politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is beginning to look that a no-deal Brexit could be off the

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is beginning to look that a no-deal Brexit could be off the agenda

While the media has been almost totally focused on the pandemic the time is running down on the transition period for the UK’s exit from the EU at the end of the year. This might change following the latest reports emanating from Brussels and Downing Street that suggests a deal is looking a bit more likely.

Read the full story here

tlg86

First.

IanB2

Second

Pulpstar

Third. Good.

kle4

I thought Boris and co wanted a no deal for the last phase and I was wrong, though whether one liked his deal is another matter. Therefore I've been warier about what he was after this time. The UK EU communications have been so cliche, token and cyclical even a wonk like me has been too bored.

DecrepiterJohnL

Today is the first day of Royal Ascot. There must be dozens of milliners and whatever is the term for posh frock makers who in a normal year make almost their entire annual profit during this festival.

kle4

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

Scott_xP

kle4 said:

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone.

This was Southam's point in an earlier thread, but I think generating a war nobody wanted and entrenching positions nobody previously held is the ONLY think BoZo and Cummings are any good at

kle4

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone.

This was Southam's point in an earlier thread, but I think generating a war nobody wanted and entrenching positions nobody previously held is the ONLY think BoZo and Cummings are any good at

I think you ascribe them way too much power and ability to suggest they can manufacture views and manipulate so many people with such effectiveness. At worst surely they are able to escalate and aggravate an issue to take advantage? They are not as absurdly competent as you suggest.

SandraMc

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

Fysics_Teacher

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone.

This was Southam's point in an earlier thread, but I think generating a war nobody wanted and entrenching positions nobody previously held is the ONLY think BoZo and Cummings are any good at

If nobody else wanted the “war” then they couldn’t.

tlg86

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone.

This was Southam's point in an earlier thread, but I think generating a war nobody wanted and entrenching positions nobody previously held is the ONLY think BoZo and Cummings are any good at

Whilst I find the arguments over race pretty unedifying, they are very much to the advantage of the Tories, I think. If Starmer had any sense he'd realise that.

logical_song

Trump's niece to publish book, 'Too Much And Never Enough': How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53058811

eek

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

It's always been modular - my memory of history is randomly skipping around bits.

In fact the only history course I remember that didn't skip around bits was the social history o' level my school did that I didn't qualify for as it was taught at the same time as the electronics o level that got you the best Physics teacher.

IanB2

New Zealand's first Covid cases in 24 days came from UK

fortunately they were in quarantine having been given exceptional permission to attend a funeral only.

kle4

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

I dont doubt simply trying to gallop through and just learn dates and the like is not the best either but I feel like there are some core modules which are left out. I had broader ranges taught at primary school I using in a global sense

ydoethur

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

Why is everyone talking about 'schools' as though they are some kind of homogenous grouping? They're not. What is taught varies very widely.

That said, in all five schools I have worked in slavery and the slave trade has been on the curriculum.

Fysics_Teacher

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

kle4

Fysics_Teacher said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone.

This was Southam's point in an earlier thread, but I think generating a war nobody wanted and entrenching positions nobody previously held is the ONLY think BoZo and Cummings are any good at

If nobody else wanted the “war” then they couldn’t.

Quite. Agree with Mirza or Boris or not, but if the conflict did not exist with an least sizable majority then seeking war would be futile.

Scott_xP

Fysics_Teacher said:

If nobody else wanted the “war” then they couldn’t.

Let's take the obvious example

"We send £350m a week to Brussels. Let's spend it on the NHS instead"

That's a culture war that didn't exist before the referendum.

The NHS funding is dependent on trade, which is negatively impacted by Brexit, but they made it "If you love the NHS you must hate the EU"

It's completely ludicrous, but it worked.

Now it's "You must love statues, or you hate Britain" which is equally ridiculous, but I can't say it isn't working

MattW

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

I would like to see an analysis of how many of these suggestions and recommendations have been implemented.

I have seen reports of some being done, others being shelved and others under investigation still.

Would 1/3 1/3 1/3 be a reasonable guestimate of where we are?

Criticism of a culture of grievance seems reasonable.

ydoethur

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

tlg86

Scott_xP said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

If nobody else wanted the “war” then they couldn’t.

Let's take the obvious example

"We send £350m a week to Brussels. Let's spend it on the NHS instead"

That's a culture war that didn't exist before the referendum.

