We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
How is Scotland's COVID testing going? Apart from high case numbers the last positivity rate I saw was through the roof too.
Scottish positivity has always been higher - seems to be related to testing policy.
That is something that lies at the door of the SNP administration.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Something like 2/3s of seats voted Leave. I think that’s why, in 2019, Labour got the same kind of vote share, slightly better even, as 10 & 15, yet got fewer seats.
Structurally Brexit has perhaps made it difficult for Remain parties to win seats. Corbyn did no worse than Brown or Miliband in terms of voteshare, but far worse in seats - maybe that is a guide for the next election too.
The really alarming thought for Labour about Corbynism is that even in 2017 when he got 39.99% of the nationwide vote he won just four more seats than Brown on 29% of the vote in 2010.
Labour’s vote is becoming horribly inefficient. Ok, that’s partly because they lost Scotland and have fallen back in Wales. But they are still winning plenty of votes - just in their safe seats where they are no use.
Here’s a couple of shocking stats. The 17 safest seats in the country and 19 of the top 20 are all held by Labour. They hold 58 seats with over 60% of the vote (by contrast the Tories have 36 despite having far more seats).
Corbyn really did preach not so much to the choir as to the clergy. Starmer needs to find a way to reach out, even at the cost of losing a biggish chunk of his existing vote. An intelligent campaign where Labour stood still in terms of voteshare could still see them pick up many seats if those votes were in the right places.
And this is what his challenge to the hard left had to be: we don't want you, we don't need you. All the twats going to The World Transformed - if they all trotted off to vote for scab groups like Socialist Unity nobody would notice electorally.
Sadly Starmer is frit. "Labour doesn't need a civil war" I have been told. Its got one - here and now. And the hard left are planning to go all out at conference. They'll not stop until they are purged, and normals won't vote Labour until they are gone.
I don't think you're right; Starmer isn't frit. The very far left hate him. He's done enough already to piss off a lot of the Trots, who have left. He has secured all the key levers of power within the party. Of course the hard left will kick off at conference - has there ever been a conference where they haven't (except maybe under Corbyn)? He doesn't need to purge/expel the hard left, just defeat them.
Remember, Blair was quite happy to have Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches, as long as they didn't have any real power. Same for Starmer.
I think there's a difference with Blair. Swing voters were pretty sure he wouldn't entertain the Left one iota and he went out of his way to reassure them with, e.g., the Clause IV moment.
I'm not sure swing voters today have that same view of Starmer.
I think it's more that Starmer is just nowhere near as good as Blair in projecting a vision and catching a zeitgeist. It shows just how tough it is for Labour when you actually need someone as good as Blair was to win. The Tories can do it with a Major, a Cameron, a May and, God help us, a Johnson!
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
I think we are very likely to see such a school return wave south of the border, then boosted by the universities going back.
Work isn't looking great for when I get back from the IoW. It's all getting a bit autumnal here too now.
Corbyn and everything related to Corbyn was catastrophic for Labour so its right that he went and that the party is (s l o w l y) cleaning house of the trot entryists.
The problem isn't Starmer, its the party. Yes serkeir pledged various things he appears not to believe (perhaps all his pledges...). But its wider than him. Part of the party years for the exciting days of ditching dogma for pragmatism. The bulk seems pretty wedded to ideals that the target voters they are supposed to be appealing to long ago ditched. A minority are batshit crazy.
The gap in British politics is that nobody is talking about the future. Even PM Worzel only talks the future based on its relation to the brexit he promised - enough at least to have people prepared to wait for the benefits of the Brexit to arrive.
What is Labour's vision for this decade? Unless they get one, they are fucked. Note the pockets of popularity they have - the King in the North is busy building the Manchester of the future (as the city council have since the IRA helpfully kicked the regeneration off). Similar in Liverpool - pride in the city/region, faith in the future, lets go. Its the same card Ben Houchen and his airport are playing.
The basic problem is that so much of Labour whines about the past and about the unfairness of the present. Which is not going to appeal vs a "the future is now" Tory party even if what they are selling is an illusion. Blair got it - sell hope. Where is Labour's hope?
I could not agree more. The Tories have the "mustn't grumble", "it could be worse", "best foot forward" vote sown up - and that is a very large section of the electorate. For the rest, Labour has to find a way of articulating that settling for second best - and that delivered incompetently by mendacious grifters - really doesn't have to be the way forward. There are other, better, ways to run a country.
The people you accuse of saying “mustn’t grumble”, “it could be worse” etc voted for the most seismic change in political history, so I don’t think that attempt at a meme works.
Not sure about that. Presumably they believe things could be a lot worse now - for example, if we were still in the EU.
If they were the kind of people to say ‘mustn’t grumble’, ‘it could be worse’ they wouldn’t have voted to fundamentally change the way the country was run.
The way the country is run has not fundamentally changed.
People you accuse of being to lazy to do anything about the way it is run voted for it to be fundamentally changed though.
No, they voted to leave the EU. In terms of day to governance of the country it changed very little.
They voted for seismic change, yet you accuse them of being the type to say ‘mustn’t grumble’, ‘it could be worse’… it doesn’t work
Leave voters were promised a pain free path to a better future. It was an entirely free hit, precisely because nothing would change for the worse. There was nothing seismic about it at all. And most of them seem to be very happy with the results. They believe things could be a lot worse than they are - hence the continued Tory poll lead.
I live in hope that like in the Emperor's New Clothes someone will proclaim the truth, the scales will fall from the eyes and everyone will laugh at our exposed emperor
The difficulty is the profile of those who mainly voted Leave and voted for Johnson compared with those who voted against.
In both cases, it the retired. Not entirely, but largely. That chimes with the idea that if they were votes for change, they were votes for a back-to-the-old-ways change. Hearing English on the train, grandchildren who stayed near home instead of flapping off "to Uni". If we must go abroad, go to the Commonwealth.
And in a way, demanding radical change is a pretty selfish thing to do. The poor sods who are of working age, the ones who have to try and make a success of this on the ground are majority against it.
And then there's the question of "what if this doesn't work overall, what if it doesn't deliver the Britain that Leave voters voted for?" (Spoiler: I don't think it will.) Who will notice first, and what will be done next?
(As I've said before, EEA-alike in about a decade, EU in about two because pay/obey/limited say won't work for the UK. And keep Johnson, Farage et Al alive to see it, whatever it takes.)
It will enrage much of the urban middle class but gets working class support elsewhere.
He can get both by legalising cannabis and it's a policy Johnson couldn't nick.
Four day working week for public sector employees would also work.
Or a separate funding line for NHS capacity for national emergencies - instead of running everything at 90-100% capacity in the name of efficiency, pay for extra capacity. The separate funding is to try and prevent it being subsumed into regular NHS spending.
You could make an argument that, given the cost of COVID, spending X per year would be paying insurance against a once-a-century event.
It will enrage much of the urban middle class but gets working class support elsewhere.
He can get both by legalising cannabis and it's a policy Johnson couldn't nick.
Four day working week for public sector employees would also work.
Drugs ? Possibly.
Four day week for the public sector ? No. Labour gets proportionally a lot of support from the public sector already and reducing their hours would lose Labour support from private sector workers and pensioners.
Corbyn and everything related to Corbyn was catastrophic for Labour so its right that he went and that the party is (s l o w l y) cleaning house of the trot entryists.
The problem isn't Starmer, its the party. Yes serkeir pledged various things he appears not to believe (perhaps all his pledges...). But its wider than him. Part of the party years for the exciting days of ditching dogma for pragmatism. The bulk seems pretty wedded to ideals that the target voters they are supposed to be appealing to long ago ditched. A minority are batshit crazy.
The gap in British politics is that nobody is talking about the future. Even PM Worzel only talks the future based on its relation to the brexit he promised - enough at least to have people prepared to wait for the benefits of the Brexit to arrive.
What is Labour's vision for this decade? Unless they get one, they are fucked. Note the pockets of popularity they have - the King in the North is busy building the Manchester of the future (as the city council have since the IRA helpfully kicked the regeneration off). Similar in Liverpool - pride in the city/region, faith in the future, lets go. Its the same card Ben Houchen and his airport are playing.
The basic problem is that so much of Labour whines about the past and about the unfairness of the present. Which is not going to appeal vs a "the future is now" Tory party even if what they are selling is an illusion. Blair got it - sell hope. Where is Labour's hope?
I could not agree more. The Tories have the "mustn't grumble", "it could be worse", "best foot forward" vote sown up - and that is a very large section of the electorate. For the rest, Labour has to find a way of articulating that settling for second best - and that delivered incompetently by mendacious grifters - really doesn't have to be the way forward. There are other, better, ways to run a country.
The people you accuse of saying “mustn’t grumble”, “it could be worse” etc voted for the most seismic change in political history, so I don’t think that attempt at a meme works.
Morning all.
"The most significant change in political history" .... er, hmmm.
Like most people in the developed world, Kirsten Gjesdal had long taken for granted her ability to order whatever she needed and then watch the goods arrive, without any thought about the factories, container ships and trucks involved in delivery.
Not anymore.
At her kitchen supply store in Brookings, S.D., Ms. Gjesdal has given up stocking place mats, having wearied of telling customers that she can only guess when more will come.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
How is Scotland's COVID testing going? Apart from high case numbers the last positivity rate I saw was through the roof too.
