Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Why I’m betting that Trump won’t be the WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,234
    Given Stuart often liked pointing out that YouGov properly weigh their subsamples, he might be rather interested in this poll's Scottish subsample.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Sunak fans please explain.


  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    Given Stuart often liked pointing out that YouGov properly weigh their subsamples, he might be rather interested in this poll's Scottish subsample.

    11% lead for SLAB.

    I have warned for years that Scottish subsamples are inherently unreliable.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,111

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Not sure fans please explain.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.

  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,638

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Just wait till the Zelensky hug is represented in the polling.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Not sure fans please explain.
    I’m so old I remember when people used to say this polling metric was better than voting intention.

    Those posters have gone quiet.

    Best PM polling has an incumbency bias which is why you should use satisfaction/approval ratings.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Elizabeth II’s funeral cost the Government an estimated £161.7million, the Treasury has revealed.

    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/

    So thats £2.41 each.

    Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    Nigelb said:

    I am familiar with this feeling.

    “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.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    Elizabeth II’s funeral cost the Government an estimated £161.7million, the Treasury has revealed.

    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/

    So thats £2.41 each.

    Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
    We could have spent that money on the NHS.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,638
    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,131
    edited May 2023

    Penddu2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go



    You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.

    The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
    But not if you are heading away from Kings Lynn....
    I guess that depends on which direction you're going in?
    If you're heading from King's Lynn in the v right direction you're likely on the A17.

    (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.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,425
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,638
    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    ...

    Elizabeth II’s funeral cost the Government an estimated £161.7million, the Treasury has revealed.

    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/

    So thats £2.41 each.

    Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
    We could have spent that money on the NHS.
    Burning it for energy would be more useful than giving it to the NHS.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,366
    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,638

    ...

    Elizabeth II’s funeral cost the Government an estimated £161.7million, the Treasury has revealed.

    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/

    So thats £2.41 each.

    Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
    We could have spent that money on the NHS.
    Burning it for energy would be more useful than giving it to the NHS.
    Shouldn't parody accounts be clearly labelled these days?
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    edited May 2023

    Elizabeth II’s funeral cost the Government an estimated £161.7million, the Treasury has revealed.

    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/

    So thats £2.41 each.

    Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
    We could have spent that money on the NHS.
    Or buyng Liverpool FC a decent player.

    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.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735

    Elizabeth II’s funeral cost the Government an estimated £161.7million, the Treasury has revealed.

    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/

    So thats £2.41 each.

    Bargain for a weeks TV programming.
    Bargain for 70 years of dedicated service.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085
    edited May 2023
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588

    YouGov
    @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)

    I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.

  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,520
    Pro_Rata said:

    Penddu2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go



    You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.

    The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
    But not if you are heading away from Kings Lynn....
    I guess that depends on which direction you're going in?
    If you're heading from King's Lynn in the v right direction you're likely on the A17.

    (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 have some sympathy with that, as it means you're heading towards Yorkshire.

    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.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,146

    Given Stuart often liked pointing out that YouGov properly weigh their subsamples, he might be rather interested in this poll's Scottish subsample.

    11% lead for SLAB.

    I have warned for years that Scottish subsamples are inherently unreliable.
    Perhaps we could have a thread piece on them? :blush:
  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,234
    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.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    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..
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,758
    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    Chris said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Just wait till the Zelensky hug is represented in the polling.
    Confusion over figure

    Yougov have Starmer on 30% not 40%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1659228285706829825?t=Y8pszOrh1uzDrNHm5CcaTw&s=19
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    Chris said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Just wait till the Zelensky hug is represented in the polling.
    Confusion over figure

    Yougov have Starmer on 30% not 40%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1659228285706829825?t=Y8pszOrh1uzDrNHm5CcaTw&s=19
    That's what the chart shows too.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    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.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    rcs1000 said:

    Chris said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Just wait till the Zelensky hug is represented in the polling.
    Confusion over figure

    Yougov have Starmer on 30% not 40%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1659228285706829825?t=Y8pszOrh1uzDrNHm5CcaTw&s=19
    That's what the chart shows too.
    Also 42% do not know
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588

    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    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 too have no idea who their leader is.

  • Options
    FlannerFlanner Posts: 436
    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,638
    rcs1000 said:

    Chris said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Just wait till the Zelensky hug is represented in the polling.
    Confusion over figure

    Yougov have Starmer on 30% not 40%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1659228285706829825?t=Y8pszOrh1uzDrNHm5CcaTw&s=19
    That's what the chart shows too.
    Shame on those of us who didn't spot that the original figures added up to 106%.

    It only goes to show that Sunak has a point about maths education.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    I flagged up at the time she didn’t know how money laundering regulations worked so to view her pieces in that light.

