Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Tears for Keir? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2023 in General
Tears for Keir? – politicalbetting.com

Six in ten (59%) now think the Labour Party is divided, following frontbench resignations this week.The public are still more likely to see the Conservatives (76%) as divided though.https://t.co/c2zXZcFuP5 pic.twitter.com/MPGLaWImTH

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,358
    edited November 2023
    First like Leclerc.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    Second like Verstappen.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    The first big problem for Starmer in a looooong time
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    And the weirdness continues at OpenAI

    I’ve heard various rumours and theories. None quite suffices

    There are some plausible-ish scenarios surrounding actual AGI. That is has been achieved internally and either Sam Altman kept this quiet, or at least muted, within the company - or that there is now a massive dispute as to how they should proceed with such world changing but maybe dangerous technology

    Perhaps Altman wanted to sell it for squillions. Perhaps the AGI has invaded his soul
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    eg


    “Theory: AGI / ASI has been achieved internally @OpenAI, so @ilyasut hit the panic button and staged a coup.

    Evidence:

    10/6: @ilyasut tweets: “If you value intelligence above all other human quality, you’re gonna have a bad time”

    10/16: at APEC, @sama proclaims: “4 times in the history of OpenAI––the most recent time was in the last couple of weeks––I’ve gotten to be in the room when we push the veil of ignorance back and the frontier of discovery forward. Getting to do that is the professional honor of a lifetime.”

    This would explain everything.”

    https://x.com/mattmireles/status/1725765951600443603?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
  • Options
    Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

    Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.

    I suspect he knows this.
  • Options
    We should have an F1 race in Antartica.

    F1 on ice is awesome.
  • Options
    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    edited November 2023

    Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

    Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.

    I suspect he knows this.

    Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.

    I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.



    The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256
    Good morning all. The key part of TSE’s thread, for now, is this:

    'On election day I cannot see many voters deciding to cast their votes based on how Labour have handled in opposition events in Israel rather than say, inter alia, the NHS, the economy, schools, or partygate.’

    Foreign affairs have little to zero impact on voting in a GE.

    However, division can. This would be far more serious for Sir Keir if they were bickering over domestic policies.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.

    There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256
    Foxy said:

    Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

    Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.

    I suspect he knows this.

    Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.

    I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.



    The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
    Yep, it was indeed. Heard ALL of this before about Tony Blair’s opposition New Labour.

    It was the only way that the Conservatives could make themselves feel better about what was coming. They were deluding themselves then. Those repeating it are deluding themselves now.

    It will be a long time in the political wilderness.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair

    He will do one term
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Max Cheat Verstappen-cheat. ;)
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    5s penalty totally useless in this scenario.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    5s penalty totally useless in this scenario.

    The penalty is as useless as Liz Truss as PM.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

    Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.

    I suspect he knows this.

    Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.

    I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.



    The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
    I see you've wonderful missed the point.

    Also, it's not the 1990s anymore. Voting loyalties and coalitions are nothing like as stable as they once were.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Foxy said:

    Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

    Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.

    I suspect he knows this.

    Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.

    I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.



    The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
    This is the source of that graphic BTW.

    https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1725625492378624146?t=JUhC7R1fEmhMkAjgxXEj3g&s=19

    I am no fan of Starmer politically and he is lacking in charisma and campaigning style. His strengths lie elsewhere and I do thing he is a capable manager.

    I think Tory hopes of a quick return are delusional. They are a shambolic, incoherent mess with nothing on offer for the working age population economically or socially.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money

    But if the Tories go full Tonto and go for Braverman as LOTO then the second Labour term is assured.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.

    In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.

    Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    Leon said:

    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money

    But if the Tories go full Tonto and go for Braverman as LOTO then the second Labour term is assured.
    All sane people would vote for Labour if she were Tory leader.

