Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour seems to have forgotten how to ‘do’ Opposition

2456

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,777

    I'm not eating a pizza with pineapple on it after this test match.

    You owe me, big time.....
    Thank you but I'd rather England won the test match.
    Nah, just back to being a contest again.... A hot day in England, a test match on the radio that is finely balanced - luxury....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509

    I'm not eating a pizza with pineapple on it after this test match.

    You owe me, big time.....
    Thank you but I'd rather England won the test match.
    Nah, just back to being a contest again.... A hot day in England, a test match on the radio that is finely balanced - luxury....
    Really! Which test are you listening to? I’d rather watch that than England being hammered.
  • I'm not eating a pizza with pineapple on it after this test match.

    You owe me, big time.....
    Thank you but I'd rather England won the test match.
    Nah, just back to being a contest again.... A hot day in England, a test match on the radio that is finely balanced - luxury....
    I will never forget those four days at Headingley last year.

    So glad I had tickets, I really do miss the crowds.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 47,568
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    Well I don't support them , why ask teachers to do it and then make them out to be cheats and liars by making up another system to trash the teachers opinions.
    I would be less than happy if I was a teacher for sure and you calling Scottish teachers liars and cheats deserves abuse that I would get banned for.
    Nation 5
    2016-2019 average 78.6%
    2020 actual after lowering 81.1%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.6%

    Higher
    2016-2019 average 76.5%
    2020 actual after lowering 78.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.8%

    Advanced Higher
    2016-2019 average 80.4%
    2020 actual after lowering 84.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 92.8%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53636296

    Its the Scottish government who has done a better job than the teachers.
    By assigning numbers based on parental wealth?
    It's how they assign HE funding....so at least is consistent.
  • ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    Well I don't support them , why ask teachers to do it and then make them out to be cheats and liars by making up another system to trash the teachers opinions.
    I would be less than happy if I was a teacher for sure and you calling Scottish teachers liars and cheats deserves abuse that I would get banned for.
    Nation 5
    2016-2019 average 78.6%
    2020 actual after lowering 81.1%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.6%

    Higher
    2016-2019 average 76.5%
    2020 actual after lowering 78.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.8%

    Advanced Higher
    2016-2019 average 80.4%
    2020 actual after lowering 84.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 92.8%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53636296

    Its the Scottish government who has done a better job than the teachers.
    By assigning numbers based on parental wealth?
    Isn't DavidL's son one of those who has been downgraded ?

    There's plenty more who have had too high a grade than too low.

    We all know that but the winners aren't going to complain are they.

    Such is life.

    The Scottish government has done a reasonable job given the difficult circumstances of making sure the grades are reasonably fair in comparison to past and future years.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    So you were also happy with them raising a significant number of grades based on a mathematical model from a 23 year old research paper?
    They can do what what they have to, its not an easy situation.

    But the incessant self-serving whine ** from teachers does not impress.

    Especially after they have exposed themselves as cheats and liars by massively over predicting grades.

    Now I'm sure that you will say that you personally do not over-predict grades.

    In which case that should make you direct your abuse at the many teachers who do.

    ** Reminiscent of the incessant self-serving whine in 2012 when 20+ years of grade inflation was brought to an end.
    So you’re quite happy about poor children being clobbered by an algorithm that isn’t valid run by a bunch of failed civil servants who have repeatedly demonstrated over many years they haven’t a fucking clue what they’re doing?

    How very revealing.

    Again, though, you miss the point, possibly wilfully, that they have only used data from teachers in a small minority of cases. So your criticism doesn’t even work.
    Stop frothing, you're not in class now.

    I'm no more a supporter of the education bureaucracy than I am of other government bureaucracies.

    But let me ask you a question.

    Given that last year over 97% of A levels were passes and over 25% were A grades what do you think this year's results should and will be.
    OK, I will answer.

    My very distinct impression, and this impression is backed by a number of conversations I have had, is that this year‘s cohort were rather abler than last year’s. Last year, I had around 25% at 7+. Given the quality of the students I had, and the quality of my own teaching, that would normally be nearer 50%. Anecdotal I know, but there was reason to expect a rise before the pandemic hit.

    That is compounded by the fact that teachers have now a little time to get used to the new exams, and the marking criteria has finally stabilised. So the delivery of the courses has improved substantially.

    So it doesn’t surprise me that grades were up 10% on teacher predictions than on last year. In fact, it suggests that probably they were quite realistic.

    Unless we had ten to fifteen years of data to draw on, it’s not possible to model out background noise. That’s what they’ve tried to do and that’s what’s going to get them into trouble.

    You might argue, with some justice, that DfE requirements and the cowardice of Gove mean that grades are normally standardised from year to year anyway. True to an extent. But that would only be valid if you could expect the school cohorts to be exactly consistent from year to year, which is clearly a nonsense. Otherwise, you would expect abler students in the cohort to attend different schools so there could be very wide variation from year to year. This method has put in place a wallet lottery.

    Does that answer your question?
    No it doesn't - how about you give some numbers so we can compare with what actually happens.

    Unless Darwin has kicked up a couple of gears then an 'abler cohort' should change things by about 0.1%.

    Some schools will do much better than that while others do the opposite.

    Amazing though that this 'abler cohort' came through this year.

    Perhaps you can inform us which other years had a 10% increase in grades because of an 'abler cohort' or a 10% fall in grades because of a less able cohort.

    I'd sure love to know which years were those of genius or stupidity.
    Why you so angry bruh
    I leave the anger to ydoethur - I am pointing out basic facts and asking inconvenient questions.

    We'll see if we get a prediction as to what 2020's pass rates should and will be.

    And which previous years have seen grades change by 10%.

    :wink:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,999

    I wonder what the 2019 GE result would have been if Labour had never backed a second referendum but Corbyn had stayed on. Much the same I think

    The disdain was for Corbyn not the second referendum. Many former Remainers supported Johnson, only because he wasn't Corbyn.

    For a change I am not entirely sure I agree with David Herdson's thread header.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 12,964
    edited August 2020

    I wonder what the 2019 GE result would have been if Labour had never backed a second referendum but Corbyn had stayed on. Much the same I think

    The disdain was for Corbyn not the second referendum. Many former Remainers supported Johnson, only because he wasn't Corbyn.

