The UK General Politics Thread Page 88

  • Page

    of 790 First / Last

  • Deleted user 19 April 2013 13:51:59
    Post deleted
  • TheSaint 19 Apr 2013 13:52:57 17,344 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I didn't think my other half could hate Michael Gove any more but when she found out he was after their holidays it definitely went up a level.
  • MightyMouse 19 Apr 2013 16:14:40 1,160 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Another classic example of Michael Gove being an idiot. There is no evidence that reducing school holidays improves results. Look at the countries that come above us in the PISA rankings and you'll see that with the exception of China and Korea they have pretty much the same holidays we have.

    Extending the day means it's much harder to find time for kids to do activities other than homework. Doing other activities is incredibly beneficial. It also means that teachers can't do anything other than teach the basic curriculum.

    The problem with the education department is that it's run like a mini banana republic. There's no oversight for anything the education minister does, he makes all the decisions solely by himself and the prime minister generally doesn't care as it won't affect the next election. It just invites this kind of stupidity.
  • Deleted user 19 April 2013 16:22:30
    I spoke to my friend about this yesterday (teacher) and he's of the opinion that this is a policy to force more schools into being academies so that they can escape the central government policies.
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 01:07:42 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Amnesty international has condemned the government for "an erosion of the human rights of the disabled".

    Not a jot of coverage on the news that I've seen.
  • FWB 23 Apr 2013 08:02:19 53,843 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    Anything that pisses teachers off is good in my book :)

    Dunno about lengthening the day, but definitely it's hard to argue against reducing school holidays.
    Why? Because some parents are feckless and lazy and don't want to take responsibility for their kids?

    If a anything the pressure on kids in many places is far too high. Forcing them to concentrate for so long when even most adults don't do that seems absurd. Better to get a few really decent hours out of them, than a load of half fried ones because they are over worked.

    I taught in Asia and have witnessed first hand how destroyed some of the kids are at school. School systems which are so useless that they have to go to after school classes to catch up, but they end up being suffocated and braindead. Then they go to university, which is a giant joke; their time off for the years gruelling studying.
  • FWB 23 Apr 2013 08:05:10 53,843 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    I spoke to my friend about this yesterday (teacher) and he's of the opinion that this is a policy to force more schools into being academies so that they can escape the central government policies.
    Every single one of Grove's policies is to do this. Coming from a man who has zero experience in education, or much else to be honest, and is only in his job because he used to be Cameron's boss. Has no interest in consulting with anyone in know, is just peddling some ideology.

    Ironically, if he was in the private sector he'd have lost his job for being abysmal at it.
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 14:34:03 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Another government U-turn in the last hour, as they've changed their mind and decided now that they will add Caste as a protected characteristic under discrimination law, and they will keep the General Duty of the EHRC

    Edited by darkmorgado at 14:35:03 23-04-2013
  • RobTheBuilder 23 Apr 2013 14:35:42 6,976 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    This government have made more u turns that a spatially unaware learner driver getting lost while towing a caravan.
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 14:42:07 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Irritatingly though, they're still pushing the thing about selling off your working rights for 2,000 of shares - despite it being rejected by the Lords because it will allow employers to make job offers conditional on taking the shares, has restrictions on selling the shares that mean they're likely to be worth far less than 2000 when a worker cashes them in, and the fact it will be used to exploit workers and people desperate for work.

    It got through on a slim majority of 44 after a lot of Conservatives and Lib Dems voted against the government. So now it goes back to the Lords for a second time and they're bound to reject it again. Which means the government will either climb down from it at the third reading, or brute force it into law with a whipped vote.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 14:44:15 23-04-2013
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 14:48:03 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Also going on at the moment is the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is taking evidence on the Same Sex Marriage Bill from the EHRC

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:11:23 23-04-2013
  • RobTheBuilder 23 Apr 2013 14:48:13 6,976 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    This government are totally disgusting.
    Taking away working rights, enforcing slavery and below minimum wage 'jobs', we've gone back to Dickens era policies.
  • TheSaint 23 Apr 2013 15:19:30 17,344 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Surely a spatially unaware learner would have trouble even making a single U-turn while towing a caravan.
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 15:39:05 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Now this is interesting...

