leadership challenge?
    Or all three?

    Truss has already stated she will alleviate the energy bills for domestic consumers and is looking at increasing allowances

    Again I would suggest that taking a single suggestion and assuming that is it is unwise as everyone may well find out in the next fortnight
    AIUI it she said she will “look at the situation” at the time before making a decision.
    Which everyone has taken to mean what you take it to mean. Which is understandable as it is blindingly obvious to almost everybody that these bills are unaffordable.
    My question is. What if it doesn't?
    I will give you a response as soon as the new Chancellor has provided details to the HOC in the next couple of weeks or so

    As you suggest everything else is speculation
    .
    And I would just say if Truss fails on this I will condemn her and the conservative party completely
    Obviously completely agree she has to get this right straight from the off. Its even more pressingly defining than Brexit was for the Bozmagog.
    If she flunks and does not quickly u turn i think we will see 4 things
    1) mass unrest
    2) mass non payment of biils as a civil movement
    3) energy suppliers consquently folding
    4) a lot of deaths from freezing, hunger, other unthinkables

    Its simply that stark
    That’ll undoubtedly boost the BetterTogether2 polling numbers. The PB brains trust (chortle) is never wrong.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    edited August 2022

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    Not only misogynistic, I suspect, but, when "appropriate", racist.

    I sincerely hope this post is not interpreted as being critical of Mr G! Those were the times!
    Just look at student rag mags in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm not sure when the change in ethos came about, though.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    I've just been wondering if I could make some money by flogging "Never snogged a Socialist" T-shirts, to level the playing field.

    Never tongued a Trot and Wouldn’t bum a Bolshevik also possibilities.
    Never fingered a Franco fan.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
    Truss has made clear she would at least end the ban on the establishment of new grammar schools Blair introduced

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/liz-truss-suggests-will-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-pm/
    Bread and circuses come to my mind.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    dixiedean said:

    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.

    I have said consistently if that is the case it is over for Truss and the conservatives
    Her government is over from day one if she does not do something meaningful on energy costs.

    Their polling will crater. Tory MPs will start to panic about their seats even in solid seats.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    I struggle with my memory on this. I see TV programmes, particularly comedies from the 60s/70s and also remember the language in factories I worked in while a student and it was appalling. I also remember that at school nobody was out as gay. Not one. However I can't remember being appalled by this at the time, so I assume I just accepted this.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317
    I'm not sure the term woke has been well defined. In some ways though it is just the current social justice paradigm. It used to be about the poor vs rich, now it is a broader debate about different groups of people who are deemed to be disadvantaged in some way. So the right focuses on self reliance, personal responsibility and traditional values, the left on inequality, unfairness and injustices meted out by the strong against the weak. All part of the clash of values you would expect in a democracy.

    A couple of things appear to be different. Firstly the elite seem to have been much more prepared to adopt this modern form of social justice, at least in public, than they were the older version. Perhaps because it is less focused on wealth? Secondly racism, sexism and even transphobia are regarded as much more sinful attitudes than old fashioned snobbery. Such that the mere concern that someone may hold one of these attitudes can be enough to create a witch hunt.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.

    I have said consistently if that is the case it is over for Truss and the conservatives
    Indeed.
    I was interested in thinking through how that may play out though.
    There are a huge number of Tory MP's backing Sunak who has promised more. Boris has said huge help will be coming.
    And yet the mandate from the membership is to basically do bugger all about bills.
    Does the Conservative Party split?
    As I said. It's a thought experiment because I think it's utterly unsustainable.
    So much so, that nobody seems to have considered it even as a possibility.
    But it surely is one.
    Where? The membership are not opposed to more support but what they want ultimately is fracking, nuclear etc not just renewables as that is the only way longer term to bring down energy bills
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    BoJo is still around like a fading fart that no one wants to talk about. It means the couple of no-marks battling for the leadership have no chance to do anything constrictive for another fortnight. Even in his leaving, Boris is damaging the Tories.

    But I have a genuine question. When did it become the governments' job to protect everyone from any inflationary spikes? This is a new one on me. As a boomer, I never expected to receive shed loads of cash as my right. I won't complain and this doesn't make me hanker back for the fifties.

    If the government offers no support the following happens:

    Millions of people cant pay their bills.
    Other millions who just about can pay decide to join a payment strike in solidarity.
    Courts already have a multi year backlog so are of no use enforcing payments (even with no backlog wouldn't help with the can't pays.
    The energy suppliers legally have to continue supplying energy to people who are not paying them for the energy.
    The energy suppliers cannot afford to pay the companies they buy from so go bankrupt.
    The remaining energy suppliers are then told to take on the debts of the bankrupt suppliers and go bust themselves.
    The country has no energy suppliers and we join the Taliban in trying to create a pre industrial revolution society.