    Opening a new account triggers AML procedures.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    ...

    Chris said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    Just wait till the Zelensky hug is represented in the polling.
    Confusion over figure

    Yougov have Starmer on 30% not 40%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1659228285706829825?t=Y8pszOrh1uzDrNHm5CcaTw&s=19
    Starmer down 10 in less than an hour. By six pm Sunak will be ahead.

    Starmer fans please explain.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    Flanner said:

    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    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.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Another reason Trump is the favourite in my mind - none of the GOP candidates are putting in the boot:

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1658882611106676736?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ&fbclid=IwAR0429NIJN8UupG29VtV52Jp9HBZJ-Zf50cxfR5NufGH2k5zrKTuOfhQBag
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,520

    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.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,425
    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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 number of OFSTED inspectors are ex-teachers.

    Now it all begins to make sense….
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544

    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    edited May 2023
    Not sure why that printed twice. It wasn't that funny.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544

    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    DavidL said:

    Not sure why that printed twice. It wasn't that funny.

    Vanilla is getting more doddery than Joe Biden.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,638
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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.
    A for effort, but F for comprehension.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,131

    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?
  • Options
    GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,152

    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
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,246
    edited May 2023
    Flanner said:

    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    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.
    Not just all in Derby; all in Alvaston, Derby.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    edited May 2023
    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.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735
    edited May 2023
    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,425
    DavidL said:

    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.
    Same thing as usual.

    Everyone is in favour of updating the boundaries.

    Just not any boundaries near them. Etc
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    YouGov
    @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)

    LLG 61 plays RefCon 32. In the pack. Ref and Green overrepresented in the sample hence the relatively low Tory and Lab scores.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,425
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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….
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
    Neither. Comments made on stage at a TED talk.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
    It doesn't feel great.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,246
    edited May 2023
    BBC Radio 4:

    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.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194

    Sunak fans please explain.


    A Not Sure surge…
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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).
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    IanB2 said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    A Not Sure surge…
    As in I used to be indecisive but now I am not sure.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,605
    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    Poor Carole. That is a shame...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,735
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,743

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    I'm not worried about SATS after reading that, some of the teachers involved are where I'd start investigating.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,224

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    IanB2 said:

    Sunak fans please explain.


    A Not Sure surge…
    And an incorrect quote

    Starmer is 30% not 40%
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    Siwa!

    Everything is made out of mud

  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690

    DavidL said:

    Not sure why that printed twice. It wasn't that funny.

    Vanilla is getting more doddery than Joe Biden.
    Yet again #46 the Solon from Scranton & former Boy Senator of Delaware, is setting the standard!
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204
    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Carole’s not taken it well:

    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.

    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.

    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
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    edited May 2023

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    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!
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204
    You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    Pagan2 said:

    You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
    No that had never occurred to me.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,544
    Finally, interminably, the next stop is Dundee. Thanks all for the chat.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,811
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    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:

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-65624697

    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
    Quite right. Mr Pagan. But who are you going to replace them with?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    Pagan2 said:

    You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
    No that had never occurred to me.
    So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426
    edited May 2023
    Great headline today in British regime media: "Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral cost government £162m"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772

    No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
    No that had never occurred to me.
    So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
    No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    DavidL said:

    Finally, interminably, the next stop is Dundee. Thanks all for the chat.

    Aw, I missed Leuchars.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    algarkirk said:

    YouGov
    @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)

    I continue to find the 7% Reform figure odd. I don't know anyone who is aware they exist.

    Our PB Tory friends assure us we can add all of Reform UK to the Conservatives tally. I hope that clears up your confusion.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
    No that had never occurred to me.
    So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
    No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
    No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

    Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux.
    Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.




    The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.

    Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
    China has done exceptionally well in lifting 800m out of poverty in 30 years. And without resorting to any messy “democracy”

    This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism

    It was no contest, really

    China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
    I remain to be convinced that ordinary Chinese people actually like the CCP rather than simply being shrewd enough to keep their thoughts to themselves.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690
    Leon said:

    Siwa!

    Everything is made out of mud

    The famed Oasis? OR a Lebanese furniture chain competing with IKEA?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    India has the Overseas Indian Citizenship.
    It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land.
    Weirdly, I am eligible.

    Britain could do something similar.
    I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot.
    Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.

    This was the charter.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    One of the maddest places I have been


    NO electricity







  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
    No that had never occurred to me.
    So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
    No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
    No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

    Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
    What with insulting Nick Palmer about 3 person Egyptian hotel rooms and now insulting an entire generation, you’re having quite a week OLB!

    Typical Gen Xer.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    Leon said:

    One of the maddest places I have been

    Have to admit I was expecting to see a photo of PB on a laptop screen with that quote.
This discussion has been closed.