    For a change I am not entirely sure I agree with David Herdson's thread header.
    People like to attack Starmer for Labour's Brexit policy but he wanted Labour to back Remain and I am under no doubt if he was the leader and had run on that, they would have done better
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,777
    Great keeping.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,317
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Interesting grid. Pre-race tosh should be up tomorrow morning, as usual.
  • England more doomed that Crassus at Carrhae.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,046

    I wonder what the 2019 GE result would have been if Labour had never backed a second referendum but Corbyn had stayed on. Much the same I think

    I think worse. Red Wallers would still have fallen big time for "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" and the LDs would have made hay with the "Ref2 and/or Remain" lane to themselves.

    Also, bit of fun, I think the following on the leader front for GE19 -

    May vs Starmer - hung parliament
    May vs Corbyn - Cons by 30
    Johnson vs Starmer - Cons by 30
    Johnson vs Corbyn - Cons by 80
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    edited August 2020

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    So you were also happy with them raising a significant number of grades based on a mathematical model from a 23 year old research paper?
    They can do what what they have to, its not an easy situation.

    But the incessant self-serving whine ** from teachers does not impress.

    Especially after they have exposed themselves as cheats and liars by massively over predicting grades.

    Now I'm sure that you will say that you personally do not over-predict grades.

    In which case that should make you direct your abuse at the many teachers who do.

    ** Reminiscent of the incessant self-serving whine in 2012 when 20+ years of grade inflation was brought to an end.
    So you’re quite happy about poor children being clobbered by an algorithm that isn’t valid run by a bunch of failed civil servants who have repeatedly demonstrated over many years they haven’t a fucking clue what they’re doing?

    How very revealing.

    Again, though, you miss the point, possibly wilfully, that they have only used data from teachers in a small minority of cases. So your criticism doesn’t even work.
    Stop frothing, you're not in class now.

    I'm no more a supporter of the education bureaucracy than I am of other government bureaucracies.

    But let me ask you a question.

    Given that last year over 97% of A levels were passes and over 25% were A grades what do you think this year's results should and will be.
    OK, I will answer.

    My very distinct impression, and this impression is backed by a number of conversations I have had, is that this year‘s cohort were rather abler than last year’s. Last year, I had around 25% at 7+. Given the quality of the students I had, and the quality of my own teaching, that would normally be nearer 50%. Anecdotal I know, but there was reason to expect a rise before the pandemic hit.

    That is compounded by the fact that teachers have now a little time to get used to the new exams, and the marking criteria has finally stabilised. So the delivery of the courses has improved substantially.

    So it doesn’t surprise me that grades were up 10% on teacher predictions than on last year. In fact, it suggests that probably they were quite realistic.

    Unless we had ten to fifteen years of data to draw on, it’s not possible to model out background noise. That’s what they’ve tried to do and that’s what’s going to get them into trouble.

    You might argue, with some justice, that DfE requirements and the cowardice of Gove mean that grades are normally standardised from year to year anyway. True to an extent. But that would only be valid if you could expect the school cohorts to be exactly consistent from year to year, which is clearly a nonsense. Otherwise, you would expect abler students in the cohort to attend different schools so there could be very wide variation from year to year. This method has put in place a wallet lottery.

    Does that answer your question?
    No it doesn't - how about you give some numbers so we can compare with what actually happens.

    Unless Darwin has kicked up a couple of gears then an 'abler cohort' should change things by about 0.1%.

    Some schools will do much better than that while others do the opposite.

    Amazing though that this 'abler cohort' came through this year.

    Perhaps you can inform us which other years had a 10% increase in grades because of an 'abler cohort' or a 10% fall in grades because of a less able cohort.

    I'd sure love to know which years were those of genius or stupidity.
    Why you so angry bruh
    I leave the anger to ydoethur - I am pointing out basic facts and asking inconvenient questions.

    We'll see if we get a prediction as to what 2020's pass rates should and will be.

    And which previous years have seen grades change by 10%.

    :wink:
    No. You were not asking ‘inconvenient questions.’ You were making false allegations and supporting an insupportable methodology.

    You have accused me of fraud, forgery and lying in a series of abusive posts and then have the nerve to accuse me of ‘frothing’ ‘anger,’ and of professional misconduct, all because you are defending failed career bureaucrats concealing their own failures, laziness and incompetence at the expense of children.

    And then you find this disaster funny. How repellant.

    You have shown yourself to be a loathsome person, which is sad because I had always thought of you as quite an interesting poster.

    But for now - fuck off. You’re not worth speaking to and I won’t bother.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,174
    Pitchviz indicating inconsistent bounce
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509

    Great keeping.....

    Why couldn’t they have Jos Buttler?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,999

    I wonder what the 2019 GE result would have been if Labour had never backed a second referendum but Corbyn had stayed on. Much the same I think

    The disdain was for Corbyn not the second referendum. Many former Remainers supported Johnson, only because he wasn't Corbyn.

    For a change I am not entirely sure I agree with David Herdson's thread header.
    People like to attack Starmer for Labour's Brexit policy but he wanted Labour to back Remain and I am under no doubt if he was the leader and had run on that, they would have done better
    No point worrying about its its and bits. We are where we are. Corbyn and his chums are history, although for them that penny is yet to drop.

    Anyway, can you imagine the furore if.a Labour Government had overseen the highest Covid deaths in Europe and a financial catastrophe not seen in modern UK history. Best leave Boris muddle through the next four years.anyway.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,046

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
    It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 657

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,999

    I wonder what the 2019 GE result would have been if Labour had never backed a second referendum but Corbyn had stayed on. Much the same I think

    The disdain was for Corbyn not the second referendum. Many former Remainers supported Johnson, only because he wasn't Corbyn.

    For a change I am not entirely sure I agree with David Herdson's thread header.
    People like to attack Starmer for Labour's Brexit policy but he wanted Labour to back Remain and I am under no doubt if he was the leader and had run on that, they would have done better
    No point worrying about its its and bits. We are where we are. Corbyn and his chums are history, although for them that penny is yet to drop.

    Anyway, can you imagine the furore if.a Labour Government had overseen the highest Covid deaths in Europe and a financial catastrophe not seen in modern UK history. Best leave Boris muddle through the next four years.anyway.
    Sorry. Auto correct has kindly "corrected "it is, what it is"for me. First line.
  • Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
    It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.
    But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians :wink:

    As was Blair before him.

    So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

    Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

    Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

    Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    edited August 2020
    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
    To come up with my grades, I had to do the following.

    1) Collate them from the subject heads.

    2) Check them against mocks.

    3) Check the mocks against the exams from last year

    4) if that was all in order, check against baseline grades to see if they were widely out and whether there might be reasons for that

    5) Feed back to the relevant SLT member

    6) Discuss the materials with her, including going over papers.

    7) Meet with her and the principal to agree final grades.

