@SophyRidgeSky: @SophyRidgeSky Incredibly, it seems Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle is (on the surface) going to plan... meetings yesterday, announcements today
@SophyRidgeSky: Shadow Cabinet is still in the diary for 1245 today... Will the new Labour team be ready by then?
@SophyRidgeSky: Shadow Cabinet has been cancelled rather than postponed until later today #reshuffle
@paulwaugh: Confirmed: Shadow Cabinet cancelled. Could be more surprises than some think
One of my two formative memories of primary school was the mortification (aged about 8 or 9) of giving 29 as an answer to 3 x 9 in a test, meaning that I only got 9 out of 10.
One of my formative experiences in school was, around about age 8 or 9, getting reamed out in front of the whole class by my teacher for only getting 17/20 on a spelling test. It was one of the highest marks in the class, but she berated me for being lazy and not doing my homework. She was right that I had not studied, and right to judge me against my own capabilities, not those of the rest of the class.
I did not thank her at the time, but I wish I had been able to at some point in time.
Don't know why, but 9x7 was the only part of the times tables that ever gave me any problem.
Yes I agree with you on that, but 10 7's is 70 and thereafter all becomes simple. My thought is that instinct says that 9 7s should be more than it is.
You are saying that there won't be another Labour government for 20 years; if Labour even exist then. The average age for men to die is in the mid eighties now.
I think there is a strong likelihood that Labour - as we now know it - will have ceased to exist because of the damage that Corbyn-Momentum are inflicting on the party.
Rump Labour under Corbyn or his chosen successorts will never see power again. The only hope for the moderate/sensible left is for a large splinter group to set up New New Labour and to rebuild from the bottom up.
Mr. Simon, I don't think it's a likelihood, as Labour vanishing or becoming a rump is contingent on another party taking their place. UKIP or the Lib Dems *might*, but it's still odds against.
It is possible the yellows and purples take chunks out of Labour in 2020, but the reds then recover when they aren't led by a clown.
You are saying that there won't be another Labour government for 20 years; if Labour even exist then. The average age for men to die is in the mid eighties now.
I think there is a strong likelihood that Labour - as we now know it - will have ceased to exist because of the damage that Corbyn-Momentum are inflicting on the party.
Rump Labour under Corbyn or his chosen successorts will never see power again. The only hope for the moderate/sensible left is for a large splinter group to set up New New Labour and to rebuild from the bottom up.
I'm anything but pro Labour but right or wrong Corbyn's lot see it the other way - Blair inflicted the damage on the party. I'd love to see Labour grow some bollox and split into two, part Corbyn, part Blair, but they won't. If they're unelectable as a whole part there is no way they're electable divided in two.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.
A couple of years ago I launched an e-petition to bring back proper money. It failed to reach 100,000 signatures. To be more specific, it failed to reach 20!
Mr. Simon, I don't think it's a likelihood, as Labour vanishing or becoming a rump is contingent on another party taking their place. UKIP or the Lib Dems *might*, but it's still odds against.
It is possible the yellows and purples take chunks out of Labour in 2020, but the reds then recover when they aren't led by a clown.
The damage of 4.5 years of Corbyn and his Momentum friends will take a very, very long time to heal. If he gets to reshape the rules, then it will take even longer to remove the hard left from power within Labour - meaning the damage will be ongoing.
If Labour doesn't get rid of Corbyn quickly, they will face a choice between oblivion or a split.
This country needs a strong opposition party, it always has and always will. It is in the national interest for Labour to choose the sensible path - and that isn't looking likely.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
Balance of power doctrine was proved to be disastrous on the outbreak of WW1.
The problem with seeking a balance of power is that someone inevitably overestimates their own power.
If the referendum is Cameron v Farage, with Cameron preaching economic stability/security of remaining in the EU vs Farage banging on about immigration, there will be only one outcome.
Would that be pre or post the televised debate on the subject between the two?
The best reshuffle eff up story was when a Minister tried to resign, but Dave wasn't paying attention, so didn't realise the minster was resigning, so the Minister ended up staying.
Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.
A couple of years ago I launched an e-petition to bring back proper money. It failed to reach 100,000 signatures. To be more specific, it failed to reach 20!
Bringing back £.s.d was one of my policies in the general election in 2001. I got 408 votes, more than ever before or since.
I would also re-value the currency to account for inflation since 1971, so a new Pound would be worth what is now £20; a Shilling would be what is now £1, and 1d would be worth what is now 8p. That way we could still have the fun of farthings and halfpence instead of having nothing smaller than 6d.
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
Mr. Eagles, so the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Defence Secretary will both disagree with their own party's policy on nuclear weapons?
Jeremy Corbyn is a clown.
The UK deserves a credible choice between two parties, or more, at an election. Not this socialist jester.
It's good. They have long standing principles, and they are giving the voters an option.
All very well, but doesn't answer the charge. What is Labour policy on Trident? The one set by the last conference.
We will find out soon, when the govt introduce a bill to renew it!
Corbyn will either whip it or allow a free vote. Either way some or even a majority of Labour MPs will be voting against their own party conference policy and the manifesto. Unless I am missing something here.
