Anything Political

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Didn't phrase that well. did they present a cogent argument of their own or simply agree with you?

Views vary in detail but they all agree that the One Word assessment which ignores all the Good etc., and calls the whole school inadequate based on one inadequate  element, is wrong.

That must be a dozen times I've said that now. I don't oppose Inspection, or the use of the word inadequate where appropriate, but not the extrapolation I've already  mentioned. 

This is not difficult, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm subconsciously postingvin some alien language ! 

[DJ360 6,730]

In a change of topic.. 

My view of Laura Kuenssberg is at best, somewhat wary.. but her Sunday morning programme does seem to attract very interesting  characters at the forefront  of the political  news.

I've just caught up on today's programme and can recommend  it. 

First we had Jenrick desperately trying to justify his existence,  then Gove being Oh, so careful to stay on the fence without actually  saying anything.

A moderate  Tory repeated the claim  that Boats represent 3% of total migration.

Liz Kendall firing into open goals for Labour. Starmer take note.

But by a country mile the most interesting piece was an interview  with Olana ? Zelensky, wife of the Ukrainian President. Truly humbling.

[Brew 5,419]

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Liz Kendall firing into open goals for Labour. Starmer take note.

 

Liz Kendall is almost as clever at avoiding answering a question as Michael Howard. I knew a little about her but she has crashed dived in my opinion she came across to me as thoroughly untrustworthy. She came not to extoll the virtues of Labour policy but to simply throw rocks at the government. She had an agenda and was damned if answering questions was going to get in her way.

 

Jenrick said little that was not blowing his own trumpet, he's manoeuvring for reasons yet to become clear. Gove was Gove though he appeared to be on slightly more solid ground, not his his usual evasive self.

 

The moderate you quote was somewhat disingenuous in quoting 3% without saying how big a number 3% represents. Though the topic was immigration the focus was the boats and Rwanda, something he avoided.

 

As an interviewer Kuenssberg made a better fist of it than Bruce, keeping better control of the interviewees etc. although she has a lot more time to play with and fewer numbers. Perhaps Question Time could use  bit of a reformat.

[letsavagoo 963]

22 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Quite possibly, but that still doesn't mean that a weakness in Safeguarding PROCEDURE and ADMINISTRATION,which, lets face it, was so 'awful' that it was rectified in months, should be used to characterise a whole school.

Unfortunately for you OFSTED work to their rules not yours.

20 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I still disagree. I've had numerous  conversations about this issue with neighbours, acquaintances, others online elsewhere etc. ALL agree that the one word overall assessment is unacceptable.

Perhaps the people you’ve approached know that if they don’t agree with you, they’ll face hours of you telling them why they’re wrong so just go along with you.

 

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Views vary in detail but they all agree that the One Word assessment which ignores all the Good etc., and calls the whole school inadequate based on one inadequate  element, is wrong.

It’s not like the published report is a single word. It’s a grading of the overall findings. The reports run into many pages detailing the findings. They report all the good the bad and the ugly. The positives aren’t ignored but everything is reported in detail. You’re fixating on the one word.

[letsavagoo 963]

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

This is not difficult, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm subconsciously posting in some alien language !

Perhaps people understand you perfectly well but simply have a different view. 

[LizzieM 9,510]

Something else ‘Political’ but not of local interest ……..

Robert Courts MP,  a schoolfriend of our son, has just been appointed Solicitor General.  The boy is doing well.  

[DJ360 6,730]

On 12/10/2023 at 8:45 PM, Brew said:

I really do think too much is being made of this, a fail is a fail and the margin of failure is largely irrelevant. 

The tragedy associated with this report, even it's though out of date and has long been corrected is giving the word way more import that it deserves.

As people look for a reason, a way to explain what happed they will seize on anything to  assuage their grief or attribute blame.

 

The are many instances and examples we can quote but it would descend into a yeahbutworrabout contest.

 

You won't be surprised that I continue to disagree, both with your view of ONE WORD Assessments, and with your attempts to justify them.

 

I'll go back to the student example one last time. If a student sits, say TEN GCSE's and passes NINE but fails ONE.

 

1. What would be the value and purpose of a ONE WORD Assessment of that student? 

2. How truly informative would ANY word be?

 

Would you use 'Inadequate', based on one failed subject?  That's what OFSTED do..

 

Or maybe 'Good'?, which says little of value?

 

Or maybe 'Outstanding', because relative to 'the herd', 9 GCSEs is an excellent achievement?

 

Or would you simply list the Ten GCSEs and their results, without making a ONE WORD Assessment? You're going to list them anyway... since as you admit, the OFSTED report goes into detail. So why create all the unneccessary controversy and confusion around ONE WORD?

 

As as number of commentators have observed, the OFSTED defence of ONE WORD, represents stubbornness.. nothing more.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

As an interviewer Kuenssberg made a better fist of it than Bruce, keeping better control of the interviewees etc. although she has a lot more time to play with and fewer numbers. Perhaps Question Time could use  bit of a reformat.

