Rishi should have touched on climate change – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

There is nothing wrong with learning proper grammar, often I find foreigners know English grammar better than we do

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

numbertwelve said:

SKS seems to think the solution to the NHS crisis is simply to recruit more doctors and nurses (where? how?)

Yes that’s part of the problem but he’s not hit on the crux of the issue. The whole edifice is creaking and groaning and is collapsing under the strain. More hands to the pump will help, but without fundamental reform things aren’t going to get measurably better.

The answer to where and how was debated here yesterday. Labour will greatly increase the numbers of doctors and nurses trained. That is betting without making it easier for foreign-trained staff to work here. Fundamental reform is just a slogan.

I was told that training more medical staff was impossible a while back, because they would all leave the country and it was gammon, anyway.

Has this changed?

Were you really told that? Really?

ETA actually you do make a good point. Junior hospital doctors are under a lot of stress for not much money so tend to leave the profession and/or the country, at least temporarily.

On the leaving the country/changing jobs thing - the massive stress on junior doctors used to be boasted of, in the profession. Perhaps if we *stop* the beatings, morale will improve.

The person making that point seemed to claim that 100% of any extra trained staff would leave. Which is absurd.

All training/careers have wastage. If nothing else, someone who has done a medical degree is highly employable in other professions.

It would seem sensible to make medical training free, in exchange for a 10 to 20 year contract with the NHS upon completion.

Is it also the case that nurses need a degree these days? That's garbage. Nurses should do most of their training on wards.

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Chris said:

JosiasJessop said:

Chris said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

TimS said:

Splendid cartoon in todays guardian

That *may* have been a good cartoon if innumeracy wasn't a massive problem. Governments can - and should - be able to address multiple issues at once.

Since there are few details on either plan, and the few regarding the maths one look bad on their face, the cartoon seems more successful than the speech.

I disagree. No-one ever effing well talks about innumeracy, and it is a massive drag on the country and on the people who have been let down by their parents and the schools system. It is a national disgrace, and at least it's being talked about...

It's certainly a significant issue, but the idea that Sunak has floated seems sheer fantasy, and isn't going to address it.

And note while there has been some increase in school funding, there's been none at all for 6th forms and FE colleges, which are the ones supposed to deliver it.

It's just nonsense.
It appears quite similar in concept to the legal duties the Tories placed on Local Authorities, at the same time as they steadily reduced the funding available to them.

(& FWIW, we talk about education quite a bit on this board. Some of us even make positive suggestions from time to time.)

"It's a significant issue"

It's a fucking significant issue that's been routinely ignored and downgraded, even on here, because it's difficult to tackle and easy to push onto the 'ignore' pile. The 'nonsense' is the idea that somehow if we ignore it, it will automagically get fixed.

And why does it get ignored? Perhaps IMV because the movers and shakers, the people who decide things, whether they are from the local comp or Eton, are all literate and numerate. All the regular posters on here will be. We can all suffer illness or disability; be struck down with a stroke or cancer. Therefore these issues matter to us. But we will never be illiterate or innumerate in the way kids let down in childhood are.

I'm the only person who mentions functional innumeracy and illiteracy on here, and have for a decade. It routinely gets yawns and talks of more 'interesting' topics. Yet it is vital. The educational 'talk' on here is routinely about the top-end, GCSE ad A-level results; grammar schools etc. IMO that's not where the problems are.

The fact that he's talking about solving innumeracy by getting people to study 'mathematics' until the age of 18 suggests he doesn't have much of a clue!

It all depends on the details, doesn't it? If it's talking about remedial maths etc, then brilliant. If it's getting people who have got the basics to learn more complex maths that is useful in everyday life, then good (although pressures on the curriculum and finance are obvious issues).

I'd also like to see adult literacy and numeracy projects given much more funding and encouragement. It's not just a case of fixing it in the next generation; it's a case of fixing it for all those that have failed, and been failed. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multiply-funding-available-to-improve-numeracy-skills

There's zero point in raising the school leaving age from 16 to 18 if kids are still leaving school without basic skills, is it?

It just sounds like very woolly thinking, along the lines of "There is a numeracy problem, so make everyone study maths until 18". Why make anyone study anything until 18, if they have already achieved sufficient competence for everyday life and want to study other things?

