Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
It requires the building of houses and infrastructure *BEFORE* the population increases.
Instead we have people wanting almost unlimited minimum-wage immigration, while simultaneously objecting to a single house being built within 10 miles of themselves, and with the highest tax burden in living memory.
Even Jacob Rees-Mogg gets it, that housing is the single biggest issue facing the country at the moment. He got a massive round of applause on Question Time for saying just that.
But to return to the original point, these things are not just about urban planning, but conscious choices about the kind of wages, economy and society we want. Why have German wages been higher for the last 60 years, when rises in population have been generally comparable over that time, as we've seen ?
In fact, during the 1980's and before reunification, when British real wages were stagnating, the German population was still rising *faster* than the UK one, from what I've interestedly seen today.
Population is not just about immigration, its about 4 factors: immigration, emigration, births and deaths. Germany has for decades now had a comparable immigration and death rate to the UK, but much lower birth rate, and much higher emigration rate, hence why Germany has had a stable population but the UK has had a growing one.
Until the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' so real British wages were stagnating, yes, the UK economy picked up after Thatcher reformed the economy.
Rises in population have not been comparable over that time. But population and wages are not related - America has had far more population growth, and far higher wages too.
Hve they got shit in their rivers and beaches though.
They've got lead in their drinking water, which is probably worse.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
My colleague's secondary used them for setting.
More fool that secondary school unless it appropriately weights primary schools for the level of gaming they primary schools on SATs.
“I don’t appear to understand my society,” she said. “My hope hindered my understanding of the reality." Turkey's opposition, trailing Erdogan, reckons with the election results https://twitter.com/kfahim/status/1658780509256794112
Except and it's worth quoting a reply to that tweet
@peri__ayla Great article, although I would have hoped it would have included the revelations of the past 24 hours that votes seem to have been systematically manipulated when entered into YSK systems.
Which is something the opposition have now caught wind off so will be more carefully watching at the second vote.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
My colleague's secondary used them for setting.
More fool that secondary school unless it appropriately weights primary schools for the level of gaming they primary schools on SATs.
My private school managed to do setting per year, each year, all the way through in the 1980s. They would have found the idea of er... setting your level based on one exam, in one year, insane, I think.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
I mean, it is of interest that this year's paper was particularly hard. But it's really not the massive injustice it's painted as. Because it was hard for everyone, and the point of SATs is to be able to compare schools, not to give everyone who gets above 80% a lollipop. I note what someone says downthread about setting for secondary schools (though that doesn't happen here). But the same logic applies - they're hard for everyone.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
I'm sure TSE will be shedding no tears at this one.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 7h Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.
I agree, if they got 7% in a GE that would mean over 2 million people voted for them, how likely is that as I doubt 0.1% of the population would know who their leader was..
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
I still remember, from 75 years ago, arguing with the pre 11+ teacher about whether “pertaining to the country” should be “rural” or “national”. We had weekly tests designed to ensure we gave the “correct” answer when we actually sat the exam.
I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.
I agree, if they got 7% in a GE that would mean over 2 million people voted for them, how likely is that as I doubt 0.1% of the population would know who their leader was..
I would imagine that at least half of would be Reform voters think that Farage is leader.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
She is right about that. It is a dark day for freedom of the press if the rich and powerful sue individual journalists rather than their newspapers or broadcasters.
I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.
I agree, if they got 7% in a GE that would mean over 2 million people voted for them, how likely is that as I doubt 0.1% of the population would know who their leader was..
I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.
According to Wiki, Reform won 6 seats in the May English locals - all in Derby. Out of the roughly 500 seats it had candidates in, though wiki won't be drawn on that, which means Reform didn't even stand a candidate in about 7,000 seats won by Labour, Libs, Tories, Greens, Independents, Odd&Sods or Ratepayers.
That can claimed to be equivalent to about 6% of the vote in the 6% of seats Farage's chums could sober up long enough to find a candidate for. But that's being preposterously flattering to what's clearly a non-influence.
In 2019, UKIP got 19% of votes in the seats where it fielded a candidate - but still got nowhere in the 2019 GE, and has now faded away. In 2023, Reform simply didn't turn up in 94% of seats - which my fag packet calculations say means they actually got 0.4% of votes cast.