    At some point in the chain the government simply has to step in. It may as well get ahead of the problems!
    In the short term the government can supply support but in the longer term it needs to expand energy supply. That includes franking for gas and nuclear as well as renewables. That is the only way longer term to cut energy bills without an ever larger government deficit. That goes foe the entire West too so they reduce their dependence on Russian energy
    If you mean fracking, it's a lot of Tory bollocks as discussed yesterday in between the Royalist Dictatorship stuff. Except when it is offshore - but that is already being done as any fule kno.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.

    I have said consistently if that is the case it is over for Truss and the conservatives
    Indeed.
    I was interested in thinking through how that may play out though.
    There are a huge number of Tory MP's backing Sunak who has promised more. Boris has said huge help will be coming.
    And yet the mandate from the membership is to basically do bugger all about bills.
    Does the Conservative Party split?
    As I said. It's a thought experiment because I think it's utterly unsustainable.
    So much so, that nobody seems to have considered it even as a possibility.
    But it surely is one.
    The return of the Cameroons. The 2016 to 22 eradication squad.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Twelve years of Conservative government and they’re reduced to former royals manning soup kitchens. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,878
    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Awks shout out for far right of centrist dads and Sir Beer Korma..
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Not if it requires an Enhanced DBS.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
    Truss has made clear she would at least end the ban on the establishment of new grammar schools Blair introduced

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/liz-truss-suggests-will-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-pm/
    Bread and circuses come to my mind.
    Truss strikes me as more a Thumbs Down type of emperor than a Thumbs Up type of emperor.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    Not only misogynistic, I suspect, but, when "appropriate", racist.

    I sincerely hope this post is not interpreted as being critical of Mr G! Those were the times!
    Just look at student rag mags in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm not sure when the change in ethos came about, though.
    I edited a student rag mag around 1960. I don't remember including any particularly racist jokes but I probably did.
    I managed to get contributions from at least two of the Goons! Sadly in the hurly-burly of life I didn't keep a copy.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    2005 - progress of sorts?

    https://order-order.com/2005/10/05/davis-boobs/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6661563/David-Davis-mixes-two-Tory-women-left-red-faced-boob-related-retort.html
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,878

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Twelve years of Conservative government and they’re reduced to former royals manning soup kitchens. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
    Ok cheps, where're the ingredients for the game soup and the lobster bisque?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
    Truss has made clear she would at least end the ban on the establishment of new grammar schools Blair introduced

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/liz-truss-suggests-will-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-pm/
    Bread and circuses come to my mind.
    Truss strikes me as more a Thumbs Down type of emperor than a Thumbs Up type of emperor.
    I thought that thumbs down = survival, up = chop? Maybe Ishmael can advise.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    Not only misogynistic, I suspect, but, when "appropriate", racist.

    I sincerely hope this post is not interpreted as being critical of Mr G! Those were the times!
    Just look at student rag mags in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm not sure when the change in ethos came about, though.
    I edited a student rag mag around 1960. I don't remember including any particularly racist jokes but I probably did.
    I managed to get contributions from at least two of the Goons! Sadly in the hurly-burly of life I didn't keep a copy.
    Wow. We’re in the presence of comedy royalty from folks.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,878

    I've just been wondering if I could make some money by flogging "Never snogged a Socialist" T-shirts, to level the playing field.

    Never tongued a Trot and Wouldn’t bum a Bolshevik also possibilities.
    Never fingered a Franco fan.
    'Cos they'd like it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Yes, an encouragingly sensible decision from Charles. Andrew is completely finished as a public figure. He should count himself lucky he’s not in an American jail, and go and manage a rare breed pig
    farm in the Grampians
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Twelve years of Conservative government and they’re reduced to former royals manning soup kitchens. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
    Ok cheps, where're the ingredients for the game soup and the lobster bisque?
    Andrew’s tastes are a bit too fishy and gamey.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    Agreed. And before policies, you need facts about the reality if you are going to effect meaningful change.

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    The reality is that those attitudes have not been consigned to history. I could give you countless contemporary examples.

