|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
Jeremy Corbyn is a secret brexiteer who wants a full English brexit
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Is this what he actually said or are you assuming that's what he meant to say? Considering your history with Corbyn, should I take this as "Why should I agree with him!" He's not wrong. Because half the Brexit fuckwits want access to Single Market without any concessions to the EU. That pretty much ensures that, unless they are willing to negotiate on Visa free travel, they are not getting access to the Free Market. And considering how hard they are fighting tooth and nail to ensure they can push Trump style xenophobic laws, its pretty sure that when the EU says "Okay, you're out, Article 50 is done, now you want Single Market access, here's what you are going to have to do or you won't get it", the EU is pretty sure that the current set of UK politicians are not going to work with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:There's not a shred of doubt that the UK could remain a member of the single market if it was prepared to accept the other freedoms including movement. So the UK isn't remaining a member of the single market then
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Jose posted:So the UK isn't remaining a member of the single market then Exactly. That's what that basically is saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:There is a shred of doubt because the EU has to agree to that and they might want to put the boot in. To TAKE BACK CONTROL, duh! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:There is a shred of doubt because the EU has to agree to that and they might want to put the boot in. Nobody will be 'putting the boot in'. We won't get a full free trade deal because there's no political will to accept free movement from the government or opposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Jose posted:So the UK isn't remaining a member of the single market then No it's not. But it could. CommieGIR posted:Exactly. That's what that basically is saying. No. It's what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
The EU wants to discourage other nations from leaving and steal the city of London.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Which is pretty funny
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No. It's what you're saying.  Access to Single Market is going to require Open Travel. Brexiteers don't want that. Ergo, you are not getting access to Single Market.Its not that hard, Pissflaps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Which is pretty funny Your continuing glee is not. CommieGIR posted:
No it's not that hard. That's all perfectly obvious. Again: is that what Corbyn said, or what you're saying on his behalf? Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
From a non-British perspective: The UK could probably be part of the single market without being part of the EU, as long as it follows all the EU rules and pays contributions like the other EFTA members. In that case you're going to be giving up your influence in the making of these rules, and the whole Brexit ordeal will be utterly pointless anyhow. Like, even moreso than a hard Brexit. You wouldn't tank your economy I suppose, just all international credibility for the honour of shooting yourselves in the foot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
There will probably be 2 years of negotiation while May appears to be appeasing the hardliners and then boom; soft exit, freedom of travel and paying into the EU budget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Comrade Cheggorsky posted:Jeremy Corbyn is a secret brexiteer who wants a full English brexit
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:There will probably be 2 years of negotiation while May appears to be appeasing the hardliners and then boom; soft exit, freedom of travel and paying into the EU budget. This is the best we can hope for right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No it's not that hard. That's all perfectly obvious. Demonstrate otherwise, or stop arguing. If anyone but Corbyn had said this, you wouldn't be arguing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Your continuing glee is not. its what chuka umunna said
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
For the record Ireland has already complained to the European Commission that certain EU countries (cough cough Luxembourg) are engaging in backdoor incentives to attract companies looking to keep a foot in the EU - basically giving them brass plate registration without having to move capital. That was after AIG picked Luxembourg a few weeks or so ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Demonstrate otherwise, or stop arguing. If anyone but Corbyn had said this, you wouldn't be arguing. No. If Theresa May had said we can't be in the single market without being in the EU I'd say she was full of poo poo too. Because it's wrong, and your little backstory to explain the error doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:For the record Ireland has already complained to the European Commission that certain EU countries (cough cough Luxembourg) are engaging in backdoor incentives to attract companies looking to keep a foot in the EU - basically giving them brass plate registration without having to move capital. Luxembourg's pretty awesome. My partners parents live