And the stuff about every job being "underpinned" by statistics - if it's meant to be relevant to what every worker needs to understand - only makes me wonder what he knows about statistics and/or the jobs of ordinary people

From the government press release.

"..the UK remains one of the only countries in the world to not to require children to study some form of maths up to the age of 18. This includes the majority of OECD countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Japan, Norway and the USA."
(Also Ireland)

What do you know that the majority of OECD countries don't, and where's your evidence that it is working well for Britain compared to everyone else?

What do you have against Maths that you think Britain should stop universal Maths education at a younger age than most other countries?

Sunak isn't exactly proposing anything particularly radical with an ambition to teach Maths to 18. The opposition to it is absurd.

I suspect it's also true of compulsory science, humanities, foreign languages and literacy. The issue is wider than maths, it's our very specialised A Level and BTec model.

As a nation we need more education, to a higher level, probably for longer, in more subjects. Rishi is choosing maths specifically because he was good at it.

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

There is nothing wrong with learning proper grammar, often I find foreigners know English grammar better than we do

There has to be a balance, it's gone too far the other way. I can compare directly my own experience of learning English at school with that of my children. Do they have a better understanding of the English language than I did? No. Do they have the same joy in the subject I had? No. On the other hand they know what a fronted adverbial is. So count that as a win if you like.

mwadams said:

ydoethur said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

Gibb, as well as Gove. Who is still there.

The SPAG (spelling and grammar) papers have not been mandatory at KS1 for a couple of years now; they are optional and for internal purposes. The questions asked are not of the "show me a fronted adverbial" type any more either. It is more "fix what's wrong with the verb it in this sentence to make it have right tense for the context, or "make the incorrect word into an adverb". So I'm basically OK with that.

On the other hand, I hate the obsession with Phonics which for at least half the kids is a garbage way of learning and severely impedes the time available for the rote learning of spellings in our idiosyncratic language of global historical borrowings. We just don't have a simple set of rules you can apply.

Phil said:

mwadams said:

ydoethur said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

Gibb, as well as Gove. Who is still there.

The SPAG (spelling and grammar) papers have not been mandatory at KS1 for a couple of years now; they are optional and for internal purposes. The questions asked are not of the "show me a fronted adverbial" type any more either. It is more "fix what's wrong with the verb it in this sentence to make it have right tense for the context, or "make the incorrect word into an adverb". So I'm basically OK with that.

On the other hand, I hate the obsession with Phonics which for at least half the kids is a garbage way of learning and severely impedes the time available for the rote learning of spellings in our idiosyncratic language of global historical borrowings. We just don't have a simple set of rules you can apply.

Thank god for that. It was pretty awful for my kids.

Phonics seems to be an effective but mechanistic way to teach kids to read that is completely irrelevant for the kids that catch on quickly regardless of teaching method. (Probably because they get sufficient support at home & are fortunate enough to be free of any of the disabilities that can get in the way.)

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

MarqueeMark said:

Finding it especially saddening taking down the Christmas decorations this year, for some inexplicable reason. They have given a real sense of joy over a fairly grotty Christmas period.

The house now seems very bare and soulless - even though it normally appears delightful for the non-festive season.

turbotubbs said:

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Phil said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

The UK’s dream of becoming a ‘science superpower’
Ministers want to supercharge the £89bn life science industry. But it will take long-term thinking on investment, talent and infrastructure
https://www.ft.com/content/a8b2c939-88da-45ca-a74e-9f49bb8c8c1c

It needs one thing as well: a willingness to fail. We're far too keen to only back certain winners, and in the process miss out on potential great wins. That does not mean we back 'stupid' things; just that we've got to be willing to take bigger risks for bigger pay-offs.

When I was young and stupid I tried talking to politicians.

I used to push the idea of DARPA for the U.K.

Various politicians told me that this was a great idea apart from needing to

1) Only fund winners
2) Big projects only
3) Had to be production ready, not research

So apart from completely the opposite of the DARPA, great idea.

It’s the same the other side of the Atlantic - but DARPA got entrenched before the politicians could “improve” it. Apparently, they still try.

So, they’d like to fund something that’s /not/ DARPA by ignoring everything that makes DARPA work?

Sometimes, finding a way to insulate politicians from their own worst instincts is the only way to make progress.