    And yes, changes did get made, some up, some down.

    Obviously this will have varied from school to school.

    But I am happy that my grades were realistic. Yes, they were better than last year, when I had a weak cohort, because I had a strong one. And that was confirmed by baseline data.

    I now find that some fat lazy twit in London doesn’t agree and so my students, whom I have worked with for years, will be graded on the basis of a computer model using data that isn’t valid. So that process lasting six weeks when I was also trying to teach online lessons was so much wasted effort.

    Anyone who thinks I have no reason to be angry can go fuck themselves. These people making these decisions care only about their worthless careers, and are ruining children’s lives to protect them.

    And that is still not to deny it was a stupid process to start, as I have said so many times. At the very least, I should have been asked to submit part of my evidence base. But the mere fact these mindless twats screwed up ab initio and are now screwing up further doesn’t let them off the fact that they have demonstrated total unfitness for office and need to be sacked.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,046
    edited August 2020
    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.
  • "Us and them" is the best narrative Labour has - and it's disappointing they aren't going on about that more.

    Johnson and Cummings started the work for them, which was very kind. Labour can finish it.

    That's the only dent to the Tory lead so far, not Brexit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,999
    Is that Mains Street USA or MainDMain Street References to Mickey Mouse spring conveniently to mind
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,759

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    I don't think so. I rather like Ed, and he has shown himself adept at analysing the faults in society and the economy. What he was poor at was deriving proposed solutions that work.

    His desire to improve the leadership election process in the party being one good example, the #edstone another.

    Corbynites seem convinced that Starmer is some sort of Blairite Centrist Dad. Personally, I would be quite happy with that, but we have no real idea that is true. He has not changed any Corbhnite policy yet, apart from driving out the antisemitites.I think he is right to concentrate his first year on getting the party back in shape, before serious work on a manifesto. Ed may be a useful man to have on that committee.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,046

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    That's probably true. He lacked maturity and self-confidence. For example one thing he regrets about GE15 was toning down his radicalism. This he did through fear of the press. The press that duly demonized him anyway. Bastards. Utter bastards. The recent Murdoch doc was fascinating on this topic.
  • Foxy said:

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    I don't think so. I rather like Ed, and he has shown himself adept at analysing the faults in society and the economy. What he was poor at was deriving proposed solutions that work.

    His desire to improve the leadership election process in the party being one good example, the #edstone another.

    Corbynites seem convinced that Starmer is some sort of Blairite Centrist Dad. Personally, I would be quite happy with that, but we have no real idea that is true. He has not changed any Corbhnite policy yet, apart from driving out the antisemitites.I think he is right to concentrate his first year on getting the party back in shape, before serious work on a manifesto. Ed may be a useful man to have on that committee.
    Keir is pragmatic and will sell 2017-lite because it polls well. He's not ideologically constrained which is the best thing about him - and I say that as a social democrat.
  • If Keir goes to work after EHRC which I think he will, then I think he will see a boost to his ratings and that of Labour
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,999
    kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Johnson has said several times during the pandemic that Starmer is opposing for the sake of opposition. Sometimes criticism through an emergency looks churlish.

    There will be plenty to talk about when the verdict on the Government's Covid performance is in. It is not like Starmer putting forward common sense strategies at present will cut any ice with Johnson.

    Labour have already complained about "track and trace". Johnson has responded by saying UK "track and trace" is "world-beating" and everyone takes his word for it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,759

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    Well I don't support them , why ask teachers to do it and then make them out to be cheats and liars by making up another system to trash the teachers opinions.
    I would be less than happy if I was a teacher for sure and you calling Scottish teachers liars and cheats deserves abuse that I would get banned for.
    Nation 5
    2016-2019 average 78.6%
    2020 actual after lowering 81.1%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.6%

    Higher
    2016-2019 average 76.5%
    2020 actual after lowering 78.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.8%

    Advanced Higher
    2016-2019 average 80.4%
    2020 actual after lowering 84.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 92.8%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53636296

    Its the Scottish government who has done a better job than the teachers.
    I find that a rather curious sort of logic, and quite authoritarian. In principle because of the size of the cohort, marks should be overall broadly consistent from year to year.

    It is on the individual basis that the injustice will be done. This will be the bright undergraded pupil missing marks and not getting a Uni place, and someone else marked up getting it instead, and perhaps struggling on the course as a result.

    After all, I could allocate candidates the same proportions of grades as last year by rolling dice. The proportions would match and job done. The point of examinations though is to base the marks on individual efforts.

  • kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Johnson has said several times during the pandemic that Starmer is opposing for the sake of opposition. Sometimes criticism through an emergency looks churlish.

    There will be plenty to talk about when the verdict on the Government's Covid performance is in. It is not like Starmer putting forward common sense strategies at present will cut any ice with Johnson.

    Labour have already complained about "track and trace". Johnson has responded by saying UK "track and trace" is "world-beating" and everyone takes his word for it.
    I think Keir has concluded opposition at this stage is fairly pointless and I think he's right.

    I think he's not cutting through because he can't cut through. But what he is doing is preparing the groundwork for Labour to become sensible again.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    So you were also happy with them raising a significant number of grades based on a mathematical model from a 23 year old research paper?
    They can do what what they have to, its not an easy situation.

    But the incessant self-serving whine ** from teachers does not impress.

    Especially after they have exposed themselves as cheats and liars by massively over predicting grades.

    Now I'm sure that you will say that you personally do not over-predict grades.

    In which case that should make you direct your abuse at the many teachers who do.

    ** Reminiscent of the incessant self-serving whine in 2012 when 20+ years of grade inflation was brought to an end.
    So you’re quite happy about poor children being clobbered by an algorithm that isn’t valid run by a bunch of failed civil servants who have repeatedly demonstrated over many years they haven’t a fucking clue what they’re doing?

    How very revealing.

    Again, though, you miss the point, possibly wilfully, that they have only used data from teachers in a small minority of cases. So your criticism doesn’t even work.
    Stop frothing, you're not in class now.

    I'm no more a supporter of the education bureaucracy than I am of other government bureaucracies.

    But let me ask you a question.

    Given that last year over 97% of A levels were passes and over 25% were A grades what do you think this year's results should and will be.
    OK, I will answer.

    My very distinct impression, and this impression is backed by a number of conversations I have had, is that this year‘s cohort were rather abler than last year’s. Last year, I had around 25% at 7+. Given the quality of the students I had, and the quality of my own teaching, that would normally be nearer 50%. Anecdotal I know, but there was reason to expect a rise before the pandemic hit.