Scottish positivity has always been higher - seems to be related to testing policy.
Is there a reason Scotland does only a third of the testing England does ?
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Something like 2/3s of seats voted Leave. I think that’s why, in 2019, Labour got the same kind of vote share, slightly better even, as 10 & 15, yet got fewer seats.
Structurally Brexit has perhaps made it difficult for Remain parties to win seats. Corbyn did no worse than Brown or Miliband in terms of voteshare, but far worse in seats - maybe that is a guide for the next election too.
The really alarming thought for Labour about Corbynism is that even in 2017 when he got 39.99% of the nationwide vote he won just four more seats than Brown on 29% of the vote in 2010.
Labour’s vote is becoming horribly inefficient. Ok, that’s partly because they lost Scotland and have fallen back in Wales. But they are still winning plenty of votes - just in their safe seats where they are no use.
Here’s a couple of shocking stats. The 17 safest seats in the country and 19 of the top 20 are all held by Labour. They hold 58 seats with over 60% of the vote (by contrast the Tories have 36 despite having far more seats).
Corbyn really did preach not so much to the choir as to the clergy. Starmer needs to find a way to reach out, even at the cost of losing a biggish chunk of his existing vote. An intelligent campaign where Labour stood still in terms of voteshare could still see them pick up many seats if those votes were in the right places.
And this is what his challenge to the hard left had to be: we don't want you, we don't need you. All the twats going to The World Transformed - if they all trotted off to vote for scab groups like Socialist Unity nobody would notice electorally.
Sadly Starmer is frit. "Labour doesn't need a civil war" I have been told. Its got one - here and now. And the hard left are planning to go all out at conference. They'll not stop until they are purged, and normals won't vote Labour until they are gone.
I don't think you're right; Starmer isn't frit. The very far left hate him. He's done enough already to piss off a lot of the Trots, who have left. He has secured all the key levers of power within the party. Of course the hard left will kick off at conference - has there ever been a conference where they haven't (except maybe under Corbyn)? He doesn't need to purge/expel the hard left, just defeat them.
Remember, Blair was quite happy to have Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches, as long as they didn't have any real power. Same for Starmer.
I think there's a difference with Blair. Swing voters were pretty sure he wouldn't entertain the Left one iota and he went out of his way to reassure them with, e.g., the Clause IV moment.
I'm not sure swing voters today have that same view of Starmer.
I think it's more that Starmer is just nowhere near as good as Blair in projecting a vision and catching a zeitgeist. It shows just how tough it is for Labour when you actually need someone as good as Blair was to win. The Tories can do it with a Major, a Cameron, a May and, God help us, a Johnson!
Though three of those won while in government, and the fourth couldn’t win a majority from opposition.
Inertia is perhaps the biggest force in politics. There has to be clear evidence the alternative is better before people break with the comfortable status quo.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It will enrage much of the urban middle class but gets working class support elsewhere.
He can get both by legalising cannabis and it's a policy Johnson couldn't nick.
Four day working week for public sector employees would also work.
Drugs ? Possibly.
Four day week for the public sector ? No. Labour gets proportionally a lot of support from the public sector already and reducing their hours would lose Labour support from private sector workers and pensioners.
Unless it was accompanied by a pay reduction, which TBF seems about as likely as PB’s favourite ex-officer saying something polite, coherent or vaguely intelligent.
Although it should be noted there are large numbers of people in the public sector who do just that - work fewer days in exchange for lower pay. It is one of the ways it scores over the private sector that it’s much easier to do.
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Agree. Lack of understanding, too, about why 2017 had been relatively successful.
Corbyn and everything related to Corbyn was catastrophic for Labour so its right that he went and that the party is (s l o w l y) cleaning house of the trot entryists.
The problem isn't Starmer, its the party. Yes serkeir pledged various things he appears not to believe (perhaps all his pledges...). But its wider than him. Part of the party years for the exciting days of ditching dogma for pragmatism. The bulk seems pretty wedded to ideals that the target voters they are supposed to be appealing to long ago ditched. A minority are batshit crazy.
The gap in British politics is that nobody is talking about the future. Even PM Worzel only talks the future based on its relation to the brexit he promised - enough at least to have people prepared to wait for the benefits of the Brexit to arrive.
What is Labour's vision for this decade? Unless they get one, they are fucked. Note the pockets of popularity they have - the King in the North is busy building the Manchester of the future (as the city council have since the IRA helpfully kicked the regeneration off). Similar in Liverpool - pride in the city/region, faith in the future, lets go. Its the same card Ben Houchen and his airport are playing.
The basic problem is that so much of Labour whines about the past and about the unfairness of the present. Which is not going to appeal vs a "the future is now" Tory party even if what they are selling is an illusion. Blair got it - sell hope. Where is Labour's hope?
There you go - back to top super-duper poster. Just replied so this post is displayed constantly.
People don't like to be told how shit everything is, they want hope, as you note. Apart from we're going to have to walk everywhere from now on (I paraphrase) - what is the LibDems vision? There is a gap for them right now and I'm all ears.
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Something like 2/3s of seats voted Leave. I think that’s why, in 2019, Labour got the same kind of vote share, slightly better even, as 10 & 15, yet got fewer seats.
Structurally Brexit has perhaps made it difficult for Remain parties to win seats. Corbyn did no worse than Brown or Miliband in terms of voteshare, but far worse in seats - maybe that is a guide for the next election too.
The really alarming thought for Labour about Corbynism is that even in 2017 when he got 39.99% of the nationwide vote he won just four more seats than Brown on 29% of the vote in 2010.
Labour’s vote is becoming horribly inefficient. Ok, that’s partly because they lost Scotland and have fallen back in Wales. But they are still winning plenty of votes - just in their safe seats where they are no use.
Here’s a couple of shocking stats. The 17 safest seats in the country and 19 of the top 20 are all held by Labour. They hold 58 seats with over 60% of the vote (by contrast the Tories have 36 despite having far more seats).
Corbyn really did preach not so much to the choir as to the clergy. Starmer needs to find a way to reach out, even at the cost of losing a biggish chunk of his existing vote. An intelligent campaign where Labour stood still in terms of voteshare could still see them pick up many seats if those votes were in the right places.
And this is what his challenge to the hard left had to be: we don't want you, we don't need you. All the twats going to The World Transformed - if they all trotted off to vote for scab groups like Socialist Unity nobody would notice electorally.
Sadly Starmer is frit. "Labour doesn't need a civil war" I have been told. Its got one - here and now. And the hard left are planning to go all out at conference. They'll not stop until they are purged, and normals won't vote Labour until they are gone.
I don't think you're right; Starmer isn't frit. The very far left hate him. He's done enough already to piss off a lot of the Trots, who have left. He has secured all the key levers of power within the party. Of course the hard left will kick off at conference - has there ever been a conference where they haven't (except maybe under Corbyn)? He doesn't need to purge/expel the hard left, just defeat them.
Remember, Blair was quite happy to have Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches, as long as they didn't have any real power. Same for Starmer.
I think there's a difference with Blair. Swing voters were pretty sure he wouldn't entertain the Left one iota and he went out of his way to reassure them with, e.g., the Clause IV moment.
I'm not sure swing voters today have that same view of Starmer.
I don't disagree with that, actually, and nor would Starmer. He has to be seen as non-threatening to swing voters. He's working on it - remember, he's only been leader for 18 months, in peculiar times. But yes, he needs to make rapid progress.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
How is Scotland's COVID testing going? Apart from high case numbers the last positivity rate I saw was through the roof too.
Scottish positivity has always been higher - seems to be related to testing policy.
Is there a reason Scotland does only a third of the testing England does ?
My understanding is that testing facilities are as widespread as elsewhere.
In England, the test facilities seem to massive capacity at the moment, and when you rock up and ask for tests, they seem enthusiastic about giving you tests to take home etc.
Extrapolating from the last month of vaccination growth by this time next month there will be more double vaccinated people in Scotland than single vaccinated.
My "regional pride" piece will be tested in Stockton-on-Tees in 2023. They have a very well run council (for decades frankly regardless of party). Currently Labour minority, they are addressing the town centres conundrum with a ground-breaking plan.
They've already completely remodelled the wide high street. Landscaping, a fountain, bus gate, redundant buildings removed. Now they've bought the hideous 1970s shopping centre and will bulldoze it and replace it with a park. This will open the high street up to the river (with a riverside dual carriageway put into a tunnel) - shops congregate into the other 90s shopping development now also owned by the council.
It should win them plaudits. But as they are Labour, and that brand is pretty toxic on Teesside, I suspect they may be swept away by a Tory group who have opposed every penny spent.
I congratulate the council for thinking differently on this. Town centres are changing.
As an aside, the Grafton Centre in Cambridge has recently undergone a£30 million renovation, despite some big name stores closing. It's now up for sale, for repurposing or redevelopment. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
How is Scotland's COVID testing going? Apart from high case numbers the last positivity rate I saw was through the roof too.
The WHO criterion for "pandemic under control" is a positivity rate below 5% (0.05 on the graph, I presume) - only one part of the UK has been doing that for the past month (and probably longer). Since health is a devolved responsibility.....