What did you expect?

As Diane Feinstein put it - the problem with projects run like that is that "my staff doesn't get enough paperwork on what is going on".

AKA the politicians don't get to fiddle with it.

In two years' time, Feinstein will be history.
DARPA won't.

A tangential perspective on this. I am part of a group in receipt of a decent but not huge amount of FDA money. Compared to other funding bodies the level of scrutiny from the FDA is huge. Monthly meetings (Webex) with lots of people from the FDA with reports each month.

I understand that funders want to see value for the money spent, but how much more could be spent if they weren't paying quite so many bean counters?

franklyn said:

...And finally, as a practicing doctor, encourage patients to have had a wash and put on clean underclothes before they come to hospital appointments. Refraining form alcohol and drugs would also assist. Oh, and turning up on time would assist.

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

It's still possible to do a good job of teaching at the primary level, but a great deal harder than it was ten years ago.
My wife retired last year, and considers herself well out of it. She loved the teaching side, but the sheer volume of paperwork became unendurable.

This is what I keep getting at wrt to getting rid of the admin people and middle management within the state sector and redeploying the savings to service delivery. The response is always the same, who does the box ticking but the question is actually - do the bloody boxes need to exist at all? In a large proportion of cases the answer is no and that's not just in education, it's true in health and many other parts of the state sector. It's arse covering dressed up as accountability, no real actions or improvements are made from the data gathered by box tickers, it's simply filed away with everyone's arses covered for another year.

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

As well as Edward IV executing his brother Clarence, James IInd had his half brother the Duke of Monmouth beheaded.

Elizabeth Ist had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.

Henry Ist had his brother Robert Curthose imprisoned until he died

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

Did he try to murder the King with witchcraft? Or was that a confected story?

Nigelb said:

Some next level stuff from Trump.
https://twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1610885374175506432

Either he's considering a career in political standup, or he's borderline certifiable.

SandyRentool said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Chris said:

JosiasJessop said:

Chris said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

TimS said:

Splendid cartoon in todays guardian

That *may* have been a good cartoon if innumeracy wasn't a massive problem. Governments can - and should - be able to address multiple issues at once.

Since there are few details on either plan, and the few regarding the maths one look bad on their face, the cartoon seems more successful than the speech.

I disagree. No-one ever effing well talks about innumeracy, and it is a massive drag on the country and on the people who have been let down by their parents and the schools system. It is a national disgrace, and at least it's being talked about...

It's certainly a significant issue, but the idea that Sunak has floated seems sheer fantasy, and isn't going to address it.

And note while there has been some increase in school funding, there's been none at all for 6th forms and FE colleges, which are the ones supposed to deliver it.

It's just nonsense.
It appears quite similar in concept to the legal duties the Tories placed on Local Authorities, at the same time as they steadily reduced the funding available to them.

(& FWIW, we talk about education quite a bit on this board. Some of us even make positive suggestions from time to time.)

"It's a significant issue"

It's a fucking significant issue that's been routinely ignored and downgraded, even on here, because it's difficult to tackle and easy to push onto the 'ignore' pile. The 'nonsense' is the idea that somehow if we ignore it, it will automagically get fixed.

And why does it get ignored? Perhaps IMV because the movers and shakers, the people who decide things, whether they are from the local comp or Eton, are all literate and numerate. All the regular posters on here will be. We can all suffer illness or disability; be struck down with a stroke or cancer. Therefore these issues matter to us. But we will never be illiterate or innumerate in the way kids let down in childhood are.

I'm the only person who mentions functional innumeracy and illiteracy on here, and have for a decade. It routinely gets yawns and talks of more 'interesting' topics. Yet it is vital. The educational 'talk' on here is routinely about the top-end, GCSE ad A-level results; grammar schools etc. IMO that's not where the problems are.

The fact that he's talking about solving innumeracy by getting people to study 'mathematics' until the age of 18 suggests he doesn't have much of a clue!

It all depends on the details, doesn't it? If it's talking about remedial maths etc, then brilliant. If it's getting people who have got the basics to learn more complex maths that is useful in everyday life, then good (although pressures on the curriculum and finance are obvious issues).