The NHS funding is dependent on trade, which is negatively impacted by Brexit, but they made it "If you love the NHS you must hate the EU"

It's completely ludicrous, but it worked.

Now it's "You must love statues, or you hate Britain" which is equally ridiculous, but I can't say it isn't working

But the fetish that is the NHS was very much created by Labour and was indulged by Cameron.

Cummings simply used that to Leave's advantage. He couldn't have done that without what had gone before.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1272785867174748160

Scott_xP

tlg86 said:

But the fetish that is the NHS was very much created by Labour and was indulged by Cameron.

Cummings simply used that to Leave's advantage. He couldn't have done that without what had gone before.

That is true, but doesn't change the point.

Pitting love of the NHS against the EU was the bit that didn't exist. It was manufactured out of "whole cloth", and is as sturdy a garment as the Emperor's new clothes.

And it worked.

IshmaelZ

Scott_xP said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

If nobody else wanted the “war” then they couldn’t.

Let's take the obvious example

"We send £350m a week to Brussels. Let's spend it on the NHS instead"

That's a culture war that didn't exist before the referendum.

The NHS funding is dependent on trade, which is negatively impacted by Brexit, but they made it "If you love the NHS you must hate the EU"

It's completely ludicrous, but it worked.

Now it's "You must love statues, or you hate Britain" which is equally ridiculous, but I can't say it isn't working

It started as "the continuing existence of the Colston statue is a worse atrocity than the siege of Nanking." As with Brexit there are hardly any arguments against Johnson which are not valid, but you are assiduous at finding them.

alex_

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

Is the word “disagreed” still an allowable verb in the English language?

FF43

Academic, I suppose, but it looks like people are developing buyers' remorse on Brexit now the shit is getting real.

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1272563182712819712

Essexit

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

Mysticrose

The Mary Trump book looks set to add to Donald's woes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53058811

FF43

If the government is sensible (I mean that it wants a decent Brexit outcome and to some extent move on), it will sign the Deal.

StuartDickson

Scottish fishing industry about to be shafted. Again.

FF43

Incidentally, the "No Ifs, no Buts, a Brexit Deal by July" headline is typical Johnson nonsense. He has agreed negotiating rounds through August.

RochdalePioneers

Essexit said:

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.

We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.

Mexicanpete

Essexit said:

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

Lol

Richard_Tyndall

FPT

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

No it isn't.

Repeating this yet again but my son (aged 12) has just completed one topic on Empire lasting 5 weeks and is starting another topic on the slave trade due to last 4 weeks.

Both subjects are studied in considerable detail (The Slave Trade topic started with an introduction to the Songhai Empire and the Kingdom of Benin), are very well balanced and filled with recommendations for additional study.

Richard_Tyndall

RochdalePioneers said:

Essexit said:

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.

We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.

Your desperate twisting of reality is very funny to observe.

Foxy

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

TOPPING

RochdalePioneers said:

Essexit said:

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.

We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.

@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.

And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.

Black really is white and white is black.

Richard_Tyndall

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

DavidL

StuartDickson said:

Scottish fishing industry about to be shafted. Again.

The Scottish fishing industry sold its quotas making a few ex fishermen very wealthy indeed. That might well have shafted the next generation of fishermen but that was the decision of those who held the quota in a common market. Now they want the quota back without paying for it. Which we can do but some compromise is not out of order.

Personally I am more focused on the onshore jobs that have been lost. I would make it a condition of fishing in UK waters that your catch is landed and processed in a UK port. That would have a lot more long term benefit to the north east (and the south west) than making a few captains rich once again.

StuartDickson

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

I concur.

The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.

TOPPING

DavidL said:

StuartDickson said:

Scottish fishing industry about to be shafted. Again.

The Scottish fishing industry sold its quotas making a few ex fishermen very wealthy indeed. That might well have shafted the next generation of fishermen but that was the decision of those who held the quota in a common market. Now they want the quota back without paying for it. Which we can do but some compromise is not out of order.

Personally I am more focused on the onshore jobs that have been lost. I would make it a condition of fishing in UK waters that your catch is landed and processed in a UK port. That would have a lot more long term benefit to the north east (and the south west) than making a few captains rich once again.

From what I understand of the dynamics (not a huge amount) wouldn't that mean that the type of fish caught in UK waters would be landed in the UK and then immediately re-exported because we don't eat our local fish?