    That is compounded by the fact that teachers have now a little time to get used to the new exams, and the marking criteria has finally stabilised. So the delivery of the courses has improved substantially.

    So it doesn’t surprise me that grades were up 10% on teacher predictions than on last year. In fact, it suggests that probably they were quite realistic.

    Unless we had ten to fifteen years of data to draw on, it’s not possible to model out background noise. That’s what they’ve tried to do and that’s what’s going to get them into trouble.

    You might argue, with some justice, that DfE requirements and the cowardice of Gove mean that grades are normally standardised from year to year anyway. True to an extent. But that would only be valid if you could expect the school cohorts to be exactly consistent from year to year, which is clearly a nonsense. Otherwise, you would expect abler students in the cohort to attend different schools so there could be very wide variation from year to year. This method has put in place a wallet lottery.

    Does that answer your question?
    No it doesn't - how about you give some numbers so we can compare with what actually happens.

    Unless Darwin has kicked up a couple of gears then an 'abler cohort' should change things by about 0.1%.

    Some schools will do much better than that while others do the opposite.

    Amazing though that this 'abler cohort' came through this year.

    Perhaps you can inform us which other years had a 10% increase in grades because of an 'abler cohort' or a 10% fall in grades because of a less able cohort.

    I'd sure love to know which years were those of genius or stupidity.
    Why you so angry bruh
    I leave the anger to ydoethur - I am pointing out basic facts and asking inconvenient questions.

    We'll see if we get a prediction as to what 2020's pass rates should and will be.

    And which previous years have seen grades change by 10%.

    :wink:
    No. You were not asking ‘inconvenient questions.’ You were making false allegations and supporting an insupportable methodology.

    You have accused me of fraud, forgery and lying in a series of abusive posts and then have the nerve to accuse me of ‘frothing’ ‘anger,’ and of professional misconduct, all because you are defending failed career bureaucrats concealing their own failures, laziness and incompetence at the expense of children.

    And then you find this disaster funny. How repellant.

    You have shown yourself to be a loathsome person, which is sad because I had always thought of you as quite an interesting poster.

    But for now - fuck off. You’re not worth speaking to and I won’t bother.
    You're not going to give a prediction of what you think grades should and will be are you.

    Is that because you want to repeat your usual frothing against Gove and Cummings and giving your own predictions might make that more difficult ?

    So instead you spout drivel about an 'abler cohort' without anything to back it up.

    Followed by a tirade and tantrum which while amusing is a little pitiful.

    I understand it must be a worrying time for you so hopefully people will make allowances.

    :smile:
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,759
    Transparent nonsense from a man always wobbling on about how great the stock market has done in his time, and wouldn't recognise Main St if he drove his golf cart down it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,046
    edited August 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
    It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.
    But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians :wink:

    As was Blair before him.

    So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

    Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

    Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

    Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.
    He had an image problem. No question about that. You think his image was a fair reflection of reality, I don't. Doesn't matter. In politics there is no practical difference between the two. For example, I think Boris Johnson is a frivolous charlatan out for himself only. But there are millions of suckers out there who think he's a breath of fresh air, a very human politician who is relatable, dynamic, gets things done and tells it like it is. As long as I'm outnumbered by the suckers their perception trumps mine.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,738
    ydoethur said:

    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
    To come up with my grades, I had to do the following.

    1) Collate them from the subject heads.

    2) Check them against mocks.

    3) Check the mocks against the exams from last year

    4) if that was all in order, check against baseline grades to see if they were widely out and whether there might be reasons for that

    5) Feed back to the relevant SLT member

    6) Discuss the materials with her, including going over papers.

    7) Meet with her and the principal to agree final grades.

    And yes, changes did get made, some up, some down.

    Obviously this will have varied from school to school.

    But I am happy that my grades were realistic. Yes, they were better than last year, when I had a weak cohort, because I had a strong one. And that was confirmed by baseline data.

    I now find that some fat lazy twit in London doesn’t agree and so my students, whom I have worked with for years, will be graded on the basis of a computer model using data that isn’t valid. So that process lasting six weeks when I was also trying to teach online lessons was so much wasted effort.

    Anyone who thinks I have no reason to be angry can go fuck themselves. These people making these decisions care only about their worthless careers, and are ruining children’s lives to protect them.

    And that is still not to deny it was a stupid process to start, as I have said so many times. At the very least, I should have been asked to submit part of my evidence base. But the mere fact these mindless twats screwed up ab initio and are now screwing up further doesn’t let them off the fact that they have demonstrated total unfitness for office and need to be sacked.
    Are you talking about GCSE or A level results?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
    To come up with my grades, I had to do the following.

    1) Collate them from the subject heads.

    2) Check them against mocks.

    3) Check the mocks against the exams from last year

    4) if that was all in order, check against baseline grades to see if they were widely out and whether there might be reasons for that

    5) Feed back to the relevant SLT member

    6) Discuss the materials with her, including going over papers.

    7) Meet with her and the principal to agree final grades.

    And yes, changes did get made, some up, some down.

    Obviously this will have varied from school to school.

    But I am happy that my grades were realistic. Yes, they were better than last year, when I had a weak cohort, because I had a strong one. And that was confirmed by baseline data.

    I now find that some fat lazy twit in London doesn’t agree and so my students, whom I have worked with for years, will be graded on the basis of a computer model using data that isn’t valid. So that process lasting six weeks when I was also trying to teach online lessons was so much wasted effort.

    Anyone who thinks I have no reason to be angry can go fuck themselves. These people making these decisions care only about their worthless careers, and are ruining children’s lives to protect them.

    And that is still not to deny it was a stupid process to start, as I have said so many times. At the very least, I should have been asked to submit part of my evidence base. But the mere fact these mindless twats screwed up ab initio and are now screwing up further doesn’t let them off the fact that they have demonstrated total unfitness for office and need to be sacked.
    Are you talking about GCSE or A level results?
    Both.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,777
    Told you this Test was nicely balanced.....
  • Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.
    Our local education expert opines that teachers are cheats and liars, you could not make it up. Good old another richardhead
    Perhaps you could compare the grades Scottish teachers predicted with what had been achieved in previous years ?