    Starmer might get 50% of the vote in a snap election. Unless he did the full May.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993

    Leon said:

    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money

    But if the Tories go full Tonto and go for Braverman as LOTO then the second Labour term is assured.
    The Tories might dissolve altogether

    The 2020s will continue to surprise, and I suspect volatility will only get more extreme

    Take AI. And we have to, because it’s coming. By the late 2020s it will likely be massively impacting jobs everywhere

    Cui bono? Perhaps us all as we attain an age of abundance (and avoid being destroyed by Skynet). But before that there must surely be incredible economic pain as we adjust. Civil strife is probable

    If AGI become ASI we may see civilisational changes. New religions
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256
    Leon said:

    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money

    Ah the famous Leondamus has spoken ;)

    This is most reassuring as you serve as our bell-weather. Like Dennis Healey we can be sure that whatever you predict the absolute opposite will be the case.

    To be more engaging about it, the great plus for Starmer in what you have written is the low base, and the total shitshow, from which he starts. This time things really can ‘only get better.’

    Culture wars will be a thing left existing only in the minds of the dying boomer generation. Just as Tony Blair ushered in a huge social change in this country, the same will happen next year with Labour’s majority.

    Starmer will sweep the country along and prosperity will, gradually, return. Especially when we rejoin the EU, which we will in some form or other in the next 15 years. The economics will dictate it: the very thing you pin your argument on. Leaving the EU was never an economic argument. When this goes back to the vote, people’s prosperity will talk. We will rejoin.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    Foxy said:

    Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

    Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.

    I suspect he knows this.

    Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.

    I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.



    The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
    I see you've wonderful missed the point.

    Also, it's not the 1990s anymore. Voting loyalties and coalitions are nothing like as stable as they once were.
    It is not the 1990s economically, demographically or in terms of the peace dividend from the collapse of Communism. That much is true. Each government and election is different.

    There is not even a hint of understanding in the Tory party of why they have lost the working age population, let alone a chance of recovering it.



  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256
    edited November 2023

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.

    In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.

    Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
    I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.

    It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …

    As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.

    I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.

    Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.

    (Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,256
    An Dà Shealladh

    Have a nice day, folks

    xx
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money

    Ah the famous Leondamus has spoken ;)

    This is most reassuring as you serve as our bell-weather. Like Dennis Healey we can be sure that whatever you predict the absolute opposite will be the case.

    To be more engaging about it, the great plus for Starmer in what you have written is the low base, and the total shitshow, from which he starts. This time things really can ‘only get better.’

    Culture wars will be a thing left existing only in the minds of the dying boomer generation. Just as Tony Blair ushered in a huge social change in this country, the same will happen next year with Labour’s majority.

    Starmer will sweep the country along and prosperity will, gradually, return. Especially when we rejoin the EU, which we will in some form or other in the next 15 years. The economics will dictate it: the very thing you pin your argument on. Leaving the EU was never an economic argument. When this goes back to the vote, people’s prosperity will talk. We will rejoin.
    Let me know when you say something - anything - interesting. This meme of yours was ok the first time, but it is literally all you ever say every morning

    Zzzz
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    edited November 2023
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    £2.1m for a bottle of whisky. The most ever paid for a single bottle of alcohol

    Quite something


    https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/nov/18/rare-1926-macallan-whisky-becomes-worlds-most-expensive-bottle-at-21m
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    Safety car, because America.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    If you buy a bottle of scotch for £2m, do you ever drink it?

    Or is it worth more to show off?

    I think I’d buy two. One to drink and one to show off
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    Leon said:

    If you buy a bottle of scotch for £2m, do you ever drink it?

    Or is it worth more to show off?

    I think I’d buy two. One to drink and one to show off

    You drink it the day you sell your company.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Leon said:

    £2.1m for a bottle of whisky. The most ever paid for a single bottle of alcohol

    Quite something


    https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/nov/18/rare-1926-macallan-whisky-becomes-worlds-most-expensive-bottle-at-21m

    I was given a bottle of this by a patient at Diwali:



    It really does rank with any other Single Malt that I have had in terms of quality. Quite concentrated flavours from aging in the heat, with a slightly sweet finish from the wood.

