Re: Tuesday 15 July 2017
Posted: Tue 25 Jul, 2017 6:34 pm
Think they get first dibs at the next one.Haven't heard further.
Has everybody apart from me really forgotten how Labour approached Maastricht back in the day (when the parliamentary arithmetic was, of course, not dissimilar)?SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well even if that's what they were saying Labour (lest we forget) aren't in government, and by the time the opportunity arises for that to change the question could quite possibly be resolved (at least for the short term) If not, I remain optimistic an incoming Labour government would be sensible and pragmatic about things
Yeah. What oppositions say and do doesn't matter, so why worry?
Especially in a hung Parliament
I'll make a note to ask next time I'm at a meetingPorFavor wrote:Has anyone here heard any more about the people who were unable to vote on General Election day owing to local council cock-ups? I thought the problem had been reported to the Electoral Commission.
RogerOThornhill wrote:Government backs 'North London Powerhouse'
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 725132762?
The controversial project will bring long-needed investment to neglected areas like Camden and Islington, and will finally provide residents with a transport link to central London.
Transport secretary Chris Grayling said: “With the new rail link, we will open up possibilities to them in Soho and Westminster that were previously impossible without taking the Northern Line.”
Opposed Maastricht without the Social Chapter, wasn't it?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Has everybody apart from me really forgotten how Labour approached Maastricht back in the day (when the parliamentary arithmetic was, of course, not dissimilar)?SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well even if that's what they were saying Labour (lest we forget) aren't in government, and by the time the opportunity arises for that to change the question could quite possibly be resolved (at least for the short term) If not, I remain optimistic an incoming Labour government would be sensible and pragmatic about things
Yeah. What oppositions say and do doesn't matter, so why worry?
Especially in a hung Parliament
To some extent this query is applicable to Corbyn and others, but IMO it is considerably more pertinent to many of his critics.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-gridlockTory MPs call for action to avert post-Brexit ports gridlock
Backbenchers say customs checks need to be improved, roads widened and projects such as new Thames crossing speeded up (Guardian)
A broad church is fine by me, but once you have an agreed manifesto you should broadly stick with it. Heidi Alexander has had plenty of chances to make herself heard.adam wrote:Because Labour needs to keep a flavour of the month membership and not try to be a broad church, even if sometimes an impossibly broad church, otherwise Corbyn and McDonnell wouldn't have been around to take on the leadership of the party having left during the Blair years and set up something else.SpinningHugo wrote:PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Agreed Anatoly.
But why aren't MPs like Alexander in the media sticking up for Corbyn against Tory lies on student debt and celebrating electoral successes like you?
I still don't trust MPs like Alexander. They are still trying to divide my beloved party. I just want them to go away.
I agree. They should "go away". They don't belong.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rade-dealsPost-Brexit trade deals 'threaten UK's animal welfare standards'
The report from the House of Lords warns the standards of UK producers could be put under pressure by demands from other countries to allow an influx of cheap and lower-standard food as part of trade deals.
It was published as the prime minister’s spokesperson said that allowing imports of US products such as chicken meat washed with chlorine would not be ruled out in trade deals. This came from No 10, despite assurances to the Guardian last week from the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) that any trade deal would maintain or raise food standards. (Guardian)
Labour voted against the government on Maastricht.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Opposed Maastricht without the Social Chapter, wasn't it?AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Has everybody apart from me really forgotten how Labour approached Maastricht back in the day (when the parliamentary arithmetic was, of course, not dissimilar)?
To some extent this query is applicable to Corbyn and others, but IMO it is considerably more pertinent to many of his critics.
What's the comparison here? Supporting Hard Brexit with cherries on top?
They took what was percieved by purists as an "anti-European" and "opportunist" position then, too.SpinningHugo wrote:Labour voted against the government on Maastricht.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Opposed Maastricht without the Social Chapter, wasn't it?AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Has everybody apart from me really forgotten how Labour approached Maastricht back in the day (when the parliamentary arithmetic was, of course, not dissimilar)?
To some extent this query is applicable to Corbyn and others, but IMO it is considerably more pertinent to many of his critics.
What's the comparison here? Supporting Hard Brexit with cherries on top?
On Art 50, Labour had a 3 line whip for triggering it without conditions, supporting the government.
not comparable at all.
Gateway to the South!HindleA wrote:Bal-ham?
Stig AbellVerified account @StigAbell 10h10 hours ago
More
Chlorination Chicken could work as a new dish for the Brexit Empire.
HindleA wrote:Dentist?
How does arguing the government's policy for them make them "squirm"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand the strategy of siding with the government on leaving the single market when, according to the polls, a majority of people favour staying in.AnatolyKasparov wrote:They took what was percieved by purists as an "anti-European" and "opportunist" position then, too.SpinningHugo wrote:Labour voted against the government on Maastricht.Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Opposed Maastricht without the Social Chapter, wasn't it?
What's the comparison here? Supporting Hard Brexit with cherries on top?
On Art 50, Labour had a 3 line whip for triggering it without conditions, supporting the government.
not comparable at all.
Despite that, party discipline held almost totally. People realised making the Tories squirm was more important.
Not too bad thanks - eating again.PorFavor wrote:@RogerOThornhill
How's Mrs Dr today?
Really - no "No - because our politicians are totally crap and haven't worked out what they want yet" option?adam wrote:Loving this poll on the Express website.