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Something like 2/3s of seats voted Leave. I think that’s why, in 2019, Labour got the same kind of vote share, slightly better even, as 10 & 15, yet got fewer seats.
Structurally Brexit has perhaps made it difficult for Remain parties to win seats. Corbyn did no worse than Brown or Miliband in terms of voteshare, but far worse in seats - maybe that is a guide for the next election too.
The really alarming thought for Labour about Corbynism is that even in 2017 when he got 39.99% of the nationwide vote he won just four more seats than Brown on 29% of the vote in 2010.
Labour’s vote is becoming horribly inefficient. Ok, that’s partly because they lost Scotland and have fallen back in Wales. But they are still winning plenty of votes - just in their safe seats where they are no use.
Here’s a couple of shocking stats. The 17 safest seats in the country and 19 of the top 20 are all held by Labour. They hold 58 seats with over 60% of the vote (by contrast the Tories have 36 despite having far more seats).
Corbyn really did preach not so much to the choir as to the clergy. Starmer needs to find a way to reach out, even at the cost of losing a biggish chunk of his existing vote. An intelligent campaign where Labour stood still in terms of voteshare could still see them pick up many seats if those votes were in the right places.
And this is what his challenge to the hard left had to be: we don't want you, we don't need you. All the twats going to The World Transformed - if they all trotted off to vote for scab groups like Socialist Unity nobody would notice electorally.
Sadly Starmer is frit. "Labour doesn't need a civil war" I have been told. Its got one - here and now. And the hard left are planning to go all out at conference. They'll not stop until they are purged, and normals won't vote Labour until they are gone.
I don't think you're right; Starmer isn't frit. The very far left hate him. He's done enough already to piss off a lot of the Trots, who have left. He has secured all the key levers of power within the party. Of course the hard left will kick off at conference - has there ever been a conference where they haven't (except maybe under Corbyn)? He doesn't need to purge/expel the hard left, just defeat them.
Remember, Blair was quite happy to have Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches, as long as they didn't have any real power. Same for Starmer.
I think there's a difference with Blair. Swing voters were pretty sure he wouldn't entertain the Left one iota and he went out of his way to reassure them with, e.g., the Clause IV moment.
I'm not sure swing voters today have that same view of Starmer.
I don't disagree with that, actually, and nor would Starmer. He has to be seen as non-threatening to swing voters. He's working on it - remember, he's only been leader for 18 months, in peculiar times. But yes, he needs to make rapid progress.
Yes, fair point. And not only has he not only been leader for 18 months, but he's taken over from Corbyn. When Tony Blair took over his two predecessors had spent ten years doing the hard work of persuading the electorate that the demons of the hard left were safely back in their closet (do demons inhabit closets?)
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Yes, the comfort blanket that it was just "return to school" testing is kind of ripped away. If it was about school children why is 20-24 per 100k cases just as high as the 15-19 year olds.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
I think we are very likely to see such a school return wave south of the border, then boosted by the universities going back.
The evidence from Scotland - so far - shows increases in the 16-24 year cohort, not (yet) particularly among school age children.
How is Scottish vaccination among the young going?
Does anyone understand why the Americans haven't destroyed their equipment and have instead allowed it to fall into the hands of the Taliban? A letter in The Times a couple of days ago was asking precisely this question. They pointed out that this was the first time in history that a retreating army had allowed the opposition to simply take over their assets.
They did remove almost all of it in the first half of the year and did almost 800 C-17 movements in that period. They also destroyed or disposed of 15,000 pieces of equipment in country.
Almost all of the hardware left behind was ANA/AAF not America.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Yes, the comfort blanket that it was just "return to school" testing is kind of ripped away. If it was about school children why is 20-24 per 100k cases just as high as the 15-19 year olds.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
In England -
There is something to the idea that the 16-25 age groups show a very different pattern in this epidemic to the those younger than that.
It is my understanding that this is what shook the JCVI lose on 16+ vaccination.
I missed this preprint on long-covid when it came out. It's based on 96% of the UK population. The reported rates of long-covid are remarkably low, between 0.02% for the East of England to 0.055% for London, well beyond any early report. 1/
Those frequencies of long-covid are actually probably well below the true prevalence of the condition, due to a likely mix of under-coding and under-diagnosis. That said, they put some of the early extraordinarily high estimates of long-covid prevalence in some perspective.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
How is Scotland's COVID testing going? Apart from high case numbers the last positivity rate I saw was through the roof too.
Scottish positivity has always been higher - seems to be related to testing policy.
Is there a reason Scotland does only a third of the testing England does ?
<humour>We are just much better at it so target the tests more efficiently.</humour>
The next ONS infection survey will be interesting. The last survey was for week ending the 20th of August and gave infection figures of 1-in-70 for England and just 1-in-140 for Scotland.
Using the per-100k case figure from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk That would mean the equivalent of multiplying the England week ending case figure by 4 but the Scotland week ending figure by only 2.
This is all caveated by the error bars on the Scoltand figure being much wider than the English figure.
I can't imagine the next Scotland figure could be less than 1-in-50
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
That’s why if Katherine Birbalsingh gets the social mobility gig it will be such a good sign. She is 100% focused on education as a driver of life chances?
BTW - have you ever looked at Read Easy? It’s a great organisation & though I appreciate hate you don’t have much time with a young family you might find it rewarded to get involved
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
I think we are very likely to see such a school return wave south of the border, then boosted by the universities going back.
Work isn't looking great for when I get back from the IoW. It's all getting a bit autumnal here too now.
Is there a medical downside to giving out azn boosters now to everyone over say 40 who received Pfizer? Other than it possibly being a “waste” of vaccines?
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
Sometimes there appear to be comprehension issues among those who post.
Does anyone understand why the Americans haven't destroyed their equipment and have instead allowed it to fall into the hands of the Taliban? A letter in The Times a couple of days ago was asking precisely this question. They pointed out that this was the first time in history that a retreating army had allowed the opposition to simply take over their assets.
They did remove almost all of it in the first half of the year and did almost 800 C-17 movements in that period. They also destroyed or disposed of 15,000 pieces of equipment in country.
Almost all of the hardware left behind was ANA/AAF not America.
Although I suppose from the Taliban’s point of view that would be a distinction without a difference.
How long do you reckon they can keep that material running without US technical support?
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
It is a national scandal.
Our literacy and numeracy rates are among the worst in the OECD. In turn this contributes to our lower productivity, low wage growth economy.
And it’s not because British people are genetically stupid, is it? The system (the government - of whatever party, the civil service, the media) have allowed this structural inheritance to continue because middle class people in London are largely unaffected.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
That’s why if Katherine Birbalsingh gets the social mobility gig it will be such a good sign. She is 100% focused on education as a driver of life chances?
BTW - have you ever looked at Read Easy? It’s a great organisation & though I appreciate hate you don’t have much time with a young family you might find it rewarded to get involved
Or even rewarding
I would blame autocorrect, which quite brilliantly tried to change ‘rewarding’ into ‘rewording!’
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
I mean this is a nice way. I am really hoping you are as hopelessly wrong as Pagel and co.
Yes, me too. I have been determined that this was it. That the combination of vaccines, herd immunity and a certain tolerance of the current death rate meant we were back to normal, come what may. But my confidence is being shaken. Vaccines are not proving to be quite the solution we hoped. Few who are vaccinated die of the virus but a significant number still get long Covid and that is going to be an increasing strain on an already stretched medical system.
And, even in the summer when we are mainly outside, this bloody virus is just not going away.
The bloody virus is not going to go away, we just need to learn to live with it.
Part of the point of unlocking in the summer was so that people who've refused the virus get their natural immunity now during the summer. That's happening, that's not a bad thing, that's what the Zero Covidiots (which I know is not you) couldn't get their heads around. So don't get depressed, we're still just learning to live with this.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
The tourism suggestion is of interest.... Considering what we saw happen in Cornwall.
From a low base, an August increase in cases, and a broadening of the geographical spread was certainly noticeable last year and holidays was the most logical conclusion, though UK holiday destinations didn't suffer much.
I'd also be careful into reading too much in the Cornwall numbers:
1. Case rates across England are notably even at current, you could get a sizeable majority of England in a single doubling band: 300-600 maybe. 2. The SW tourist COVID hotspots are slight relative to neighbours, Devon and Somerset have high rates regardless of seasidyness, and the distribution of high rates in coastal resorts is patchy in the rest of the country (e.g Lincolnshire resorts, there seems to ne a coastal effect, Yorkshire / Anglian resorts not so much). Truro is pretty hot at the moment. 3. The rates in Cornwall never really subsided bank to below average after G7, so rises are from a substantial base. 4. Cornwall has low historical immunity from infection.
Now, for sure, crowded restaurants and bars, even nightclubs are transmission hubs, and holidaymakers swell the population and may be diagnosed whilst on holiday, giving a bigger denominator. But the idea some have that holidaymaker to local transmission is the only game in town, rather than local to local or even local to holidaymaker transmission, is annoying.
Where we went on holiday, had a higher pre summer infection rates than my town. There was a bit of a ' think of the locals' vibe, yet I was more likely to take COVID home than being it in. People are people, crowds are crowds, deal as you find.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
That’s why if Katherine Birbalsingh gets the social mobility gig it will be such a good sign. She is 100% focused on education as a driver of life chances?