    At £40 much better value than that bottle of Macallan!



  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    If you buy a bottle of scotch for £2m, do you ever drink it?

    Or is it worth more to show off?

    I think I’d buy two. One to drink and one to show off

    You drink it the day you sell your company.
    I had a colleague/friend who was given a rare/expensive bottle of whisky when he graduated.

    He decided to save it for a very special occasion.

    Fast forward nearly 20 years and he gets a new girlfriend, invites her back to his place, she not only opens that bottle she mixed it with Pepsi.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    If you buy a bottle of scotch for £2m, do you ever drink it?

    Or is it worth more to show off?

    I think I’d buy two. One to drink and one to show off

    You drink it the day you sell your company.
    I had a colleague/friend who was given a rare/expensive bottle of whisky when he graduated.

    He decided to save it for a very special occasion.

    Fast forward nearly 20 years and he gets a new girlfriend, invites her back to his place, she not only opens that bottle she mixed it with Pepsi.
    That's outrageous. It should be ginger ale...
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    Foxy said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.

    There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
    The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    This is the scale of the challenge that Starmer will face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator

    I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    If there’s any wobble in the polls, it would actually help Starmer, since almost all of Labour is now focused on winning the GE and any sign that internal division might put that at risk will make it easy for him to keep the troops in line. At least until the election. Labour with a big majority or Labour without a majority, it may not matter so much (the risk in the former case being Blairite hubris), but Labour with a small majority could put the left wing in an advantageous position.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    edited November 2023
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.

    There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
    The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
    Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.

    The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    If there’s any wobble in the polls, it would actually help Starmer, since almost all of Labour is now focused on winning the GE and any sign that internal division might put that at risk will make it easy for him to keep the troops in line. At least until the election. Labour with a big majority or Labour without a majority, it may not matter so much (the risk in the former case being Blairite hubris), but Labour with a small majority could put the left wing in an advantageous position.
    A tightening race is inevitable as the next GE gets close, partly because the media always like to make it sound competitive, and partly from the politically disengaged beginning to pay attention.

    I am sticking with my prediction of Con on 150 +/- 75 seats. I don't think that Starmer can beat Blairs majority, but it may well be close.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023
    Foxy said:

    This is the scale of the challenge that Starmer will face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator

    I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    This has actually been a good race.

    (Or maybe I’m too drunk in the morning).
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Sandpit said:

    This has actually been a good race.

    (Or maybe I’m too drunk in the morning).

    Typical race.

    Few overtakes, some Ferrari blunders and then Verstappen wins.

    Commentator shouldn't give up the day job. 'What Verstappens in Vegas stays in Vegas' FFS.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,148
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    You are Yvette Cooper and I claim my five pounds…
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,001
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    This is the scale of the challenge that Starmer will face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator

    I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.
    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good race for Stroll.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    edited November 2023
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    If there’s any wobble in the polls, it would actually help Starmer, since almost all of Labour is now focused on winning the GE and any sign that internal division might put that at risk will make it easy for him to keep the troops in line. At least until the election. Labour with a big majority or Labour without a majority, it may not matter so much (the risk in the former case being Blairite hubris), but Labour with a small majority could put the left wing in an advantageous position.
    A tightening race is inevitable as the next GE gets close, partly because the media always like to make it sound competitive, and partly from the politically disengaged beginning to pay attention.

    I am sticking with my prediction of Con on 150 +/- 75 seats. I don't think that Starmer can beat Blairs majority, but it may well be close.
    I'm covering 51-150 Tory seat losses on Betfair.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Just been reading of the problems on the other side of the North Sea that are rather reminiscent of our own Post Office Scandal.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/dutch-parties-vie-for-voters-with-no-faith-in-government-after-string-of-scandals

    It seems that an AI based algorithm was used to search out benefit fraud, driving many into poverty, some to suicide and over a thousand children taken into care.