I'd also like to see adult literacy and numeracy projects given much more funding and encouragement. It's not just a case of fixing it in the next generation; it's a case of fixing it for all those that have failed, and been failed. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multiply-funding-available-to-improve-numeracy-skills

There's zero point in raising the school leaving age from 16 to 18 if kids are still leaving school without basic skills, is it?

It just sounds like very woolly thinking, along the lines of "There is a numeracy problem, so make everyone study maths until 18". Why make anyone study anything until 18, if they have already achieved sufficient competence for everyday life and want to study other things?

And the stuff about every job being "underpinned" by statistics - if it's meant to be relevant to what every worker needs to understand - only makes me wonder what he knows about statistics and/or the jobs of ordinary people

From the government press release.

"..the UK remains one of the only countries in the world to not to require children to study some form of maths up to the age of 18. This includes the majority of OECD countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Japan, Norway and the USA."
(Also Ireland)

What do you know that the majority of OECD countries don't, and where's your evidence that it is working well for Britain compared to everyone else?

What do you have against Maths that you think Britain should stop universal Maths education at a younger age than most other countries?

Sunak isn't exactly proposing anything particularly radical with an ambition to teach Maths to 18. The opposition to it is absurd.

I suspect it's also true of compulsory science, humanities, foreign languages and literacy. The issue is wider than maths, it's our very specialised A Level and BTec model.

As a nation we need more education, to a higher level, probably for longer, in more subjects. Rishi is choosing maths specifically because he was good at it.

Don't touch A Levels. They are the best thing about our school education system. Three or four subjects, taught to a high level, equipping students to embark on a specialised university degree in their chosen field, getting them ready to enter the workplace after 3/4/5 years (depending on subject).

What we don't want is a broad 6th form syllabus, less detail, followed by vanilla degrees, requiring folk to then do a second, specialist degree in order to be equipped for their chosen career. Look at the US or Canada - you can spend the thick end of a decade as a student, having to do a degree prior to entering med school for example; my wife's relatives in Canada think it is a load of shite, with several of their kids studying abroad (including in the UK) to accelerate the process of getting the qualifications they need.

SandyRentool said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Chris said:

JosiasJessop said:

Chris said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

TimS said:

Splendid cartoon in todays guardian

That *may* have been a good cartoon if innumeracy wasn't a massive problem. Governments can - and should - be able to address multiple issues at once.

Since there are few details on either plan, and the few regarding the maths one look bad on their face, the cartoon seems more successful than the speech.

I disagree. No-one ever effing well talks about innumeracy, and it is a massive drag on the country and on the people who have been let down by their parents and the schools system. It is a national disgrace, and at least it's being talked about...

It's certainly a significant issue, but the idea that Sunak has floated seems sheer fantasy, and isn't going to address it.

And note while there has been some increase in school funding, there's been none at all for 6th forms and FE colleges, which are the ones supposed to deliver it.

It's just nonsense.
It appears quite similar in concept to the legal duties the Tories placed on Local Authorities, at the same time as they steadily reduced the funding available to them.

(& FWIW, we talk about education quite a bit on this board. Some of us even make positive suggestions from time to time.)

"It's a significant issue"

It's a fucking significant issue that's been routinely ignored and downgraded, even on here, because it's difficult to tackle and easy to push onto the 'ignore' pile. The 'nonsense' is the idea that somehow if we ignore it, it will automagically get fixed.

And why does it get ignored? Perhaps IMV because the movers and shakers, the people who decide things, whether they are from the local comp or Eton, are all literate and numerate. All the regular posters on here will be. We can all suffer illness or disability; be struck down with a stroke or cancer. Therefore these issues matter to us. But we will never be illiterate or innumerate in the way kids let down in childhood are.

I'm the only person who mentions functional innumeracy and illiteracy on here, and have for a decade. It routinely gets yawns and talks of more 'interesting' topics. Yet it is vital. The educational 'talk' on here is routinely about the top-end, GCSE ad A-level results; grammar schools etc. IMO that's not where the problems are.

The fact that he's talking about solving innumeracy by getting people to study 'mathematics' until the age of 18 suggests he doesn't have much of a clue!

It all depends on the details, doesn't it? If it's talking about remedial maths etc, then brilliant. If it's getting people who have got the basics to learn more complex maths that is useful in everyday life, then good (although pressures on the curriculum and finance are obvious issues).

