politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An opportunity for Sir Keir to set the agenda

First ... yet again!

peter_from_putney said:

First ... yet again!

We regret to inform you that your placing has been adjusted one grade downwards.

Betting Post

F1: backed Kvyat for points at 6.5 (7 with boost). He was into the points last weekend and only failed to score due to a reliability failure. This time he was fast enough to be top 10 but got a time eliminated.

https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/08/70th-anniversary-grand-prix-pre-race.html

felix said:

IanB2 said:

It's taken just 12 months for Boris Johnson to create a government of sleaze. From Dominic Cummings to dodgy business deals, the prime minister’s circle behave as if the rules simply don’t apply to them

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/07/its-taken-just-12-months-for-boris-johnson-to-create-a-government-of-sleaze

The Guardian criticising a Tory government - who'd have thought it?

If you'd bothered to read it, you'd have noted this ironic footnote: The Scott Trust, the ultimate owner of the Guardian, is the sole investor in GMG Ventures, which is a minority shareholder in Faculty.

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

We were experimenting, if that's quite the right word, with a more nuanced system were we not, until a Mr Gove, on the advice of his 'assistant, a Mr Cummings, scrapped it.

The CV19 exam set up has been a debacle from start to finish. Quite how the politicians and bureaucrats decided to screw over a generation of kids is beyond me.

ydoethur said:

Well said TSE. This is not just a test of Starmer but of Kate Green. New to the job, and so far as I can judge mostly invisible up to now, she needs to cut through on this issue.

I do have one minor quibble though. You compare Gavin Williamson to Frank Spencer. That’s monstrously unfair. Frank Spencer was well meaning and quite funny.

It was either that or ‘Gavin Williamson who fewer than 18 months ago was sacked in disgrace for being an egregious national security risk.’

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On grades, one important point is, as we discussed a couple of days ago, that universities will almost certainly be lowering their offers in order to fill courses, so before reaching for the whisky and pearl handled revolver, downgraded students should check if they've got into university anyway.

On kremlinology, this row will no doubt fuel #ClassicDom's conviction that only he and his data science cronies truly understand statistics and probability.

Whether pupils get into their preferred 6th form or university isn`t the issue. I don`t doubt that they will. The problem is that pupils stand to be recognised by grades which are inferior to those they would have got if they had taken the exams and the knock on their self-esteem that this will imply.

My daughter is not acadamic but has worked hard to get what other would regard as mediocre grades. I am concerned that even our modest hopes will be dashed and she ends up with grades lower than she has already evidenced that she is capable of by way of the recent mock exams - just because of some ruddy algorythm.

It is no good saying "she can still take the GCSEs in November". The work involved from a standing start to take these exams now is a non-starter.

We risk denting children`s self-esteem for life. It`s that serious.

The A’s for Eton scandal.

eek said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

We were experimenting, if that's quite the right word, with a more nuanced system were we not, until a Mr Gove, on the advice of his 'assistant, a Mr Cummings, scrapped it.

And took us back to a set of exams designed for when memory was important as the internet didn't exist.

Nowadays I don't want to know what you know what I need to know is how well you can find things out.

The only reason coursework survived at A-level, in any subject, is that Cambridge University threatened not to recognise A-levels as valid qualifications if it was removed, instead relying on their own exams.

So historical research, geography fieldwork, and even musical composition were only saved by a narrow margin.

How anyone could have thought abandoning coursework entirely was a good idea is beyond me, even with all its possible flaws.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

Politicians already profess to care about class sizes, its why things are a but stricter for infant class sizes. Everyone wanting lower class sizes isnt the issue, its if they can come up with any solutions. I don't see why exam chaos will force them to come up with one.

I do think this will cut through better than most issues. People are about the children and will easily believe the government could have come up.with something better.

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

The CV19 exam set up has been a debacle from start to finish. Quite how the politicians and bureaucrats decided to screw over a generation of kids is beyond me.

