@MaxPB - I agree that more should be done, but I think you're being unfair. The government's doing a lot of the right things on education. The biggest problem is that it's a bit late by the time you get to entrance to university - you need to help kids from less privileged backgrounds much earlier than that.
Absolutely, the earlier help is available for kids the better. Languages, advanced maths and Latin should be on the agenda for any child that shows promise at the primary level. The dumbing down agenda that patronises children rather than challenges them needs to be taken out the the back and shot.
And it's not an old boys network anymore - it's a return to being a guild based system.
If you want to be a lawyer, for instance, it will be far more useful to know antifrank, cyclefree or Sean-F than it would be to know me.
So you are saying an equally qualified black graduate from a council estate has the same chance of getting a job in a top law firm as a white one from the shires who's parents are well connected?
Come off it Charles. The old boys network is alive and well.
Nowadays the biggest barrier to a kid from a council estate becoming a lawyer is the gang culture that doesn't officially exist.
They'd have to get past that first before the old boy network became a problem.
So, presumably, a smaller proportion of people from council estates get to university than a decade ago.
Oh wait...
Or do these people only get to go special "gang run" university courses?
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Once that idea becomes accepted no change is possible and democracy becomes meaningless.
Incidentally, one curious dog that hasn't yet barked in the night is UKIP's very stong support for fracking. I rather think all those Tory shire voters tempted to vote UKIP haven't cottoned on to that policy yet. (As it happens, I think UKIP are right on that particular point, but it's electorally pretty toxic amongst a good chunk of their target voters).
Roger Helmer devoted the majority of his speech at the last UKIP conference to assuaging public concerns about fracking.
MaxPB do you have a problem with people gaining employment through 'connections'?
Not so much that, but that certain positions in large British companies do require one to be part of the secret handshake club. I think introductions between friends or family are not really a big deal. It's the top level positions that draw from such a narrow pool of people I take issue with. Take a look at journalism, it draws from a very narrow background, mostly white public school educated people. It's tough to understand how that happens.
How is 'the secret handshake club' (if such a thing exists) any different from friends and family connections?
In my experience it only enhances one's career once one has reached the rank of Adeptus Demonic, or Ipsissimus.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.
I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.
I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.
Addendum, I would abolish teaching German in this country, on all my trips to Germany, even when I spoke German, everyone in the country replied in perfect English.
There's no point learning German, all the Germans can speak English already.
(Though they are very appreciative of English people that have taken the time to learn German)
But that is true everywhere. I have tried to find bits of Ethiopia so remote that I need to speak Amharic, and have always been met with perfect English (generally to the effect that my interlocutor is a Tigrigna speaker and regards Amharic as a calculated insult).
Why would someone constantly leave the site and come back under a different name?
Maybe it's a bit like that moronic Dr Who bollux, some people get board and want to be reborn. I fancy a bit of a flounce myself, maybe come back as someone a bit more exoctic!
MaxPB do you have a problem with people gaining employment through 'connections'?
Not so much that, but that certain positions in large British companies do require one to be part of the secret handshake club. I think introductions between friends or family are not really a big deal. It's the top level positions that draw from such a narrow pool of people I take issue with. Take a look at journalism, it draws from a very narrow background, mostly white public school educated people. It's tough to understand how that happens.
Journalism is very nepotistic. The number of journalists on national titles whose parents were also journalists on national titles is astounding.
Another reason why journalism is so public school dominated these days is because so many ways in involve unpaid work and internships. In previous times there was a well-worn path from regional papers to the nationals, but there are far fewer of these now and those that are left employ far fewer journalists.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
I got a top grade in Latin O Level and failed French. I'm good at grammar and loved Latin. It has helped enormously in learning Spanish - which in many cases is identical in structure and words but I still struggle in conversation - I think I'm not a 'natural' linguist just a plodder!!
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.
I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.
I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.
But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
Personally I preferred the history side which was on offer to the history at GCSE, which was all WW2 stuff.
I'm just rubbish at languages generally. Didn't help that my German teacher was an absolute nutter of a woman.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.
I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.
I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.
But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.
It's simpler in some ways. But it still has most of the same basic building blocks.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.
I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.
I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.
But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.
I think it seems simpler to natives - in fact it can be quite difficult for foreigners to learn English because so much is irregular.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.
I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.
I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.
But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.
It's simpler in some ways. But it still has most of the same basic building blocks.
Knowing Latin does help went watching university challenge though, you can guess a fair few answers if you know a working knowledge in a variety of areas.
Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?
I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.
It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.
I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.
I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.
But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.
It's simpler in some ways. But it still has most of the same basic building blocks.
English - simpler? Well, if you ignore the spelling, maybe...
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
Although, to be fair, the Conservatives didn't win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.
I had Latin literally beaten in to me at school,it was a Christian Brothers school,and known for its excessive brutality,I can still chant what we knew as "The Concordes",ante,apud,ad, adversus,circum,circa etc,and unto these if motion be intended,let in sub super be appended. Did me sod all use in later life,but in those days entry to University needed O level latin.
Just back from the café via Ladbrokes where I got my picked up my Wythenshawe winnings.. had lost my ticket and turned out Id had twice as much on as I thought! Still a piddling amount mind!
Anyway, saw The Sun front page in café... surprised it hasn't been discussed more, it really is aggressively anti Labour
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
Two points: 1) The Conservatives went into coalition. I know some do not see that as an excuse, but there was no way the Lib Dems were going to agree to everything that was in it. And as I said earlier, I actually think the coalition's worked quite well through a difficult time.
2) The UKIP manifesto was so bad that the party's current leader - who ISTR put his name to it - has described it as 'drivel'. Train liveries, ffs. Instead of attacking people who bring up that inconvenient truth, it might be best to admit it for what it was: a big mistake.
But it still leaves the core problem: what does UKIP stand for outside of the Europe issue? The website seems to think 'Fishing' is worthy of second place on their policy forum, below energy and above 'Health tourism'. 'Fishing'and ;Health tourism' are issues, but are tiny compared to the big ones.
Having said that, in the past I've flagged up issues with all the main parties' websites, including things like accessibility issues. None are perfect. For instance, on Labour's front page (or at least past their splash page is the following rubbish: "A transformative process for a Party which in turn aspires to transform the country"
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
Although, to be fair, the Conservatives didn't win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.
There is also plenty they have failed to do in spite of the fact some of it was supported by the Lib Dems so they can hardly claim it was because they were in coalition.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
Two points: 1) The Conservatives went into coalition. I know some do not see that as an excuse, but there was no way the Lib Dems were going to agree to everything that was in it. And as I said earlier, I actually think the coalition's worked quite well through a difficult time.
2) The UKIP manifesto was so bad that the party's current leader - who ISTR put his name to it - has described it as 'drivel'. Train liveries, ffs. Instead of attacking people who bring up that inconvenient truth, it might be best to admit it for what it was: a big mistake.
But it still leaves the core problem: what does UKIP stand for outside of the Europe issue? The website seems to think 'Fishing' is worthy of second place on their policy forum, below energy and above 'Health tourism'. 'Fishing'and ;Health tourism' are issues, but are tiny compared to the big ones.
Having said that, in the past I've flagged up issues with all the main parties' websites, including things like accessibility issues. None are perfect. For instance, on Labour's front page (or at least past their splash page is the following rubbish: "A transformative process for a Party which in turn aspires to transform the country"
To the first part I would say you have a good point. The coalition is like a marriage where booth sides have to give and take.. the Tories are the man complaining about having to go shopping and watch soaps, the Lib Dems are women having to put up with football and farting.
Its easy for Labour and UKIP as "singeltons" to point out all the things they wouldn't have done, and to accuse them of compromising
On your second point, Farage would say he signed a 16 page doc that he broadly agreed with, that had 500 pages off bumph that he hadn't read, he wasn't leader at the time, and the new policies are going to be announced after the May elections.
It really isn't worth your while to keep asking Kippers on PB about manifestos that are obsolete or haven't been published, as no one knows the answer
But attacking Kippers on fine detail of past manifestos isn't fertile territory for their critics.. its a case of Hedgehogs and Foxes. Kippers think people that try and score points by quoting tiny dancing on pinhead type things are idiots.. that's why they are kippers!
Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.
What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?
Some Scottish voices in the party leadership, for example. Plans to fight for seats there with as much determination as in England. Some Scotland-specific policies.
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.
What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?
Some Scottish voices in the party leadership, for example. Plans to fight for seats there with as much determination as in England. Some Scotland-specific policies.
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
So can I take it that on a similar basis, that Labour have no affection for the Westcountry?
Michel Thomas's language tapes for Spanish, Italian, German and French are apparently the best on the market, although he sadly died in 2005 at the age of 90.
A truly amazing character - astonishing that he isn't better known:
I think it seems simpler to natives - in fact it can be quite difficult for foreigners to learn English because so much is irregular.