Doesn't seem super-efficient...?

RochdalePioneers

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Essexit said:

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.

We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.

Your desperate twisting of reality is very funny to observe.

The UK didn't announce that it would leave it's border wide open in the event of no deal?

Mysticrose

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

IanB2

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

The fishing industry altogether employs fewer people than Harrods.

I expect the deal will be along the lines of the EU conceding the principle that we can negotiate who has access to our waters in return for our conceding an initial negotiated position that looks remarkably like what happens currently.

tlg86

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

I managed to do both, though I knew someone who wasn't able to do both French and German, which seemed a bit harsh.

Fishing

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

ScottxP is probably white and may be old but why do you think he chokes on his false teeth?

DavidL

I also welcome the change of tone. Until now the tone was that our government was comprised of nothing but Brexit extremists determined to throw themselves off the cliff in an act of irrational self harm. A minority like me said that a deal was always likely if not certain. That remains the position but the likelihood is increasing. I think it is a good move to accelerate the process. Our industry would welcome knowing the rules months before the December deadline.

Of course any deal will be a shameful capitulation or proof of where the power lies or whatever. But I can live with that sort of nonsense. We have so many more important things to worry about.

IanB2

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

At my school history and geography had been abolished until age 15 and we had to study something called PEB - which stood for 'position, experience, belief' and was some (then-) trendy amalgam of geography, history and religious studies. Not the best of foundations for History and Geography O-level.

Casino_Royale

I don't think the EU will let something as comparatively minor as fishing to scupper the whole deal, so I expect a compromise.

StuartDickson

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

The fishing industry altogether employs fewer people than Harrods.

I expect the deal will be along the lines of the EU conceding the principle that we can negotiate who has access to our waters in return for our conceding an initial negotiated position that looks remarkably like what happens currently.

That’s what I just said up-post: the Scottish fishing industry is about to get shafted. Again.

Love your Harrods > Scotland + Cornwall. Very insightful.

Scott_xP

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1272791941202280448

Big_G_NorthWales

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

I concur.

The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.

It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021

It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market

Casino_Royale

ydoethur said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

Why is everyone talking about 'schools' as though they are some kind of homogenous grouping? They're not. What is taught varies very widely.

That said, in all five schools I have worked in slavery and the slave trade has been on the curriculum.

It's the one thing that was very heavily covered in my history class (and, in Scotland, the highland clearances).

I wonder if the grounds of objection are really that, or simply that an insufficiently Marxist take is put on the history taught in schools, overall?

tlg86

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

At my school history and geography had been abolished until age 15 and we had to study something called PEB - which stood for 'position, experience, belief' and was some (then-) trendy amalgam of geography, history and religious studies. Not the best of foundations for History and Geography O-level.

That sounds awful. My school insisted that it was compulsory for us to do religious education GCSE so I ended up doing geography, history and RE. Mind you, they also let me do astronomy as an extra GCSE, which was pretty good.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/PattyeLJ/status/1272757167439970304

noneoftheabove

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

No it isn't.

Repeating this yet again but my son (aged 12) has just completed one topic on Empire lasting 5 weeks and is starting another topic on the slave trade due to last 4 weeks.

Both subjects are studied in considerable detail (The Slave Trade topic started with an introduction to the Songhai Empire and the Kingdom of Benin), are very well balanced and filled with recommendations for additional study.

Is the contribution of the Empire in the World Wars covered? AIUI India alone supplied about 25% of our armies in WW I and 40% in WW II. A wider understanding of that might help.

IanB2

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

The fishing industry altogether employs fewer people than Harrods.

I expect the deal will be along the lines of the EU conceding the principle that we can negotiate who has access to our waters in return for our conceding an initial negotiated position that looks remarkably like what happens currently.

That’s what I just said up-post: the Scottish fishing industry is about to get shafted. Again.

Love your Harrods > Scotland + Cornwall. Very insightful.

We don't have much leverage, because most of the fish we catch is sold to EU countries and most of the fish we eat is bought from them.

Getting all the cod, haddock and bass to relocate into UK waters and driving away all the crab, herring and mackerel might be difficult.

tlg86

I'd have a lot more respect for Rashford if he gave up football for a career in politics. I think he'd be pretty good at it to be fair.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1272796644946391047

noneoftheabove

IshmaelZ said:

Scott_xP said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

If nobody else wanted the “war” then they couldn’t.