    No appeals, the computer must be right...

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023
    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023
    (continued)

    There are other problems - for example the prewriting of reports to fail them on safeguarding so they can be forced to academise - but most of them stem from the DfE, who use OFSTED to give their actions in this field plausible deniability since they don't technically regulate it.

    And that's why I contend the first step to improving things in education is to get rid of the DfE, not just by abolishing it by banning all its current and past staff from working in the public sector or with children. Sure, that will mean a few good people get kicked out too but that would I fear be acceptable collateral damage to finally eliminate eighty years of disastrous failure and ensure all the drunken imbeciles who are currently running it are in a position to do no further damage.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    This is the scale of the challenge that Starmer will face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator

    I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.
    But also, there's a degree of he UK being in this mess because we've listened to the nutcases. Worse than that, we've let them decide the direction of the nation. And Rishi, wibbling about tax cuts when there's still a hundred billion pound a year deficit, is just a different sort of nutcase.

    There is some unpleasant medicine to come up, which is a difference between now and 1997. What Starmer has to hope is that that medicine and the passage of time, mean that he can point to things having got a bit better by 2028 or so.

    He'll probably be helped in this by the 2025 Conservative leadership election. Because even if they avoid Braverman, who is the brilliant Conservative leader who enthuses the party to go back towards the electorate? Because that's roughly the only thing that has ever worked for an opposition.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    This is the scale of the challenge that Starmer will face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator

    I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.
    But also, there's a degree of he UK being in this mess because we've listened to the nutcases. Worse than that, we've let them decide the direction of the nation. And Rishi, wibbling about tax cuts when there's still a hundred billion pound a year deficit, is just a different sort of nutcase.

    There is some unpleasant medicine to come up, which is a difference between now and 1997. What Starmer has to hope is that that medicine and the passage of time, mean that he can point to things having got a bit better by 2028 or so.

    He'll probably be helped in this by the 2025 Conservative leadership election. Because even if they avoid Braverman, who is the brilliant Conservative leader who enthuses the party to go back towards the electorate? Because that's roughly the only thing that has ever worked for an opposition.
    Heath wasn't brilliant (at least not as a politician) but he managed it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023
    Australia make the first tactical error of the day by winning the toss and bowling, and Rohit Sharma (who wanted to bat) can't believe his luck.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119
    I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.

    If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.

    Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Taz said:

    I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.

    If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.

    Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.

    Leaving aside benefits, it's going to be very hard explaining away any tax cuts while schools and hospitals are literally falling down around us.

    And I know the Tories' core voters will have at best grandchildren in the former, but hasn't it occurred to the cabinet that they make extensive use of the latter?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Taz said:

    I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.

    If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.

    Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.

    Floating an IHT abolition then pretending it was never the intention is likely to go down very badly. It just adds to the impression of a government flailing around badly, and hitting the random policy generator in panic.

    The sooner this ends the better.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    ydoethur said:

    Australia make the first tactical error of the day by winning the toss and bowling, and Rohit Sharma (who wanted to bat) can't believe his luck.

    Aussies are good at chasing, though.

    And Good Morning everyone. As someone who used, in his working life, to be seconded to a predecessor of the CQC I’ve got a lot of sympathy with the views expressed.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Incidentally, to give you some idea of the scale of the arrogance and hubris at the DfE, they have just told the Public Accounts Committee to fuck off and stop telling them to do work:

    Raac in schools: MPs demand answers over dangerous concrete
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67450470

    How dare the Public Accounts Committee ask for an update on what surveys have been carried out? Or an action plan for dealing with the problem? They only represent the DfE's bosses.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.

    If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.

    Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.

    Leaving aside benefits, it's going to be very hard explaining away any tax cuts while schools and hospitals are literally falling down around us.