Actually, the vast majority of English's hundreds of thousands of words have a perfectly predictable pronunciation. There are only about a hundred words that are completely irregular, and a few thousand more that are semi-regular - the final consonant of 'cough' has to be learned, but the initial 'c' is predictably pronounced 'k'.
The problem is that those 100 words are the most common words in English, and the next few thousand most common are largely only semi-regular. In dictionaries, they are massively outnumbered by words like 'deport', 'piquant', and 'turbine', all with predictable pronunciations, but most people can probably go weeks without saying any of those words.
English spelling can be pretty chaotic - thanks partly to the great vowel shift, partly to extensive borrowing from other languages - but the popular conception that it's a complete nightmare is badly overstated.
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
Although, to be fair, the Conservatives didn't win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.
There is also plenty they have failed to do in spite of the fact some of it was supported by the Lib Dems so they can hardly claim it was because they were in coalition.
Yes, like reform of HoL, 600 seat HoC, etc. etc. etc.
On the positive side, Blue+Yellow has been less Green than their manifestos would have suggested, which at least indicates that might be trying evidence based policy making.
Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.
What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?
Some Scottish voices in the party leadership, for example. Plans to fight for seats there with as much determination as in England. Some Scotland-specific policies.
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
Looking through Labour's leadership, how many do they have that grew up in the South of England outside London? I get Ed Balls from East Anglia, but can't find anyone else...
Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.
What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?
Some Scottish voices in the party leadership, for example. Plans to fight for seats there with as much determination as in England. Some Scotland-specific policies.
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
So can I take it that on a similar basis, that Labour have no affection for the Westcountry?
Isn't Bristol, with two Labour MPs, in the West Country? Hasn't Labour also held parliamentary seats in places like Stroud, Plymouth and Exeter in recent times? My guess - though, again, I could be wrong - is that Labour probably controls and sits on more councils, and contests more council seats in the West Country than UKIP does in Scotland.
"Ukraine crisis live: Russia admits its troops are moving in Crimea
Russian foreign ministry admits to entering Crimea from its Black Sea Fleet base as the Ukraine's interior minister accuses country of 'armed invasion'
Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.
What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?
Some Scottish voices in the party leadership, for example. Plans to fight for seats there with as much determination as in England. Some Scotland-specific policies.
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
So can I take it that on a similar basis, that Labour have no affection for the Westcountry?
Isn't Bristol, with two Labour MPs, in the West Country? Hasn't Labour also held parliamentary seats in places like Stroud, Plymouth and Exeter in recent times? My guess - though, again, I could be wrong - is that Labour probably controls and sits on more councils, and contests more council seats in the West Country than UKIP does in Scotland.
Of course they have a few more elected positions: they're a long-established party while UKIP are still growing. But who do Labour have in the leadership from there? Any Westcountry focused policies? In fact, do Labour have anyone in the Shadow Cabinet representing a constituency in the entire south of England, outside London?
English spelling can be pretty chaotic - thanks partly to the great vowel shift, partly to extensive borrowing from other languages - but the popular conception that it's a complete nightmare is badly overstated.
English is by far the best language in the world. There, I said it!
English spelling can be pretty chaotic - thanks partly to the great vowel shift, partly to extensive borrowing from other languages - but the popular conception that it's a complete nightmare is badly overstated.
English is by far the best language in the world. There, I said it!
I don't think English really is a particularly good language, it's just winning out through sheer brute force, which is perhaps regrettable.
Barring independence if Ukip succeed in England they'll start to do well in Wales and Scotland too just slower, Wales a bit slower and Scotland a lot slower, as if they do well in England the same logic will apply.
English spelling can be pretty chaotic - thanks partly to the great vowel shift, partly to extensive borrowing from other languages - but the popular conception that it's a complete nightmare is badly overstated.
English is by far the best language in the world. There, I said it!
I don't think English really is a particularly good language, it's just winning out through sheer brute force, which is perhaps regrettable.
It's a very illogical and therefore hard-to-learn language (discounting the fact that it's ubiquity makes learning it easier). But it is by some distance the biggest modern language in terms of its lexicon, and on that metric Sunil's claim is defendable.
Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.
What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?
Some Scottish voices in the party leadership, for example. Plans to fight for seats there with as much determination as in England. Some Scotland-specific policies.
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
So can I take it that on a similar basis, that Labour have no affection for the Westcountry?