BTW - have you ever looked at Read Easy? It’s a great organisation & though I appreciate hate you don’t have much time with a young family you might find it rewarded to get involved
Thanks, I hadn't heard of them - they seem an interesting group. I'll take a look into them.
As for reading in public: unfortunately I have a face for the radio, a voice for the newspapers, and a turn of phrase for the sewer ...
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
It does look grim in Scotland. But what if Scotland has to impose lockdown measures again - but ends up being the only part of the UK that does? If Scottish patients get sent to English hospitals for care. People will ask Nicola "Why are we so peculiarly bad?"
The idea of having an independent Covid approach for each constituent country of the UK always looked a bad move. It only made any political sense if your outcome was better than that of England. It doesn't look that way in Scotland.
From what I saw / heard people were happy with our government's more cautious approach vs your government's "let the bodies pile high" approach.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Something like 2/3s of seats voted Leave. I think that’s why, in 2019, Labour got the same kind of vote share, slightly better even, as 10 & 15, yet got fewer seats.
Structurally Brexit has perhaps made it difficult for Remain parties to win seats. Corbyn did no worse than Brown or Miliband in terms of voteshare, but far worse in seats - maybe that is a guide for the next election too.
The really alarming thought for Labour about Corbynism is that even in 2017 when he got 39.99% of the nationwide vote he won just four more seats than Brown on 29% of the vote in 2010.
Labour’s vote is becoming horribly inefficient. Ok, that’s partly because they lost Scotland and have fallen back in Wales. But they are still winning plenty of votes - just in their safe seats where they are no use.
Here’s a couple of shocking stats. The 17 safest seats in the country and 19 of the top 20 are all held by Labour. They hold 58 seats with over 60% of the vote (by contrast the Tories have 36 despite having far more seats).
Corbyn really did preach not so much to the choir as to the clergy. Starmer needs to find a way to reach out, even at the cost of losing a biggish chunk of his existing vote. An intelligent campaign where Labour stood still in terms of voteshare could still see them pick up many seats if those votes were in the right places.
And this is what his challenge to the hard left had to be: we don't want you, we don't need you. All the twats going to The World Transformed - if they all trotted off to vote for scab groups like Socialist Unity nobody would notice electorally.
Sadly Starmer is frit. "Labour doesn't need a civil war" I have been told. Its got one - here and now. And the hard left are planning to go all out at conference. They'll not stop until they are purged, and normals won't vote Labour until they are gone.
I don't think you're right; Starmer isn't frit. The very far left hate him. He's done enough already to piss off a lot of the Trots, who have left. He has secured all the key levers of power within the party. Of course the hard left will kick off at conference - has there ever been a conference where they haven't (except maybe under Corbyn)? He doesn't need to purge/expel the hard left, just defeat them.
Remember, Blair was quite happy to have Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches, as long as they didn't have any real power. Same for Starmer.
I'm sure that's right. The "mass purge" thing doesn't work - it creates oceans of headlines about "civil war in Labour" and people conclude, rightly, that we're preoccupied with ourselves instead of the country. And there will always be one more bloke with a dodgy opinion who you didn't get round to purging and the press will highlight him and portray him as typical of an incomplete purge.
Moreover, I actually never hear anyone on the doorstep grumbling that Starmer is in hock to the left. The grumbles from all sides are that they don't know what he's for. His conference address needs to address that as its MAIN priority.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
The tourism suggestion is of interest.... Considering what we saw happen in Cornwall.
Cornwall (and perhaps parts of Scotland, I don't know the data there) had much lower natural immunity through the pandemic.
So is it a surprise that when we get back to normal and those who've not acquired their immunity yet (naturally or via vaccines) get it, that those places with lower cases throughout the pandemic end up with higher rates in the exit?
Does anyone understand why the Americans haven't destroyed their equipment and have instead allowed it to fall into the hands of the Taliban? A letter in The Times a couple of days ago was asking precisely this question. They pointed out that this was the first time in history that a retreating army had allowed the opposition to simply take over their assets.
They did remove almost all of it in the first half of the year and did almost 800 C-17 movements in that period. They also destroyed or disposed of 15,000 pieces of equipment in country.
Almost all of the hardware left behind was ANA/AAF not America.
Although I suppose from the Taliban’s point of view that would be a distinction without a difference.
How long do you reckon they can keep that material running without US technical support?
Not long, and those Humvees are very heavy on fuel compared with mopeds. They might do better with this scrapyard in Kandahar:
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
I think we are very likely to see such a school return wave south of the border, then boosted by the universities going back.
Work isn't looking great for when I get back from the IoW. It's all getting a bit autumnal here too now.
Is there a medical downside to giving out azn boosters now to everyone over say 40 who received Pfizer? Other than it possibly being a “waste” of vaccines?
Adam Finn would have a long intake of breath at the very thought.
Certainly without big Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland it is hard to see how the Tories do not win most seats again at the next general election. However it is possible if Labour and the LDs make enough gains from the Tories then Labour + the SNP +the LDs could have more seats than the Tories and the Tories lose their majority.
Who then becomes PM would depend on whether we follow a Canada or NZ scenario. In Canada the convention is the PM comes from the largest party, hence Harper became PM in 2006 and 2008 as the Conservatives won most seats even though the centre left Liberals, NDP and BQ had more seats than the Conservatives combined. If the Conservatives win most seats in Canada next month even without a majority then O'Toole would likely become PM for the same reason. On that basis Boris would stay PM.
In NZ however in 2017 the centre right Nationals won most seats but Ardern became PM despite Labour being second on seats after doing a deal with the Greens and NZ First. The same could apply here if the SNP and LDs were willing to vote down Boris' government in a hung parliament and join Labour MPs to make Starmer PM.
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Could have stayed with Corbyn!
The problem for Labour is ditching Corbyn for Starmer for no particular reason other than the latter was not the former. It did so without really understanding why Labour had done comparatively well in 2017 compared with 2015 and so badly in 2019. The Conservatives did, which is why they pinched all the popular bits, but Labour did not. It simply leapt out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Something like 2/3s of seats voted Leave. I think that’s why, in 2019, Labour got the same kind of vote share, slightly better even, as 10 & 15, yet got fewer seats.
Structurally Brexit has perhaps made it difficult for Remain parties to win seats. Corbyn did no worse than Brown or Miliband in terms of voteshare, but far worse in seats - maybe that is a guide for the next election too.
The really alarming thought for Labour about Corbynism is that even in 2017 when he got 39.99% of the nationwide vote he won just four more seats than Brown on 29% of the vote in 2010.
Labour’s vote is becoming horribly inefficient. Ok, that’s partly because they lost Scotland and have fallen back in Wales. But they are still winning plenty of votes - just in their safe seats where they are no use.
Here’s a couple of shocking stats. The 17 safest seats in the country and 19 of the top 20 are all held by Labour. They hold 58 seats with over 60% of the vote (by contrast the Tories have 36 despite having far more seats).
Corbyn really did preach not so much to the choir as to the clergy. Starmer needs to find a way to reach out, even at the cost of losing a biggish chunk of his existing vote. An intelligent campaign where Labour stood still in terms of voteshare could still see them pick up many seats if those votes were in the right places.
And this is what his challenge to the hard left had to be: we don't want you, we don't need you. All the twats going to The World Transformed - if they all trotted off to vote for scab groups like Socialist Unity nobody would notice electorally.
Sadly Starmer is frit. "Labour doesn't need a civil war" I have been told. Its got one - here and now. And the hard left are planning to go all out at conference. They'll not stop until they are purged, and normals won't vote Labour until they are gone.
I don't think you're right; Starmer isn't frit. The very far left hate him. He's done enough already to piss off a lot of the Trots, who have left. He has secured all the key levers of power within the party. Of course the hard left will kick off at conference - has there ever been a conference where they haven't (except maybe under Corbyn)? He doesn't need to purge/expel the hard left, just defeat them.
Remember, Blair was quite happy to have Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches, as long as they didn't have any real power. Same for Starmer.
I'm sure that's right. The "mass purge" thing doesn't work - it creates oceans of headlines about "civil war in Labour" and people conclude, rightly, that we're preoccupied with ourselves instead of the country. And there will always be one more bloke with a dodgy opinion who you didn't get round to purging and the press will highlight him and portray him as typical of an incomplete purge.
Moreover, I actually never hear anyone on the doorstep grumbling that Starmer is in hock to the left. The grumbles from all sides are that they don't know what he's for. His conference address needs to address that as its MAIN priority.
Yes, it seems to be PB accepted wisdom that Keir can’t win because of the Labour Party.
That’s nonsense.
Keir can’t win because he is a puce-faced bore, with all the vision and charisma of a damp tea-towel.
I missed this preprint on long-covid when it came out. It's based on 96% of the UK population. The reported rates of long-covid are remarkably low, between 0.02% for the East of England to 0.055% for London, well beyond any early report. 1/
Those frequencies of long-covid are actually probably well below the true prevalence of the condition, due to a likely mix of under-coding and under-diagnosis. That said, they put some of the early extraordinarily high estimates of long-covid prevalence in some perspective.
The openSAFELY project is amazing - stuff like this simply was not possible before (aside - the new research primary care dataset that had people in a tizz a few months back would also make stuff like this much easier).