    And if you'd thought instead of switching automatically into abuse you would see I have backed the action of the Scottish government in lowering those predicted grades.
    Well I don't support them , why ask teachers to do it and then make them out to be cheats and liars by making up another system to trash the teachers opinions.
    I would be less than happy if I was a teacher for sure and you calling Scottish teachers liars and cheats deserves abuse that I would get banned for.
    Nation 5
    2016-2019 average 78.6%
    2020 actual after lowering 81.1%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.6%

    Higher
    2016-2019 average 76.5%
    2020 actual after lowering 78.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 88.8%

    Advanced Higher
    2016-2019 average 80.4%
    2020 actual after lowering 84.9%
    2020 teacher predicted 92.8%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53636296

    Its the Scottish government who has done a better job than the teachers.
    I find that a rather curious sort of logic, and quite authoritarian. In principle because of the size of the cohort, marks should be overall broadly consistent from year to year.

    It is on the individual basis that the injustice will be done. This will be the bright undergraded pupil missing marks and not getting a Uni place, and someone else marked up getting it instead, and perhaps struggling on the course as a result.

    After all, I could allocate candidates the same proportions of grades as last year by rolling dice. The proportions would match and job done. The point of examinations though is to base the marks on individual efforts.

    Indeed.

    Now unless grades are consistently over-predicted each year (which if so would be worthy of investigation in itself) then something has gone wrong with the predictions this year.

    As most teachers will have predicted the grades as per normal years then for such an overall increase to have happened there must have been rampant over prediction in a minority of cases.

    With the unfortunate consequences you outline in your second paragraph.

    And as the increase in predicted grades happens in each of the three years then talk of an 'abler cohort' doesn't explain it.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,103

    kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Johnson has said several times during the pandemic that Starmer is opposing for the sake of opposition. Sometimes criticism through an emergency looks churlish.

    There will be plenty to talk about when the verdict on the Government's Covid performance is in. It is not like Starmer putting forward common sense strategies at present will cut any ice with Johnson.

    Labour have already complained about "track and trace". Johnson has responded by saying UK "track and trace" is "world-beating" and everyone takes his word for it.
    I think Keir has concluded opposition at this stage is fairly pointless and I think he's right.

    I think he's not cutting through because he can't cut through. But what he is doing is preparing the groundwork for Labour to become sensible again.
    But he has cut through - in some polls he leads Johnson as preferred PM!
  • ydoethur said:

    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
    To come up with my grades, I had to do the following.

    1) Collate them from the subject heads.

    2) Check them against mocks.

    3) Check the mocks against the exams from last year

    4) if that was all in order, check against baseline grades to see if they were widely out and whether there might be reasons for that

    5) Feed back to the relevant SLT member

    6) Discuss the materials with her, including going over papers.

    7) Meet with her and the principal to agree final grades.

    And yes, changes did get made, some up, some down.

    Obviously this will have varied from school to school.

    But I am happy that my grades were realistic. Yes, they were better than last year, when I had a weak cohort, because I had a strong one. And that was confirmed by baseline data.

    I now find that some fat lazy twit in London doesn’t agree and so my students, whom I have worked with for years, will be graded on the basis of a computer model using data that isn’t valid. So that process lasting six weeks when I was also trying to teach online lessons was so much wasted effort.

    Anyone who thinks I have no reason to be angry can go fuck themselves. These people making these decisions care only about their worthless careers, and are ruining children’s lives to protect them.

    And that is still not to deny it was a stupid process to start, as I have said so many times. At the very least, I should have been asked to submit part of my evidence base. But the mere fact these mindless twats screwed up ab initio and are now screwing up further doesn’t let them off the fact that they have demonstrated total unfitness for office and need to be sacked.
    You, of course, have the experience and wisdom to do all of that. I'm reasonably sure that your SLT can as well. In a lot of schools, the turnover of staff and management make that judgement a lot more difficult. (The half-life of a new physics teacher in the state sector is about 5 years.)

    The problem with teacher grades isn't rampant dishonesty, but that awarding grades is difficult enough when the work is highly controlled, the criteria are well established and the candidates are anonymous. So this year was always going to be hard.

    Even if the system had gone well overall, there would still have been cases where it hurt individuals badly. Trying to run a mini exam series in the autumn is a sensible safety valve, but it needs a lot of organisation to make it work, which doesn't seem to be happening.

    I suspect a smarter process would have been to accept the limits of what TA can do, and seek to soften the impacts; ensure that students future plans are smoothed out as much as possible. Instead, we've had a highly technocratic number-crunching exercise, which people are being told to swallow because the computer says so, even if some of the effects on individuals are horrific. And them some last minute kludges to placate those with loud voices, even if they make the overall unfairness even worse.

    And that's very on-brand for this government.
  • kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Its not like no-one has discussed is the PM a clown and Labour need to highlight it. A third of the country thinks he is a clown, a third of the country will stick with him whatever, the middle third can and will make their own minds up by 2024 without prompting from Starmer or the Labour party.

    Starmers job is to try and ensure there are very few voters going to the ballot box thinking "he is a clown but I have no choice to vote for him because of Labour" rather than trying to convince voters Johnson is a clown. Those decisions will be made on the govts record.

    Noisy criticism of the govt during a pandemic is counter productive. Broadly staying supportive, whilst planting some seeds of criticism during the pandemic, that can be exploited later, when everyone has the benefit of hindsight and are less worried, is the right strategy.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 953
    One problem that Labour have is that their members and MPs don't seem to get that people still trust Boris to a certain extent. The number of times I've seen, otherwise rational, people say things like "look at that opinion poll, are people stupid still supporting the tories". the visceral hatred for the tories seems to prevent them from building a coalition which includes tory voters. if you tell people "what you voted for is stupid you should have voted for me" then you won't get them to change their mind. They appeared to do it a lot with Brexit, which caused some of the shift in the red wall seats.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,100
    Probably a load of incels who are bored waiting for the next neo-nazi get-together.
  • kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Nations don't cooperate unless they are joined in a political union? That'll be news to a lot of people.

    If the specific request is laughable that's one thing, but the implication seems to be that cooperation among sovereign entities is either weak or cause for hilarity. Nonsense designed to make people feel superior in other words.
    Ex husbands and wives of course co-operate on many things, sometimes very successfully, sometimes failing to work together. The same is true of husbands and wives. However, the married couple will on average co-operate far more successfully than the divorced ones.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,100

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,046

    kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Its not like no-one has discussed is the PM a clown and Labour need to highlight it. A third of the country thinks he is a clown, a third of the country will stick with him whatever, the middle third can and will make their own minds up by 2024 without prompting from Starmer or the Labour party.

    Starmers job is to try and ensure there are very few voters going to the ballot box thinking "he is a clown but I have no choice to vote for him because of Labour" rather than trying to convince voters Johnson is a clown. Those decisions will be made on the govts record.