Let's take the obvious example

"We send £350m a week to Brussels. Let's spend it on the NHS instead"

That's a culture war that didn't exist before the referendum.

The NHS funding is dependent on trade, which is negatively impacted by Brexit, but they made it "If you love the NHS you must hate the EU"

It's completely ludicrous, but it worked.

Now it's "You must love statues, or you hate Britain" which is equally ridiculous, but I can't say it isn't working

It started as "the continuing existence of the Colston statue is a worse atrocity than the siege of Nanking." As with Brexit there are hardly any arguments against Johnson which are not valid, but you are assiduous at finding them.

Who wrote that "the continuing existence of the Colston statue is a worse atrocity than the siege of Nanking." Seems a weird thing to say.

Richard_Tyndall

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

No it isn't.

Repeating this yet again but my son (aged 12) has just completed one topic on Empire lasting 5 weeks and is starting another topic on the slave trade due to last 4 weeks.

Both subjects are studied in considerable detail (The Slave Trade topic started with an introduction to the Songhai Empire and the Kingdom of Benin), are very well balanced and filled with recommendations for additional study.

Is the contribution of the Empire in the World Wars covered? AIUI India alone supplied about 25% of our armies in WW I and 40% in WW II. A wider understanding of that might help.

It is mentioned towards the end of the topic as regards WW1. No mention of WW2.

DavidL

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

StuartDickson said:

Scottish fishing industry about to be shafted. Again.

The Scottish fishing industry sold its quotas making a few ex fishermen very wealthy indeed. That might well have shafted the next generation of fishermen but that was the decision of those who held the quota in a common market. Now they want the quota back without paying for it. Which we can do but some compromise is not out of order.

Personally I am more focused on the onshore jobs that have been lost. I would make it a condition of fishing in UK waters that your catch is landed and processed in a UK port. That would have a lot more long term benefit to the north east (and the south west) than making a few captains rich once again.

From what I understand of the dynamics (not a huge amount) wouldn't that mean that the type of fish caught in UK waters would be landed in the UK and then immediately re-exported because we don't eat our local fish?

Doesn't seem super-efficient...?

Yes it would. I don't care about the super-efficiency of it. I want UK plc to see the benefit of its fish in terms of jobs and business activity here. Factory fishing vessels hoovering the sea and then returning to Spain with a largely foreign crew do absolutely nothing for us.
Before the CFP places like the Neuk of Fife, Arbroath, Aberdeen and Peterhead had thousands of onshore jobs cleaning, smoking and processing the fish. My understanding is that the south west was similar. They won't come back the same way, the cottage industry of the past has gone, but I would like to see some benefit from this harvest.

Big_G_NorthWales

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

Marcus is remarkably mature beyond his years and his letter is inspiring

I cannot understand for one moment why HMG have not provided an instant acceptance of his recommendations.

Just another unnecessary own goal by Boris and let us hope by the end of the day HMG has seen sense

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1272797209138995200

IanB2

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

Just another unnecessary own goal by Boris....

Good to see the old Big_G back firing on all cylinders.

That was a very funny turn you suffered last year.

Richard_Tyndall

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Essexit said:

Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.

It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.

We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.

Your desperate twisting of reality is very funny to observe.

The UK didn't announce that it would leave it's border wide open in the event of no deal?

Whatever they did or did not announce would be temporary. A deal would be permanent. Saying they are going to delay enforcing the border rules until they have the infrastructure in place does not in any way mean we cannot diverge. Your claims are just plain wrong.

Pulpstar

I don't think there'll be a huge rebellion over this one.
Also paging @Davidl just managed a sub 4 min km as part of a 6:37 mile. That's me for the day

rottenborough

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1272785867174748160

This seems an incredibly important article. Hopefully, even the arrogant sods who sit around the Cabinet table will listen to their respected former leader.

As he writes on lockdown and its dire consequences: "Such a disaster cannot under any circumstances be repeated. There can be no second lockdown."

Before going on to argue that Blair's massive test plan, which would involve 'point-of-use' tests for people on a huge scale of millions, is the way forward.

Dura_Ace

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market

The exit has happened. How is it not 'accepted'? The UK is now an external party negotiating with the EU; that doesn't mean that the UK gets everything it wants or even gets a deal.

Casino_Royale

FF43 said:

Academic, I suppose, but it looks like people are developing buyers' remorse on Brexit now the shit is getting real.