In fairness to OFQUAL - there is some reason to believe they weren’t consulted before the initial shambles was imposed on them.

However, knowing as much as I do about them, I have no doubt that it would have been just as big a disaster if they had been.

And the statistical modelling is entirely their fault.

I guess they would say that it is either: 1) their statistical modelling to retain integrity of grades (i.e. a broadly consistent grade-spread to "normal" years) or 2) grades which are inflated in many cases by over optimistic teachers and therefore lack credibility.

My view - controversial I know - is that this issue epitomises the knee-jerk over-reactions to the virus. I don`t think that schools should have been closed at all, or at least kept open for the exam cohorts so that the exams could proceed as planned.

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

The CV19 exam set up has been a debacle from start to finish. Quite how the politicians and bureaucrats decided to screw over a generation of kids is beyond me.

In fairness to OFQUAL - there is some reason to believe they weren’t consulted before the initial shambles was imposed on them.

However, knowing as much as I do about them, I have no doubt that it would have been just as big a disaster if they had been.

And the statistical modelling is entirely their fault.

This administration does like to prioritise ideology over pragmatic solutions. Like its spiritual leader Cummings it considers itself to be very clever.

Better to remain in the fantasy world and screw over everyone else.

I disagree with that. This administration is not priortising ideology over pragmatic solutions.

Rather, this populist bunch are making policy on the hoof after taking on board the latest brain-farts from their focus groups. This doesn`t come up to the status of ideology by a long chalk. It`s like Blairism for idiots. I wish they were basing things on ideology.

ydoethur said:

eek said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

We were experimenting, if that's quite the right word, with a more nuanced system were we not, until a Mr Gove, on the advice of his 'assistant, a Mr Cummings, scrapped it.

And took us back to a set of exams designed for when memory was important as the internet didn't exist.

Nowadays I don't want to know what you know what I need to know is how well you can find things out.

The only reason coursework survived at A-level, in any subject, is that Cambridge University threatened not to recognise A-levels as valid qualifications if it was removed, instead relying on their own exams.

So historical research, geography fieldwork, and even musical composition were only saved by a narrow margin.

How anyone could have thought abandoning coursework entirely was a good idea is beyond me, even with all its possible flaws.

Having seen the difference between Fox jr 1 taking AS and A2, and Fox jr 2 taking A levels last year, the former system was clearly better and fairer. No 2 got better marks, and I am glad that he is not part of this debacle.

Why were AS levels messed with? It seemed a perfectly good system to me.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I don't know if giving people predicted grades is much more arbitrary and unfair than grading people based on how much they can memorise and write down in a couple of hours. Especially when some people have paid to be spoon-fed the relevant information in smaller classes with more resources than everyone else.

Well - you could make that argument in any year. This is not about whether or not to change the system, it is about how to award grades which rank pari passu with previous years by rewarding pupils justly based on what they would have got if they had taken the exams.

https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1292166997791444998

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

another_richard said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

There really is only one solution for these boats. We need to eliminate the pull factor. If people wish to seek asylum in the UK, our processing centres should be in Africa and probably India or similar. People would apply there. Easier for genuine seekers of asylum to get there.

I've had a similar idea that over-crowding in British prisons should be solved by building prisons in Africa and shipping the criminals out there.

Would also be a boost to the local economies and so could be done via the the foreign aid budget.

Vile.

Rather a racist sentiment CHB?

I've recommended prisons in Sub-sarahan Africa here for ages, great to see others arriving at a similar conclusion. I'd only put violent criminals serving long sentences in them, because there wouldn't be any point shipping someone out for 30 days.

Transportation? Tried that with N America and later Australia and look how that turned out!

Well for them as nations in the long term, not well with native populations?

Even being paid to take them I think many places would baulk at the idea.

I don't see why they would. I'm not taking for granted that anyone would want to do it, but it would be jobs, not just prison security jobs but clerical jobs, training, and long term investment. Not unlike a mine, and in many ways more pleasant (and in some ways less).