 

Both are known Tories. Kuenssberg has learned, Bruce hasn't.

 

I don't know how Kuennsberg's 'Guests' are chosen, but they represent a balance of sorts.  Bruce's QT 'panel, suffers from misplaced BBC notions of 'balance', which results in political outliers getting more airtime than their support base justifies.

Question Time still faces accusations of allowing 'plants' to control the questions from the floor.

[DJ360 6,730]

20 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Unfortunately for you OFSTED work to their rules not yours.

 

OFSTED is an arm of Govt. and as such it is fair game for criticism by any voter.

 

20 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Perhaps the people you’ve approached know that if they don’t agree with you, they’ll face hours of you telling them why they’re wrong so just go along with you.

 

Childish speculation and personally insulting.

 

I'll be fairer to you than you are to me.  I agree that you understand my point. I accept your right to disagree, but I reserve my right to continue debating. There are other participants in this debate and yet more observing.

 

Quote

You're fixating on the one word

 

I'm arguing that it is unneccessary, confusing, unfair and counterproductive, for all of the reasons I've given above. What is the point of it if it is going to be so heavily 'qualified' by the detail that follows?

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

18 hours ago, LizzieM said:

Something else ‘Political’ but not of local interest ……..

Robert Courts MP,  a schoolfriend of our son, has just been appointed Solicitor General.  The boy is doing well.  

 

He is indeed, and he's appropriately named for the role.

 

He may not be of local (i.e. Nottm ), interest, but he's of interest to me. 

 

I'm sure he's a decent sort but I would find myself disagreeing with him on practically everything political, since he's a Conservative M.P., sitting in the safe seat vacated by Cameron.  He's an ardent Brexiteer, and firmly on the right of the Conservative Party. His membership of the ERG (European Research Group) alone confirms that.

[LizzieM 9,510]

I know all that about Rob Courts  DJ  I didn’t vote for Brexit either.  You can’t judge people on their political leanings ……. I’ve always liked YOU but I’ll never agree with you on politics. 

[DJ360 6,730]

Out of interest..

Did anyone watch the 3 part 'mini series' about Julius Caesar on BBC?

 

I can thoroughly recommend it apart from the unfortunate way that the chap playing Caesar appeared to have only one fixed scowl in his arsenal of facial expressions.

 

A real object lesson in the perils which face democracies, the way in which one determined 'populist' can undermine everything, etc. Many resonances with current politics and obvious parallels with the likes of Putin, but also some much closer to home, given added nuance by the input from Rory Stewart, one time Tory Leadership candidate and opponent of Johnson.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

12 minutes ago, LizzieM said:

I’ve always liked YOU but I’ll never agree with you on politics.

 

Very wise Lizzie..

[Brew 5,419]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'll go back to the student example one last time. If a student sits, say TEN GCSE's and passes NINE but fails ONE.

 

I did say I don't want to play worrabout ,but  suppose your car at MOT (15 item to test each item made up of multiple parts), is in excellent condition in all areas except  one brake doesn't work, There are only two one word ratings and apply to the whole car. Pass or fail, how else should we rate them?

 

One word is just that, one word.  Consider the other ratings outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate.  Results that cannot be confused or misinterpreted.

 

Let's turn it on its head. To achieve the highest rating they must achieve it in MOST areas, not ALL but will be rated 'outstanding' i,e  one word and applied to the whole school. Should we now say, "yeah-but- no-but you can't call the whole school as outstanding?

 

There's another single word that applies, judgement. The whole system is based on judgements made against a clear and unambiguous criteria by qualified professionals. The school, and remember the inadequate rating was well out of date, failed in one arear made up of four parts. It must have been pretty bad to have an inadequate rating rather than a 'need improvement' - only 120 schools managed an 'inadequate' out of more than 2500 - less than 5%

[DJ360 6,730]

Well I'm not rehearsing my arguments again,so we'll have to agree to differ.

 

[Brew 5,419]

A short time ago I posted that far from promotion Blair should be prosecuted, It seems around a million souls are of the same mind and petitioned for his knighthood to be rescinded.

 

HMG have cried foul and will not let it proceed - for shame sir, for shame...

[Brew 5,419]

Watched Mone wriggling on the Kuenssberg show. Her and her husband admitting to telling lies yet still, in my mind,  carefully obfuscating and trying to deny that they are benefiting financially. Not quite sure how gullible they think we are, I haven't seen anything like it since the days of Hamiliton

[DJ360 6,730]

Jim, whilst I agree with your assessment of Mone ..I'd say you've seen lots of this stuff since Hamilton. Just the tip of the Tory corruption iceberg.

[Brew 5,419]

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant.

To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family" of course it was, silly me for thinking anything else... Her husband is a different kettle of fish altogether and in no way offered any sort of apology. A demonstration of the unacceptable face capitalism made flesh.