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1272563182712819712

It fluctuates.

Right had a clear lead in March, and Right/Wrong were basically level with YouGov in mid-May.

noneoftheabove

tlg86 said:

I'd have a lot more respect for Rashford if he gave up football for a career in politics. I think he'd be pretty good at it to be fair.

Plenty of time for that after he retires surely! Why give up something he is one of the best 100 in in the world?

tlg86

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

No it isn't.

Repeating this yet again but my son (aged 12) has just completed one topic on Empire lasting 5 weeks and is starting another topic on the slave trade due to last 4 weeks.

Both subjects are studied in considerable detail (The Slave Trade topic started with an introduction to the Songhai Empire and the Kingdom of Benin), are very well balanced and filled with recommendations for additional study.

Is the contribution of the Empire in the World Wars covered? AIUI India alone supplied about 25% of our armies in WW I and 40% in WW II. A wider understanding of that might help.

My GCSE course was more interested in the contribution of women to WWII.

IanB2

tlg86 said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

At my school history and geography had been abolished until age 15 and we had to study something called PEB - which stood for 'position, experience, belief' and was some (then-) trendy amalgam of geography, history and religious studies. Not the best of foundations for History and Geography O-level.

That sounds awful. My school insisted that it was compulsory for us to do religious education GCSE so I ended up doing geography, history and RE. Mind you, they also let me do astronomy as an extra GCSE, which was pretty good.

It was pretty awful, although I'd say that being forced to waste time doing RE O-level would have been worse.

The one advantage of PEB is that they could pretend they were doing RE, when in practice they weren't.

I too did an optional extra Astronomy, and Meteorology as well.

Casino_Royale

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

The fishing industry altogether employs fewer people than Harrods.

I expect the deal will be along the lines of the EU conceding the principle that we can negotiate who has access to our waters in return for our conceding an initial negotiated position that looks remarkably like what happens currently.

That's probably right, although I'd say there will also be some token wins on quotas for some fishing that Boris can trumpet too.

SandyRentool

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

For us geography was compulsory and we had the option of history or chemistry. A couple of the lads who chose history realised they'd dropped a bollock and did O-level chemistry when they were in 6th form.

So I was taught no history after the age of 14. Until I started reading PB!

noneoftheabove

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PattyeLJ/status/1272757167439970304

Still cant compete with NBA stars Rudy Goberts licking the microphones to mock and simultaneously catch coronavirus. Only in America.....

rottenborough

On the topic, I don't believe it. I think the media have fallen, yet again, for Johnson bluster and bullshit about 'oomph'.

Cummings is not going to allow a deal.

Casino_Royale

FF43 said:

If the government is sensible (I mean that it wants a decent Brexit outcome and to some extent move on), it will sign the Deal.

There's a good amount of contrived punch & judy around this I think, on both sides.

DavidL

Foxy said:

Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.

Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.

The Commission would not have made this "concession" without the authority of the Member States. Of course it is not a concession at all, just a recognition of reality. Once we are an independent coastal state the EU have no right to fish in our waters. That is the default position and they want to seek something better but in the knowledge that if the deal is not done then they lose it all. In the overall scheme of things that is not particularly important on an economic basis but as you point out there are a number of EU countries who are very anxious to avoid such a scenario.

TOPPING

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

StuartDickson said:

Scottish fishing industry about to be shafted. Again.

The Scottish fishing industry sold its quotas making a few ex fishermen very wealthy indeed. That might well have shafted the next generation of fishermen but that was the decision of those who held the quota in a common market. Now they want the quota back without paying for it. Which we can do but some compromise is not out of order.

Personally I am more focused on the onshore jobs that have been lost. I would make it a condition of fishing in UK waters that your catch is landed and processed in a UK port. That would have a lot more long term benefit to the north east (and the south west) than making a few captains rich once again.

From what I understand of the dynamics (not a huge amount) wouldn't that mean that the type of fish caught in UK waters would be landed in the UK and then immediately re-exported because we don't eat our local fish?

Doesn't seem super-efficient...?

Yes it would. I don't care about the super-efficiency of it. I want UK plc to see the benefit of its fish in terms of jobs and business activity here. Factory fishing vessels hoovering the sea and then returning to Spain with a largely foreign crew do absolutely nothing for us.
Before the CFP places like the Neuk of Fife, Arbroath, Aberdeen and Peterhead had thousands of onshore jobs cleaning, smoking and processing the fish. My understanding is that the south west was similar. They won't come back the same way, the cottage industry of the past has gone, but I would like to see some benefit from this harvest.