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1292166997791444998

I feel like every government since at least Blair has been accused of caring about headlines more than anything else. Is that really so different?

I don't think that's the reason for cock ups and bad policies.

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

I feel like every government since at least Blair has been accused of caring about headlines more than anything else. Is that really so different?

I don't think that's the reason for cock ups and bad policies.

It's the first time the government has actually been run by people who's only job has been chasing headlines, so yes, it is a little different.

Like I said earlier, Blairism for idiots.

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

I feel like every government since at least Blair has been accused of caring about headlines more than anything else. Is that really so different?

I don't think that's the reason for cock ups and bad policies.

It's the first time the government has actually been run by people who's only job has been chasing headlines, so yes, it is a little different.

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

alex_ said:

Anyone who gets marked down to the extent that it costs them their university "place" this year might actually have got a lucky break...

Until they try to get in next year when every university will have eleven applicants for every place.

kle4 said:

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

The point of the article, which is undeniable, is that BoZo chases favourable headlines in preference to actually doing anything, or fixing anything.

Like today, he gets a big headline in the paper saying schools must open, but no preparations have been made by Government to facilitate that.

The fact that the only job he has ever had is chasing favourable headlines would seem to be relevant.

Back to betting, has anyone got any tips around US state odds?

I`m thinking Reps are a a bit long at 2.92 to win Wisconsin. Thin market though. Arizona is interesting too.

Georgia's second death peak now looking on course to be larger than their first.

kle4 said:

I think it is a rather silly idea that his past job is so determinative of his actions. Plenty of politicians chase headlines without having been journalists. And I think focusing on it that way risks people taking the message 'we shouldn't have former journalists as leaders' rather than 'we shouldn't have crap people as leaders'. Your explanation has no explanation why it is, in this one case, that former profession is so impactful. I think it is too trite an explanation, and I don't think it stacks up.

BoZo is the worst PM of my lifetime, and a former journalist.

Gove, who is allegedly the motive force in Government, is a former journalist.

Correlation does not equal causation, but it's a pretty big clue...

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

Anyone who gets marked down to the extent that it costs them their university "place" this year might actually have got a lucky break...

Until they try to get in next year when every university will have eleven applicants for every place.

I said "might". Not that there's going to be a shortage this year.

The whole situation with schools and universities seems to have been a farce from start to finish. I understand we're in the midst of a deadly pandemic, and i understand that things couldn't automatically continue as normal. But how much can it really be said that

1) the downsides of the actions taken were given much attention at all in focus on the short term measures?
2) how much, if these downsides were given more than a cursory acknowledgement, has there really been a massive focus on minimising those downsides as much as possible.

All that is happening was entirely predictable, and was predicted, from the time that schools and universities started shutting down. I don't believe it was really impossible for extra focus to be made on exam cohorts (particularly A-Level ones). I don't believe it should have been impossible to put in place widespread structure learning for the couple of months of teaching that were lost in schools, and don't believe it should have been impossible for pupils to sit exams somehow. Probably in a traditional way, taking advantage of the extra space available in unused buildings to allow social distancing. Or even via some online mechanism (as many professional bodies now do routinely - so the expertise to do so exists)

With the possibility of putting in place an additional September/October sitting for those who really were disadvantaged.

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

Anyone who gets marked down to the extent that it costs them their university "place" this year might actually have got a lucky break...

Until they try to get in next year when every university will have eleven applicants for every place.

This is why I’m going back to university in September come what may.

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

The CV19 exam set up has been a debacle from start to finish. Quite how the politicians and bureaucrats decided to screw over a generation of kids is beyond me.

In fairness to OFQUAL - there is some reason to believe they weren’t consulted before the initial shambles was imposed on them.

However, knowing as much as I do about them, I have no doubt that it would have been just as big a disaster if they had been.

And the statistical modelling is entirely their fault.

This administration does like to prioritise ideology over pragmatic solutions. Like its spiritual leader Cummings it considers itself to be very clever.