    Noisy criticism of the govt during a pandemic is counter productive. Broadly staying supportive, whilst planting some seeds of criticism during the pandemic, that can be exploited later, when everyone has the benefit of hindsight and are less worried, is the right strategy.
    You could be right and I hope you are.
  • Probably a load of incels who are bored waiting for the next neo-nazi get-together.
    Somebody should pull down a statue they have never seen of someone they have never heard of to relieve their boredom.
  • Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    David should have won
  • Probably a load of incels who are bored waiting for the next neo-nazi get-together.
    Daily Mail comments are awful
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 953

    kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Its not like no-one has discussed is the PM a clown and Labour need to highlight it. A third of the country thinks he is a clown, a third of the country will stick with him whatever, the middle third can and will make their own minds up by 2024 without prompting from Starmer or the Labour party.

    Starmers job is to try and ensure there are very few voters going to the ballot box thinking "he is a clown but I have no choice to vote for him because of Labour" rather than trying to convince voters Johnson is a clown. Those decisions will be made on the govts record.

    Noisy criticism of the govt during a pandemic is counter productive. Broadly staying supportive, whilst planting some seeds of criticism during the pandemic, that can be exploited later, when everyone has the benefit of hindsight and are less worried, is the right strategy.
    There are four kinds of voters. ones who never vote, ones who will never vote for you, ones who will always vote for you and everyone else.

    The thing that Tony Blair knew is that you go for the 'everyone else'. Going for the non-voters is a risk because they rarely show up in enough numbers to make a difference. going for the will always vote for you is too easy (it's popular with the party) but rarely attracts anyone else. and going for the will never vote for you is just wasted effort.

    Starmer has time, and low expectations from the public, but he needs to actually show a vision which people in the middle can get behind. even if it upsets some of the base. at the moment I'm not sure what his labour party stands for.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,103

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    Both were entitled to run! I have never understood this obsession with primogeniture.at all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,759

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    I don't think primogeniture an appropriate reason to chose a party leader, or indeed anything else. Speaking as a second child!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    Yeah, brothers should never be allowed to compete.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,777

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    David should have won
    I think David could well have played as badly with the general public as he did with the membership. Would have done worse than Ed against Cameron.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,759

    Probably a load of incels who are bored waiting for the next neo-nazi get-together.
    It sounds as if the body shaming was because of her skin condition rather than body shape.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
    It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.
    But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians :wink:

    As was Blair before him.

    So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

    Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

    Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

    Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.
    He had an image problem. No question about that. You think his image was a fair reflection of reality, I don't. Doesn't matter. In politics there is no practical difference between the two. For example, I think Boris Johnson is a frivolous charlatan out for himself only. But there are millions of suckers out there who think he's a breath of fresh air, a very human politician who is relatable, dynamic, gets things done and tells it like it is. As long as I'm outnumbered by the suckers their perception trumps mine.
    There's image and reality and there's style and substance and there's my view and your view.

    I always liked EdM for the way he won the Labour leadership and thought him better than his brother but I do wonder if he would have been better off without the 'beta brother / MilliMinor' image which hung over him.

    Perhaps one sibling per family should be the law among political clans.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,103
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
    It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.
    But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians :wink:

    As was Blair before him.

    So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

    Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

    Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

    Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.
    For example, I think Boris Johnson is a frivolous charlatan out for himself only. But there are millions of suckers out there who think he's a breath of fresh air, a very human politician who is relatable, dynamic, gets things done and tells it like it is. As long as I'm outnumbered by the suckers their perception trumps mine.
    Just like Trump - or the Kray twins!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,759
    spudgfsh said:

    kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Its not like no-one has discussed is the PM a clown and Labour need to highlight it. A third of the country thinks he is a clown, a third of the country will stick with him whatever, the middle third can and will make their own minds up by 2024 without prompting from Starmer or the Labour party.

    Starmers job is to try and ensure there are very few voters going to the ballot box thinking "he is a clown but I have no choice to vote for him because of Labour" rather than trying to convince voters Johnson is a clown. Those decisions will be made on the govts record.

    Noisy criticism of the govt during a pandemic is counter productive. Broadly staying supportive, whilst planting some seeds of criticism during the pandemic, that can be exploited later, when everyone has the benefit of hindsight and are less worried, is the right strategy.
    There are four kinds of voters. ones who never vote, ones who will never vote for you, ones who will always vote for you and everyone else.

    The thing that Tony Blair knew is that you go for the 'everyone else'. Going for the non-voters is a risk because they rarely show up in enough numbers to make a difference. going for the will always vote for you is too easy (it's popular with the party) but rarely attracts anyone else. and going for the will never vote for you is just wasted effort.

    Starmer has time, and low expectations from the public, but he needs to actually show a vision which people in the middle can get behind. even if it upsets some of the base. at the moment I'm not sure what his labour party stands for.
    I would like to se Rayner being pushed forward by the party a bit more. She could make a very effective foil to Starmer. That flame haired firebrand could never be depicted as boring or stuffy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,777
    justin124 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Just read the Header and I strongly agree.

    Labour need to start building the narrative that Boris "Boris" Johnson is a vacuous lump of poshboy privilege who is utterly clueless at anything other than self-promotion and that his breezy insouciant incompetence in this time of great national crisis is taking a terrible toll in lives and livelihoods.

    Cometh the hour cometh the clown.

    Johnson has said several times during the pandemic that Starmer is opposing for the sake of opposition. Sometimes criticism through an emergency looks churlish.

    There will be plenty to talk about when the verdict on the Government's Covid performance is in. It is not like Starmer putting forward common sense strategies at present will cut any ice with Johnson.

    Labour have already complained about "track and trace". Johnson has responded by saying UK "track and trace" is "world-beating" and everyone takes his word for it.
    I think Keir has concluded opposition at this stage is fairly pointless and I think he's right.

    I think he's not cutting through because he can't cut through. But what he is doing is preparing the groundwork for Labour to become sensible again.
    But he has cut through - in some polls he leads Johnson as preferred PM!
    His party isn't.

    He is selling a Poundland product.
  • Foxy said:

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    I don't think primogeniture an appropriate reason to chose a party leader, or indeed anything else. Speaking as a second child!
    Hard to argue with the logic there! But irrationally it does seem disloyal somehow, accepting I am being unfair. Possibly its a very British sin of being seen to try too hard?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    Yeah, brothers should never be allowed to compete.
    The oddest thing about the 'EdM shouldn't have competed against his older brother' line is that David Miliband had had at least four chances to go for the leadership previously and had declined them all.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,443
    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 29,218
    IshmaelZ said:

    The predictable failure of the forensic approach. Lawyers are about (and only about) proving that point 17a of their opponent's case is wrong, then point 17b, and so on, when the required message is: everything about you is wrong, and this is how to do it right.