Isn't Bristol, with two Labour MPs, in the West Country? Hasn't Labour also held parliamentary seats in places like Stroud, Plymouth and Exeter in recent times? My guess - though, again, I could be wrong - is that Labour probably controls and sits on more councils, and contests more council seats in the West Country than UKIP does in Scotland.
Of course they have a few more elected positions: they're a long-established party while UKIP are still growing. But who do Labour have in the leadership from there? Any Westcountry focused policies? In fact, do Labour have anyone in the Shadow Cabinet representing a constituency in the entire south of England, outside London?
Ben Bradshaw, Dawn Primarolo and John Denham are the highest profile Lab MPs in the South. Don't know if any of them has a top job at the moment.
Lab under Blair had quite a few seats in the SW:
All 4 in Bristol + Kingswood NE Somerset Both Swindon Both Plymouth Exeter South Dorset Falmouth Stroud Gloucester Forest of D I make it 16. Now 4 left
I was once told that Italian is the easiest modern language to learn because it is the most ordered and logical, which - if true - kinda explodes the myth about the Italians
"Ukraine crisis live: Russia admits its troops are moving in Crimea
Russian foreign ministry admits to entering Crimea from its Black Sea Fleet base as the Ukraine's interior minister accuses country of 'armed invasion'
We should pull all Western reporters out of the Ukraine, maintain radio silence and leave Russia to its own devices.
It is a western myth that ordinary Russians automatically support the military adventures of their leaders. Engagement in Chechnya became deeply unpopular as casualties mounted. And Russian military commander have never placed troop protection high on their list of priorities.
Given that most Russians see Ukrainians (unlike Chechens) as slavic brothers, Putin would find it difficult to sell a contested invasion to a wary Russian public.
A bit like Alex Salmond in Scotland, Putin needs the foreign powers of the auld enemy to help him secure domestic support for his policies. Obama and various less identifiable EU bods telling Putin not to intervene in the Ukraine militarily is just what Putin needs.
Unfortunately we have idle western journalists sunning themselves in the Crimea taking photographs of dubious looking soldiers in unmarked camouflage and beaming the images back to our 24 hour news channels. This is just giving Putin what he wants: the equivalent of Salmond getting Osborne to open the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.
English spelling can be pretty chaotic - thanks partly to the great vowel shift, partly to extensive borrowing from other languages - but the popular conception that it's a complete nightmare is badly overstated.
English is by far the best language in the world. There, I said it!
The most ubiquitous as a second language, undoubtedly (the global lingua franca - arf!) - and it got there through the first global Empire - the British, and her offspring, the American. Whether its the "best", as the old Irish directions start 'If I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here....'
I was once told that Italian is the easiest modern language to learn because it is the most ordered and logical, which - if true - kinda explodes the myth about the Italians
I think Italian and Spanish are quite similar - both are structured similarly to Latin, hence the grammar is fairly straightforward. Of course if you know nothing of conjugating verbs, declining verbs, masculine/feminine, etc., etc there ain't nothing easy about them!
That nice Andy Burnham has just sent me an email. It includes a rather stupid poll:
"Can we count on you to stand up for our NHS? One click now says you support a strong national health service: "
Followed by a 'yes' and a 'no' button.
I clicked 'no' for the heck of it, and got a rather plaintive page saying: "Don't want to defend the NHS? Tell us why!"
I think it should be changed: "Can we count on you to stand up for our NHS? One click now says you support gagging clauses and the management of Stafford and Furness hospitals."
That genuinely surprises me as I was under the impression he had made known his wish to retire from politics after the next GE, and as he did not do well in his last public debate with Ms Sturgeon. Given that he's in the LD penal battalions, I think someone's putting him above the parapet to see where the snipers [edit: on his own side, for promotion to company commander] are shooting from.
Here's something for you, from north of the border:
Fagage says he'll quit if UKIP fails to win any seats at GE2015 (via @PickardJE)
As Richard Tyndall never ceases to remind us, Fagage is excess bagage to UKIP.
I think I would ask that you refine that assertion. I have never said he is excess baggae. What I have said and continue to believe is that he is not the best person to be leader - in fact as a party leader I consider him a hindrance rather than an asset. I would however be sorry to see him disappear from the political scene as I do believe he is a very effective communicator and an asset to the BOO cause in his public appearances (mostly).
I still have a betting slip down the back of a sofa with his name on it. Just about enough for a bottle of wine if it comes in. Not enough to care about if it doesn't.