Better to remain in the fantasy world and screw over everyone else.

I disagree with that. This administration is not priortising ideology over pragmatic solutions.

Rather, this populist bunch are making policy on the hoof after taking on board the latest brain-farts from their focus groups. This doesn`t come up to the status of ideology by a long chalk. It`s like Blairism for idiots. I wish they were basing things on ideology.

That's not quite right. In some ways, this government's approach is anti-Blairism. There is no ideology but nor is HMG cynically triangulating like Clinton or early Blair, or following focus groups like Blair or Cameron. Boris and Cummings (who are not always singing from the same hymn sheet) are the key.

alex_ said:

ydoethur said:

alex_ said:

Anyone who gets marked down to the extent that it costs them their university "place" this year might actually have got a lucky break...

Until they try to get in next year when every university will have eleven applicants for every place.

I said "might". Not that there's going to be a shortage this year.

The whole situation with schools and universities seems to have been a farce from start to finish. I understand we're in the midst of a deadly pandemic, and i understand that things couldn't automatically continue as normal. But how much can it really be said that

1) the downsides of the actions taken were given much attention at all in focus on the short term measures?
2) how much, if these downsides were given more than a cursory acknowledgement, has there really been a massive focus on minimising those downsides as much as possible.

All that is happening was entirely predictable, and was predicted, from the time that schools and universities started shutting down. I don't believe it was really impossible for extra focus to be made on exam cohorts (particularly A-Level ones). I don't believe it should have been impossible to put in place widespread structure learning for the couple of months of teaching that were lost in schools, and don't believe it should have been impossible for pupils to sit exams somehow. Probably in a traditional way, taking advantage of the extra space available in unused buildings to allow social distancing. Or even via some online mechanism (as many professional bodies now do routinely - so the expertise to do so exists)

With the possibility of putting in place an additional September/October sitting for those who really were disadvantaged.

Genuine question - is there another country where lockdown has cut across such important exams? If so, what did they do?

another_richard said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

The point of the article, which is undeniable, is that BoZo chases favourable headlines in preference to actually doing anything, or fixing anything.

Like today, he gets a big headline in the paper saying schools must open, but no preparations have been made by Government to facilitate that.

The fact that the only job he has ever had is chasing favourable headlines would seem to be relevant.

I got the point, thanks. I don't disagree that's how he acts, but I don't see that is hugely different from other governments (certainly they have as noted been accused of such) and therefore while it is not irrelevant, I don't think it is as significant as you are suggesting.

I think it is a rather silly idea that his past job is so determinative of his actions. Plenty of politicians chase headlines without having been journalists. And I think focusing on it that way risks people taking the message 'we shouldn't have former journalists as leaders' rather than 'we shouldn't have crap people as leaders'. Your explanation has no explanation why it is, in this one case, that former profession is so impactful. I think it is too trite an explanation, and I don't think it stacks up.

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Its all 'my team vs your team' with some people.

We all remember the time when Cameron lied to HM, shut down parliament illegally and poured fuel over division to force his way. We all remember when Cameron locked down the country whilst his closest advisor did whatever the hell he wanted.

They’re all the same.

Scott_xP said:

another_richard said:

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Cameron didn't denude the party of all talent to shore up his position, and he sacked his SPAD

I condemn BoZo for the things he does.

There is no comparison.

What talent ? Sajid Javid ?

Now lets compare the 'talent' in Cameron's government - Fox, Grayling, IDS, Lansley, Letwin, Osborne, Warsi.

You condemn Boris because you've chosen a different side just as you cheered Cameron because you chose his side.

So you cheered Cameron for the same things you condemn Boris for.

ydoethur said:

eek said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

We were experimenting, if that's quite the right word, with a more nuanced system were we not, until a Mr Gove, on the advice of his 'assistant, a Mr Cummings, scrapped it.

And took us back to a set of exams designed for when memory was important as the internet didn't exist.

Nowadays I don't want to know what you know what I need to know is how well you can find things out.