over there. Tempted to look at jobs over there myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If Theresa May had said we can't be in the single market without being in the EU I'd say she was full of poo poo too. Cool. You didn't understand the quote at all, and are continuing not to do so. Again: What was being said was, even if the UK leaves the EU, and then wants Single Market access, it won't get it without Free Travel, which is one of the things Brexiter's pushed hard for reason as leaving the EU. They don't want Free Travel because 'Aliens'. They won't get Single Market without Free Travel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Cool. You didn't understand the quote at all, and are continuing not to do so. I've asked you repeatedly if what you're saying is what Corbyn said or what you're saying to explain his words. Do you have a longer quote that provides the context you're insisting was his intention?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Luxembourg's pretty awesome. My partners parents live over there. Tempted to look at jobs over there myself. Well the idea seems to be to set up a skeleton office with minimum staff to keep single market access rather than large scale relocations There was even a thing in a Reuters report saying that the Germans where telling people nobody understands the Irish accent in Europe so its best to go to Frankfurt 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Basically watch as the ravenous crows of European tax shelters peck each others eyes out to feast on the juicy entrails of Brexit Britain
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Well, on the one hand, quality of life in Britain will decrease around 30%, but on the other hand, we will TAKE BACK CONTROL... so that we can erode workers' rights and decrease quality of life for the non-rich another 30% or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
It's sad to read people's distaste for the UK which I can only assume is bound up with deep seated self loathing. But then it's funny to see them praise vibrant destinations like Luxembourg and Switzerland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
In non brexit news, big Ken is chatting about nazis again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong Switzerland is awful. It just has a competent government that doesn't let idiot referendums derail the national economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Basically watch as the ravenous crows of European tax shelters peck each others eyes out to feast on the juicy entrails of Brexit Britain It's this but the magpies are the nations of Europe and the farmer is Russia or China. And Britain is some rags tied to a rock I guess. Jippa posted:In non brexit news, big Ken is chatting about nazis again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:It's sad to read people's distaste for the UK which I can only assume is bound up with deep seated self loathing. Right about now a bloody banana republic would be a better place to live in than this lovely loving waste of a country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Ken Livingstone and David Icke on a tv show together is one I would watch
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Jippa posted:In non brexit news, big Ken is chatting about nazis again. It's probably bigger news to report when he stops mentioning Hitler at this point
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Right about now a bloody banana republic would be a better place to live in than this lovely loving waste of a country. Jose posted:Ken Livingstone and David Icke on a tv show together is one I would watch  Was Hitler a secret lizard, or are all lizards secret hitlers? Did Zionists turn Hitler into lizards using tissue samples from a South American lab?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Was Hitler a secret lizard, or are all lizards secret hitlers? Did Zionists turn Hitler into lizards using tissue samples from a South American lab? I think you'll find it was the mufti that turned Hitler into a lizard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
TinTower posted:They aren't EU members but are full members of the single market. I hate to be all pissflapsy, but your statement rests on a wilful misunderstanding of what the word "remain" means, which is why I was making fun of you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
It is possible, and under a different Whitehall administration, likely, that the UK-EU deal can involve the UK joining EFTA alongside leaving the EU, without interrupting EEA membership. This we could remain in the Single Market but not be in the EU.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It is possible, and under a different Whitehall administration, likely, that the UK-EU deal can involve the UK joining EFTA alongside leaving the EU, without interrupting EEA membership. So you're saying if the circumstances were entirely different from what they actually are, Corbyn's statement would be wrong. Jesus, and here I felt bad for having to descend into minor pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:So you're saying if the circumstances were entirely different from what they actually are, Corbyn's statement would be wrong. Jesus, and here I felt bad for having to descend into minor pedantry. Those different circumstances being labour winning a general election. What a fanciful notion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It is possible, and under a different Whitehall administration, likely, that the UK-EU deal can involve the UK joining EFTA alongside leaving the EU, without interrupting EEA membership. This is the soft Brexit. 