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
Balance of power doctrine was proved to be disastrous on the outbreak of WW1.
The problem with seeking a balance of power is that someone inevitably overestimates their own power.
No, it proved the disastrousness of 'chain ganging'. Balance of power was what Britain (and before it England) aimed at for hundreds of years, and if we ever recover our sanity, what we will continue to aim at.
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
The best reshuffle eff up story was when a Minister tried to resign, but Dave wasn't paying attention, so didn't realise the minster was resigning, so the Minister ended up staying.
Said minister is now our man in Bruxelles.
Nah my favourite story remains when Blair abolished the role of Lord Chancellor by making it part of the Ministry of Justice. Lord Falconer was just settling down to a quiet day in the office the next day when someone pointed out he was supposed to be sitting on the Woolsack in 20 minutes!
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
TBH when I said I had not a clue I did have the vaguest notion it was something like that but (as is the interest in these things) thought, nah thats going to go on for ever! (followed by 'and Mr Herdson's not that clever' :-) )
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
I seem to recall it was the basis for a code broken by the Germans in an episode of Colditz!
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.
That is what makes it so satisfying. Numbers are incredible things!
(mind you, I also used to love the abstraction of pure algebra)
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
Does that have anything to do with my points? Corbyn has consistently sided with, excused and tried to justify the cause of those who oppose British values and British interests, the evidence for which is bountiful and will continue to be laid before the public while he remains in office. Indulging in the whataboutery of Cameron flogging military hardware to the Saudis might make you feel better but rather misses the point.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.
A couple of years ago I launched an e-petition to bring back proper money. It failed to reach 100,000 signatures. To be more specific, it failed to reach 20!
24 should be your missed minimum threshold surely!
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
Does that have anything to do with my points? Corbyn has consistently sided with, excused and tried to justify the cause of those who oppose British values and British interests, the evidence for which is bountiful and will continue to be laid before the public while he remains in office. Indulging in the whataboutery of Cameron flogging military hardware to the Saudis might make you feel better but rather misses the point.
I'm delighted to hear we're selling arms, I'd imagine the profit margins are enormous and the jobs will be well paid. Well done the govt.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
How would you have had Britain 'not joining World War 1" ? Surely we would have been dragged in eventually anyway, and at a time less favourable to ourselves?
Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.
There are all sorts of numbers tricks that aren't known any more with the decline of times tables. Not because the tricks were taught necessarily, but because people wanted easy shortcuts instead of the rote learning and learnt them "off-curriculum"!
@elliotttimes: Latest speculation for shadow defence Nia Griffith: would be first unilateralist in that post for around 30 years.
And someone with absolutely no background in defence matters. She might have been credible as a shadow schools minister - but she has nothing to offer on defence.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
Does that have anything to do with my points? Corbyn has consistently sided with, excused and tried to justify the cause of those who oppose British values and British interests, the evidence for which is bountiful and will continue to be laid before the public while he remains in office. Indulging in the whataboutery of Cameron flogging military hardware to the Saudis might make you feel better but rather misses the point.
Yes, it contradicts your point two. You say our paddling in murky waters is to benefit the British interest. I would have some sympathy for this argument if it were true, but as far as I can see it isn't.
Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.
Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.
I am quite sure of my interpretation. The word's have been chosen very carefully.
"the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete.". It surely means one government view.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.
I am quite sure of my interpretation. The word's have been chosen very carefully.
"the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete.". It surely means one government view.
You may not like it but it has been announced that the CABINET will have freedom to campaign to remain or leave. Not only showing on strap line with Sky but also confirmed by Dan Hodges and Guido Fawkes
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.
That is correct. In the old days when trial balances never agreed, one way was to divide by 9 to see if there was any transposition error.
For example, 36 written as 63. The difference 27 is divisable by 9. So are 18,81 ; 27,72 ; 45,54 etc.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.
PBers who hate the Guardianista will love this edited addition at end of the article:
This article was amended on 4 January 2016. The reference to the new elements being “manmade” was changed to “synthetic” to follow Guardian style guidance on the use of gender-neutral terms.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.
Yes, the material recovered from the crashed UFO at Roswell was made of such an element.
@craigawoodhouse: Would love to hear the reshuffle narrated by the Big Brother bloke. "Day two in Corbyn's office and aides are cleaning blood off the walls"
The spat on the Daily Politics was most entertaining
Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.
Cameron has clearly taken a leaf out of Harold Wilson's book. Wilson allowed his Cabinet to campaign for or against the EEC in 1975 and it worked out OK for him
I have no idea who are the hard left she says, none, not a clue....in other news, a four legged animal has just shot past my window on the 3rd floor going oik oik oik..
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.
Yes, the material recovered from the crashed UFO at Roswell was made of such an element.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
Yeah, 118 was supposed to be stabler wasn't it? Apparently (hat tip Wikipedia) it's ~ 1 millisecond half life is "longer than predicted" (!!)
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.
PBers who hate the Guardianista will love this edited addition at end of the article:
This article was amended on 4 January 2016. The reference to the new elements being “manmade” was changed to “synthetic” to follow Guardian style guidance on the use of gender-neutral terms.