The only reason coursework survived at A-level, in any subject, is that Cambridge University threatened not to recognise A-levels as valid qualifications if it was removed, instead relying on their own exams.

So historical research, geography fieldwork, and even musical composition were only saved by a narrow margin.

How anyone could have thought abandoning coursework entirely was a good idea is beyond me, even with all its possible flaws.

“Coursework“ in others subjects, particularly the sciences, had become a bad joke; schools and students were penalised if the teachers refused to cheat.

The work consisted of a set of tests done in school at a time determined by the school where many of the questions were open questions with a very limited set of acceptable answers. The best bit was the students’ teachers were responsible for marking the work and so were sent a copy of the mark scheme at the beginning of the whole process.

In Chemistry at least the mode mark (i.e. the most common) was 100%.

Getting rid of that system was long overdue and it’s replacement (where teachers certify that the students have done the required practical work on a pass/fail basis) is much better. The questions that had been on the tests are now in the actual exams.

I got predicted the lowest A level grades in my school and ended up with some of the best grades, including going from an N prediction in chemistry to an A and the only maths A in the whole year.

I would have been pretty angry had the teachers got to decide what my grades would be. It's ridiculous.

Jonathan said:

another_richard said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

The point of the article, which is undeniable, is that BoZo chases favourable headlines in preference to actually doing anything, or fixing anything.

Like today, he gets a big headline in the paper saying schools must open, but no preparations have been made by Government to facilitate that.

The fact that the only job he has ever had is chasing favourable headlines would seem to be relevant.

I got the point, thanks. I don't disagree that's how he acts, but I don't see that is hugely different from other governments (certainly they have as noted been accused of such) and therefore while it is not irrelevant, I don't think it is as significant as you are suggesting.

I think it is a rather silly idea that his past job is so determinative of his actions. Plenty of politicians chase headlines without having been journalists. And I think focusing on it that way risks people taking the message 'we shouldn't have former journalists as leaders' rather than 'we shouldn't have crap people as leaders'. Your explanation has no explanation why it is, in this one case, that former profession is so impactful. I think it is too trite an explanation, and I don't think it stacks up.

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Its all 'my team vs your team' with some people.

We all remember the time when Cameron lied to HM, shut down parliament illegally and poured fuel over division to force his way. We all remember when Cameron locked down the country whilst his closest advisor did whatever the hell he wanted.

They’re all the same.

Why do left wingers have a list of stuff that they perceive their opponents did wrong and reel them off in a fit of outrage whenever anyone argues with them?

Why would Cameron lock the country down before the pandemic even happened? It's complete nonsense.

"poured fuel over division to force his way."

Yeah no politician has ever done that before lolz. Come back Saint Tony all is forgiven.

Jonathan said:

another_richard said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

The point of the article, which is undeniable, is that BoZo chases favourable headlines in preference to actually doing anything, or fixing anything.

Like today, he gets a big headline in the paper saying schools must open, but no preparations have been made by Government to facilitate that.

The fact that the only job he has ever had is chasing favourable headlines would seem to be relevant.

I got the point, thanks. I don't disagree that's how he acts, but I don't see that is hugely different from other governments (certainly they have as noted been accused of such) and therefore while it is not irrelevant, I don't think it is as significant as you are suggesting.

I think it is a rather silly idea that his past job is so determinative of his actions. Plenty of politicians chase headlines without having been journalists. And I think focusing on it that way risks people taking the message 'we shouldn't have former journalists as leaders' rather than 'we shouldn't have crap people as leaders'. Your explanation has no explanation why it is, in this one case, that former profession is so impactful. I think it is too trite an explanation, and I don't think it stacks up.

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Its all 'my team vs your team' with some people.

We all remember the time when Cameron lied to HM, shut down parliament illegally and poured fuel over division to force his way. We all remember when Cameron locked down the country whilst his closest advisor did whatever the hell he wanted.

They’re all the same.

They are all the same.