1. UK-EU deal cannot involve UK-EFTA deal, since EFTA is theoretically sovereign. EU cannot dictate EFTA membership, EFTA has to accept new members themselves. It should be emphasized that UK access to EFTA is not guaranteed, but it is not impossible or perhaps even unlikely. 2. Soft Brexit is not what UK policymakers pursue. 3. It is quite possible that EU will negotiate from the perspective of hard Brexit and it might take significant persuasion to get EU to abandon this approach. This is conjencture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Thought you lot might like an effort post I made on grammar schools to distract you from Pissflaps. Sorry it's a bit out of the blue. Ok, the conversation on Grammar schools really, really boils my piss. Let's look at the evidence rather than picking up soundbites about meritocracy and so forth. Firstly, to make sure my interest in this is set out at the start: I went to a grammar school and then moved into private education. I also come from a middle class background. I am now a teacher (have taught at grammar, primary, secondary, further and higher education) Social Mobility Firstly - how to measure social mobility within Grammar Schools? Well, we can use FSM (Free School Meal) eligibility. At the moment 3% of grammar school pupils are eligible for FSM. Hardly opening the door to poorer kids. 13% of grammar school children come from private schools beforehand. An IFS study has found that pupils eligible for FSM are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school. Adam Swift, professor of Political Economy at Warwick, states:- “Some urge the reintroduction or expansion of grammar schools on the grounds that this would increase social mobility. I am not aware of any empirical research that supports that claim. There is no evidence that comprehensive schools have been worse for social mobility than the selective schools they replaced, nor that expanding selection would bring about an increase in mobility. “ Pupils who are eligible for FSM who go to a grammar (3% remember) are marginally more likely to achieve. The difference is around 1/8th of a GCSE grade. So, at the moment we can see that grammars have little effect on state school pupils (3%), rather than your middle-class, pay for 11+ tuition types. What about, ellywu2, if we start building more grammars in deprived areas? surely these stats might change? potentially yes (though in 2016 Skegness Grammar, one of the most deprived areas in the country, took on 11% of students with FSM as opposed to the secondary moderns in the area which took on 50%), but there is a far more concerning issue with grammar schools than who goes to them and how successful they are and that is what happens to the people left behind. The people who don't pass the 11+ or, alternatively, the people whose parents do not, or cannot, pay for tuition specifically to pass the 11+. Increasing Inequality Firstly, we have to be on the same playing field with regard to inequality. Inequality is bad. I hope there is no contrarian view on this - the idea that increasing inequality is a good thing is bogus. I would point you to this video for an easy watch on why inequality is bad:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw&t=29s Grammar schools demonstrably increase inequality. Students in areas where there selective schools who fail the 11+ do demonstrably worse than those in comprehensive areas at GCSE level. If you do not get into a grammar school in a selective area your life chances are directly affected by this. Stephen Gorard, professor of Education at Durham, says “There is repeated evidence that any appearance of advantage for those attending selective schools is outweighed by the disadvantage for those who do not. More children lose out than gain, and the attainment gaps between highest and lowest and between richest and poorest are larger." Wage gaps in areas where there are grammar schools are higher than in non selective areas (based on a study by the University of Bristol taking into account other factors such as gender, ethnicity etc and still finding that 18% of the difference could be attributed to schooling). Areas with selection also face a problem with teaching. In these areas quality teachers will be hovered up by grammar schools (admission: I myself did the same when applying for a teaching job in a selection area - I went straight for the grammar school). As Prof Simon Burgess from the University of Bristol says: *"Selective schooling systems sort pupils based on their ability and schools with high-ability pupils are more likely to attract and retain high quality teaching staff. This puts pupils who miss out on a grammar school place at an immediate disadvantage. "In addition they will be part of lower ability peer groups, which also affects their chances of succeeding at school."