    And I know the Tories' core voters will have at best grandchildren in the former, but hasn't it occurred to the cabinet that they make extensive use of the latter?
    It's not as if the hospital user population is going down. Or the hospital numbers going up, at least of ones in good nick.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/17/watchdogs-denounce-progress-boris-johnson-flagship-projects (about Mr JOhnson's famous 40 'new' 'hospitals')
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635

    ydoethur said:

    Australia make the first tactical error of the day by winning the toss and bowling, and Rohit Sharma (who wanted to bat) can't believe his luck.

    Aussies are good at chasing, though.

    And Good Morning everyone. As someone who used, in his working life, to be seconded to a predecessor of the CQC I’ve got a lot of sympathy with the views expressed.
    Good morning!
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    This is the scale of the challenge that Starmer will face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/18/more-than-half-of-hospitals-england-rated-substandard-health-regulator

    I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.
    But also, there's a degree of he UK being in this mess because we've listened to the nutcases. Worse than that, we've let them decide the direction of the nation. And Rishi, wibbling about tax cuts when there's still a hundred billion pound a year deficit, is just a different sort of nutcase.

    There is some unpleasant medicine to come up, which is a difference between now and 1997. What Starmer has to hope is that that medicine and the passage of time, mean that he can point to things having got a bit better by 2028 or so.

    He'll probably be helped in this by the 2025 Conservative leadership election. Because even if they avoid Braverman, who is the brilliant Conservative leader who enthuses the party to go back towards the electorate? Because that's roughly the only thing that has ever worked for an opposition.
    Heath wasn't brilliant (at least not as a politician) but he managed it.
    Fair point. Do the 2025 Conservatives have a Heath? Hell, do they have a Howard? Last week's reshuffle says no- the current mix of nutters and nobodies is as good as it gets in the near future.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,014
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 4,772
    I stick to my forecast there will be no IHT cut next week .

    The Tories will save this for their manifesto .
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Leon said:

    Blair also inherited a glowing economy with low debt and deficit and a peaceful world outlook, he had loads of money to spend. He lavished it on public services and funded yet more from taxes on the City

    Starmer’s inheritance is precisely the opposite. High debt high deficit and major structural problems. War in Israel and Ukraine

    Massive migration issues. Culture wars. Looming threats everywhere. He has no idea how to handle any of this and whatever he does will be unpopular immediately - if he tries serious reform

    The honeymoon will be short and the backlash intense when people realise Labour doesn’t have a clue - and there is no money

    But if the Tories go full Tonto and go for Braverman as LOTO then the second Labour term is assured.
    According to the conspiracy theorist extraordinaire* it'll be Badenoch. The evil puppetmaster has already got it well in hand

    * 'Nads'
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
    Not all of them are - only the elite ones.

    Again, if Starmer wants a clearout of private schools abolishing the ISI would be a step forward.

    It would still require reform of OFSTED though which spends too much time judging on exam results, the exams having been designed in such a way that they enormously favour private schools (who can teach by rote).
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
    The whole thing is a scam - seperate inspections, easier exams, fraudulent grade inflation during Covid. A corrupt blemish on our society.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
    Ben Hogan: 'The more I practice, the more luck I have.'
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
    The whole thing is a scam - seperate inspections, easier exams, fraudulent grade inflation during Covid. A corrupt blemish on our society.
    They don't have easier exams. It's just the system as we now have it works to all their strengths.

    As for grade inflation, the worst examples I came across were in the state sector, for example an inner city comp in Plymouth (previous year best grade in English a seven) doling out nines across the board for two years based on questions like 'what is a flower?'
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
    The whole thing is a scam - seperate inspections, easier exams, fraudulent grade inflation during Covid. A corrupt blemish on our society.
    They don't have easier exams. It's just the system as we now have it works to all their strengths.