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the Same Sex Marriage Bill contains a fundamental problem that breaches Equality and Human Rights.

    But... not where you think.

    It creates discrimination against Transgendered people in the way it handles pension rights. The details went over my head a bit as it sounded like something that has been created by an oversight rather than by design and was a bit complex, but if I heard correctly it's something to do with transgendered people who were previously married, had their marriage voided when they undertook gender reassignment and had to have a Civil Partnership instead, but now wish to "upgrade" from Civil Partnerships to Civil Marriage and how the two handle pension rights differently.

    With regards to protecting Churches and people of faith, they said the bill provides more than adequate protection. So much so, that in one particular aspect it actually goes too far.

    They also said that the existing Unfair Dismissal laws and Education laws already adequately protect Teachers and Registrars, rendering many of the concerns being voiced by Religious groups null and void.

    Representatives of the Catholic Church are now trying (unconvincingly) to claim that they will be discriminated against due to some antiquated 200-year-old law that names the Catholic church and then later describing marriage as a public function. They're basically trying to say this tiny bit of wording means that they can be forced to perform Gay marriage.

    The fact that they then admitted though that there is very little case law on it seems to make it pretty unlikely, particularly given that the new laws provide explicit protection for churches (and would, in effect, surely override any attempt to force the issue through the courts based on such a minor technicality) and based on what the EHRC said just before them.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:52:48 23-04-2013
  • imamazed 23 Apr 2013 16:42:11 6,303 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Now this is interesting...

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the Same Sex Marriage Bill contains a fundamental problem that breaches Equality and Human Rights.

    But... not where you think.

    It creates discrimination against Transgendered people in the way it handles pension rights. The details went over my head a bit as it sounded like something that has been created by an oversight rather than by design and was a bit complex, but if I heard correctly it's something to do with transgendered people who were previously married, had their marriage voided when they undertook gender reassignment and had to have a Civil Partnership instead, but now wish to "upgrade" from Civil Partnerships to Civil Marriage and how the two handle pension rights differently.

    .
    Wow, that must affect so few people! The law has to be completely even and fair though.
  • FWB 23 Apr 2013 16:46:19 53,843 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Probably came up cos that's half the government.
  • rudedudejude 23 Apr 2013 16:52:34 2,333 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Not sure if this has been posted yet but I found it quite interesting. The geographical division is pretty harrowing, arguably a result of our broken FPTP structure.

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576418-diverging-politics-labour-north-and-conservative-south-make-england-look-ever-more

    Maybe we should just plough a river through the centre of the country and we can have two independant party states.

    Edited by rudedudejude at 16:56:09 23-04-2013
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 16:58:48 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    Probably came up cos that's half the government.
    Eh? Not sure what you mean there!

    It reads to me like you're saying half the government is transgendered!
  • X201 23 Apr 2013 22:13:19 18,144 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Government has say-so on Serious Fraud Office inquiries.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-george-osbornes-secret-veto-on-fraud-inquiries-8585215.html
  • spamdangled 23 Apr 2013 23:12:24 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    Government has say-so on Serious Fraud Office inquiries.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-george-osbornes-secret-veto-on-fraud-inquiries-8585215.html
    What. The. Fucking. Fuck.

    That is MASSIVE. Seeing as the tories are primarily funded by private businesses, this means they can suppress information if their funders are found to be committing fraud, which could make them complicit, guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, etc etc (also applicable to any party in power, but more likely to apply to the Tories based on their funding sources) That had seriously better make huge headlines, and I would be amazed if it isn't mentioned at PMQs tomorrow.

    Not to mention that it utterly undermines the idea of "we're all in this together" and provides ultimate proof as to where the Conservative's true interests lie.

    Indisputable proof that the Nasty Party never disappeared.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 00:26:18 24-04-2013
  • 4gate 23 Apr 2013 23:22:53 362 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Right. You did see that bit about Goldsmith in 2006? They. Are. All. The. Fucking. Same.
  • spamdangled 24 Apr 2013 00:24:10 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I missed that. Got any links to more detailed stuff?
  • Khanivor 24 Apr 2013 00:26:52 43,244 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Be interested to know how long this situation has existed.