Why not just get those people to dig holes and then fill them in again?

Richard_Tyndall

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

Marcus is remarkably mature beyond his years and his letter is inspiring

I cannot understand for one moment why HMG have not provided an instant acceptance of his recommendations.

Just another unnecessary own goal by Boris and let us hope by the end of the day HMG has seen sense

There were some reports yesterday afternoon that the Government had not rejected Rashford's plans but had merely said they were going to look at them and get back to him. That hope seems to have been scuppered with this morning's dire performances.

It seems you can always rely on this lot to miss an open goal.

Big_G_NorthWales

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

Just another unnecessary own goal by Boris....

Good to see the old Big_G back firing on all cylinders.

That was a very funny turn you suffered last year.

Not really.

Just being honest in my critic of HMG

Casino_Royale

Tried a new Netflix series last night at the suggestion of my wife: Snowpiercer.

There's willing suspension of disbelief, and then there's Snowpiercer.

I have to virtually suspend my whole brain to watch it.

I have an easier time believing the more outlandish fantasies in Star Trek.

noneoftheabove

tlg86 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

No it isn't.

Repeating this yet again but my son (aged 12) has just completed one topic on Empire lasting 5 weeks and is starting another topic on the slave trade due to last 4 weeks.

Both subjects are studied in considerable detail (The Slave Trade topic started with an introduction to the Songhai Empire and the Kingdom of Benin), are very well balanced and filled with recommendations for additional study.

Is the contribution of the Empire in the World Wars covered? AIUI India alone supplied about 25% of our armies in WW I and 40% in WW II. A wider understanding of that might help.

My GCSE course was more interested in the contribution of women to WWII.

I guess the reality is not everything can be covered and womens contribution was vital too, and underplayed in films and common understanding as well.

rottenborough

Scott_xP said:

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1272791941202280448

Well, she's right to point out statements that might actively scare people who have just been plunged into the shit thanks to mass jobloss.

But God knows why Cummings thinks taking on Rashford is worth the candle. Maybe he hasn't switch his Big Data algorithms from statue war to dinner lady war.

TOPPING

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Academic, I suppose, but it looks like people are developing buyers' remorse on Brexit now the shit is getting real.

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1272563182712819712

It fluctuates.

Right had a clear lead in March, and Right/Wrong were basically level with YouGov in mid-May.

Do you think it has anything to do with people noting how the govt has handled C-19 and then decided that there is not a hope in hell it has the wherewithal to handle Brexit?

IanB2

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market

The exit has happened. How is it not 'accepted'? The UK is now an external party negotiating with the EU; that doesn't mean that the UK gets everything it wants or even gets a deal.

Just like the decision, we are destined to 'win' lots of principles that will prove worthless (or costly) in practice.

Mexicanpete

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1272797209138995200

When Johnson 'U' turns after PMQs on Wednesday it will all be forgotten.

tlg86

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SandraMc said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.

Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history

So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?

The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.

I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?

I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.

We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1272633790238732289

It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.

I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).

As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.

History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14.
It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.

Again, I think 'expectation' is perhaps the wrong word. The government requires History or Geography for the Ebacc, but how much attention to people pay to that?

(It should be added that History and Geography are not the only Humanities subjects either. RS, Sociology and Classics all got screwed over with that one.)

This is not recent. It was exactly the same 40 years ago. At my comprehensive it was timetabled in such a way that it was impossible to study both history and geography.

For us geography was compulsory and we had the option of history or chemistry. A couple of the lads who chose history realised they'd dropped a bollock and did O-level chemistry when they were in 6th form.

So I was taught no history after the age of 14. Until I started reading PB!

I'm sure @ydoethur can say something about this, but the tricky thing about history as a subject is that there's two parts to it. There's the learning about it for it's own sake and it is quite interesting, though at school I was more interested in Premier League football! But then there's the learning how to be a historian side of it - evaluating sources, etc. etc. That side of it is important for developing academic historians, but I found it a little bit boring to be honest.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1272794123918024704

Richard_Tyndall

rottenborough said:

On the topic, I don't believe it. I think the media have fallen, yet again, for Johnson bluster and bullshit about 'oomph'.

Cummings is not going to allow a deal.