The locals support my theory. No-one's heard of Reform, but when punters are offered Reform on a research questionnaire about 7% say, in effect "Some reform to our rotten system sounds nice, so I'd vote for a candidate trying to carry some out".
That's not the same as voting for them. In reality Tice is the dead parrot of today's British politics.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
I flagged up at the time she didn’t know how money laundering regulations worked so to view her pieces in that light.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We should get better people in as teachers.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
She is right about that. It is a dark day for freedom of the press if the rich and powerful sue individual journalists rather than their newspapers or broadcasters.
Hang on.
Is she being sued for stuff that she published on Twitter, or which was published in the Guardian?
If the latter, then yes it is concerning. If the former, then - sorry - it's fair game.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
She is right about that. It is a dark day for freedom of the press if the rich and powerful sue individual journalists rather than their newspapers or broadcasters.
Hang on.
Is she being sued for stuff that she published on Twitter, or which was published in the Guardian?
If the latter, then yes it is concerning. If the former, then - sorry - it's fair game.
I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.
According to Wiki, Reform won 6 seats in the May English locals - all in Derby. Out of the roughly 500 seats it had candidates in, though wiki won't be drawn on that, which means Reform didn't even stand a candidate in about 7,000 seats won by Labour, Libs, Tories, Greens, Independents, Odd&Sods or Ratepayers.
That can claimed to be equivalent to about 6% of the vote in the 6% of seats Farage's chums could sober up long enough to find a candidate for. But that's being preposterously flattering to what's clearly a non-influence.
In 2019, UKIP got 19% of votes in the seats where it fielded a candidate - but still got nowhere in the 2019 GE, and has now faded away. In 2023, Reform simply didn't turn up in 94% of seats - which my fag packet calculations say means they actually got 0.4% of votes cast.
The locals support my theory. No-one's heard of Reform, but when punters are offered Reform on a research questionnaire about 7% say, in effect "Some reform to our rotten system sounds nice, so I'd vote for a candidate trying to carry some out".
That's not the same as voting for them. In reality Tice is the dead parrot of today's British politics.
Yeah, but are those who say Reform simpletons who will probably vote Tory when they find its not on the ballot, simpletons who think it just sounds nice and therefore might be daft enough to vote Lib Dem or simpletons who will, in all likelihood never get around to voting at all? On the answer to this question may well hang the prospects for a Labour majority.
I'm sure TSE will be shedding no tears at this one.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 7h Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
Worth noting that the final boundaries have not yet been published and the current ones are subject to change.
That said, it's difficult to get any kind of Tory seat out of Morley, Outwood and surrounding areas unless the Tories have a decent national lead.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
She is right about that. It is a dark day for freedom of the press if the rich and powerful sue individual journalists rather than their newspapers or broadcasters.
Not a bad one for professional indemnity insurers though. A whole new market to exploit.
I'm sure TSE will be shedding no tears at this one.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 7h Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
Worth noting that the final boundaries have not yet been published and the current ones are subject to change.
That said, it's difficult to get any kind of Tory seat out of Morley, Outwood and surrounding areas unless the Tories have a decent national lead.
It's taken us over a decade now to change some boundaries. No wonder people think bureaucracy and inertia are killing this country.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
I'm sure TSE will be shedding no tears at this one.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 7h Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
Worth noting that the final boundaries have not yet been published and the current ones are subject to change.
That said, it's difficult to get any kind of Tory seat out of Morley, Outwood and surrounding areas unless the Tories have a decent national lead.
Out of interest, given there were some fairly radical changes between the first and second drafts due to the tight electorate size bounds, are the changes for the final version likely to be as radical or more modest?
Are they likely to invalidate any selection processes already in the bag?
I'm sure TSE will be shedding no tears at this one.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 7h Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
Worth noting that the final boundaries have not yet been published and the current ones are subject to change.
That said, it's difficult to get any kind of Tory seat out of Morley, Outwood and surrounding areas unless the Tories have a decent national lead.
On the new boundaries, Jenkyns would need a 3% Con national lead for her to win, although she would also have trouble holding the old seat.
