Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The more a challenge to May’s leadership looks likely the less

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The more a challenge to May’s leadership looks likely the less the chances of Corbyn becoming next PM

For some time now the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been the favourite in the betting markets on who will succeed Theresa May as prime minister.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    First???
  • Only four on that list don't terrify me.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016

    First???

    You are the one and only ... well, not any more of course.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    edited October 7
    Deleted.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    That many?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849
    That caption's bound to ruffle a few feathers:

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 752
    The only way I can see it is if there is a substantial breakaway from the Tories. Let's say that 40 MPs defect to the Democrats / Cameroon / Michael Green fan club party. All of a sudden it's not clear that Theresa May commands the largest party, and Corbyn may be given a chance to come up with some arrangement that commands a majority of the house.

    Odds for that should be in triple figures - so I agree with Mike that the punters have this one wrong.
  • That caption's bound to ruffle a few feathers:

    Nice to know Farage doesn't believe in presumption of guilt.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125
    FPT, while that Yougov poll is not bad for the SNP, I wouldn't call it good either. They'd lose ground in the Scottish Parliament.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,007
    edited October 7
    The car appears to have struck in the area on Exhibition Road that was turned into a "shared space" for pedestrians and vehicles a few years ago. Theres no real boundary between the road and the pavement other than a painted line. Probably not such a smart development in hindsight.

    This hit home - I lived about 3 mins walk when I was a student (at Imperial College) from the scene of the collision
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    Assuming that Rudd, Hammond and Davidson are three, who the hell is the fourth?
  • ydoethur said:

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    Assuming that Rudd, Hammond and Davidson are three, who the hell is the fourth?
    I could cope with Gove.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016

    That caption's bound to ruffle a few feathers:

    Nice to know Farage doesn't believe in presumption of guilt.
    I'm no Y0kel but have the police really got their tactics right? Why evacuate all the museums? Unless there is a specific threat, aren't they at best doing the terrorists' work by increasing disruption, and at worst putting more people in danger because it is outside on the roads where the bad guys are mowing people down? We've previously seen secondary attacks on evacuated crowds.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,564
    edited October 7
    I disagree Mike.

    JC to become next PM after TM is only 17%

    If the market was "PM after next election?" he'd be double that.

    "Labour PM after next election?" = >50%

    The odds have already accounted for your logic.

    I think JC's price on this market is about right - or at least not that wrong. The others, less so.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Good header Mr Smithson, at last some reality about where we are. What matters to the Conservative Party above all else is power, after the last scare they won't risk losing until absolutely necessary ie 2022. I'd be amazed if Corbyn and his mates can keep the momentum (haha) going until then.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    ydoethur said:

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    Assuming that Rudd, Hammond and Davidson are three, who the hell is the fourth?
    I could cope with Gove.
    We all thought that in 2010. Disillusionment was rapid.

    I think it is known I am not the biggest fan of the Jezziah. But given a choice between a fascist junta led by Corbyn backed by Macdonnell, Abbott, Rayner, Thornberry and other certifiable lunatics, or Michael Gove, I would vote Labour.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,387
    Fpt.
    calum said:

    justin124 said:




    So it looks like the gloss has come off the SNP in Holyrood - but heh - bung a few more MPs Westminster's way.....(if the Glasgow seats hold out against Corbynmania - now 20 points ahead of Nicola.....)

    I doubt that the SNP would manage 35% at a Westminster election.
    FWIW in the most recent Westminster polling the SNP is actually polling over 40%:

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2017-09-19T15:22:00+01:00&max-results=10

    Suffice to say the MSM as are many on this site only seem able to look at opinion polls through the prism of the SNP being a busted flush. I think given the Tories and Labor issues the SNP are as likely to strengthen their current support levels as lose them.
    The SNP Holyrood constituency polling is also higher than in the equivalent month in the 2007 & 2011 parliaments. I'm also pretty sure Salmond had a negative rating during the 2011 parliament. One might think that the SCons being relegated to their customary third place despite the rating for Davidson might give pause in the gadarene rush to extoll the 'doing well' metric.

    Yoons, predicting 43 out of the last 0 SNP busted flushes; long may it continue.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,263
    edited October 7
    "The essential requirement of Corbyn succeeding May at Number 10 is for her to remain [as PM until a general election]."

    I agree with that. It's a matter of logic.

    But the next general election could be soon. It is possible that some Tory MPs will see that May continuing as PM in her weakened position will severely damage her party's prospects, but that a Tory leadership election, because of the Brexit schism in the Tory party, would do even more damage.

    In those circumstances, it is possible that sufficient Tory MPs will engineer a hospital pass to Corbyn with a general election in 2018 that he barely wins (or requires a C&S to survive). Given the clock ticking on Brexit and the declining state of the economy, Corbyn would be tightly constrained and probably wouldn't last the five years. A reinvigorated Tory party would then again take power.

    This might be preferable to a Tory civil war and Brexit disaster that leads to a large Corbyn majority in 2022, with Brexit done and dusted (for better or for worse).

    I think there is a reasonable chance of a hospital pass and Corbyn as next PM.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    Assuming that Rudd, Hammond and Davidson are three, who the hell is the fourth?
    I could cope with Gove.
    We all thought that in 2010. Disillusionment was rapid.

    I think it is known I am not the biggest fan of the Jezziah. But given a choice between a fascist junta led by Corbyn backed by Macdonnell, Abbott, Rayner, Thornberry and other certifiable lunatics, or Michael Gove, I would vote Labour.
    Has he not improved education standards?