Its just the opportunities they get, the events that happen, the degree to which they will push things, the skill they have in their mendacity.

Boris is a liar, Cameron was a liar.

I'll tell you what governments do:

They pander to the rich and powerful
They bribe their supporters to stay loyal
They neglect essential infrastructure in favour of vanity projects
They posture about the world at a cost of lives and money
They fail to do proper preparation or show attention to detail
They're mendacious and corrupt

The only differences are how good they are at fooling enough of the people enough of the time.

Whether one liar is 5% more dishonest than another liar is merely an academic point.

DAlexander said:

Jonathan said:

another_richard said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

The point of the article, which is undeniable, is that BoZo chases favourable headlines in preference to actually doing anything, or fixing anything.

Like today, he gets a big headline in the paper saying schools must open, but no preparations have been made by Government to facilitate that.

The fact that the only job he has ever had is chasing favourable headlines would seem to be relevant.

I got the point, thanks. I don't disagree that's how he acts, but I don't see that is hugely different from other governments (certainly they have as noted been accused of such) and therefore while it is not irrelevant, I don't think it is as significant as you are suggesting.

I think it is a rather silly idea that his past job is so determinative of his actions. Plenty of politicians chase headlines without having been journalists. And I think focusing on it that way risks people taking the message 'we shouldn't have former journalists as leaders' rather than 'we shouldn't have crap people as leaders'. Your explanation has no explanation why it is, in this one case, that former profession is so impactful. I think it is too trite an explanation, and I don't think it stacks up.

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Its all 'my team vs your team' with some people.

We all remember the time when Cameron lied to HM, shut down parliament illegally and poured fuel over division to force his way. We all remember when Cameron locked down the country whilst his closest advisor did whatever the hell he wanted.

They’re all the same.

Why do left wingers have a list of stuff that they perceive their opponents did wrong and reel them off in a fit of outrage whenever anyone argues with them?

Why would Cameron lock the country down before the pandemic even happened? It's complete nonsense.

"poured fuel over division to force his way."

Yeah no politician has ever done that before lolz. Come back Saint Tony all is forgiven.

Intriguing that supporting David Cameron is now seen as being left wing.

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

eek said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

'Mornin' all!
Sounds like 'You can't possibly have achieved an A; your school has never had a pupil with one before.'
Hmmm.

The primary school my younger son attended had, his year, three boys who were each capable of an 11+ 'pass' in the opinion of the experienced final year teacher. However, the rules said that only two could. On exam day my son had a cold.
Result.... 6-7 years later he said that 'couldn't possibly have been 'that good' he'd failed his 11+, hadn't he?

One thing that might happen as a result of this is that there is finally a very public debate about the way exams happen and why they are producing such inferior results for the poorest, who arguably stand to benefit the most from getting a good education.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the exams themselves. But if it sparks a debate about class sizes and forces the government to lower them, and leads to an understanding that postcodes should be less important than talent in any system, as horrendous as this is going to be over the next three months at least some good will come of it.

We were experimenting, if that's quite the right word, with a more nuanced system were we not, until a Mr Gove, on the advice of his 'assistant, a Mr Cummings, scrapped it.

And took us back to a set of exams designed for when memory was important as the internet didn't exist.

Nowadays I don't want to know what you know what I need to know is how well you can find things out.

The only reason coursework survived at A-level, in any subject, is that Cambridge University threatened not to recognise A-levels as valid qualifications if it was removed, instead relying on their own exams.

So historical research, geography fieldwork, and even musical composition were only saved by a narrow margin.

How anyone could have thought abandoning coursework entirely was a good idea is beyond me, even with all its possible flaws.

Having seen the difference between Fox jr 1 taking AS and A2, and Fox jr 2 taking A levels last year, the former system was clearly better and fairer. No 2 got better marks, and I am glad that he is not part of this debacle.

Why were AS levels messed with? It seemed a perfectly good system to me.

As @ydoethur mentioned above one reason was to reduce the number of years that students have major exams.