* You do not need Grammar schools to improve social mobility and education - you need comprehensive schools with good policy, solid teaching and good practice. Look at London for example. Inner city London was once feared by teachers. You couldn't pay me enough to teach there. Now? It's doing really well, due to the above factors. Look here for more evidence:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321969/London_Schools_-_FINAL.pdf The 11+ exam Ok, on to the 11+ exam itself. Firstly, and this is quite an odd situation, the 11+ is one of the only exams which does not allow retakes. That's it. You're done. Boom. Now, this may not have happened to you but I personally and lots (a few each year) of my students have messed up exams before. I personally messed up my GCSE Maths exam and had to retake. Imagine if that exam fundamentally affected my life chances - that one single hour long exam could affect my chances in life (because if I fail I end up at the secondary modern - see above). Then imagine I was 11 years old. If you come from a poor background you will, more than likely, have a worse attitude to education. It has been statistically proven that (for the majority, just in case we get a 'But I knuckled down and did well just-world-fallacy type') that lower socio-economic background worsens your chances in education. Parents both working full time long hours, no nanny, parents' attitude to education - all of these things and more come into play. How, at age 11, are you meant to have the same academic rigour as someone who has been tutored specifically to pass this exam - it's a stacked deck against you from birth in some instances. Moreover, and this is more pathos than anything else so feel free to shout 'appeal to emotion reeeeee', being told, at age 11, that you are not good enough for grammar schools can be utterly devastating to students. It can shape their attitude to education. I've had to tell students before and it breaks some of them. You end up with the attitude 'Whatever - this is a poo poo school and you're only here because you couldn't get a job anywhere else. Why should I try when I already know I'm poo poo?'. You see this attitude somewhat with setting in modern comprehensives - selective education only exacerbates it. Finally, I thought I would debunk some further myths which still linger around about both grammars and the current comprehensive system. I have copy pasted these. Myth 1: Comprehensives have failed Fact: The comprehensive period has been one of huge expansion of educational opportunity and parents are generally happy with the comprehensive that their child attends. Achievement is up. University places are up. Satisfaction is up (well, at least until 2011). Myth 2: The Grammar School system was popular in the 1950s and 60s Fact: The grammar school system was actually very unpopular in its heyday, which was why both parties were happy to see it changed. Myth 3:The working-class kids who got to grammar school did well Fact: Those few working-class children who got to grammar school did not succeed, in terms of exam results Myth 4: Grammars schools are better than comprehensives today in getting students into Oxbridge Fact: The vast majority of state school educated Oxbridge students are from comprehensives and grammar school students appear to be actually under-represented at these universities. Myth 5: Disadvantaged students do better where there are grammar schools Fact: Selective education systems benefit the 5% of students from the most well-off backgrounds.but harm the 50% from the poorest backgrounds. Conclusion As far as I, and many in the education sector are concerned (including the former chief head of OFSTED), the key to improving education is not through segregation (The OECD finds that countries with selective education systems are more socio-economically segregated that those with comprehensive systems. ) but rather through improving the whole. Education policy is far too important to be blinkered by ideology. It should be evidence based and the evidence either points to grammar schools being incredibly bad for society at the expense of the few or there being no evidence of the benefit of them at all. Members of the Conservative party who support grammars (and bear in mind not all Conservative MPs do) always use the phrase 'equality of opportunity'. Grammars are the opposite. You are pulling up the drawbridge on a majority of students at aged 11. Nine of the ten best education systems in the world are comprehensive. I hope this figure sinks in. Sources:- https://fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/ http://schoolsweek.co.uk/fact-check-do-the-arguments-for-new-grammar-schools-stack-up/ http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/eleven-grammar-school-myths-and-the-actual-facts https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/duncan-exley/opponents-of-grammar-schools-have-truth-on-their-side-but-truth-alone-won-t-win-battle https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/29/grammar-schools-create-wider-pay-gap-study-finds http://educationmediacentre.org/newsreactions/the-myth-of-grammar-schools-social-mobility-thats-the-evidence-from-leading-academics/ https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/grammar-schools-do-they-really-help-social-mobility Gorard, S. and See, BH. (2013) Overcoming disadvantage in education, London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0415536899 Erzsébet Bukodi, Robert Erikson and John H Goldthorpe, ‘The Effects of Social Origins and Cognitive Ability on Educational Attainment: Evidence from Britain and Sweden’ https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/bringing-back-grammar-schools-won%E2%80%99t-increase-opportunity-those-who-need-it-most
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:33
|
|