I'd also like to see adult literacy and numeracy projects given much more funding and encouragement. It's not just a case of fixing it in the next generation; it's a case of fixing it for all those that have failed, and been failed. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multiply-funding-available-to-improve-numeracy-skills

There's zero point in raising the school leaving age from 16 to 18 if kids are still leaving school without basic skills, is it?

It just sounds like very woolly thinking, along the lines of "There is a numeracy problem, so make everyone study maths until 18". Why make anyone study anything until 18, if they have already achieved sufficient competence for everyday life and want to study other things?

And the stuff about every job being "underpinned" by statistics - if it's meant to be relevant to what every worker needs to understand - only makes me wonder what he knows about statistics and/or the jobs of ordinary people

From the government press release.

"..the UK remains one of the only countries in the world to not to require children to study some form of maths up to the age of 18. This includes the majority of OECD countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Japan, Norway and the USA."
(Also Ireland)

What do you know that the majority of OECD countries don't, and where's your evidence that it is working well for Britain compared to everyone else?

What do you have against Maths that you think Britain should stop universal Maths education at a younger age than most other countries?

Sunak isn't exactly proposing anything particularly radical with an ambition to teach Maths to 18. The opposition to it is absurd.

I suspect it's also true of compulsory science, humanities, foreign languages and literacy. The issue is wider than maths, it's our very specialised A Level and BTec model.

As a nation we need more education, to a higher level, probably for longer, in more subjects. Rishi is choosing maths specifically because he was good at it.

Don't touch A Levels. They are the best thing about our school education system. Three or four subjects, taught to a high level, equipping students to embark on a specialised university degree in their chosen field, getting them ready to enter the workplace after 3/4/5 years (depending on subject).

What we don't want is a broad 6th form syllabus, less detail, followed by vanilla degrees, requiring folk to then do a second, specialist degree in order to be equipped for their chosen career. Look at the US or Canada - you can spend the thick end of a decade as a student, having to do a degree prior to entering med school for example; my wife's relatives in Canada think it is a load of shite, with several of their kids studying abroad (including in the UK) to accelerate the process of getting the qualifications they need.

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

As well as Edward IV executing his brother Clarence, James IInd had his half brother the Duke of Monmouth beheaded.

Elizabeth Ist had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.

Henry Ist had his brother Robert Curthose imprisoned until he died

Monmouth was James VII and II's nephew, illegitimately born, not his son. Also, that wasn't in the Middle Ages.

You could have added Richard II to the list of royal victims, or Henry VI. Or indeed the Earl of Cambridge in 1415, but that's complicated by the fact in the real world he wasn't of royal birth.

Prison doesn't count, because that wasn't in your comment, which also lets out Dafydd ap Llewelyn and Llewelyn ap Gruffudd imprisoning their brothers.

I think the only other examples I can come up with are Hywel ab Owain in the 1170s and Maredudd ap Rhys in c.1200, both in minor kingdoms in Wales, and both in battle.

But the fact remains, you said traitors of royal birth were executed, and between us we have come up with two or three examples.That doesn't suggest it was widespread.

eek said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

It's still possible to do a good job of teaching at the primary level, but a great deal harder than it was ten years ago.
My wife retired last year, and considers herself well out of it. She loved the teaching side, but the sheer volume of paperwork became unendurable.

This is what I keep getting at wrt to getting rid of the admin people and middle management within the state sector and redeploying the savings to service delivery. The response is always the same, who does the box ticking but the question is actually - do the bloody boxes need to exist at all? In a large proportion of cases the answer is no and that's not just in education, it's true in health and many other parts of the state sector. It's arse covering dressed up as accountability, no real actions or improvements are made from the data gathered by box tickers, it's simply filed away with everyone's arses covered for another year.

To remove the paperwork in Education you need to remove OFSTED.

dixiedean said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Scott_xP said:

New post on the decline in the popularity of #Brexit. https://bit.ly/3vCOY98

Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.

In what other way could its popularity decline?

ydoethur said:

eek said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

It's still possible to do a good job of teaching at the primary level, but a great deal harder than it was ten years ago.
My wife retired last year, and considers herself well out of it. She loved the teaching side, but the sheer volume of paperwork became unendurable.