On current polling, Cons would be completely wiped out in South Yorks and only have the new Wetherby and Easingwold seat covering any of West Yorkshire
I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.
According to Wiki, Reform won 6 seats in the May English locals - all in Derby. Out of the roughly 500 seats it had candidates in, though wiki won't be drawn on that, which means Reform didn't even stand a candidate in about 7,000 seats won by Labour, Libs, Tories, Greens, Independents, Odd&Sods or Ratepayers.
That can claimed to be equivalent to about 6% of the vote in the 6% of seats Farage's chums could sober up long enough to find a candidate for. But that's being preposterously flattering to what's clearly a non-influence.
In 2019, UKIP got 19% of votes in the seats where it fielded a candidate - but still got nowhere in the 2019 GE, and has now faded away. In 2023, Reform simply didn't turn up in 94% of seats - which my fag packet calculations say means they actually got 0.4% of votes cast.
The locals support my theory. No-one's heard of Reform, but when punters are offered Reform on a research questionnaire about 7% say, in effect "Some reform to our rotten system sounds nice, so I'd vote for a candidate trying to carry some out".
That's not the same as voting for them. In reality Tice is the dead parrot of today's British politics.
Whit wey does the engine say ‘Toot-toot’? Is it feart to gang in the tunnel? Whit wey is the furnace no pit oot When the rain gangs doon the funnel? What’ll I hae for my tea the nicht? A herrin’, or maybe a haddie? Has Gran’ma gotten electric licht? Is the next stop Kirkcaddy?
There’s a hoodie-craw on yon turnip-raw! An’ seagulls! – sax or seeven. I’ll no fa’ oot o’ the windae, Maw, Its sneckit, as sure as I’m leevin’. We’re into the tunnel! we’re a’ in the dark! But dinna be frichtit, Daddy, We’ll sune be comin’ to Beveridge Park, And the next stop’s Kirkcaddy!
Is yon the mune I see in the sky? It’s awfu’ wee an’ curly, See! there’s a coo and a cauf ootbye, An’ a lassie pu’in’ a hurly! He’s chackit the tickets and gien them back, Sae gie me my ain yin, Daddy. Lift doon the bag frae the luggage rack, For the next stop’s Kirkcaddy!
There’s a gey wheen boats at the harbour mou’, And eh! dae ya see the cruisers? The cinnamon drop I was sookin’ the noo Has tummelt an’ stuck tae ma troosers. . . I’ll sune be ringin’ ma Gran’ma’s bell, She’ll cry, ‘Come ben, my laddie’, For I ken mysel’ by the queer-like smell That the next stop’s Kirkcaddy!
As of right now the answer to the first question is Yes. The "queer like smell" comes from the fact that Kirkcaldy used to stink from the by-products of making linoleum for most of the world. No longer alas.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
I'm sure TSE will be shedding no tears at this one.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 7h Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
Worth noting that the final boundaries have not yet been published and the current ones are subject to change.
That said, it's difficult to get any kind of Tory seat out of Morley, Outwood and surrounding areas unless the Tories have a decent national lead.
It's taken us over a decade now to change some boundaries. No wonder people think bureaucracy and inertia are killing this country.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Indeed. And forgetting that the contractual arrangements which you make when publishing via an organisation often include coverage against being sued.
Self publishing is more lucrative and you can say anything without having to get it past the editor….
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
She is right about that. It is a dark day for freedom of the press if the rich and powerful sue individual journalists rather than their newspapers or broadcasters.
Hang on.
Is she being sued for stuff that she published on Twitter, or which was published in the Guardian?
If the latter, then yes it is concerning. If the former, then - sorry - it's fair game.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We should get better people in as teachers.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
People like you.
Where did I ever claim to be a teacher, frankly if a teacher is struggling with those questions then they shouldn't be teaching
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We should get better people in as teachers.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
People like you.
Where did I ever claim to be a teacher, frankly if a teacher is struggling with those questions then they shouldn't be teaching
I didn't say you claimed to be a teacher. Are you... you know... ok?
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We should get better people in as teachers.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
People like you.
Where did I ever claim to be a teacher, frankly if a teacher is struggling with those questions then they shouldn't be teaching
I didn't say you claimed to be a teacher. Are you... you know... ok?