    That depends on the lawyer.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 953
    Foxy said:

    I would like to se Rayner being pushed forward by the party a bit more. She could make a very effective foil to Starmer. That flame haired firebrand could never be depicted as boring or stuffy.

    The personalities, while important, are not what matters in the long run. Parties get elected from opposition when they can show a vision of what can happen in the future under them and also it has to appeal more than what the current government is actually doing. Starmer has yet to do this and hasn't needed to either. but you can't win an election, in this country, by opposing alone.
  • justin124 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
    I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.
    EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

    Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different. :wink:
    lol - as if.

    But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".
    But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

    Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

    Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

    He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.
    It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.
    But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians :wink:

    As was Blair before him.

    So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

    Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

    Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

    Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.
    For example, I think Boris Johnson is a frivolous charlatan out for himself only. But there are millions of suckers out there who think he's a breath of fresh air, a very human politician who is relatable, dynamic, gets things done and tells it like it is. As long as I'm outnumbered by the suckers their perception trumps mine.
    Just like Trump - or the Kray twins!
    You have lost it
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 29,218

    justin124 said:

    A good article as always, though I believe David understates the extent to which the Covid crisis continues to override everything else. At this time the electorate is not likely to be receptive to other messages - other than when serious mistakes have clearly been made. Starmer has put the Government on the defensive in relation to Care Homes and brought about U-Turns on policies such as entry of Care Workers into UK. The polls mean little at this stage and many are like to respond to surveys as if being asked 'How did you vote at the last GE?'. I recall too that in the Parliament elected in June 1987 the Tories remained ahead until Spring 1989.

    The collapse of Johnson's approval and best PM ratings are vindication enough for Stamer's strategy. The PM is now a discredited figure.
    His ratings are good enough for a PM, nine months into a new Parliament.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,376

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    David should have won
    Yes, he would definitely have been prime minister by now if elected leader in 2010.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    Aaaargh.

    Some pillock of a commentator has just said ‘Chris Woakes looks in great touch.’

    He’s doomed.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 657
    ydoethur said:

    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
    To come up with my grades, I had to do the following.

    1) Collate them from the subject heads.

    2) Check them against mocks.

    3) Check the mocks against the exams from last year

    4) if that was all in order, check against baseline grades to see if they were widely out and whether there might be reasons for that

    5) Feed back to the relevant SLT member

    6) Discuss the materials with her, including going over papers.

    7) Meet with her and the principal to agree final grades.

    And yes, changes did get made, some up, some down.

    Obviously this will have varied from school to school.

    But I am happy that my grades were realistic. Yes, they were better than last year, when I had a weak cohort, because I had a strong one. And that was confirmed by baseline data.

    I now find that some fat lazy twit in London doesn’t agree and so my students, whom I have worked with for years, will be graded on the basis of a computer model using data that isn’t valid. So that process lasting six weeks when I was also trying to teach online lessons was so much wasted effort.

    Anyone who thinks I have no reason to be angry can go fuck themselves. These people making these decisions care only about their worthless careers, and are ruining children’s lives to protect them.

    And that is still not to deny it was a stupid process to start, as I have said so many times. At the very least, I should have been asked to submit part of my evidence base. But the mere fact these mindless twats screwed up ab initio and are now screwing up further doesn’t let them off the fact that they have demonstrated total unfitness for office and need to be sacked.
    You certainly have my sympathy if you had to go through all that!

    But a question, if I may. Did you ever take part in the CSE exams? These were abolished by the Government of the day, in order to make way for the GCSE.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 953
    Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    A good article as always, though I believe David understates the extent to which the Covid crisis continues to override everything else. At this time the electorate is not likely to be receptive to other messages - other than when serious mistakes have clearly been made. Starmer has put the Government on the defensive in relation to Care Homes and brought about U-Turns on policies such as entry of Care Workers into UK. The polls mean little at this stage and many are like to respond to surveys as if being asked 'How did you vote at the last GE?'. I recall too that in the Parliament elected in June 1987 the Tories remained ahead until Spring 1989.

    The collapse of Johnson's approval and best PM ratings are vindication enough for Stamer's strategy. The PM is now a discredited figure.
    His ratings are good enough for a PM, nine months into a new Parliament.
    Even if it wasn't the Tory party are ruthless at getting rid of a PM when it looks like they may lose the next election. (Major excluded - but there were no better alternatives). If Labour actually want to win the next election they can't assume it'll happen by default
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    A good article as always, though I believe David understates the extent to which the Covid crisis continues to override everything else. At this time the electorate is not likely to be receptive to other messages - other than when serious mistakes have clearly been made. Starmer has put the Government on the defensive in relation to Care Homes and brought about U-Turns on policies such as entry of Care Workers into UK. The polls mean little at this stage and many are like to respond to surveys as if being asked 'How did you vote at the last GE?'. I recall too that in the Parliament elected in June 1987 the Tories remained ahead until Spring 1989.

    The collapse of Johnson's approval and best PM ratings are vindication enough for Stamer's strategy. The PM is now a discredited figure.
    His ratings are good enough for a PM, nine months into a new Parliament.
    As so often before the bubble thinks it's the whole country.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    Do Australia, New Zealand and Canada want good (perhaps really good) relations with the UK?

    Yes.

    Is there any interest in them pooling sovereignty with the UK?

    No.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 29,218

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    A Canzak Union should have been our objective. But, we're several generations too late.

    One of the oddities of British Imperial policy was that we could only envisage countries being colonies, or being independent. We could not envisage overseas territories being part of the mother country.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533
    Foxy said:

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    I don't think primogeniture an appropriate reason to chose a party leader, or indeed anything else. Speaking as a second child!
    You were second.

    Suck it up, loser.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    Andy_JS said:

    Ed M became the leader too early.

    If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

    He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

    Spare me any violins.
    David should have won
    Yes, he would definitely have been prime minister by now if elected leader in 2010.
    'Definitely' - about as absurd and pointless a statement as anyone could make about politics. Or anything else for that matter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ClippP said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

    A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

    If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

    What happens Thursday?
    A-level grades come out.

    Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

    But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

    1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

    2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

    3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

    Which means the following:

    1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

    2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

    3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

    4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

    5) Expect the exam system in October to implode due to the huge number of resits, far beyond the system's capacity.