Likely very much under-reported as noted, but it does give a reasonable floor and also some idea of the magnitude of the ceiling. Under-reporting by a factor of ten, maybe even a few multiples of ten could be plausible, but much beyond that is stretching credibility.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
That's actually a really good point.
There’s no need to sound surprised.
One of my many hats is as the careers lead. I’ve spent a lot of time planning lessons on this stuff.
But that’s one hour a week for ten weeks a year in years 7-11.
Now imagine if we could switch that into English language lessons. But not just that. You could also have interview skills. Reading contracts for energy supply. Making wills. Checking health and safety forms.
These are all important parts of everyday life that get crowded to the edges of the curriculum because of OFQUAL’s obsession with abstract concepts. I have had to fight to keep that hour, but which is more useful - that, or reading minor poems by Robert Browning?*
If it could be put on exams it would be pushed much harder and I think you would see a difference.
But it will never happen. As @Gardenwalker almost says, it suits too many people that it doesn’t.
*Possibly a bad example, as they love the accidental swearing he does all the time.
I believe Starmer has a narrow (and narrowing) window of opportunity, which is between now and early next year.
The polls are indeed very good for the Tories and I would currently lean towards another Tory majority in 2024 (albeit I think reduced) but I think they can flip easily. I still maintain that due to MoE changes that we will see a Labour lead by the end of the year.
Starmer's approval ratings continue to fall (as do Johnson's), so at some point it is going to become the battle of the least unpopular. I personally don't see how objectively anyone can conclude that Starmer is worse than Corbyn, or Ed M but as usual with these things I am not going to argue with the numbers being what they are.
So what does Starmer do about it? He still has a lot of unknowns, those are the people he needs to convert. His conference speech needs to be about the next decade+ of a Labour Government.
For me that means science, technology, climate change, not talking about nationalisation or how the Tories are so terrible. Labour needs to sell a hopeful, interesting, dynamic, vibrant vision once again.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
Still sound like slightly bizarre tests. How much numeracy does a postman need, beyond being able to recognise numbers to put the letters through the right doors? As for handwriting, I guess the more important skill is being able to read terrible handwriting. Of course, with your experience (did you take the job?) you'll know better than me the skills needed!
My handwriting has been in steady decline since school, due to ever decreasing use (during the pandemic I've even been even taking meeting notes on a laptop during meetings; I did use pen and paper during in-person meetings).
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
SKS has of late gone from low profile and boring to outright invisible. Where is he? The only story bearing his picture on the BBC is a story from a few days ago saying that the government needed an urgent plan to help those left behind in Afghanistan. It's opposition Jim, but not as we know it.
Holed up with Sarwar perhaps, who has been missing in action as well, planning the "Scottish " Labour recovery.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
That's actually a really good point.
There’s no need to sound surprised.
One of my many hats is as the careers lead. I’ve spent a lot of time planning lessons on this stuff.
But that’s one hour a week for ten weeks a year in years 7-11.
Now imagine if we could switch that into English language lessons. But not just that. You could also have interview skills. Reading contracts for energy supply. Making wills. Checking health and safety forms.
These are all important parts of everyday life that get crowded to the edges of the curriculum because of OFQUAL’s obsession with abstract concepts. I have had to fight to keep that hour, but which is more useful - that, or reading minor poems by Robert Browning?*
If it could be put on exams it would be pushed much harder and I think you would see a difference.
But it will never happen. As @Gardenwalker almost says, it suits too many people that it doesn’t.
*Possibly a bad example, as they love the accidental swearing he does all the time.
The irony is that lots of sixth forms do have general studies or the like for this sort of thing. But if PM Gove's new EdSec Dominic Cummings were to tear up the curriculum and replace it with what is actually needed, there'd be more IT (not computer science) and literacy and cooking and household repairs and DIY, as well as life skills like those you suggest. Bad news for history teachers! And geography.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
One of the problems is you are comparing apples with oranges. You should at the lower end of the grades be comparing them with CSEs - not O-levels.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
It does look grim in Scotland. But what if Scotland has to impose lockdown measures again - but ends up being the only part of the UK that does? If Scottish patients get sent to English hospitals for care. People will ask Nicola "Why are we so peculiarly bad?"
The idea of having an independent Covid approach for each constituent country of the UK always looked a bad move. It only made any political sense if your outcome was better than that of England. It doesn't look that way in Scotland.
It doesn't look good for the Scottish government but the only reason I can see for the different growth up here at the moment is schools. If that is it this is coming your way soon. Again.
Scotland has notoriously bad health outcomes on drink and drugs. Perhaps - maybe for linked reasons - Covid is going to join that list?
You been looking at the numbers at all , Scotland has had around 65%-70% of the death's in England per head of population.
We have now had 3 weeks of exponential growth in Covid cases since the restrictions came off and the schools went back. Lanarkshire and Glasgow Health Board now have the highest number of cases in Europe. The hospitals are coming under increasing strain. I am not sure how much longer we can continue up here on the basis that everything is going to be fine.
There is a real risk that England is going to be 3 weeks behind Scotland in this respect because of the different dates for the schools. If they start to take the same path, and there is little evidence of it so far, then there will come a point when restrictions have to come back to protect the NHS. My guess is that that would severely knock government approval ratings.
I think we are very likely to see such a school return wave south of the border, then boosted by the universities going back.
Work isn't looking great for when I get back from the IoW. It's all getting a bit autumnal here too now.
Is there a medical downside to giving out azn boosters now to everyone over say 40 who received Pfizer? Other than it possibly being a “waste” of vaccines?
Brains Trust: Does anyone have a link to a count of UK donations of excess vaccine?
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
That's actually a really good point.
There’s no need to sound surprised.
One of my many hats is as the careers lead. I’ve spent a lot of time planning lessons on this stuff.
But that’s one hour a week for ten weeks a year in years 7-11.
Now imagine if we could switch that into English language lessons. But not just that. You could also have interview skills. Reading contracts for energy supply. Making wills. Checking health and safety forms.
These are all important parts of everyday life that get crowded to the edges of the curriculum because of OFQUAL’s obsession with abstract concepts. I have had to fight to keep that hour, but which is more useful - that, or reading minor poems by Robert Browning?*
If it could be put on exams it would be pushed much harder and I think you would see a difference.
But it will never happen. As @Gardenwalker almost says, it suits too many people that it doesn’t.
*Possibly a bad example, as they love the accidental swearing he does all the time.
The irony is that lots of sixth forms do have general studies or the like for this sort of thing. But if PM Gove's new EdSec Dominic Cummings were to tear up the curriculum and replace it with what is actually needed, there'd be more IT (not computer science) and literacy and cooking and household repairs and DIY, as well as life skills like those you suggest. Bad news for history teachers! And geography.
The irony of that post is that it is Gove and Cummings who have tipped the curriculum further away from practical subjects towards history and geography. My school has effectively abandoned cookery but everyone in Year 10 and 11 takes at least one of history or geography.
And it looks set to get worse, not better. The DfE now have this idea that RS should be a core subject at GCSE as well. Now I’ve always taught RS and I enjoy teaching it, but that means less time to teach these core skills. Which in my view is getting the balance wrong.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
One of the problems is you are comparing apples with oranges. You should at the lower end of the grades be comparing them with CSEs - not O-levels.
So what does a grade 4 in maths mean if you cannot do a basic times table, but still pass the exam? It does seem rather pointless.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
MBS knows which way the shamal is blowing. The American Century is definitively over.
The progenitor of the RSAF (the Hejaz Air Force) was originally founded and staffed by exiled Russians. That's why so many older maps of the Rub-al-Khali use the old Russian/Soviet lat/long system and need some spherical geometry calculations to make them useful.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
If they can't do 11x12 then maybe they were only taught the times tables up to 10. All hail our metric overlords. I'm not convinced it is a very useful test of anything else.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
As far as I recall, GCSE maths doesn't really test arithmetic (long time ago and I may be wrong, but calculators may even have been permitted in exams - they certainly were at A level). There's some argument for that - I'm in a job that relies heavily on maths skills, but I very rarely have to do any sums (I can do you 11x12, but only by adding or subtracting 12 from 144 or 120 - I no longer remember every times table combination).
There would be value perhaps in a test of arithmetic to mark out those who can do sums from those who cannot, pre-interview (it is very esaily tested at interview etc if required). Larger companies of course often doo online tests or mass in-person tests pre-interview, but that is less viable for you, I guess.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Yes, the comfort blanket that it was just "return to school" testing is kind of ripped away. If it was about school children why is 20-24 per 100k cases just as high as the 15-19 year olds.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
Opening of clubs and packing out of pubs etc will have had an influence
It's undeniable that Corbyn did irreparable damage to Labour which may take a while and possibly even a change of identity to eradicate. I don't see a problem with Starmer. Politics has revolved around one issue up until now which hasn't given him a chance. That's now changing and from now on we'll get a chance to see what he's made of.
The opposition have one or two advantages which those polls ignore. Johnson has a hard core of haters which is bound to grow as voters take a closer look without the gauze of Covid.. But more important it's the 'Brexit government' and the chances of it unravelling into a shambolic mess must be at least odds on.
Governments that lose elections and if there's one that has all the ingredients to fail it's this one
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Foot a giant compared to Starmer? Longest suicide note in history.