Well obviously better than you because I don't have your issues for example like believing Cadwallr lying is in the public interest. So go mind yourself and don't worry about me
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We should get better people in as teachers.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
People like you.
Where did I ever claim to be a teacher, frankly if a teacher is struggling with those questions then they shouldn't be teaching
I didn't say you claimed to be a teacher. Are you... you know... ok?
Well obviously better than you because I don't have your issues for example like believing Cadwallr lying is in the public interest. So go mind yourself and don't worry about me
It's not my belief.. it's the court's finding. The public interest defence was accepted by the court, but the continued presence of the talk online after the NCA cleared Banks of any wrongdoing was deemed to have caused reputational damage.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
She’s totally deluded.
The people to blame are those who stroked her ego and egged her on.
She retracted a claim against Banks and undertook not to repeat it during the trial.
People may not like Banks due to his part in Brexit but this verdict is not a blow against press freedom.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.
These days rolling is about the only way they can get on stage.
Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
It's for me David's most appealing trait - he just drops those Dylan lyrics into the mix apropos of very little.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
It's for me David's most appealing trait - he just drops those Dylan lyrics into the mix apropos of very little.
Lord knows I've paid some dues getting through Tangled up in blue
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.
These days rolling is about the only way they can get on stage.
I'd be grateful to have half the energy of Mick Jagger, and he's almost twice my age. And Keith is in phenomenal shape, considering.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.
These days rolling is about the only way they can get on stage.
I'd be grateful to have half the energy of Mick Jagger, and he's almost twice my age. And Keith is in phenomenal shape, considering.
The BBC documentaries on each of the Stones were some of the best programs I saw last year. Keith's one stole the show though.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.
These days rolling is about the only way they can get on stage.
I'd be grateful to have half the energy of Mick Jagger, and he's almost twice my age. And Keith is in phenomenal shape, considering.
The BBC documentaries last year on each of the Stones were some of the best programs I saw last year. Keith's one stole the show though.
Ooh I missed these. Will have to watch on iplayer sometime when the missus is out!
Comments
The state funeral was held at Westminster Abbey on September 19 last year, following an 11-day period of national mourning.
A breakdown of costs by department showed that the Home Office spent the most - £74m - followed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport - £57m.
The estimated costs relate to the late Queen's funeral and other related events such as the six-day period of lying-in-state.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/18/queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral-costs-government-money/
Futures top out at double that.
https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5351152&span=1
Surely we should be seeing retail energy prices falling, substantially, soon?
@YouGov
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (9-10 May)
Con: 25% (-1 from 3-4 May)
Lab: 43% (=)
Lib Dem: 11% (+1)
Green: 8% (+1)
Reform UK: 7% (+1)
SNP: 3% (-1)
We'll need to cut costs for Charlie's though or the cost per year in post could be eye-watering.
And if you add Reform to Con and double it that's 64%, plenty for a right-wing landslide.
I have warned for years that Scottish subsamples are inherently unreliable.
Those posters have gone quiet.
Best PM polling has an incumbency bias which is why you should use satisfaction/approval ratings.
Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
@peri__ayla
Great article, although I would have hoped it would have included the revelations of the past 24 hours that votes seem to have been systematically manipulated when entered into YSK systems.
Which is something the opposition have now caught wind off so will be more carefully watching at the second vote.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
(Looks over shoulder to see if Mrs Rata is poised over me with a murderous stilletto.)
Edit: the 'v' can stay, sort of fits. Archetypal spelling error for my phone keyboard.
I note what someone says downthread about setting for secondary schools (though that doesn't happen here). But the same logic applies - they're hard for everyone.
Eurovision cost us up to£20 million to come second last and I didnt even watch the thing.
Money isnt the only thing in life.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The A47 towards Norwich is quite a pretty road in places but it's a horrible one to drive, especially on a wet but sunny winter day.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
7h
Was just looking at the boundary changes for Andrea Jenkyns seat (Morley and Outwood) and see it's getting a chunk of the very Labour Leeds West.