Just had another look at the Orkney and Shetland result from 2010. Something I'd not noticed before was how well UKIP did - by far UKIP's best result in Scotland with 6.32% (the next best being Moray at 2.65%). Not sure what it says, but it struck me as interesting.
But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.
All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.
Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago: http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
Although, to be fair, the Conservatives didn't win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.
There is also plenty they have failed to do in spite of the fact some of it was supported by the Lib Dems so they can hardly claim it was because they were in coalition.
Yes, like reform of HoL, 600 seat HoC, etc. etc. etc.
On the positive side, Blue+Yellow has been less Green than their manifestos would have suggested, which at least indicates that might be trying evidence based policy making.
I would add to that the important point of recall for MPs. There was absolutely no reason why this could not be achieved and it was a pure political calculation by Cameron that saw it dropped.
Comments
Oh wait...
Or do these people only get to go special "gang run" university courses?
And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
This is a marvelously simple message on the doorsteps which the other parties will find hard to counter."
http://www.channel5.com/shows/5-news/blogs/ukips-lack-of-diversity-doesnt-matter-for-now
1) The England cricket team are doing quite well
2) Jade Dernbach isn't playing.
Just saying, sometimes correlation does equal causation.
Robin Brant @robindbrant 5m
Farage says he will quit as @ukip leader if his party fails to get any mp's at next years general election
Another reason why journalism is so public school dominated these days is because so many ways in involve unpaid work and internships. In previous times there was a well-worn path from regional papers to the nationals, but there are far fewer of these now and those that are left employ far fewer journalists.
All sorted:
Love Britain. Vote UKIP.
Love Brighton. Vote Green.
Love Nobody. Vote BNP.
Love Scotland. Vote SNP.
Love Wales. Vote Plaid Cymru,
Love Cornwall. Vote Mebyon Kernow.
Love Europe. Vote Lib Dem.
Love Sussex. Vote Conservative.
Love Children. Vote Labour.
Love Ireland. Don't vote.
I'm just rubbish at languages generally. Didn't help that my German teacher was an absolute nutter of a woman.
Moeen Ali looks good, I hope Dean Jones isn't commentating today.
I think it seems simpler to natives - in fact it can be quite difficult for foreigners to learn English because so much is irregular.
I know which one I consider to be the less honest.
*May not be 75% of occasions, maybe lower.
I didn't have the heart to point out him that our address was in the signature of my email....
Thank god it's Friday...
And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.
Actually, looking at the 2010 manifesto (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/files/conservative-manifesto-2010.pdf), there's a lot they have done that has been in-line with their manifesto.
I was trying to be as truthful and even-handed as possible.
But I note, too late to edit, that I misspelt "Success".
Jeff Dujon commentating as well, love him. The West Indies commentators are great.. mind you I like pretty much all cricket comms
*Mayus notus beus 75% ofus occasionsus, maybeus lowerus.
Hmmm(us)
Did me sod all use in later life,but in those days entry to University needed O level latin.
Anyway, saw The Sun front page in café... surprised it hasn't been discussed more, it really is aggressively anti Labour
The North Coast from Llandudno to the Dee
Wrexham
Powys
Monmouthshire
Possibly the Vale of Glam
Possibly Newport
Possibly parts of Pembs (e.g. Tenby)
I would expect them to do badly in the Welsh-speaking areas, Swansea and the Valleys
No 'Love UK' Avery?
You'll be getting stiff letters from Alistair Darling and David Bowie (airmail from the US in the latter case of course).
1) The Conservatives went into coalition. I know some do not see that as an excuse, but there was no way the Lib Dems were going to agree to everything that was in it. And as I said earlier, I actually think the coalition's worked quite well through a difficult time.
2) The UKIP manifesto was so bad that the party's current leader - who ISTR put his name to it - has described it as 'drivel'. Train liveries, ffs. Instead of attacking people who bring up that inconvenient truth, it might be best to admit it for what it was: a big mistake.
But it still leaves the core problem: what does UKIP stand for outside of the Europe issue? The website seems to think 'Fishing' is worthy of second place on their policy forum, below energy and above 'Health tourism'. 'Fishing'and ;Health tourism' are issues, but are tiny compared to the big ones.
Having said that, in the past I've flagged up issues with all the main parties' websites, including things like accessibility issues. None are perfect. For instance, on Labour's front page (or at least past their splash page is the following rubbish: "A transformative process for a Party which in turn aspires to transform the country"
Caesar ad sum jam forte
Brutus aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Brutus sic in at
Now Boys and Girls, a good translation please for the following, please:
semper ubi sub ubi
You think it would be better together with the rest?