And could labour make a worse choice? Yes and they did; Corbyn.
The longest suicide note proposed Brexit from the EEC and raising overseas aid to .7 per cent of GDP. That was the problem – it was full of Tory policies!
Yes very good. It had a few others that can not be described so of course. And of course their objection to the EEC was from somewhat of a different stance. It, in their view, being a business club not supportive of the workers. How times and views change.
@NerysHughes I had beautiful handwriting when I was a kid, but now its a disaster. Handwriting skills are just not needed anymore.
Last time I had to sign my name, I stopped halfway through because I could not remember how it continued, and I've just this morning had to write a note to a neighbour in block capitals to give him half a chance of reading it.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
One of the problems is you are comparing apples with oranges. You should at the lower end of the grades be comparing them with CSEs - not O-levels.
So what does a grade 4 in maths mean if you cannot do a basic times table, but still pass the exam? It does seem rather pointless.
I’m not actually in disagreement with you there. The GCSE reforms have been a disaster for all sorts of reasons, but one of the major mistakes was trying to cram all the ‘fail’ grades into the bottom third. This was achieved in the case of maths by abolishing the foundation tier and effectively making everyone do the intermediate or higher tier instead.
This had the entirely predictable result that maths lessons became a relentless focus on getting children to at least the bare minimum content, rather than giving them a rounded understanding of the subject. This was compounded by the much greater amount of content.
This had the further predictable result that the first set of grades would have seen around 50% fail if the pass grades hadn’t been dropped harder and faster than a cruise missile on its target. So people who would probably have got a D or E on the old system got a 4 to try and show it hadn’t failed. This had unfortunate consequences for more recent sessions in terms of grade boundaries and QA. But it also meant rather than a spread of grades which would give you as the interviewer some idea of where they stood, everything was crowded together and differentiating outcomes becomes much harder.
The further irony is that GCSE maths, despite all this, isn’t actually a particularly useful qualification as it doesn’t set you up for A-level maths, where the content is completely different.
To be honest, I do not see how any of this is helpful to the children or to you as an employer and it’s one reason why I’m getting frustrated.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Yes, the comfort blanket that it was just "return to school" testing is kind of ripped away. If it was about school children why is 20-24 per 100k cases just as high as the 15-19 year olds.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
With a gulp I'm taking my two daughters for their first jab this afternoon.
I'm OK with my eldest as she is almost 18 anyway but I confess I'm uneasy about my youngest who has only just turned 16. She is adamant she wants it though.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
That's actually a really good point.
There’s no need to sound surprised.
One of my many hats is as the careers lead. I’ve spent a lot of time planning lessons on this stuff.
But that’s one hour a week for ten weeks a year in years 7-11.
Now imagine if we could switch that into English language lessons. But not just that. You could also have interview skills. Reading contracts for energy supply. Making wills. Checking health and safety forms.
These are all important parts of everyday life that get crowded to the edges of the curriculum because of OFQUAL’s obsession with abstract concepts. I have had to fight to keep that hour, but which is more useful - that, or reading minor poems by Robert Browning?*
If it could be put on exams it would be pushed much harder and I think you would see a difference.
But it will never happen. As @Gardenwalker almost says, it suits too many people that it doesn’t.
*Possibly a bad example, as they love the accidental swearing he does all the time.
The irony is that lots of sixth forms do have general studies or the like for this sort of thing. But if PM Gove's new EdSec Dominic Cummings were to tear up the curriculum and replace it with what is actually needed, there'd be more IT (not computer science) and literacy and cooking and household repairs and DIY, as well as life skills like those you suggest. Bad news for history teachers! And geography.
It's one of the curious gaps in Dom's thinking about education. He's very clear that top brains should be identified early on and do lots maths and physics. Apart from that, it's all rather a blur. I think the theory is that brilliant scientists will generate so much wealth that everyone else can basically retire.
Clearly I ought to be gleefully rubbing my hands at the opportunity, but I can't say I'm convinced.
MBS knows which way the shamal is blowing. The American Century is definitively over.
The progenitor of the RSAF (the Hejaz Air Force) was originally founded and staffed by exiled Russians. That's why so many older maps of the Rub-al-Khali use the old Russian/Soviet lat/long system and need some spherical geometry calculations to make them useful.
Yes, Syria and Iran and then Iraq were already within the Russian orbit, now Saudi has been added too.
As the Biden administration completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan and moves to isolationism, Russia now dominates the Middle East and China increasingly dominates the Pacific region and is expanding its influence in South Asia.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Yes, the comfort blanket that it was just "return to school" testing is kind of ripped away. If it was about school children why is 20-24 per 100k cases just as high as the 15-19 year olds.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
Opening of clubs and packing out of pubs etc will have had an influence
Football as well (which may also involve a bit of before and after pub). Could be just be an accumulation of various activities all trying to return to normal at the same time.
Recent focus groups (Times etc) have said that Johnson is starting to be called a "one trick pony" who's job is now complete
A one trick pony is infinitely better than a zero trick pony like Starmer. The guy is a loser and Labour need to get rid, he reminds me of Arteta at Arsenal.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
I suspect that I agree with that post, although I am always wary of the times table test. I have a maths degree but have never learnt my times tables. Seemed pointless to me so didn't do it. It means I can't give an instant answer, but one a second or two later. I would rather see someone work it out quickly than have learnt it by rote, because you then know they can cope with stuff they haven't memorised. Still they should be able to do 11 x 12 pretty quickly and a non answer is not a good sign for the future.
Just remember darts players who can do the calculations quickly aren't mathematicians, they just play darts a lot.
Maybe a 'fact' to give HYUFD when he comes up with his next assumption from a statistic.
MBS knows which way the shamal is blowing. The American Century is definitively over.
The progenitor of the RSAF (the Hejaz Air Force) was originally founded and staffed by exiled Russians. That's why so many older maps of the Rub-al-Khali use the old Russian/Soviet lat/long system and need some spherical geometry calculations to make them useful.
Yes, Syria and Iran and then Iraq were already within the Russian orbit, now Saudi has been added too.
As the Biden administration completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan and moves to isolationism, Russia now dominates the Middle East and China increasingly dominates the Pacific region and is expanding its influence in South Asia.
Frankly that's not such a bad thing as far as Saudi is concerned.
Saudi should have been part of George W Bush's "Axis of Evil" and we should have been regarding them as an enemy and not an ally for decades now. They are behind the spread of extremist Wahhabism, they were ultimately behind 9/11, and the way they treat women especially is absolutely atrocious.
If them cosying up to Russia gets the West to realise that Saudi is not our friend, it is long overdue.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
That's actually a really good point.
There’s no need to sound surprised.
One of my many hats is as the careers lead. I’ve spent a lot of time planning lessons on this stuff.
But that’s one hour a week for ten weeks a year in years 7-11.
Now imagine if we could switch that into English language lessons. But not just that. You could also have interview skills. Reading contracts for energy supply. Making wills. Checking health and safety forms.
These are all important parts of everyday life that get crowded to the edges of the curriculum because of OFQUAL’s obsession with abstract concepts. I have had to fight to keep that hour, but which is more useful - that, or reading minor poems by Robert Browning?*
If it could be put on exams it would be pushed much harder and I think you would see a difference.
But it will never happen. As @Gardenwalker almost says, it suits too many people that it doesn’t.
*Possibly a bad example, as they love the accidental swearing he does all the time.
The irony is that lots of sixth forms do have general studies or the like for this sort of thing. But if PM Gove's new EdSec Dominic Cummings were to tear up the curriculum and replace it with what is actually needed, there'd be more IT (not computer science) and literacy and cooking and household repairs and DIY, as well as life skills like those you suggest. Bad news for history teachers! And geography.
It's one of the curious gaps in Dom's thinking about education. He's very clear that top brains should be identified early on and do lots maths and physics. Apart from that, it's all rather a blur. I think the theory is that brilliant scientists will generate so much wealth that everyone else can basically retire.
Clearly I ought to be gleefully rubbing my hands at the opportunity, but I can't say I'm convinced.
Yes, Cummings is obsessed by physicists, and probably astrophysicists in particular as a PhD in astrophysics is three years of crunching gigabytes of telescope data into pretty graphs. If you listen to his musings on data in election and referendum campaigns and in the pandemic, there's a good deal on data and dashboards (which take just a few hours to put up because it is all standard packages these days).
Other than that, he reads a lot of sciency self-help books and believes everything he reads.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
One of the problems is you are comparing apples with oranges. You should at the lower end of the grades be comparing them with CSEs - not O-levels.
So what does a grade 4 in maths mean if you cannot do a basic times table, but still pass the exam? It does seem rather pointless.
I’m not actually in disagreement with you there. The GCSE reforms have been a disaster for all sorts of reasons, but one of the major mistakes was trying to cram all the ‘fail’ grades into the bottom third. This was achieved in the case of maths by abolishing the foundation tier and effectively making everyone do the intermediate or higher tier instead.
This had the entirely predictable result that maths lessons became a relentless focus on getting children to at least the bare minimum content, rather than giving them a rounded understanding of the subject. This was compounded by the much greater amount of content.