Cummings has never opposed a deal. Whatever one thinks of him in other areas, as far as Brexit is concerned he was always one of those looking for a softer Brexit rather than a hard WTO result.

RochdalePioneers

Brexit reality has hit home to the Brexiteer ministers. Who knew that trade deals take years not a few weeks to agree? We can't ditch our existing global trade deals for our new independent ones because the latter don't exist yet. Who knew that GATT24 didn't mean what Iain Duncan Smith said it did and instead meant what the head of the WTO said it did. Who knew that HMRC knew about customs? Or the Port of Dover knew about operating a port?

The announcement that no physical border would exist at year end was the UK folding it's negotiating position and accepting reality. The July 21 date is a media spin line- that date is wildly impossible as well. The EU are likely to accept an open border to an ex-member state who is fully aligned to the SEA providing that we commit to being fully aligned to the EEA.

Then we can start to negotiate our independent trade deals whilst an associate EEA member. At which point the final reality kicks in. The terms which will be offered to the UK by the US, Japan etc will be worse than the terms already agreed with the EU. Small desperate countries get a worse deal than massive stable trading blocks. So our extended EEA association can carry on as long as we need - this is the EU concession. The perversion of a Tory government wanting to the up UK business in masses of red tape and higher costs for a worse deal will simply lead to the idea being quietly dropped.

kamski

rottenborough said:

On the topic, I don't believe it. I think the media have fallen, yet again, for Johnson bluster and bullshit about 'oomph'.

Cummings is not going to allow a deal.

btw does anyone else think that this kind of typical Johnson phraseology "bit of oomph" has lost its appeal in the light of the Coronavirus shambles?

IanB2

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

Mysticrose said:

Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.

Rashford has really lit a fire here ...

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1272791941202280448

Well, she's right to point out statements that might actively scare people who have just been plunged into the shit thanks to mass jobloss.

But God knows why Cummings thinks taking on Rashford is worth the candle. Maybe he hasn't switch his Big Data algorithms from statue war to dinner lady war.

Or perhaps having conquered the British public, British media and Tory backbenchers, he doesn't have all that many bigger mountains left to shoot for?

rottenborough

Mexicanpete said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1272797209138995200

When Johnson 'U' turns after PMQs on Wednesday it will all be forgotten.

Not good for his backbenchers already nervy morale levels. Another big win for Sir K coming up after PMQs.

Suspect the 'U' turn will happen tonight instead now.

DavidL

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

StuartDickson said:

Scottish fishing industry about to be shafted. Again.

The Scottish fishing industry sold its quotas making a few ex fishermen very wealthy indeed. That might well have shafted the next generation of fishermen but that was the decision of those who held the quota in a common market. Now they want the quota back without paying for it. Which we can do but some compromise is not out of order.

Personally I am more focused on the onshore jobs that have been lost. I would make it a condition of fishing in UK waters that your catch is landed and processed in a UK port. That would have a lot more long term benefit to the north east (and the south west) than making a few captains rich once again.

From what I understand of the dynamics (not a huge amount) wouldn't that mean that the type of fish caught in UK waters would be landed in the UK and then immediately re-exported because we don't eat our local fish?

Doesn't seem super-efficient...?

Yes it would. I don't care about the super-efficiency of it. I want UK plc to see the benefit of its fish in terms of jobs and business activity here. Factory fishing vessels hoovering the sea and then returning to Spain with a largely foreign crew do absolutely nothing for us.
Before the CFP places like the Neuk of Fife, Arbroath, Aberdeen and Peterhead had thousands of onshore jobs cleaning, smoking and processing the fish. My understanding is that the south west was similar. They won't come back the same way, the cottage industry of the past has gone, but I would like to see some benefit from this harvest.

Why not just get those people to dig holes and then fill them in again?

Because there is no profit in that. There is a profit in fish.

Big_G_NorthWales

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market

The exit has happened. How is it not 'accepted'? The UK is now an external party negotiating with the EU; that doesn't mean that the UK gets everything it wants or even gets a deal.

Neither side will get all they want and that is the nature of negotiation

Of course opponents will shout 'cave in' to the rooftops but the country needs to agree a deal and concentrate on the pandemic and the economy

The rest is just 'noise'

tlg86

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1272794123918024704

I wonder what focus groups are like on food banks and free school meals? I'm not sure this subject plays nearly as well as that story about foreign workers paying to access the NHS, for example.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1272800025383448577