Which means she has almost no chance of winning if she stands again. Shame.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1659193784649875458
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
Yougov have Starmer on 30% not 40%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1659228285706829825?t=Y8pszOrh1uzDrNHm5CcaTw&s=19
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We had weekly tests designed to ensure we gave the “correct” answer when we actually sat the exam.
That can claimed to be equivalent to about 6% of the vote in the 6% of seats Farage's chums could sober up long enough to find a candidate for. But that's being preposterously flattering to what's clearly a non-influence.
In 2019, UKIP got 19% of votes in the seats where it fielded a candidate - but still got nowhere in the 2019 GE, and has now faded away. In 2023, Reform simply didn't turn up in 94% of seats - which my fag packet calculations say means they actually got 0.4% of votes cast.
The locals support my theory. No-one's heard of Reform, but when punters are offered Reform on a research questionnaire about 7% say, in effect "Some reform to our rotten system sounds nice, so I'd vote for a candidate trying to carry some out".
That's not the same as voting for them. In reality Tice is the dead parrot of today's British politics.
"You say you never compromise
With the mystery tramp but now you realise
He's not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And say
"Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
It only goes to show that Sunak has a point about maths education.
Opening a new account triggers AML procedures.
Starmer fans please explain.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
People like you.
Is she being sued for stuff that she published on Twitter, or which was published in the Guardian?
If the latter, then yes it is concerning. If the former, then - sorry - it's fair game.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1658882611106676736?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ&fbclid=IwAR0429NIJN8UupG29VtV52Jp9HBZJ-Zf50cxfR5NufGH2k5zrKTuOfhQBag
That said, it's difficult to get any kind of Tory seat out of Morley, Outwood and surrounding areas unless the Tories have a decent national lead.
Now it all begins to make sense….
Are they likely to invalidate any selection processes already in the bag?
On current polling, Cons would be completely wiped out in South Yorks and only have the new Wetherby and Easingwold seat covering any of West Yorkshire
Is it feart to gang in the tunnel?
Whit wey is the furnace no pit oot
When the rain gangs doon the funnel?
What’ll I hae for my tea the nicht?
A herrin’, or maybe a haddie?
Has Gran’ma gotten electric licht?
Is the next stop Kirkcaddy?
There’s a hoodie-craw on yon turnip-raw!
An’ seagulls! – sax or seeven.
I’ll no fa’ oot o’ the windae, Maw,
Its sneckit, as sure as I’m leevin’.
We’re into the tunnel! we’re a’ in the dark!
But dinna be frichtit, Daddy,
We’ll sune be comin’ to Beveridge Park,
And the next stop’s Kirkcaddy!
Is yon the mune I see in the sky?
It’s awfu’ wee an’ curly,
See! there’s a coo and a cauf ootbye,
An’ a lassie pu’in’ a hurly!
He’s chackit the tickets and gien them back,
Sae gie me my ain yin, Daddy.
Lift doon the bag frae the luggage rack,
For the next stop’s Kirkcaddy!
There’s a gey wheen boats at the harbour mou’,
And eh! dae ya see the cruisers?
The cinnamon drop I was sookin’ the noo
Has tummelt an’ stuck tae ma troosers. . .
I’ll sune be ringin’ ma Gran’ma’s bell,
She’ll cry, ‘Come ben, my laddie’,
For I ken mysel’ by the queer-like smell
That the next stop’s Kirkcaddy!
As of right now the answer to the first question is Yes.
The "queer like smell" comes from the fact that Kirkcaldy used to stink from the by-products of making linoleum for most of the world. No longer alas.
Everyone is in favour of updating the boundaries.
Just not any boundaries near them. Etc
Self publishing is more lucrative and you can say anything without having to get it past the editor….
Steven Pinker tried using ChatGPT to find scholarly references for work he was doing.
His assessment: it's rubbish. It invented people who didn't exist.
She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
The people to blame are those who stroked her ego and egged her on.
She retracted a claim against Banks and undertook not to repeat it during the trial.
People may not like Banks due to his part in Brexit but this verdict is not a blow against press freedom.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
Starmer is 30% not 40%
Everything is made out of mud
has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
IE what she said were lies
so as usual Farooq only sees what he wants too
source https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf
Tangled up in blue
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.