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

I've been reading about levelling up for the East Midlands. It seems we are to become the East Midlands County Combined Authority by amalgamating Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council.  I'm not at all sure it will be a benefit to us. It seems HMG will dole out money to the EMCCA to do with what they will. With the current record to hand I won't hold my breath. All II can see is more expense to service another layer of bureaucracy.

 

The usual meaningless blurb is spouted by those involved, each promising unicorns and rainbows for everyone but hiding the fact that three of the four are on the verge of collapse. No mention of the massive debts, or if they will use their new powers to raise local taxes to cover them. 

 

A cynic might say it's a neat sidestep by HMG to shift the blame for failure away from Westminster, and that when our inglorious leaders can't blame central government I predict they will turn and blame each other. As ever it will always be someone else to blame and as ever the ratepayer left with the wrong end of the stick.

 

The two city councils are Labour, the counties are Conservative. I wonder what the mayor of the new authority will be when elected in May?

[philmayfield 6,140]

Well they'll probably be Labour as will the next government. Sir Starkers and his mob will spend their first three years blaming the Tories. When they realise they’ve got their snouts firmly in the trough they’ll probably go for the pension funds realising there are untold riches stashed up in those. At the moment we’re waiting to see what they have to offer other than being an alternative to the incumbents. I honestly, for the first time, have no feelings towards either side.

[Brew 5,419]

5 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

I honestly, for the first time, have no feelings towards either side.

 

I'm much of the same mind...

 

[DJ360 6,730]

I'm not.

Labour don't presently fully represent my principles, but at least they don't seem to be intent on selling everything, including Larry the Cat, to the lowest bidding Tory donor, or quietly 'papering over' the cracks in their failed privatisation of Water, Energy and many other functions,at our expense.

They don't seem to be populated with blatant crooks like Schapps, Jenrick, Mone and all the others, so numerous I struggle to recall them all. Neither do they seem to specialise in gross incompetents such as Truss, who allowed herself to be used as a front for the Tory Far Right and the Tufton St Gang and contributed hugely to the inflation which is crippling ordinary people and which Sunak, whose party caused it.. is now proudly claiming to have halved.. or whatever.

Labour also don't seem to have too many Gavin Williamsons and other spotty schoolboys trying to play with the big boys. It remains to be seen whether they will have.. or even need FIVE Prime ministers (so far) to stumble their way through one and a bit terms.

 

Let's not forget that the World Capitalist Crash of 2008 was caused by people who have way more in common with the Tories than Labour. And yet the Tories spent years blaming Labour, and at the same time punishing the ordinary people of the UK via Osborne's austerity, whilst protecting their pals. 

Let's not forget also Cameron's war on Benefit Claimants, who were all suddenly labelled 'scroungers'. They were his 'boat people'..just another manufactured 'enemy' to rally the faithful to the flag and have the blue rinse brigade 'harrumphing' all the way to the bank. A quick comparison of Benefit Fraud v Tax Fraud quickly blows that away..

And of course Cameron caused a disastrous Brexit through his cowardice and incompetence..then ran away, only to be resurrected when the Tories had run out of anything remotely resembling talent or integrity.

Seriously.. it is difficult to imagine how even an 'out of sorts' Labour Party can possibly be as criminal, dishonest, incompetent and damaging to our country as the Tories have been since 2010.

And of course the Tories will immediately blame Labour for everything.  They're already doing it!..and they have the press, which they own, or which owns them.. on their side.

 

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Labour also don't seem to have too many Gavin Williamsons and other spotty schoolboys trying to play with the big boys

 

A post crying out for a worrabout session if ever there was one.

 

The sale of out national treasures as some would have it were in many cases actually forcibly taken from their rightful owners by a Labour government when they nationalised everything they could lay their hands on.

When the blessed Margret offered them for sale we, the great unwashed along with Sid and his mates, went for it big time and many ordinary folk made a tidy profit.  Politicians are like people and where there is a change to make money, they will go go for it.

 

Inflation now in spite of the howling is not that high at under 4% and let us not forget Blair/Brown failed to hold down inflation and dumped responsibility for it, and interest rates on the Bank of England to give themselves a 'get out of jail' card.

 

Tories already blaming Labour? of course they are, just as Labour will blame future failures on the Tories. Nothing much in that direction ever changes.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

They don't seem to be populated with blatant crooks like Schapps, Jenrick, Mone and all the others,

 

True, but then again they've not been in power for awhile so have not had the opportunity to get their snouts in the trough, however harking back a few names come to mind:

 

Blair

Kagan

Ecclestone

Wilson

Callaghan

Kelly

Mandelson... there's many morel All Labour and all had nefarious dealings of one sort of another...

[Oztalgian 3,296]

The privatisation of public assets is a boondoggle. Telstra was a prime example of this in Australia as were the publicly owned utilities. Sold by Liberal (Conservative) governments to their mates.

Pollies asking the public to buy shares in something they already own. We really fell for that one didn't we.

They should have payed us all compensation for "stealing" it from us anyway.

 

PS  - Boondogle is spending money or time on unnecessary, wasteful or fraudulent projects.