This is what I keep getting at wrt to getting rid of the admin people and middle management within the state sector and redeploying the savings to service delivery. The response is always the same, who does the box ticking but the question is actually - do the bloody boxes need to exist at all? In a large proportion of cases the answer is no and that's not just in education, it's true in health and many other parts of the state sector. It's arse covering dressed up as accountability, no real actions or improvements are made from the data gathered by box tickers, it's simply filed away with everyone's arses covered for another year.

To remove the paperwork in Education you need to remove OFSTED and it's desire for everything (and I mean absolutely everything) to be documented.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

It's still possible to do a good job of teaching at the primary level, but a great deal harder than it was ten years ago.
My wife retired last year, and considers herself well out of it. She loved the teaching side, but the sheer volume of paperwork became unendurable.

This is what I keep getting at wrt to getting rid of the admin people and middle management within the state sector and redeploying the savings to service delivery. The response is always the same, who does the box ticking but the question is actually - do the bloody boxes need to exist at all? In a large proportion of cases the answer is no and that's not just in education, it's true in health and many other parts of the state sector. It's arse covering dressed up as accountability, no real actions or improvements are made from the data gathered by box tickers, it's simply filed away with everyone's arses covered for another year.

The folk required to do the paperwork are the frontline teachers, and it's nothing to do with the requirements of middle managers (most of whom are also teaching).

Without reform, it's likely to end up with only middle managers being full time employed in schools - and everyone else being supply teachers.

HYUFD said:

No royals at former Pope Benedict's funeral today.

Roman Catholic Education Secretary Gillian Keegan was the most senior British representative sent other than Cardinal Vincent Nichols

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11598527/No-senior-royal-family-members-expected-attend-funeral-Pope-Benedict-XVI.html

Nigelb said:

…DARPA program managers pull control and risk away from both researchers and directors. PMs pull control away from directors by having only one official checkpoint before launching programs and pull control away from performers through their ability to move money around quickly. PMs design programs to be high-risk aggregations of lower-risk projects. Only 5–10 out of every 100 programs successfully produce transformative research, while only 10% of projects are terminated early. Shifting the risk from the performers to the program managers enables DARPA to tackle systemic problems where other models cannot.

HYUFD said:

No royals at former Pope Benedict's funeral today.

Roman Catholic Education Secretary Gillian Keegan was the most senior British representative sent other than Cardinal Vincent Nichols

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11598527/No-senior-royal-family-members-expected-attend-funeral-Pope-Benedict-XVI.html

HYUFD said:

No royals at former Pope Benedict's funeral today.

Roman Catholic Education Secretary Gillian Keegan was the most senior British representative sent other than Cardinal Vincent Nichols

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11598527/No-senior-royal-family-members-expected-attend-funeral-Pope-Benedict-XVI.html

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

No royals at former Pope Benedict's funeral today.

Roman Catholic Education Secretary Gillian Keegan was the most senior British representative sent other than Cardinal Vincent Nichols

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11598527/No-senior-royal-family-members-expected-attend-funeral-Pope-Benedict-XVI.html

Why would there be ?

beinndearg said:

Driver said:

.

Stark_Dawning said:

dixiedean said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Scott_xP said:

New post on the decline in the popularity of #Brexit. https://bit.ly/3vCOY98

Interesting. The declining popularity of Brexit comes mostly from Leave voters changing their mind.

In what other way could its popularity decline?

There was talk that after Brexit, with loyalty to Dave no longer an issue and with the Brexit benefits pouring in, there would be a mass defection of Remain voters to the Leave camp. But instead it's all been one-way traffic in the other direction, which I doubt the Brexit godfathers ever suspected would happen.

There is no "remain" or "leave" camp.

As for that blog post, I'm afraid it suffers from GIGO - until the public understands that the terms of rejoining won't even be the previous ones, let alone imaginary better ones, polling on rejoin/stay out is utterly meaningless.

There's no reason to think the public are that lacking in understanding

I sense you are articulating Leave's final refuge: OK it was a moronic fuck up, but it was an IRREVERSIBLE moronic fuck up. Well done ✔

Nigelb said:

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

It's still possible to do a good job of teaching at the primary level, but a great deal harder than it was ten years ago.
My wife retired last year, and considers herself well out of it. She loved the teaching side, but the sheer volume of paperwork became unendurable.