Another was the tendency of weaker students treat the AS exams as a trial run and then rely on re-sits to bring them back up to where they should be: this often put them even further behind as they were trying to revise for resits when their peers who had done well first time round could concentrate solely on the new modules.

Some universities, Cambridge in particular, specified that they were only interested in the grades achieved at first attempt, but most didn’t mind.

another_richard said:

Scott_xP said:

another_richard said:

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Cameron didn't denude the party of all talent to shore up his position, and he sacked his SPAD

I condemn BoZo for the things he does.

There is no comparison.

What talent ? Sajid Javid ?

Now lets compare the 'talent' in Cameron's government - Fox, Grayling, IDS, Lansley, Letwin, Osborne, Warsi.

You condemn Boris because you've chosen a different side just as you cheered Cameron because you chose his side.

So you cheered Cameron for the same things you condemn Boris for.

Javid, Hunt, Ellwood, Greg Clark, not to mention the expelled Clarke, Stewart, Hammond, Gauke, Greening would all have been in the top third performers in the current cabinet. No doubt it will be pointed out they are nearly all remainers, but thats the point, if you exclude a large part of the party you end up with less talent.

noneoftheabove said:

DAlexander said:

Jonathan said:

another_richard said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

How? The jobs politicians have had before they enter politics has always been secondary to their being, well, politicians. I'm to believe if they had not been journalists or political hacks they'd act so differently? Why only with journalism does the prior profession have such a huge impact?

It's sounds like a nonsense theory to me, too simple an explanation for being bad at their jobs.

Other than mere assumption that journalists are uniquely bad at being MPs because of the impact of their former profession, why would that actually be the case? Do you think the non-journalist ones are great?

The point of the article, which is undeniable, is that BoZo chases favourable headlines in preference to actually doing anything, or fixing anything.

Like today, he gets a big headline in the paper saying schools must open, but no preparations have been made by Government to facilitate that.

The fact that the only job he has ever had is chasing favourable headlines would seem to be relevant.

I got the point, thanks. I don't disagree that's how he acts, but I don't see that is hugely different from other governments (certainly they have as noted been accused of such) and therefore while it is not irrelevant, I don't think it is as significant as you are suggesting.

I think it is a rather silly idea that his past job is so determinative of his actions. Plenty of politicians chase headlines without having been journalists. And I think focusing on it that way risks people taking the message 'we shouldn't have former journalists as leaders' rather than 'we shouldn't have crap people as leaders'. Your explanation has no explanation why it is, in this one case, that former profession is so impactful. I think it is too trite an explanation, and I don't think it stacks up.

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Its all 'my team vs your team' with some people.

We all remember the time when Cameron lied to HM, shut down parliament illegally and poured fuel over division to force his way. We all remember when Cameron locked down the country whilst his closest advisor did whatever the hell he wanted.

They’re all the same.

Why do left wingers have a list of stuff that they perceive their opponents did wrong and reel them off in a fit of outrage whenever anyone argues with them?

Why would Cameron lock the country down before the pandemic even happened? It's complete nonsense.

"poured fuel over division to force his way."

Yeah no politician has ever done that before lolz. Come back Saint Tony all is forgiven.

Intriguing that supporting David Cameron is now seen as being left wing.

Lol the poster doesn't support Cameron, he's just bashing Boris.

Come on keep up.

The problem, as we are going to see in the next couple of weeks in Scotland, is that if you start with this model producing something like the normal pass rates for each school and then allow appeals by all the pupils who have been unfairly downgraded in light of their mocks or coursework then you end up with horrendous grade inflation.

Which in turn causes a problem with University entrance because their model of offers is based upon the expected overall pass rates. So I don't see entrance qualifications coming down this year, if anything they will edge up because the sad truth is that the results these kids will get will have less value than they did in previous years.

This is the price we paid for closing the schools and "protecting" the least vulnerable in our society. Its tough on them and unfair. And frankly we did not think hard enough about it before making the decisions for them.