This had the further predictable result that the first set of grades would have seen around 50% fail if the pass grades hadn’t been dropped harder and faster than a cruise missile on its target. So people who would probably have got a D or E on the old system got a 4 to try and show it hadn’t failed. This had unfortunate consequences for more recent sessions in terms of grade boundaries and QA. But it also meant rather than a spread of grades which would give you as the interviewer some idea of where they stood, everything was crowded together and differentiating outcomes becomes much harder.
The further irony is that GCSE maths, despite all this, isn’t actually a particularly useful qualification as it doesn’t set you up for A-level maths, where the content is completely different.
To be honest, I do not see how any of this is helpful to the children or to you as an employer and it’s one reason why I’m getting frustrated.
Three years ago I took GCSE maths for the giggles (and thinking it would help my daughters when their GCSEs came (it didn't)).
To be honest I found the syllabus broad and challenging and dug out my 1980 O Level paper for comparison. There is no comparison - the new exam is far more challenging.
I ended up getting an 8 which I was pleased with given that I ran out of time in one paper, struggled with how to use a scientific calculator and learned the syllabus out of a text book with no face-to-face tuition.
Any 16 year old getting a 9 in Maths gets a Paul Hollywood style handshake from me.
I guess everyone will read the figures in their own way, but to me, there's nothing really screaming that schools are solely to blame for where we're at right now.
If anything I'd be more likely to blame colleges / universities, but they're still shut for the summer...
Yes, the comfort blanket that it was just "return to school" testing is kind of ripped away. If it was about school children why is 20-24 per 100k cases just as high as the 15-19 year olds.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
With a gulp I'm taking my two daughters for their first jab this afternoon.
I'm OK with my eldest as she is almost 18 anyway but I confess I'm uneasy about my youngest who has only just turned 16. She is adamant she wants it though.
Good for her. I feel for your dilemma; you sound like a good dad.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
I suspect that I agree with that post, although I am always wary of the times table test. I have a maths degree but have never learnt my times tables. Seemed pointless to me so didn't do it. It means I can't give an instant answer, but one a second or two later. I would rather see someone work it out quickly than have learnt it by rote, because you then know they can cope with stuff they haven't memorised. Still they should be able to do 11 x 12 pretty quickly and a non answer is not a good sign for the future.
Just remember darts players who can do the calculations quickly aren't mathematicians, they just play darts a lot.
Maybe a 'fact' to give HYUFD when he comes up with his next assumption from a statistic.
If I were to be interested in asking a question like that, I would ask 13 x 12.
As you say 11 x 12 some people might know by rote but what does that mean? How useful is that? But 13 x 12 (because the times tables typically capped out at 12) but be much less known by rote but is relatively simple to calculate if you know basic arithmetic. Being confident and able to work things out is better than knowing some stuff by rote.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
One of the problems is you are comparing apples with oranges. You should at the lower end of the grades be comparing them with CSEs - not O-levels.
So what does a grade 4 in maths mean if you cannot do a basic times table, but still pass the exam? It does seem rather pointless.
I’m not actually in disagreement with you there. The GCSE reforms have been a disaster for all sorts of reasons, but one of the major mistakes was trying to cram all the ‘fail’ grades into the bottom third. This was achieved in the case of maths by abolishing the foundation tier and effectively making everyone do the intermediate or higher tier instead.
This had the entirely predictable result that maths lessons became a relentless focus on getting children to at least the bare minimum content, rather than giving them a rounded understanding of the subject. This was compounded by the much greater amount of content.
This had the further predictable result that the first set of grades would have seen around 50% fail if the pass grades hadn’t been dropped harder and faster than a cruise missile on its target. So people who would probably have got a D or E on the old system got a 4 to try and show it hadn’t failed. This had unfortunate consequences for more recent sessions in terms of grade boundaries and QA. But it also meant rather than a spread of grades which would give you as the interviewer some idea of where they stood, everything was crowded together and differentiating outcomes becomes much harder.
The further irony is that GCSE maths, despite all this, isn’t actually a particularly useful qualification as it doesn’t set you up for A-level maths, where the content is completely different.
To be honest, I do not see how any of this is helpful to the children or to you as an employer and it’s one reason why I’m getting frustrated.
Three years ago I took GCSE maths for the giggles (and thinking it would help my daughters when their GCSEs came (it didn't)).
To be honest I found the syllabus broad and challenging and dug out my 1980 O Level paper for comparison. There is no comparison - the new exam is far more challenging.
I ended up getting an 8 which I was pleased with given that I ran out of time in one paper, struggled with how to use a scientific calculator and learned the syllabus out of a text book with no face-to-face tuition.
Any 16 year old getting a 9 in Maths gets a Paul Hollywood style handshake from me.
Which is fair enough. In fact, my argument is predicated on the exams being bloody hard.
But what about those at the lower end? That’s what we’re talking about. How do we make sure they have meaningful assessments that will give them the skills necessary to prosper in firms like @NerysHughes ?
That’s where GCSEs seem to be going wrong. They’re stretching the top 20% nicely but not supporting and sustaining the bottom 40-50%.
Comments
Four day working week for public sector employees would also work.
Work isn't looking great for when I get back from the IoW. It's all getting a bit autumnal here too now.
In both cases, it the retired. Not entirely, but largely. That chimes with the idea that if they were votes for change, they were votes for a back-to-the-old-ways change. Hearing English on the train, grandchildren who stayed near home instead of flapping off "to Uni". If we must go abroad, go to the Commonwealth.
And in a way, demanding radical change is a pretty selfish thing to do. The poor sods who are of working age, the ones who have to try and make a success of this on the ground are majority against it.
And then there's the question of "what if this doesn't work overall, what if it doesn't deliver the Britain that Leave voters voted for?" (Spoiler: I don't think it will.) Who will notice first, and what will be done next?
(As I've said before, EEA-alike in about a decade, EU in about two because pay/obey/limited say won't work for the UK. And keep Johnson, Farage et Al alive to see it, whatever it takes.)
You could make an argument that, given the cost of COVID, spending X per year would be paying insurance against a once-a-century event.
Four day week for the public sector ? No. Labour gets proportionally a lot of support from the public sector already and reducing their hours would lose Labour support from private sector workers and pensioners.
"The most significant change in political history" .... er, hmmm.
Like most people in the developed world, Kirsten Gjesdal had long taken for granted her ability to order whatever she needed and then watch the goods arrive, without any thought about the factories, container ships and trucks involved in delivery.
Not anymore.
At her kitchen supply store in Brookings, S.D., Ms. Gjesdal has given up stocking place mats, having wearied of telling customers that she can only guess when more will come.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/business/supply-chain-shortages.html
Inertia is perhaps the biggest force in politics. There has to be clear evidence the alternative is better before people break with the comfortable status quo.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Although it should be noted there are large numbers of people in the public sector who do just that - work fewer days in exchange for lower pay. It is one of the ways it scores over the private sector that it’s much easier to do.
People don't like to be told how shit everything is, they want hope, as you note. Apart from we're going to have to walk everywhere from now on (I paraphrase) - what is the LibDems vision? There is a gap for them right now and I'm all ears.
In England, the test facilities seem to massive capacity at the moment, and when you rock up and ask for tests, they seem enthusiastic about giving you tests to take home etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/21/forget-shops-how-stockton-on-tees-ripped-up-the-rule-book-to-revive-its-high-street
I congratulate the council for thinking differently on this. Town centres are changing.
As an aside, the Grafton Centre in Cambridge has recently undergone a£30 million renovation, despite some big name stores closing. It's now up for sale, for repurposing or redevelopment. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
551 in Hospital just now which is higher than the July peak as well with admissions growing fast.
How is Scottish vaccination among the young going?
Almost all of the hardware left behind was ANA/AAF not America.
There is something to the idea that the 16-25 age groups show a very different pattern in this epidemic to the those younger than that.
It is my understanding that this is what shook the JCVI lose on 16+ vaccination.
I missed this preprint on long-covid when it came out. It's based on 96% of the UK population. The reported rates of long-covid are remarkably low, between 0.02% for the East of England to 0.055% for London, well beyond any early report.
1/
Those frequencies of long-covid are actually probably well below the true prevalence of the condition, due to a likely mix of under-coding and under-diagnosis. That said, they put some of the early extraordinarily high estimates of long-covid prevalence in some perspective.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1432619277492891658?s=20
The next ONS infection survey will be interesting. The last survey was for week ending the 20th of August and gave infection figures of 1-in-70 for England and just 1-in-140 for Scotland.
Using the per-100k case figure from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk That would mean the equivalent of multiplying the England week ending case figure by 4 but the Scotland week ending figure by only 2.
This is all caveated by the error bars on the Scoltand figure being much wider than the English figure.
I can't imagine the next Scotland figure could be less than 1-in-50
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
BTW - have you ever looked at Read Easy? It’s a great organisation & though I appreciate hate you don’t have much time with a young family you might find it rewarded to get involved
How long do you reckon they can keep that material running without US technical support?
Our literacy and numeracy rates are among the worst in the OECD. In turn this contributes to our lower productivity, low wage growth economy.
And it’s not because British people are genetically stupid, is it? The system (the government - of whatever party, the civil service, the media) have allowed this structural inheritance to continue because middle class people in London are largely unaffected.
Edit- long since beaten to it.
I would blame autocorrect, which quite brilliantly tried to change ‘rewarding’ into ‘rewording!’