This is what I keep getting at wrt to getting rid of the admin people and middle management within the state sector and redeploying the savings to service delivery. The response is always the same, who does the box ticking but the question is actually - do the bloody boxes need to exist at all? In a large proportion of cases the answer is no and that's not just in education, it's true in health and many other parts of the state sector. It's arse covering dressed up as accountability, no real actions or improvements are made from the data gathered by box tickers, it's simply filed away with everyone's arses covered for another year.

The folk required to do the paperwork are the frontline teachers, and it's nothing to do with the requirements of middle managers (most of whom are also teaching).

Without reform, it's likely to end up with only middle managers being full time employed in schools - and everyone else being supply teachers.

My point is not specifically about schools, it's about the idiots in the DfE who create the environment of needing all the paper pushing to be done. Sack them, get rid of the paper pushing and give teachers a payrise with the savings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Gibb

Before clicking, I'd assumed he was one of the Brothers Gibb and wondered what the relevance could be...

Ask @ydoethur what he thinks of him...

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Anyway, can't the rozzers look into Willy attacking Harry, as they do like to act on historical crimes? Harry must surely want to prosecute as he was physical injured and he's confident enough in the truth to commit it to the public record. Wouldn't it be in William's interest to clear his name after being accused of assault? This could get tasty!

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Phil said:

TimS said:

Simon_Peach said:

Been following the numeracy debate with interest and thank you to @JosiasJessop for pointing out that the most severe problem in education today is the lack of progress made by less able pupils on literacy and numeracy. It’s not, as @HYUFD would claim a lack of grammar school places for high ability, working class pupils.

At the non-selective secondary school where I am a Governor, we see a sharp decline in literacy skills among pupils starting in year seven. Unlike numeracy, this has an impact across the whole curriculum: pupils struggle to access subject texts, find written work difficult, suffer worse behaviour and teachers, especially those less experienced, are stretched to manage widening ability gaps and the poorer behaviour.

The root causes for the poor literacy are, of course, arguable. The two thought to be likely are the loss of learning during the pandemic, which should be temporary, and the way in which English is now taught in primary schools. It’s the latter that should, as a matter of priority, be “reimagined”.

Literacy teaching is really odd these days in primary school. They seem to do far less comprehension than before, yet they come home talking about fronted adverbials. Is this a Gove legacy?

Yes, Gove et al meddled deeply in teaching english in primary school. No one anywhere needs to needs able to spot a “fronted adverbial” at ten paces, yet seven year olds are graded on their ability to do exactly that, amongst a litany of other pointless pieces of english grammar, some of which appears to have been entirely made up by Gove & his cronies.

This syntax & grammar-obssessed curriculum sucks any joy there might be out of the experience entirely, especially for the lower ability kids who can tell that they’re being taught something useless & resent being judged for not being able to master it.

It's tragic what they've done to English teaching at school, completely ripping the joy out of the subject. It makes me quite angry actually when I compare my kids' experience of it to my own back in the 80s/90s. This really has been an absolutely ruinous period of Tory government, on so many levels.

It's still possible to do a good job of teaching at the primary level, but a great deal harder than it was ten years ago.
My wife retired last year, and considers herself well out of it. She loved the teaching side, but the sheer volume of paperwork became unendurable.

This is what I keep getting at wrt to getting rid of the admin people and middle management within the state sector and redeploying the savings to service delivery. The response is always the same, who does the box ticking but the question is actually - do the bloody boxes need to exist at all? In a large proportion of cases the answer is no and that's not just in education, it's true in health and many other parts of the state sector. It's arse covering dressed up as accountability, no real actions or improvements are made from the data gathered by box tickers, it's simply filed away with everyone's arses covered for another year.

The folk required to do the paperwork are the frontline teachers, and it's nothing to do with the requirements of middle managers (most of whom are also teaching).

Without reform, it's likely to end up with only middle managers being full time employed in schools - and everyone else being supply teachers.

My point is not specifically about schools, it's about the idiots in the DfE who create the environment of needing all the paper pushing to be done. Sack them, get rid of the paper pushing and give teachers a payrise with the savings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Gibb

Before clicking, I'd assumed he was one of the Brothers Gibb and wondered what the relevance could be...

Ask @ydoethur what he thinks of him...

