Switch to full style
A home from home

Forum rules

Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Topic locked

Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 7:03 am

Morning all.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 7:55 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47149808
Pointless GCSEs should be scrapped, says senior MP


Tory MP in sensible idea shocker!

Seriously, though, he's completely right. As soon as Labour made education to 18 compulsory, GCSEs became obsolete. The next step was obviously to scrap them and introduce a new qualification at 18, so naturally Gove reformed GCSEs to make them even less relevant to the 21st century and left "A" levels untouched. So instead of learning and developing, children spend two out of four years from 14 - 18 preparing for exams. Such a waste of time.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 9:39 am

Good-morning, everyone

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 9:44 am

From the G:

UK GDP fell 0.4% in December
In another blow, the UK economy actually shrank in December.

The Office for National Statistics reports that GDP shrank by 0.4% in the final month of 2018. That’s worse than expected -- economists had predicted that the economy might have flatlined during the month.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 9:54 am

Morning all.

Re the suggestion about ditching GCSEs altogether - not sure I'd go that far. many schools don't have a Sixth Form so their accountability measure which they have right now would disappear completely. I would:

1. Retain Maths/English GCSE. In this way the fairly absurd Progress 8 which tries to measure progress from KS2 English/Maths to 8 different subjects (including E/M) would go and you could have a direct 1:1 comparison between the subjects in which everyone must have a basic grounding.

2. Make the new GCSE English/Maths criteria-referenced and not norm referenced. The way that Progress 8 measures criteria-referenced KS2 against norm-referenced GCSEs is another absurdity of the current system.

By ditching the non English/Maths GCSes the scope for a decent five-year curriculum in other subjects would be amazing.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:10 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Re the suggestion about ditching GCSEs altogether - not sure I'd go that far. many schools don't have a Sixth Form so their accountability measure which they have right now would disappear completely. I would:

1. Retain Maths/English GCSE. In this way the fairly absurd Progress 8 which tries to measure progress from KS2 English/Maths to 8 different subjects (including E/M) would go and you could have a direct 1:1 comparison between the subjects in which everyone must have a basic grounding.

2. Make the new GCSE English/Maths criteria-referenced and not norm referenced. The way that Progress 8 measures criteria-referenced KS2 against norm-referenced GCSEs is another absurdity of the current system.

By ditching the non English/Maths GCSes the scope for a decent five-year curriculum in other subjects would be amazing.


Yes, the fact that some schools don't have a "sixth form" has come up elsewhere and your idea is an interesting work around, but ultimately as all children are now in education until 18, the current provision is already long overdue for a complete overhaul. Why compromise children's education because some schools don't currently have space? Surely we should be expanding schools and creating links to the small numbers of further education colleges that are left to ensure all schools can provide an education to 18.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:34 am

Really, the issue about making sure there are accountability measures for 11-16 schools shouldn't drive this when the core point - that having key qualifications at 16 and at 18 - doesn't really make sense. A lack of formal accountability didn't stop some areas of the country running 'middle schools' - usually KS2 and KS3 schools - after the demise of KS3 SATS. ROT's suggestions are good - rewriting 16-18 qualifications would help too. It's interesting that Labour started to go down this path with subject-streamed diplomas, backed by literacy and numeracy core qualifications, to move smoothly from 14-19 ten years ago that the coalition ripped up completely.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:51 am

Willow904 wrote:From the G:

UK GDP fell 0.4% in December
In another blow, the UK economy actually shrank in December.

The Office for National Statistics reports that GDP shrank by 0.4% in the final month of 2018. That’s worse than expected -- economists had predicted that the economy might have flatlined during the month.

'worse than expected'

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:56 am

Willow904 wrote:From the G:

UK GDP fell 0.4% in December
In another blow, the UK economy actually shrank in December.

The Office for National Statistics reports that GDP shrank by 0.4% in the final month of 2018. That’s worse than expected -- economists had predicted that the economy might have flatlined during the month.


But.....but the Express said just the other day that "Brexit Britain" was BOOMING!!

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:58 am

ResolutionFoundation

Verified account

@resfoundation
20m20 minutes ago
More
Picking up on that last point, @jon_trickett stresses that a xenophobic, backwards-looking Brexit could not be further from what he and Labour want - but @ayeshahazarika says that, whether or not you agree with them, people do have strong views on immigration.


ResolutionFoundation

Verified account

@resfoundation
18m18 minutes ago
More
There's a risk, she says, that Labour ends up 'shambling around in the middle' - losing voters on both sides of the Brexit question.

IMO that is indeed what many people think is happening.

https://twitter.com/resfoundation/statu ... 4041060353

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 11:00 am

Great quote on 'The Two Year Hunt for the Brexit Unicorn'

Asked how the UK’s fresh groping for technological fixes is being viewed in Brussels, sources point to Weyand’s recent comments. “The [British] negotiators have not been able to explain them to us and that’s not their fault,” she said. “It’s because they don’t exist.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 11:46 am

Any line that Labour takes on Brexit is a risk (though the same is of course true for other parties)

But one of the objections some have to a strong pro-remain position is not just its potential for losing those who disagree (though that is certainly there) but whether it would make any actual difference given that the Tories are actually in charge of things. Taking an electoral hit for something you genuinely believe is right is one thing, but if it has no chance of happening anyway you risk entering "virtue signalling" territory (something that historically Corbyn's wing of the party has not infrequently been accused of)

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 12:53 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dgets-fall

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 1:39 pm

Are firms moving investment abroad because of Brexit? Holger Breinlich, Elsa Leromain, Dennis Novy and Thomas Sampson (LSE) use a ‘doppelganger method’ to estimate how foreign direct investment would have evolved without the vote for Brexit. They find a 12% increase in the number of new investments made by UK firms in EU countries, and an 11% fall in new investments made by EU firms in the UK. Moreover, there is no sign of a ‘Global Britain’ effect that would have seen UK firms investing elsewhere in the world.