    6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

    7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

    8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

    And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

    This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

    Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

    More here:

    https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

    TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.
    Thank you.

    If the teachers' grades had been accepted, would the headlines instead have been "Massive Grade Inflation"?

    At least OFQUAL have published their methodology before the results come out, unlike the SQA who did it after.
    How about, ‘if the government had come up with a sensible process at first, rather than through random press releases based on a lack of understanding of what was involved, we wouldn’t have this clusterfuck?’

    It was blindingly obvious at thetime to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there were better alternatives. The government deliberately chose one that was always bound to lead to this problem, and then appear to have discarded it in favour of a much worse one.
    Would a sensible process have involved teacher grade expectations? If it had, how should we seek to make sure the grades awarded this year were broadly similar to those awarded in previous years?
    Teachers´ forecasts are useful for getting the pupils in the right order within the class, or even witin the school.

    You then need a criterion to establish how well one school compares with all the rest. Obviously you turn to previous results. It won´t matter all that much if the syllabus has changed (thinks to the general incompetence of Grove and Cummings). In general the quality of the pupil intake and the quality of the teaching will be much as before.

    In the good old days, so it was said, exam boards allocated a pre-specified percentage to students to each grade (then expressed as percentages). These were constant over the years.

    I think there is some special pleading going on...
    To come up with my grades, I had to do the following.

    1) Collate them from the subject heads.

    2) Check them against mocks.

    3) Check the mocks against the exams from last year

    4) if that was all in order, check against baseline grades to see if they were widely out and whether there might be reasons for that

    5) Feed back to the relevant SLT member

    6) Discuss the materials with her, including going over papers.

    7) Meet with her and the principal to agree final grades.

    And yes, changes did get made, some up, some down.

    Obviously this will have varied from school to school.

    But I am happy that my grades were realistic. Yes, they were better than last year, when I had a weak cohort, because I had a strong one. And that was confirmed by baseline data.

    I now find that some fat lazy twit in London doesn’t agree and so my students, whom I have worked with for years, will be graded on the basis of a computer model using data that isn’t valid. So that process lasting six weeks when I was also trying to teach online lessons was so much wasted effort.

    Anyone who thinks I have no reason to be angry can go fuck themselves. These people making these decisions care only about their worthless careers, and are ruining children’s lives to protect them.

    And that is still not to deny it was a stupid process to start, as I have said so many times. At the very least, I should have been asked to submit part of my evidence base. But the mere fact these mindless twats screwed up ab initio and are now screwing up further doesn’t let them off the fact that they have demonstrated total unfitness for office and need to be sacked.
    You certainly have my sympathy if you had to go through all that!

    But a question, if I may. Did you ever take part in the CSE exams? These were abolished by the Government of the day, in order to make way for the GCSE.
    How could I, given I was born in 1983 and they were abolished in 1987?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    Sean_F said:

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    A Canzak Union should have been our objective. But, we're several generations too late.

    One of the oddities of British Imperial policy was that we could only envisage countries being colonies, or being independent. We could not envisage overseas territories being part of the mother country.
    We even rejected Malta when they *asked* for full union.
  • Sean_F said:

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    A Canzak Union should have been our objective. But, we're several generations too late.

    One of the oddities of British Imperial policy was that we could only envisage countries being colonies, or being independent. We could not envisage overseas territories being part of the mother country.
    It seems they didn't learn what went wrong with the 13 colonies which became the USA.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,174

    England more doomed that Crassus at Carrhae.

    Start chopping the pineapple
  • Sean_F said:

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    A Canzak Union should have been our objective. But, we're several generations too late.

    One of the oddities of British Imperial policy was that we could only envisage countries being colonies, or being independent. We could not envisage overseas territories being part of the mother country.
    By their locations alone surely Australia and Canada have very different geo-political interests and priorities? Add in the UK and you have one economy dependent on China, one on the US and another on the EU. No idea how this would be supposed to be stable.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    edited August 2020

    Sean_F said:

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    A Canzak Union should have been our objective. But, we're several generations too late.

    One of the oddities of British Imperial policy was that we could only envisage countries being colonies, or being independent. We could not envisage overseas territories being part of the mother country.
    It seems they didn't learn what went wrong with the 13 colonies which became the USA.
    I presume on the basis that it would end up being too costly. As an alternative I don't think the Commonwealth has been such a bad thing..so far.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,777
    Pulpstar said:

    England more doomed that Crassus at Carrhae.

    Start chopping the pineapple
    I'm saying nothing.....
  • Pulpstar said:

    England more doomed that Crassus at Carrhae.

    Start chopping the pineapple
    If I have a normal pizza then pineapple and ice cream as dessert then counts as a pineapple pizza right?
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fck me, they're still wibbling on about this. Next: why Ireland needs to rejoin the UK.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1291962374421917698?s=20

    A Canzak Union should have been our objective. But, we're several generations too late.

    One of the oddities of British Imperial policy was that we could only envisage countries being colonies, or being independent. We could not envisage overseas territories being part of the mother country.
    We even rejected Malta when they *asked* for full union.
    Went there on my last cruise a while back - the high street featured Matalan and 'Peacocks of London' - the ties seemed still strong :)
  • eekeek Posts: 11,738

    Pulpstar said:

    England more doomed that Crassus at Carrhae.

    Start chopping the pineapple
    If I have a normal pizza then pineapple and ice cream as dessert then counts as a pineapple pizza right?
    I don't know how to break it to you but NO.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509

    Pulpstar said:

    England more doomed that Crassus at Carrhae.

    Start chopping the pineapple
    If I have a normal pizza then pineapple and ice cream as dessert then counts as a pineapple pizza right?
    I don’t think you need worry. Tailender are having a thrash but will get out fast and then we’ll fold like a house of cards.
  • Trump in Scotland

    Mother Jones continues its pursuit of the money behind Trump's Scottish resorts. Tbh it seems a bit evidence-light so far.

    Donald Trump dumped $400 million into his clubs in Aberdeen and Turnberry. Now, lawmakers in Edinburgh want to investigate him for money laundering.
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/the-biggest-trump-financial-mystery-where-he-came-up-with-the-cash-for-his-scottish-resorts/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    edited August 2020
    Double Nelson...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 16,337
    Pineapple Pizza 1/5 Favorite
  • Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...
  • https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1292124661279526914

    The UK has clap for carers, step up Australia
  • Paywalled but I hope they are right because in the past hour I've topped up on the front two, Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. We need to tread carefully because Joe Biden is due to announce his choice in the next few days so no doubt there are several people who already know where his pin has landed.
This discussion has been closed.