I guess that's more or less my view. In case anyone hadn't noticed.“Brexit would have been a terrible idea even if done as well as possible, but for the Government to so blithely march the country towards consequences that they don’t even themselves understand is an appalling dereliction of duty”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 59106.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So UK NGOs may well struggle, UK companies will be worse off, and developing countries will have access to a smaller pool of expertise. Who knew?”
Referring to Michael Gove’s pre-referendum comments on experts, Mr Bullock added: “Well, some people knew, but they’re just experts, so have been largely ignored.”
And so how is voting for art 50 without conditions, and backing leaving the single market, making the "Tories squirm"?AnatolyKasparov wrote: Despite that, party discipline held almost totally. People realised making the Tories squirm was more important.
I'm sure you have no evidence to support the latter assertion.SpinningHugo wrote:And so how is voting for art 50 without conditions, and backing leaving the single market, making the "Tories squirm"?AnatolyKasparov wrote: Despite that, party discipline held almost totally. People realised making the Tories squirm was more important.
Most Tory Brexiters are relieved Labour is led by a fellow traveller.
HindleA wrote:Well,possibly on a singular basis,to be fair.
In hospital?RogerOThornhill wrote: eating again.
Wowsers. Good work AK!AnatolyKasparov wrote:Nine local council byelections last week:
...
Three contests this week.
I would be surprised if all of this were correct - everyone in our school has to go through safeguarding training, from the head to the canteen staff and cleaners. The rest might be true although some of the best 'teachers' I know are unqualified instructors who are paid a lot less than me.After a pledge by Jeremy Corbyn to stamp out the practice, the party has analysed official figures to calculate that 613,000 pupils in state-funded schools in England have been taught by adults with no formal teaching qualifications.
...
Labour claims the use of teachers who are not qualified leads to children in state schools being taught by people who have had no guaranteed training in safeguarding children, controlling a class or adapting teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils.
Safeguarding training is somewhat different to intensive lectures and sessions on child protection and safety and a module which your PGCE is dependent upon. Added to that is the 20 weeks of supervised classroom training on management and individual learning planning, followed up by 3 other modules requiring degree level essays. The difference between a QTS and non-qualified teacher is tremendous, and it shows in the classroom, and the results. And it's no surprise that this happens in primarily poor areas which find it more difficult to recruit QTS, even further hitting those kids educational aspiration.adam wrote:More than 600,000 pupils in England taught by unqualified teachers
I would be surprised if all of this were correct - everyone in our school has to go through safeguarding training, from the head to the canteen staff and cleaners. The rest might be true although some of the best 'teachers' I know are unqualified instructors who are paid a lot less than me.After a pledge by Jeremy Corbyn to stamp out the practice, the party has analysed official figures to calculate that 613,000 pupils in state-funded schools in England have been taught by adults with no formal teaching qualifications.
...
Labour claims the use of teachers who are not qualified leads to children in state schools being taught by people who have had no guaranteed training in safeguarding children, controlling a class or adapting teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils.
Can't argue with a lot of that - although the safeguarding work we do in school is better and more extensive than anything I did on my PGCE, that was about 18 years ago, mind. We are good at getting instructors qualified and at using them alongside QTS staffTemulkar wrote:Safeguarding training is somewhat different to intensive lectures and sessions on child protection and safety and a module which your PGCE is dependent upon. Added to that is the 20 weeks of supervised classroom training on management and individual learning planning, followed up by 3 other modules requiring degree level essays. The difference between a QTS and non-qualified teacher is tremendous, and it shows in the classroom, and the results. And it's no surprise that this happens in primarily poor areas which find it more difficult to recruit QTS, even further hitting those kids educational aspiration.adam wrote:More than 600,000 pupils in England taught by unqualified teachers
I would be surprised if all of this were correct - everyone in our school has to go through safeguarding training, from the head to the canteen staff and cleaners. The rest might be true although some of the best 'teachers' I know are unqualified instructors who are paid a lot less than me.After a pledge by Jeremy Corbyn to stamp out the practice, the party has analysed official figures to calculate that 613,000 pupils in state-funded schools in England have been taught by adults with no formal teaching qualifications.
...
Labour claims the use of teachers who are not qualified leads to children in state schools being taught by people who have had no guaranteed training in safeguarding children, controlling a class or adapting teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils.
LEAs still hire QTS but Academies deliberately do not in a number of non core subject areas, and increasingly in core subjects with shortages - and that's just secondary, primary academies are in an even worse state. There is nothing in this that surprises me given the conversations I have with colleagues. Wales is fortunately different, for now, but I wouldn't count on it lasting.
Oh, I don't knowPaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm sure you have no evidence to support the latter assertion.SpinningHugo wrote:And so how is voting for art 50 without conditions, and backing leaving the single market, making the "Tories squirm"?AnatolyKasparov wrote: Despite that, party discipline held almost totally. People realised making the Tories squirm was more important.
Most Tory Brexiters are relieved Labour is led by a fellow traveller.
(cJA emphasis)Parcels are backing up at TNT depots in their thousands after the company admitted it is still struggling to deal with the aftermath of June’s cyber-attack that crippled IT systems around the world.
A TNT spokeswoman said on Monday that there was no update to the statement issued last week. A customer care phone line to TNT’s main UK hub was not working on Monday, adding to the frustration of customers.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... x-notpetya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From the indypindyThe Government keeps saying it ‘didn’t realise’ the problems, but they had the experts at Whitehall – they just refused to listen to them. Now we’re facing a breakdown in airline safety, medicine, animal welfare, security, international aid and so much more
Ahem.howsillyofme1 wrote:i see hyperbole is the name of the day
/...
..now just waiting for 20% and 100 seats to come back and join in