OldKingCole said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

another_richard said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

There really is only one solution for these boats. We need to eliminate the pull factor. If people wish to seek asylum in the UK, our processing centres should be in Africa and probably India or similar. People would apply there. Easier for genuine seekers of asylum to get there.

I've had a similar idea that over-crowding in British prisons should be solved by building prisons in Africa and shipping the criminals out there.

Would also be a boost to the local economies and so could be done via the the foreign aid budget.

Vile.

Rather a racist sentiment CHB?

I've recommended prisons in Sub-sarahan Africa here for ages, great to see others arriving at a similar conclusion. I'd only put violent criminals serving long sentences in them, because there wouldn't be any point shipping someone out for 30 days.

Transportation? Tried that with N America and later Australia and look how that turned out!

Don't fancy get thumped at cricket by the likes of Gabon in 50 years.

Malmesbury said:

Dura_Ace said:

Stocky said:

Dura_Ace said:

Stocky said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I don't know if giving people predicted grades is much more arbitrary and unfair than grading people based on how much they can memorise and write down in a couple of hours. Especially when some people have paid to be spoon-fed the relevant information in smaller classes with more resources than everyone else.

Well - you could make that argument in any year. This is not about whether or not to change the system, it is about how to award grades which rank pari passu with previous years by rewarding pupils justly based on what they would have got if they had taken the exams.

I had 6 A level tutees this year (4 Russian, 2 French). In normal circumstances I would be confident of all 6 getting A/A* due to the traditional beasting I give them in the last two weeks with past papers. This year they all feel like they are getting fucked. They (and their parents) blame the government.

The government are stepping on a landmine here and will soon be carrying a bloody foot around in their hat. If you ever want to raise the venomous and undying enmity of Middle (as opposed to Little) England then fuck around with their kids' A level results.

You say that they blame the government. Do they agree with me that the exams should have gone ahead?

Yes. They all think a way should have been found to do them.

I think that the reason that exams were cancelled for all was this -

It was assumed that the schools best able to teach through the epidemic - remote schooling or other - would be the private schools and the leading state schools.

It was further assumed that the probable result would be worse grades overall, with everyone taking some kind of hit. But the bottom end (poorest students) would have been a disaster.

Leading to a university intake which would be the worst for the "diversity" metrics in a generation. Or 2.

That is a good point. I had finished the course with all my exam groups just before lockdown started and seeing what was probably going to happen had sent them off loaded down with past papers to go through.

Teachers in other schools may well have had significant chunks still to teach and if their pupils did not have easy access to e-learning they may have had little chance of ever covering those last sections of the specification. They would have been at a major disadvantage.

BluestBlue said:

noneoftheabove said:

another_richard said:

Scott_xP said:

another_richard said:

Scott will condemn Boris for doing the same things he cheered Cameron for.

Cameron didn't denude the party of all talent to shore up his position, and he sacked his SPAD

I condemn BoZo for the things he does.

There is no comparison.

What talent ? Sajid Javid ?

Now lets compare the 'talent' in Cameron's government - Fox, Grayling, IDS, Lansley, Letwin, Osborne, Warsi.

You condemn Boris because you've chosen a different side just as you cheered Cameron because you chose his side.

So you cheered Cameron for the same things you condemn Boris for.

Javid, Hunt, Ellwood, Greg Clark, not to mention the expelled Clarke, Stewart, Hammond, Gauke, Greening would all have been in the top third performers in the current cabinet. No doubt it will be pointed out they are nearly all remainers, but thats the point, if you exclude a large part of the party you end up with less talent.

And all most of them had to do to stay in the party and their jobs was not to sabotage their Prime Minister on a crucial vote when the government was barely holding on in Parliament and a Marxist was biting at its heels. And yet somehow that was beyond their talent and competence...

A Prime Minister who had only got his job by sabotaging his predecessor on a crucial vote when the government was barely holding on in Parliament and a Marxist was biting at her stiletto heels.