So 'Yes', then.
LSE Brexit Blog - Voting with their money: Brexit and outward investment by UK firms

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 2:10 pm

On May’s response on Sunday to Jeremy Corbyn’s letter setting out Labour’s five conditions for backing a Brexit deal, her spokesman made it plain she had ruled out the main idea – the UK being part of a customs union.

He said:

We are absolutely clear on this: we’re not considering Jeremy Corbyn’s customs proposals; we’re not considering any proposals to remain in the customs union. We must have our own, independent trade policy.

That means you're stuck with the backstop then. They'll still be going round in circles on 28 March, God help us.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 4:09 pm

gilsey wrote:
On May’s response on Sunday to Jeremy Corbyn’s letter setting out Labour’s five conditions for backing a Brexit deal, her spokesman made it plain she had ruled out the main idea – the UK being part of a customs union.

He said:

We are absolutely clear on this: we’re not considering Jeremy Corbyn’s customs proposals; we’re not considering any proposals to remain in the customs union. We must have our own, independent trade policy.

That means you're stuck with the backstop then. They'll still be going round in circles on 28 March, God help us.
Government are going this thing with their eyes wide open; they know the ramifications and the detrimental consequences already happening. God help us indeed. This government doesn't give a damn.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 4:14 pm

Warmongering minister? Womanising villa in ruins (5,10).

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 4:19 pm

Brexit represents an opportunity for Britain to boost its global military standing and “enhance our lethality” in response to the threats posed by Russia and China, defence secretary [Gavin Williamson] will say in a notably combative address at a defence thinktank.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... williamson
Lethality = the capacity to cause death or serious harm or damage
I think Williamson is an emotionally damaged individual

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 4:36 pm

We are told a significant number of the cabinet disagree with May running the clock down willy-nilly. Maybe they should get a move on and act, then?

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 7:30 pm

Minister admitting Universal Credit causes increased food bank use is bad bad murder (5,4).

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 9:48 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Any line that Labour takes on Brexit is a risk (though the same is of course true for other parties)

But one of the objections some have to a strong pro-remain position is not just its potential for losing those who disagree (though that is certainly there) but whether it would make any actual difference given that the Tories are actually in charge of things. Taking an electoral hit for something you genuinely believe is right is one thing, but if it has no chance of happening anyway you risk entering "virtue signalling" territory (something that historically Corbyn's wing of the party has not infrequently been accused of)


Rightly or wrongly, am pretty sure Labour are going to take an electoral hit for non-remain position.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:20 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Any line that Labour takes on Brexit is a risk (though the same is of course true for other parties)

But one of the objections some have to a strong pro-remain position is not just its potential for losing those who disagree (though that is certainly there) but whether it would make any actual difference given that the Tories are actually in charge of things. Taking an electoral hit for something you genuinely believe is right is one thing, but if it has no chance of happening anyway you risk entering "virtue signalling" territory (something that historically Corbyn's wing of the party has not infrequently been accused of)

Rightly or wrongly, am pretty sure Labour are going to take an electoral hit for non-remain position.
I acknowledge you're probably right. I feel angry. People need to know what's in their best interests. I think our collective best interests included a Miliband Labour government in 2015. We're not there now and I must move on. I'm frightened for us all. Collective bad decisions result in lives adversely affected. Most of us are losing time and resources we'll never get back.

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:26 pm

May considers protecting workers' rights too onerous a burden for her Tory government
May and I got off to a bad start in 2012
She's gotten worse

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:39 pm

My post above wasn't a swipe at Corbyn
I know what's in the best interests of most people given the UK electoral system as it currently exists
Vote Labour

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:58 pm

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

Re: Monday 11th February 2019

Mon 11 Feb, 2019 10:59 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Any line that Labour takes on Brexit is a risk (though the same is of course true for other parties)

But one of the objections some have to a strong pro-remain position is not just its potential for losing those who disagree (though that is certainly there) but whether it would make any actual difference given that the Tories are actually in charge of things. Taking an electoral hit for something you genuinely believe is right is one thing, but if it has no chance of happening anyway you risk entering "virtue signalling" territory (something that historically Corbyn's wing of the party has not infrequently been accused of)


Rightly or wrongly, am pretty sure Labour are going to take an electoral hit for non-remain position.


They might well take as big a hit for a "continuity remain" one, many in the leadership see the present strategy as the most unifying one.

(in the sense of whilst few are enthusiastic about it, fewer are absolutely mad about it, they could yet be right)

And even now another referendum is not ruled out, though personally I could only see the party swinging behind it if no deal was literally the ONLY other choice.

High stakes game here.
Topic locked