Part of the point of unlocking in the summer was so that people who've refused the virus get their natural immunity now during the summer. That's happening, that's not a bad thing, that's what the Zero Covidiots (which I know is not you) couldn't get their heads around. So don't get depressed, we're still just learning to live with this.
I'd also be careful into reading too much in the Cornwall numbers:
1. Case rates across England are notably even at current, you could get a sizeable majority of England in a single doubling band: 300-600 maybe.
2. The SW tourist COVID hotspots are slight relative to neighbours, Devon and Somerset have high rates regardless of seasidyness, and the distribution of high rates in coastal resorts is patchy in the rest of the country (e.g Lincolnshire resorts, there seems to ne a coastal effect, Yorkshire / Anglian resorts not so much). Truro is pretty hot at the moment.
3. The rates in Cornwall never really subsided bank to below average after G7, so rises are from a substantial base.
4. Cornwall has low historical immunity from infection.
Now, for sure, crowded restaurants and bars, even nightclubs are transmission hubs, and holidaymakers swell the population and may be diagnosed whilst on holiday, giving a bigger denominator. But the idea some have that holidaymaker to local transmission is the only game in town, rather than local to local or even local to holidaymaker transmission, is annoying.
Where we went on holiday, had a higher pre summer infection rates than my town. There was a bit of a ' think of the locals' vibe, yet I was more likely to take COVID home than being it in. People are people, crowds are crowds, deal as you find.
As for reading in public: unfortunately I have a face for the radio, a voice for the newspapers, and a turn of phrase for the sewer ...
Moreover, I actually never hear anyone on the doorstep grumbling that Starmer is in hock to the left. The grumbles from all sides are that they don't know what he's for. His conference address needs to address that as its MAIN priority.
So is it a surprise that when we get back to normal and those who've not acquired their immunity yet (naturally or via vaccines) get it, that those places with lower cases throughout the pandemic end up with higher rates in the exit?
https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1432428704534306820?s=19
30 year old Russian stuff...
Who then becomes PM would depend on whether we follow a Canada or NZ scenario. In Canada the convention is the PM comes from the largest party, hence Harper became PM in 2006 and 2008 as the Conservatives won most seats even though the centre left Liberals, NDP and BQ had more seats than the Conservatives combined. If the Conservatives win most seats in Canada next month even without a majority then O'Toole would likely become PM for the same reason. On that basis Boris would stay PM.
In NZ however in 2017 the centre right Nationals won most seats but Ardern became PM despite Labour being second on seats after doing a deal with the Greens and NZ First. The same could apply here if the SNP and LDs were willing to vote down Boris' government in a hung parliament and join Labour MPs to make Starmer PM.
That’s nonsense.
Keir can’t win because he is a puce-faced bore, with all the vision and charisma of a damp tea-towel.
Likely very much under-reported as noted, but it does give a reasonable floor and also some idea of the magnitude of the ceiling. Under-reporting by a factor of ten, maybe even a few multiples of ten could be plausible, but much beyond that is stretching credibility.
I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
One of my many hats is as the careers lead. I’ve spent a lot of time planning lessons on this stuff.
But that’s one hour a week for ten weeks a year in years 7-11.
Now imagine if we could switch that into English language lessons. But not just that. You could also have interview skills. Reading contracts for energy supply. Making wills. Checking health and safety forms.
These are all important parts of everyday life that get crowded to the edges of the curriculum because of OFQUAL’s obsession with abstract concepts. I have had to fight to keep that hour, but which is more useful - that, or reading minor poems by Robert Browning?*
If it could be put on exams it would be pushed much harder and I think you would see a difference.
But it will never happen. As @Gardenwalker almost says, it suits too many people that it doesn’t.
*Possibly a bad example, as they love the accidental swearing he does all the time.
The polls are indeed very good for the Tories and I would currently lean towards another Tory majority in 2024 (albeit I think reduced) but I think they can flip easily. I still maintain that due to MoE changes that we will see a Labour lead by the end of the year.
Starmer's approval ratings continue to fall (as do Johnson's), so at some point it is going to become the battle of the least unpopular. I personally don't see how objectively anyone can conclude that Starmer is worse than Corbyn, or Ed M but as usual with these things I am not going to argue with the numbers being what they are.
So what does Starmer do about it? He still has a lot of unknowns, those are the people he needs to convert. His conference speech needs to be about the next decade+ of a Labour Government.
For me that means science, technology, climate change, not talking about nationalisation or how the Tories are so terrible. Labour needs to sell a hopeful, interesting, dynamic, vibrant vision once again.
My handwriting has been in steady decline since school, due to ever decreasing use (during the pandemic I've even been even taking meeting notes on a laptop during meetings; I did use pen and paper during in-person meetings).
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
Mi-8/17 indefinitely
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1916066/saudi-arabia
We were at 30m, I think (?).
And it looks set to get worse, not better. The DfE now have this idea that RS should be a core subject at GCSE as well. Now I’ve always taught RS and I enjoy teaching it, but that means less time to teach these core skills. Which in my view is getting the balance wrong.
The progenitor of the RSAF (the Hejaz Air Force) was originally founded and staffed by exiled Russians. That's why so many older maps of the Rub-al-Khali use the old Russian/Soviet lat/long system and need some spherical geometry calculations to make them useful.
There would be value perhaps in a test of arithmetic to mark out those who can do sums from those who cannot, pre-interview (it is very esaily tested at interview etc if required). Larger companies of course often doo online tests or mass in-person tests pre-interview, but that is less viable for you, I guess.
https://twitter.com/anyabike/status/1432627037055893507?s=20
The opposition have one or two advantages which those polls ignore. Johnson has a hard core of haters which is bound to grow as voters take a closer look without the gauze of Covid.. But more important it's the 'Brexit government' and the chances of it unravelling into a shambolic mess must be at least odds on.
Governments that lose elections and if there's one that has all the ingredients to fail it's this one
*well, that's how I like to self-justify my terrible handwriting!
This had the entirely predictable result that maths lessons became a relentless focus on getting children to at least the bare minimum content, rather than giving them a rounded understanding of the subject. This was compounded by the much greater amount of content.
This had the further predictable result that the first set of grades would have seen around 50% fail if the pass grades hadn’t been dropped harder and faster than a cruise missile on its target. So people who would probably have got a D or E on the old system got a 4 to try and show it hadn’t failed. This had unfortunate consequences for more recent sessions in terms of grade boundaries and QA. But it also meant rather than a spread of grades which would give you as the interviewer some idea of where they stood, everything was crowded together and differentiating outcomes becomes much harder.
The further irony is that GCSE maths, despite all this, isn’t actually a particularly useful qualification as it doesn’t set you up for A-level maths, where the content is completely different.
To be honest, I do not see how any of this is helpful to the children or to you as an employer and it’s one reason why I’m getting frustrated.
I'm OK with my eldest as she is almost 18 anyway but I confess I'm uneasy about my youngest who has only just turned 16. She is adamant she wants it though.
He had to give it up as nobody could read his ransom notes.
(With apologies to @Foxy whom I am sure has beautiful handwriting.)
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19513753.first-ministers-sister-gill-sturgeon-arrested-incident-ayrshire-house/
https://www.ardrossanherald.com/news/19540009.gill-sturgeon-charges-dropped-nicola-sturgeons-sister/
Clearly I ought to be gleefully rubbing my hands at the opportunity, but I can't say I'm convinced.
As the Biden administration completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan and moves to isolationism, Russia now dominates the Middle East and China increasingly dominates the Pacific region and is expanding its influence in South Asia.
Getting Brexit Done?
Or having the world's best Covid19 response when it came to acquiring vaccines (excluding the small state of Israel)?
Although that was also due to Miliband's silly leadership election changes.
Just remember darts players who can do the calculations quickly aren't mathematicians, they just play darts a lot.
Maybe a 'fact' to give HYUFD when he comes up with his next assumption from a statistic.
Saudi should have been part of George W Bush's "Axis of Evil" and we should have been regarding them as an enemy and not an ally for decades now. They are behind the spread of extremist Wahhabism, they were ultimately behind 9/11, and the way they treat women especially is absolutely atrocious.
If them cosying up to Russia gets the West to realise that Saudi is not our friend, it is long overdue.
Other than that, he reads a lot of sciency self-help books and believes everything he reads.
To be honest I found the syllabus broad and challenging and dug out my 1980 O Level paper for comparison. There is no comparison - the new exam is far more challenging.
I ended up getting an 8 which I was pleased with given that I ran out of time in one paper, struggled with how to use a scientific calculator and learned the syllabus out of a text book with no face-to-face tuition.
Any 16 year old getting a 9 in Maths gets a Paul Hollywood style handshake from me.
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1432623310643286016?s=20
As you say 11 x 12 some people might know by rote but what does that mean? How useful is that? But 13 x 12 (because the times tables typically capped out at 12) but be much less known by rote but is relatively simple to calculate if you know basic arithmetic. Being confident and able to work things out is better than knowing some stuff by rote.
But what about those at the lower end? That’s what we’re talking about. How do we make sure they have meaningful assessments that will give them the skills necessary to prosper in firms like @NerysHughes ?
That’s where GCSEs seem to be going wrong. They’re stretching the top 20% nicely but not supporting and sustaining the bottom 40-50%.