Labour seems to have been struggling to recruit and retain quality MPs for a very long time now.
Still, could be worse...
@ScottyNational: News- SNP release vetting process SNP:How much do you hate Labour or Tories? Candidate: A lot! SNP: You're in. *ticks background check box*
It is, frankly, the only logical decision for him and I'm rather surprised that people like John Major, who ought to know better, were advocating otherwise.
It is, frankly, the only logical decision for him and I'm rather surprised that people like John Major, who ought to know better, were advocating otherwise.
If the referendum goes for leave then Major may feel that all of his prior resistance was for nothing - so despite being a hardline eurosceptic I find his comments at least understandable.
Seamus Milne must be in line for a performance bonus given how well he is handling the media over this reshuffle. Imagine 4-6 weeks of a GE campaign with him in charge....
@JGForsyth: Shad Cab folks backing Dugher have simple, effective, option at their disposal if they think Corbyn behaving unfairly: withdraw their labour
@VickiYoung01: Several shadow cabinet members tweeted support for sacked colleague Michael Dugher but none has resigned in protest #reshuffle
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
Yeah, 118 was supposed to be stabler wasn't it? Apparently (hat tip Wikipedia) it's ~ 1 millisecond half life is "longer than predicted" (!!)
@JGForsyth: Shad Cab folks backing Dugher have simple, effective, option at their disposal if they think Corbyn behaving unfairly: withdraw their labour
@VickiYoung01: Several shadow cabinet members tweeted support for sacked colleague Michael Dugher but none has resigned in protest #reshuffle
No shit...
We know one thing about the PLP, they don't have a backbone between them. They will spend the next 2 months moaning over their pints in the boozers around Westminster about all of this and that will be it.
Seamus Milne must be in line for a performance bonus given how well he is handling the media over this reshuffle. Imagine 4-6 weeks of a GE campaign with him in charge....
I continue to look forward to the Labour leader's comments on the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising. They should make the grid for the 2016 election round make for particularly enjoyable reading.
Comments
@SophyRidgeSky: Shadow Cabinet is still in the diary for 1245 today... Will the new Labour team be ready by then?
@SophyRidgeSky: Shadow Cabinet has been cancelled rather than postponed until later today #reshuffle
@paulwaugh: Confirmed: Shadow Cabinet cancelled. Could be more surprises than some think
Rump Labour under Corbyn or his chosen successorts will never see power again. The only hope for the moderate/sensible left is for a large splinter group to set up New New Labour and to rebuild from the bottom up.
It is possible the yellows and purples take chunks out of Labour in 2020, but the reds then recover when they aren't led by a clown.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.
That said when I were at prep school we did our times table up to 20 times table
If Labour doesn't get rid of Corbyn quickly, they will face a choice between oblivion or a split.
This country needs a strong opposition party, it always has and always will. It is in the national interest for Labour to choose the sensible path - and that isn't looking likely.
The problem with seeking a balance of power is that someone inevitably overestimates their own power.
Said minister is now our man in Bruxelles.
I would also re-value the currency to account for inflation since 1971, so a new Pound would be worth what is now £20; a Shilling would be what is now £1, and 1d would be worth what is now 8p. That way we could still have the fun of farthings and halfpence instead of having nothing smaller than 6d.
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast.
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
Indeed, but the quid pro quo for American help in WW2 was the dissolution of what remained of the British empire.
Many of the American commanders (such as Stillwell in the far east) were Anglo phobes.
(mind you, I also used to love the abstraction of pure algebra)
Tamil barrister loses fight to wear turban in court, 1890 https://t.co/tMLRut2xTH
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
http://www.labour.org.uk/people/detail/nia-griffith
11
121 (11 x 11)
1331 (11 x 11 x 11)
14641 (11 x 11 x 11 x 11)
The first four lines of Pascal's triangle. But it runs out there. I'm not aware of any practical use for this, mind.
"the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete.". It surely means one government view.
For example, 36 written as 63. The difference 27 is divisable by 9. So are 18,81 ; 27,72 ; 45,54 etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/04/periodic-tables-seventh-row-finally-filled-as-four-new-elements-are-added
PBers who hate the Guardianista will love this edited addition at end of the article:
This article was amended on 4 January 2016. The reference to the new elements being “manmade” was changed to “synthetic” to follow Guardian style guidance on the use of gender-neutral terms.
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
Perhaps.
The spat on the Daily Politics was most entertaining
Which brings me back to WHY...
Labour seems to have been struggling to recruit and retain quality MPs for a very long time now.
@ScottyNational: News- SNP release vetting process
SNP:How much do you hate Labour or Tories?
Candidate: A lot!
SNP: You're in.
*ticks background check box*
A C section is required.
@annemcelvoy: With one possible exception, Tim... https://t.co/KhP8cyoiOw
http://www.parryphernalia.com/?page_id=1019
I particularly like number 11.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35230959
It is, frankly, the only logical decision for him and I'm rather surprised that people like John Major, who ought to know better, were advocating otherwise.
@VickiYoung01: Several shadow cabinet members tweeted support for sacked colleague Michael Dugher but none has resigned in protest #reshuffle
No shit...