    As for grade inflation, the worst examples I came across were in the state sector, for example an inner city comp in Plymouth (previous year best grade in English a seven) doling out nines across the board for two years based on questions like 'what is a flower?'
    IGCSEs are easier.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,614

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
    The internet says Samuel Goldwyn. I thought it was Gary Player, who did say it, but replacing 'work' with 'practice'.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
    The whole thing is a scam - seperate inspections, easier exams, fraudulent grade inflation during Covid. A corrupt blemish on our society.
    They don't have easier exams. It's just the system as we now have it works to all their strengths.

    As for grade inflation, the worst examples I came across were in the state sector, for example an inner city comp in Plymouth (previous year best grade in English a seven) doling out nines across the board for two years based on questions like 'what is a flower?'
    IGCSEs are easier.
    Having taught both, for both History and English, I don't agree. In fact the English Language iGCSE is very much harder than its standard equivalent, being a weird hybrid of Language with a dash of literature thrown in, which is why nobody sane uses it.

    One way they are certainly different is they have coursework options still. But that's not necessarily easier. In fact, the coursework is usually somewhat harder than the exam option although it has other distinct advantages including more time to write it and an ability to focus more carefully on the question in teaching it.

    One thing that did set them apart last year is that the iGCSE grades were more relaxed than the standard ones due to the ongoing Covid fallout elsewhere, particularly China. However, my answer to that would be that actually the real issue was the sheer folly of jacking up all the grade boundaries arbitrarily on the say so of a twat like Gibb.

    And finally, you should be aware that most private schools don't in fact teach iGCSEs. Why would they need to? The new GCSEs and A-levels are literally tailor made for them.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
    I think a lot of people have made similar observations, so there are a lot of similar quotes.

    I once read an interesting study of luck by a psychologist. I don't have the reference to hand, but what the author did was to recruit people who self labelled as lucky or unlucky, and followed them over time.

    The two groups had similar life events, from bereavements to promotions etc, but where they differed was how they reacted to incidents. The "lucky" people reacted more flexibly to events, taking the best from what arose, while the "unlucky" focused on what had gone wrong.

    So that is what I mean by making your own luck.

    Starmer does this. Even a schism over a pointless Parliamentary motion is turned to his advantage, allowing him to marginalise further his internal opposition, and to astutely do it with minimal triumphalism.

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    Lembit Opik…… yes that’s right …. on BBC. Talking about Nigel Farage on I’m a Celebrity…
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    Happy #internationalmensday everyone.

    And also happy #worldtoiletday
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    edited November 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ydoethur said:

    and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.

    And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.

    Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.

    I wonder how many problems in education would be improved, if not fully solved, by simply abolishing Ofsted?

    Some other system of oversight/governance would be necessary (we see now the consequences of Gove’s whizzo idea to not re-inspect schools that had achieved an outstanding) but I dunno how anyone can look at Ofsted and and think ‘yeah, that works fine’.
    I think the key problem, and what would work much better than abolition or tinkering with reporting procedures if whoever the Shadow Secretary of State this week is reading PB, is to break it up into much smaller, more focussed agencies.

    We don't want to abolish inspections. Schools need to be checked up on because they are important and there are many things that need checking up on. Just as we shouldn't abolish the HSE just because they sometimes say stupid things, or we would literally have carnage in industry.

    At the moment it's a bizarre monolith. It inspects schools, at all levels, social services, residential social care, nurseries, PRUs like @dixiedean 's place, local authorities...you name it, it inspects it. The only group it doesn't inspect are private schools registered with HMC, which are inspected by the considerably more useless (yes, I do mean that) ISI.

    All of these however are very different beasts, and it is literally madness to have them all done by the same inspectorate using the same criteria. Of course a PRU will always have bad behaviour. That's the whole fucking point of having them. To judge them on the same basis as a girls' grammar school is just bizarre.