    I'm guessing since the inception of the SFO.
  • spamdangled 24 Apr 2013 00:28:06 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @X201

    In fact, I really hope an Urgent Question is made that forces a full debate on the issue.

    Cheers for the heads up, X201!

    Edited by darkmorgado at 00:28:33 24-04-2013

    Edited by darkmorgado at 02:40:25 24-04-2013
  • spamdangled 24 Apr 2013 02:48:35 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Be interested to know how long this situation has existed.

    I'm guessing since the inception of the SFO.
    That would indeed be interesting (the recent revelations about jobcentre plus' targeted sanctions against benefit claimants being a similar example), but beyond the whole "he started it" back and forth that has become the bread and butter of mass-media political coverage and rhetoric, it doesn't hold a lot of water given that the Tories have made huge promises about open government and disclosure. If they were genuinely serious about those claims but knew about something as big as this and kept it quiet, it raises the question why they have not either a) been more open about the existence of these arrangements or b) repealed them.
  • Khanivor 24 Apr 2013 03:35:37 43,244 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Known about something that had no doubt been fairly common knowledge by this concerned with such things.

    Just because something is reported as news doesn't make it new.

    Or to put it another way, it's only a Shocking. Scandal. if it has been previously denied.
  • spamdangled 24 Apr 2013 04:01:04 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well that surely depends on how widely the arrangements were previously reported on. If they weren't widely reported (normally achieved by government through burying clauses like this in dense legislation or by announcing things at times where other news is likely to take precedence - cough *thatcher funeral* cough), then the point stands.

    The Tories made clear commitments in their election campaign and after coming to power about "Open Government". It was one of their big stunts, that they still like to roll out on a frequent basis when they go into hyper-defensive mode (which is pretty frequently).

    The fact that they made, and continue to make those claims whilst enjoying arrangements that allow them to suppress genuine criminal wrongdoing if it has a negative impact on Party funding fundamentally undermines that entire platform and also undermines Democracy as a whole and shows utter hypocrisy. It also raises questions about whether or not they have exercised those powers and pertaining to who and what. Not to mention how it undermines the supposed party ethos of being tough on crime.

    Whether Labour introduced the measures in the first place is of little relevance beyond attempting to deflect legitimate concerns when challenged on the issue by the Labour Party by saying "well, you started it, so you're to blame!" - made more ironic by the fact that the Tories utterly love to deflect criticism from Labour by saying they didn't change certain Tory policies during the Blair/Brown governments.

    Not excusing Labour at all (assuming it was them that created this situation in the first place), just saying that attempting to weasle out of accountability because of it is lazy and, erm, weasly. And I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that the Lib Dem section of the coalition may well have been aware of this either.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 09:58:15 24-04-2013
  • Deleted user 24 April 2013 09:14:50
    You read PE, don't you DM? They've covered it before.

    Cut-backs it is, against a background of high-profile costly cock-ups. The lastest one with the Tchenguiz(?) brothers could cost the UK an awful lot of money.

    The 'secret' bit sounds rather new, but could an explanation for that simply be that they wouldn't want a potential defendant to hear of a case being built against them? I've not read your link tbf, so perhaps it already covers that thought.
  • spamdangled 24 Apr 2013 09:55:40 30,744 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I read it on and off, not religiously. Wouldn't surprise me if it's cropped up there before though, seeing as how they seem months ahead of the mainstream media with these things (no doubt helped by their publish-first-and-check-facts-later approach).
  • 4gate 24 Apr 2013 10:12:33 362 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Often years ahead, and despite that approach they are rarely sued, even in the most libel-plantiff friendly environment on the planet. They do of course print loads of corrections in the letters pages.

    I'd like everyone to read PE. Just as a fairly recent example, the voters of whichever area (can't remember) with a councillor who fucked off to the Paris-Dakar Rally whilst still claiming 6K a month, then when challenged by PE promised to give it to charity (thus keeping all the associated benefits), then didn't give it to charity anyway until challenged again by PE, when he finally donated about 500, would maybe actually do something about scum like him, if they knew about it. But probably only about 3 of them read PE, and 2 of those only the funny bits.
  • Page

    of 790 First / Last

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.