    One will suffice: last year a customer wanted to talk to the manager of my Daughter's pub. So Daughter went to speak to them and this person kept on asking for the real manger not the duty manager or the person in charge. Until eventually Daughter had to explain that she was the boss, owned the company, employed the staff etc. There was no-one else more senior. The fact that she was a young pretty girl seemed to blind this person to the idea that she was the boss. And they weren't old either - early middle age and female.

    We found it quite funny but bizarre.

    There are plenty of other examples in the contemporary world. It may not be so overt. But misogyny and sexism come to the surface pretty quickly, especially when men's position and assumptions are challenged. And some of it is internalised by other women.
    In the early 30s my mother opened her own pharmacy. She had a fund of misogynistic stories!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Yes, an encouragingly sensible decision from Charles. Andrew is completely finished as a public figure. He should count himself lucky he’s not in an American jail, and go and manage a rare breed pig
    farm in the Grampians
    Eh? What's wrong with the Vale of York? Much better pig country. And they were happy to have the cachet.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Yes, an encouragingly sensible decision from Charles. Andrew is completely finished as a public figure. He should count himself lucky he’s not in an American jail, and go and manage a rare breed pig
    farm in the Grampians
    So you missed the pic of Beatrice and Eugenic?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    2005 - progress of sorts?

    https://order-order.com/2005/10/05/davis-boobs/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6661563/David-Davis-mixes-two-Tory-women-left-red-faced-boob-related-retort.html
    I remember that being cheesy, embarrassing and vulgarly chauvinist at the time. In 2005
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
    Truss has made clear she would at least end the ban on the establishment of new grammar schools Blair introduced

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/liz-truss-suggests-will-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-pm/
    Bread and circuses come to my mind.
    Truss strikes me as more a Thumbs Down type of emperor than a Thumbs Up type of emperor.
    I thought that thumbs down = survival, up = chop? Maybe Ishmael can advise.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollice_verso

    Nobody knows
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Not if it requires an Enhanced DBS.
    Valid point.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Not if it requires an Enhanced DBS.
    Ah, DBS: that's the sort of wokery that will infallibly be swept away because it gets in the way.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 798
    edited August 2022
    On topic, I think a war on woke would have been more effective on a Corbynite Labour Party than centrist Labour. Voters in general probably don't care too much about woke stuff (particularly with things like the cost of living crisis, ambulances not arriving on time etc. being an issue right now), but they DO CARE about whether parties are patriotic and are willing to defend the country. It's not only easy to paint Corbynites as woke, but also suggest them being woke is a symptom of the fact they dislike Britain and believe it has a poisonous legacy.
    By contrast, Starmer's Labour is trying to portray itself patriotic, is pro-NATO, against Russia etc... so the attack line won't be effective.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    kjh said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    I struggle with my memory on this. I see TV programmes, particularly comedies from the 60s/70s and also remember the language in factories I worked in while a student and it was appalling. I also remember that at school nobody was out as gay. Not one. However I can't remember being appalled by this at the time, so I assume I just accepted this.
    There were two openly gay students in my Canadian High School year (out of 100, 1 male 1 female). Early mid 80's.
    It was probably the greatest Culture Shock I experienced. Nobody thought anything of it at all.
    No jokes, remarks, just fact. As a young liberal teen from England I just hadn't considered it a possibility to be out at school.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    I've just been wondering if I could make some money by flogging "Never snogged a Socialist" T-shirts, to level the playing field.

    Never tongued a Trot and Wouldn’t bum a Bolshevik also possibilities.
    Never fingered a Franco fan.
    'Cos they'd like it.
    There’d be songs of praise.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Yes, an encouragingly sensible decision from Charles. Andrew is completely finished as a public figure. He should count himself lucky he’s not in an American jail, and go and manage a rare breed pig
    farm in the Grampians
    Didn't his settlement require him to raise awareness about the evils of sex trafficking etc.,?

    Yes it did - he would "demonstrate his regret" by supporting victims of sex trafficking.

    So he can do that. Or perhaps these were all words to disguise the fact that there was no admission of guilt or apology to Ms Giuffre. She incidentally is now being sued by another Epstein victim.

    I would quite like to know what Epstein was doing for Maxwell pere. It was he who introduced Epstein to his daughter before drowning at sea. What was involved in that financial relationship I wonder.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Private schools in England accused of ‘gaming the system’ on lockdown exam results
    High GCSE and A-level grades awarded by teachers at independent schools in the pandemic fell dramatically after public exams

    Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said this year’s results showed the private sector had “milked the system for all it was worth” in the pandemic .

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/28/private-schools-england-gaming-system-lockdown-exam-results-gcse-a-level-grades

    Posh folk milking the system? I’m shocked I tells ya.