    Similarly, having taught in primary and secondary they are very, very different beasts. In primary school, the key should really be to teach the children literacy, numeracy and social skills. The rest is basically gravy and should be geared solely to those ends. In fact, some things - e.g. complex scientific theories - shouldn't really be taught at all because almost all the teachers don't understand them very well, so it means hard work undoing misconceptions when you get to secondary. But they're still judged on the same criteria as a secondary. Or a sixth form college. Which is madness.

    You also have inspectors swapping between one and another discipline and not understanding these differences because OFSTED under Spielman despite their statutory duty to train their inspectors don't do so. For example, that inspector who won a case for unfair dismissal after he fondled a six year old boy won because he'd never been told OFSTED had a no touching policy. He didn't realise without being told it was wrong to touch schoolchildren for no reason - and still doesn't apparently - because his background was in residential social care where the dynamic's totally different.(continued)
    Astonishing that private schools are inspected separately - for one thing, one needs common standards, and for another, there must surely be some scope from learning across the cultural barrier.
    The whole thing is a scam - seperate inspections, easier exams, fraudulent grade inflation during Covid. A corrupt blemish on our society.
    They don't have easier exams. It's just the system as we now have it works to all their strengths.

    As for grade inflation, the worst examples I came across were in the state sector, for example an inner city comp in Plymouth (previous year best grade in English a seven) doling out nines across the board for two years based on questions like 'what is a flower?'
    Yes, far too much policy in this country is written by the minority who were privately educated, consciously or subconsciously favouring their own.

    Inevitably teacher assessment favoured grade inflation. A class may have a dozen students capable of getting top marks in the exam, but in reality not all will. One will have a life event, another will misread the question etc but we cannot know in advance which will be those 2, so when assessing the dozen we rightly give them all the top mark.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    TimS said:

    Happy #internationalmensday everyone.

    And also happy #worldtoiletday

    Are we allowed to leave the seat up today then?

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,183
    edited November 2023
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Happy #internationalmensday everyone.

    And also happy #worldtoiletday

    Are we allowed to leave the seat up today then?

    No

    It means it's your day for cleaning them.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Happy #internationalmensday everyone.

    And also happy #worldtoiletday

    Are we allowed to leave the seat up today then?

    No

    It means it's your day for cleaning them.
    I somehow thought that might be the case.

    😬

  • Options
    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
    The internet says Samuel Goldwyn. I thought it was Gary Player, who did say it, but replacing 'work' with 'practice'.
    I think Edison said opportunity is often missed, because it comes dressed in overalls, and looks like work
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited November 2023
    Is this 40% the lowest score for Labour for a long time? *

    You might be under exaggerating the
    damage Starmer's decisions on Palestine are making.

    The worst for more than a year*
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,530
    India 81/3 in 11th over.
  • Options
    For those without access to Sky Sports Channel 5 are also showing the World Cup final live now.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,339
    SKS doesn't inspire confidence. .. and thatsxa problem.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,339

    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
    The internet says Samuel Goldwyn. I thought it was Gary Player, who did say it, but replacing 'work' with 'practice'.
    I think Edison said opportunity is often missed, because it comes dressed in overalls, and looks like work
    I heard Gary Player say it.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,183
    Unacceptable for Starmer to be attacked in this way.

    https://x.com/jebadoo2/status/1725980738615431519?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

    And if people can't see this, it is a film from a protestor outside Starmer's constituency office saying-

    "The djinn right? They've gone beyond Shaitan you know he's on the list because his wife's a Zionist you know his wife says, you know, Israel and he'll go and support Israel the little shit"
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,532
    Roger said:

    Is this 40% the lowest score for Labour for a long time? *

    You might be under exaggerating the
    damage Starmer's decisions on Palestine are making.

    The worst for more than a year*

    No - Opinium (the same pollster) had Labour on 39 and Tories on 29 at the end of September.
  • Options
    OK, it's B***** and one shouldn't swear on a Sunday morning, but this is a different take on the subject;

    From the latest wave of @BESResearch, preferences on Britain's future membership of the EU by supermarket. A landslide for rejoining among co-op shoppers, finely balanced at M&S, while Iceland shoppers still believe in Brexit.