We are no match for your untamed wit.
Its easy for Labour and UKIP as "singeltons" to point out all the things they wouldn't have done, and to accuse them of compromising
On your second point, Farage would say he signed a 16 page doc that he broadly agreed with, that had 500 pages off bumph that he hadn't read, he wasn't leader at the time, and the new policies are going to be announced after the May elections.
It really isn't worth your while to keep asking Kippers on PB about manifestos that are obsolete or haven't been published, as no one knows the answer
But attacking Kippers on fine detail of past manifestos isn't fertile territory for their critics.. its a case of Hedgehogs and Foxes. Kippers think people that try and score points by quoting tiny dancing on pinhead type things are idiots.. that's why they are kippers!
I may be wrong, but I have always regarded UKIP as a party rooted in England.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10665283/Britons-most-faithful-partners-in-Europe.html
Pretty depressing.
We'll move you up a set!
Who said, about whom, where and what was meant by?:
Te tero Roma manu nuda date tela latete.
[deconstructed as "Te te, ro ro, ma ma, nu nu, da da, te te, la la, te te!"]
Do keep up.
A truly amazing character - astonishing that he isn't better known:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Thomas
His Spanish course, for example, is still getting five star reviews:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spanish-Michel-Thomas-Complete-Course-Set/dp/0340780673/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/277-4102564-7243602
The problem is that those 100 words are the most common words in English, and the next few thousand most common are largely only semi-regular. In dictionaries, they are massively outnumbered by words like 'deport', 'piquant', and 'turbine', all with predictable pronunciations, but most people can probably go weeks without saying any of those words.
English spelling can be pretty chaotic - thanks partly to the great vowel shift, partly to extensive borrowing from other languages - but the popular conception that it's a complete nightmare is badly overstated.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1998/may/31/labour.labour1997to99
On the positive side, Blue+Yellow has been less Green than their manifestos would have suggested, which at least indicates that might be trying evidence based policy making.
[JOKE!]
Presumably one was a Cantonese speaker, the other Mandarin, and they found it easier to speak English to each other.
Russian foreign ministry admits to entering Crimea from its Black Sea Fleet base as the Ukraine's interior minister accuses country of 'armed invasion'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-Russia-admits-its-troops-are-moving-in-Crimea.html
The West Indies lower order are magnificent.. in the upcoming World Cup always worth backing them when they look like they're in a mess
Fagage says he'll quit if UKIP fails to win any seats at GE2015 (via @PickardJE)
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/labour-majority-far-more-likely-most-think
Lab under Blair had quite a few seats in the SW:
All 4 in Bristol + Kingswood
NE Somerset
Both Swindon
Both Plymouth
Exeter
South Dorset
Falmouth
Stroud
Gloucester
Forest of D
I make it 16. Now 4 left
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/why-alistair-carmichael-could-be-next-lib-dem-leader
*admittedly in a fairly small field
It is a western myth that ordinary Russians automatically support the military adventures of their leaders. Engagement in Chechnya became deeply unpopular as casualties mounted. And Russian military commander have never placed troop protection high on their list of priorities.
Given that most Russians see Ukrainians (unlike Chechens) as slavic brothers, Putin would find it difficult to sell a contested invasion to a wary Russian public.
A bit like Alex Salmond in Scotland, Putin needs the foreign powers of the auld enemy to help him secure domestic support for his policies. Obama and various less identifiable EU bods telling Putin not to intervene in the Ukraine militarily is just what Putin needs.
Unfortunately we have idle western journalists sunning themselves in the Crimea taking photographs of dubious looking soldiers in unmarked camouflage and beaming the images back to our 24 hour news channels. This is just giving Putin what he wants: the equivalent of Salmond getting Osborne to open the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.
The best way to get Putin to sweat is to STFU.
"Can we count on you to stand up for our NHS? One click now says you support a strong national health service: "
Followed by a 'yes' and a 'no' button.
I clicked 'no' for the heck of it, and got a rather plaintive page saying: "Don't want to defend the NHS? Tell us why!"
I think it should be changed: "Can we count on you to stand up for our NHS? One click now says you support gagging clauses and the management of Stafford and Furness hospitals."
Here's something for you, from north of the border:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/
Don't worry though. If your goalposts are made of wood, they'll float and ease your burden.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/02/who-is-david-cameron-read-all-about-it/
Just about enough for a bottle of wine if it comes in.
Not enough to care about if it doesn't.