Tough to do given the ban on certain words.

But put it this way. Imagine TSE seeing Max Verstappen eating a pizza with pineapple on it while watching Die Hard on Christmas Day.

Think about the words he would use.

You're about 30% of the way to how I feel about Nick Gibb.

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

As well as Edward IV executing his brother Clarence, James IInd had his half brother the Duke of Monmouth beheaded.

Elizabeth Ist had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.

Henry Ist had his brother Robert Curthose imprisoned until he died

Monmouth was James VII and II's nephew, illegitimately born, not his son. Also, that wasn't in the Middle Ages.

You could have added Richard II to the list of royal victims, or Henry VI. Or indeed the Earl of Cambridge in 1415, but that's complicated by the fact in the real world he wasn't of royal birth.

Prison doesn't count, because that wasn't in your comment, which also lets out Dafydd ap Llewelyn and Llewelyn ap Gruffudd imprisoning their brothers.

I think the only other examples I can come up with are Hywel ab Owain in the 1170s and Maredudd ap Rhys in c.1200, both in minor kingdoms in Wales, and both in battle.

But the fact remains, you said traitors of royal birth were executed, and between us we have come up with two or three examples.That doesn't suggest it was widespread.

Clarence clearly was executed for treason and indeed had changed sides in the Wars of the Roses.

So quite clearly royal birth didn't protect you for treachery against the English crown. See also Mary Queen
of Scots, Elizabeth's cousin.

Monmouth's father was Charles II, didn't stop him being executed. As his been mentioned Richard II had his uncle murdered and was in turn starved to death by his cousin Henry IV when he became King.

Robert Curthose as mentioned too was imprisoned for life by his brother Henry Ist. So even if Harry was not beheaded he would at least have been thrown into jail had he done this centuries ago

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

No royals at former Pope Benedict's funeral today.

Roman Catholic Education Secretary Gillian Keegan was the most senior British representative sent other than Cardinal Vincent Nichols

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11598527/No-senior-royal-family-members-expected-attend-funeral-Pope-Benedict-XVI.html

This may be an unpopular view, but I think Pope Benedict's feet will be getting rather warm now, when many (most?) seem to think he'll be up in Heaven (and I don't mean the establishment in Charing Cross...)

NickyBreakspear said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

eek said:

A question for @TSE

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1610939574590603266

John Bull
@garius
·
16s
Replying to
@garius
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERTS: If the French back a Harry-led invasion and seizure of the crown, then he reasserts his right to the French throne, reverse invades and restores the French monarchy in a personal union with the British one...

...does that get us back into the EU?

Yes.

Harry for King!

Harry is lucky he lives in the modern age not the Middle Ages when traitors to the Crown would have been beheaded, even if of royal birth

Please name a king of England (or indeed Scotland) who beheaded his own brother.

I can only think of one who was executed in any form - Edward IV with the Duke of Clarence. And that was at the fifth attempt after he'd actually tried to murder the King using witchcraft.

As well as Edward IV executing his brother Clarence, James IInd had his half brother the Duke of Monmouth beheaded.

Elizabeth Ist had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.

Henry Ist had his brother Robert Curthose imprisoned until he died

Monmouth was James VII and II's nephew, illegitimately born, not his son. Also, that wasn't in the Middle Ages.

You could have added Richard II to the list of royal victims, or Henry VI. Or indeed the Earl of Cambridge in 1415, but that's complicated by the fact in the real world he wasn't of royal birth.

Prison doesn't count, because that wasn't in your comment, which also lets out Dafydd ap Llewelyn and Llewelyn ap Gruffudd imprisoning their brothers.

I think the only other examples I can come up with are Hywel ab Owain in the 1170s and Maredudd ap Rhys in c.1200, both in minor kingdoms in Wales, and both in battle.

But the fact remains, you said traitors of royal birth were executed, and between us we have come up with two or three examples.That doesn't suggest it was widespread.

Was Henry I involved in the hunting "accident" of William II?

Nigelb said:

This should sort out teacher recruitment and retention...

Rishi Sunak is poised to announce minimum strike legislation as soon as tomorrow

It will enable employers to sue unions and sack employees if they refuse to accept

Hearing six sectors covered - NHS, schools, rail, borders, fire, nuclear
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1610761144943185949