    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1726011849844351435

    If Brexit is shorthand for "everything this government is doing", trying to please both M&S and Iceland shoppers is why Sunak has way more headaches than Starmer.
  • Options
    No need for a split in the Labour Party.

    Starmer should simply purge the party of the antisemites.

    The party would be better off without the likes of Burgon.

    If he did, given the state of the Tories, I'd probably vote for his party.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    Cyclefree said:

    Unacceptable for Starmer to be attacked in this way.

    https://x.com/jebadoo2/status/1725980738615431519?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA

    And if people can't see this, it is a film from a protestor outside Starmer's constituency office saying-

    "The djinn right? They've gone beyond Shaitan you know he's on the list because his wife's a Zionist you know his wife says, you know, Israel and he'll go and support Israel the little shit"

    I’m glad that people like that have no party to represent them. Unfortunately I think that radical Islamists, and the West-hating left, are numerous enough (10-15% of voters) to create a party that could win some seats.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,532

    OK, it's B***** and one shouldn't swear on a Sunday morning, but this is a different take on the subject;

    From the latest wave of @BESResearch, preferences on Britain's future membership of the EU by supermarket. A landslide for rejoining among co-op shoppers, finely balanced at M&S, while Iceland shoppers still believe in Brexit.




    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1726011849844351435

    If Brexit is shorthand for "everything this government is doing", trying to please both M&S and Iceland shoppers is why Sunak has way more headaches than Starmer.

    Who cares what Iceland shoppers think? They can't vote in our elections anyway.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,441
    edited November 2023
    It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.

    2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    lol. Starmer is over 60. He’s not a youthful Blair
    Which was what I wrote. But he can happily serve until 70 or so. I would anticipate him handing over during his third term.

    However, he would be chiding me for getting ahead of myself. ‘Sheffield' and all that.
    He'd probably roll his eyes at you as a fanatic and hope you were either ignored or went away.
    He’s pretty happy to have me around, thanks ;)

    Keir is playing a very sensible game at the moment. As Napoleon said:

    ‘Never interfere with your enemies whilst they are making a mistake.'
    Napoleon liked lucky* Generals, and Starmer has certainly been one of those, and I think that luck will return.

    Looking at economic prospects for next year, with the interest rates hitting remortgages and M4 money contracting there will be few green shoots. Economic cycles do turn though, and there will be a return to steady growth in Starmers first term. More luck than judgement IMO, but New New Labour will get the electoral
    credit.

    *in my experience, people largely make their own luck, through practice and preparation.
    Wasn’t that Edison’s quote (or at least attributed to him)?

    “I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get”
    I think a lot of people have made similar observations, so there are a lot of similar quotes.

    I once read an interesting study of luck by a psychologist. I don't have the reference to hand, but what the author did was to recruit people who self labelled as lucky or unlucky, and followed them over time.

    The two groups had similar life events, from bereavements to promotions etc, but where they differed was how they reacted to incidents. The "lucky" people reacted more flexibly to events, taking the best from what arose, while the "unlucky" focused on what had gone wrong.

    So that is what I mean by making your own luck.

    Starmer does this. Even a schism over a pointless Parliamentary motion is turned to his advantage, allowing him to marginalise further his internal opposition, and to astutely do it with minimal triumphalism.

    Though the same can happen in reverse. Some pupils won't revise at all before their Mocks, but will revise really hard before the real thing, so can really outshine their predicted grades (if fairly predicted).

    Those like that, and had predicted grades based on Mocks may have done much worse than their counterparts based on how it played out.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.

    It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.

    Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.

    You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)

    I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
    You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.

    In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.

    Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
    I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.

    It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …

    As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.

    I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.

    Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.

    (Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
    And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.

    So what does that tell you?
This discussion has been closed.