    Though I note grammar schools results last week were still 8% higher than pre pandemic
    Oh here we go again. Money is pumped into grammar schools. They are better resourced than mainstream comprehensives, so their results should be better.

    My key points every time we debate this nonsense is a) selection at 11 is evil and b) selection at 11 resulting in wealthy parents paying for their children to cram to pass the test is not meritocratic.

    Comprehensives should be grammar schools for all not secondary moderns for all.
    No they aren't particularly, plenty of comprehensive academies have more funding than grammar schools and grammars also lack the facilities of private schools and often still have outdoor classrooms.

    There is no such thing as grammar schools for all as grammar schools by definition are selective. Indeed many of the old grammar schools that did not become private schools but comprehensives became closer to secondary modern schools than what they were previously.

    Most grammars also have selection at 13 and 16. Even if you don't back a wholesale return to selective state education we at least need to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars rather than just ballot to close them as now.

    One thing Truss, a parent with girls at grammar school, has been good at is promising to enable the expansion of grammar schools
    I'd be careful about that last paragraph. What precisely has Liz Truss agreed to? She is good at answering nearly the same question that was asked. Are you sure she went beyond not objecting if grammar schools wished to admit more pupils, before moving on to free schools? I get the impression it is mainly primary schools that Truss is interested in, and even there has made no solid commitment.
    Truss has made clear she would at least end the ban on the establishment of new grammar schools Blair introduced

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/29/liz-truss-suggests-will-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-pm/
    OK but that still leaves the action to other people or groups, presumably LEAs. Support but no commitment.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:



    Wokeness is the new Fascism of the Left. Discuss

    Good point, Fascism always needs an external enemy to rally its supporters against. Fascists project their own methods and ideology on the phantom enemy.

    Woke is just the latest mythical enemy for Fascism.
  • Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    And I'll happily bet a shiny sixpence that, when people pushed back against those attitudes, the response was pretty much the one we're seeing to the Woke today.

    Not just that, but a fair few people will have gone to their graves muttering about how the country was going to the dogs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    I wouldn't go around inspecting the nether regions of young ladies en deshabille on the beach, mind. So quite a good excuse for being not au fait with the latest yoof mode.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 612
    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do.
    Failing that, I hear Woking’s Pizza Express has a vacancy.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    I'm going to have to refuse to save the planet for these turds im afraid.
    Just so you know where i stand kids... i'm oot
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    A source said: “Andrew desperately wants and needs something to do with his life.

    “The past few years since he stepped down after the Epstein interview have taken their toll and losing his royal roles has left him with next to nothing.“

    https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/9318359/prince-andrew-beatrice-eugenie-charles-job/

    Huh? Next to nothing?

    His private bank, Luxembourg's Banque Havilland SA, put his wealth at about 5 million pounds.

    Add in his extensive use of public assets.

    He could do voluntary work in a soup kitchen if he wants something to do. Charles has correctly made clear there will be no return to royal duties for Andrew
    Not if it requires an Enhanced DBS.
    Valid point.
    Would it? An enhanced DBS check brings up a check of your criminal record which will show details of all spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings held on central police records (apart from protected convictions and cautions) plus additional information held on local police records that is reasonably considered relevant.

    If he decided to volunteer at a soup kitchen for the elderly, he could in theory.

    In reality @Leon is right: Andrew is out of royal public life for good. There is plenty of stuff he can do privately using his wealth.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,878
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    @LostPassword and @OldKingCole.

    Thanks for that.
    It seems quite remarkable that almost no-one has seriously considered what may happen if she's actually not dissembling to please the selectorate, but means what she says.

    I have said consistently if that is the case it is over for Truss and the conservatives
    Indeed.
    I was interested in thinking through how that may play out though.
    There are a huge number of Tory MP's backing Sunak who has promised more. Boris has said huge help will be coming.
    And yet the mandate from the membership is to basically do bugger all about bills.
    Does the Conservative Party split?
    As I said. It's a thought experiment because I think it's utterly unsustainable.
    So much so, that nobody seems to have considered it even as a possibility.
    But it surely is one.
    It is looking through 'crystal ball' time when my instinct is telling me to hold fire until I know the detail which should be by mid September

    And make no mistake if she gets this wrong she will be out very quickly either from within or without

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Jamóns are worried about not being kissed again.


    Frankly for a possible future cabinet minister it demeans her more than anything

    When are we going to get grown up politics
    When are you snowflake Tories going to get a sense of humour? "Never kissed a Tory" is hardly a hate crime - just a light-hearted T-shirt, really.
    It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those types who chortle themselves silly over the political grotesques they support owning the snowflake libs are invariably the first to be fulminating over fantastically juvenile lefties.
    No one is “fulminating”. We are embarrassed on her behalf (and now embarrassed on your behalf, too)

    Never Kissed A Tory was perhaps a tiny tiny tiny bit funny in about 1989, or whenever it was coined. In 2022? On a tee shirt worn by an adult politician?

    It is utterly cringeworthy. Mortifying. It is tragic that she thinks this is amusing and rather tragic that you thought it so amusing you decided to post it on here. As the kids say: Awks
    Tbf its more pithy than my failed 'Never been fingered by a Kipper' fashion wear range
    Have you seen what the kids are actually writing on themselves these days? A friend of mine is a pro photographer and has a photo essay in today’s Sunday Times, from a surfing tournament at Newquay

    Here’s one of the photos that didn’t make the magazine



    He tells me there were multiple examples of this. Overtly sexual and “kinky” messaging. Many much more overt

    Truss might be more popular with the 18-30s than we realise

    'I really feel I must share these pics with you just to show what kids are up to nowadays.'

    'Shocking! Disgusting! Any more?'
    Lol. I have plenty more. He sent me a bunch. Some are quite shocking. But I don’t want to disturb the mods, or give any of our more fragile commenters a heart attack
  • LDLFLDLF Posts: 107
    edited August 2022
    I am happy to be corrected here, but from what little attention I have paid to the two candidates' talking points, the one who seems to bring up 'woke nonsense' more is not Truss but Sunak. I sense that after this leadership contest he is likely to be reinvented as some sort of 'Centrist Dad' (assuming he loses of course), but for now, he seems the more stridently 'anti-woke' of the two.

    One of the problems with the term 'Woke' is that it has become a bit of a yah boo word. It could mean all sorts of things, from 'aware of the history of racism' to 'all white people are racist', so say nothing of views on gender identity. If someone in a survey said they were anti-woke I would have no idea what they meant.
  • Cyclefree said:

    One of the problems with diversity programmes is that they can all too often slide into simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them, thus annoying both those who wonder what's the point of the programmes and those they are ostensibly meant to help.

    It’s as if what matters most is not goodness but the appearance of it.

    Take an example: at my last place of work, there was a fair amount of effort within the Legal and Compliance department to help women in their careers and it is one of those departments where there were a lot of women, certainly more than on the trading floor. And yet by the time I left I was the only woman who had been promoted to Managing Director in the department doing a full-time job with a family. Redundancy programmes had lost a swathe and others went part-time. Some of that was choice, of course, but a choice informed by how hard it was to make it otherwise. A study showed that it took longer for women to be put forward for promotion than men of the same experience and ability. That creates a vicious loop because not seeing women in senior positions makes it harder for younger women to imagine themselves in similar positions, to push forward, to find mentors etc.

    Role models really help - and that goes for all groups. I did quite a few talks in my later years to womens networks sharing my experience / useful tips / things I'd wished I'd known when younger. Much of what I said could apply to others who don't appear to fit in and it is not about being anti-other groups more about recognising your own worth and not allowing yourself to be pigeonholed.

    And, yet, on paper the firm had all the right diversity policies, photos, days of action etc. It was all largely show to make those at the top feel better. IMO we focus too much on how people feel and the look of things rather than the hard-edged reality of people's lives and practical ways of helping them.

    I agree with all that.

    I'd just say that the problem with some of the arguments on here is that some seem to think that the progress made in the workplace by women (and other groups who used to get a raw deal) over the last 50 years would just have somehow magically happened without any policies on diversity, equal opportunities and so forth.

    I'd argue strongly that such progress has been accelerated by what I'd call activism, of various sorts, and changes in HR thinking and policies. I don't think people could seriously argue that doing nothing would have led to a more equitable, and talented, workforce.
    As someone who was an employer 50 years ago I rather shudder when I think of some of the things that I said and did. And I was considered liberal by many of my contemporaries!
    I look back in amazement to what was said in the staff room at a well known company when I started work 60 years ago
    .
    In hindsight it was shocking by modern standards, and so utterly misogynistic it is good those attitudes have been consigned to history
    Not only misogynistic, I suspect, but, when "appropriate", racist.

    I sincerely hope this post is not interpreted as being critical of Mr G! Those were the times!
    I was young and did not take part but was very uneasy
This discussion has been closed.