    Plus in his brief stint as Justice Secretary, we saw a great reforming mind.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    Fpt.

    calum said:

    justin124 said:




    So it looks like the gloss has come off the SNP in Holyrood - but heh - bung a few more MPs Westminster's way.....(if the Glasgow seats hold out against Corbynmania - now 20 points ahead of Nicola.....)

    I doubt that the SNP would manage 35% at a Westminster election.
    FWIW in the most recent Westminster polling the SNP is actually polling over 40%:

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2017-09-19T15:22:00+01:00&max-results=10

    Suffice to say the MSM as are many on this site only seem able to look at opinion polls through the prism of the SNP being a busted flush. I think given the Tories and Labor issues the SNP are as likely to strengthen their current support levels as lose them.
    The SNP Holyrood constituency polling is also higher than in the equivalent month in the 2007 & 2011 parliaments. I'm also pretty sure Salmond had a negative rating during the 2011 parliament. One might think that the SCons being relegated to their customary third place despite the rating for Davidson might give pause in the gadarene rush to extoll the 'doing well' metric.

    Yoons, predicting 43 out of the last 0 SNP busted flushes; long may it continue.
    The other thought that occurs to me about voting intention for Scotland (and Wales, for the matter of that) is that because of the split leadership the tradeoff may be complex. For example, Davidson is clearly personally quite popular. But that's obviously not vital in a Westminster election as she won't be standing, although it may have some impact. Similarly, Labour would surely have done far worse in Wales in 2007 but for Rhodri Morgan. So I'm not sure looking at the personality questions is terribly helpful.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849
    Sean_F said:

    FPT, while that Yougov poll is not bad for the SNP, I wouldn't call it good either. They'd lose ground in the Scottish Parliament.

    This isn't great either:

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    Good header Mr Smithson, at last some reality about where we are. What matters to the Conservative Party above all else is power, after the last scare they won't risk losing until absolutely necessary ie 2022. I'd be amazed if Corbyn and his mates can keep the momentum (haha) going until then.

    Yes they can.

    To coin a phrase.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Eagles, you just like him because he bifurcated Boris' hopes of an easy leadership win.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,650
    Barnesian said:

    "The essential requirement of Corbyn succeeding May at Number 10 is for her to remain [as PM until a general election]."

    I agree with that. It's a matter of logic.

    But the next general election could be soon. It is possible that some Tory MPs will see that May continuing as PM in her weakened position will severely damage her party's prospects, but that a Tory leadership election, because of the Brexit schism in the Tory party, would do even more damage.

    In those circumstances, it is possible that sufficient Tory MPs will engineer a hospital pass to Corbyn with a general election in 2018 that he barely wins (or requires a C&S to survive). Given the clock ticking on Brexit and the declining state of the economy, Corbyn would be tightly constrained and probably wouldn't last the five years. A reinvigorated Tory party would then again take power.

    This might be preferable to a Tory civil war and Brexit disaster that leads to a large Corbyn majority in 2022, with Brexit done and dusted (for better or for worse).

    I think there is a reasonable chance of a hospital pass and Corbyn as next PM.

    That was the convoluted thinking of some Tories c. 1995-7.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,914
    edited October 7

    Mr. Eagles, you just like him because he bifurcated Boris' hopes of an easy leadership win.

    I've always liked Michael Gove, he's wasted at MAFF DEFRA.

    I did go off him during the referendum and the nasty xenophobic tone of the Vote Leave campaign, I thought he was better than that.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    Pong said:

    I disagree Mike.

    JC to become next PM after TM is only 17%

    If the market was "PM after next election?" he'd be double that.

    "Labour PM after next election?" = >50%

    The odds have already accounted for your logic.

    I think JC's price on this market is about right - or at least not that wrong. The others, less so.

    I think the market just reflects the profound uncertainty of which Tory will take over from May as PM, rather than anything much about Jezza. He's only favourite because no one can decide between Rudd, Davis and Boris.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736


    Has he not improved education standards?

    No. In fact the new History A-level is somewhat easier than the old one - two grades easier in my experience - and the new GCSEs are unfortunately such a total shambles that it's difficult to judge whether they are meaningful assessments never mind harder or not.

    Plus in his brief stint as Justice Secretary, we saw a great reforming mind.

    Which is precisely why I really wanted him as eduction sec in 2010 and was so pleased when he got it. All his ideas were good on paper. His cack-handed implementation, too fast and with too little preparation, plus his dogmatic refusal to listen to reason, plus his sheer nastiness when crossed were a bit of an eye-opener. What should have been the greatest strike for educational reform since 1903 ended up being the greatest disaster for education since Kenneth Baker.

    As Prime Minister, he would be an intelligent version of Corbyn - I am right, if the facts disagree, the facts must be wrong and if you disagree, you are an evil monster and my enemy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Eagles, but do you see him as Marcus Junius Brutus, or Lucius Junius Brutus?
  • Mr. Eagles, but do you see him as Marcus Junius Brutus, or Lucius Junius Brutus?

    I refer you to this piece I wrote several months before the referendum

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/28/michael-gove-could-be-set-to-play-the-role-of-brutus-to-david-camerons-caesar/
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,362
    Gove is a deflated scrotum.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    Mr. Eagles, you just like him because he bifurcated Boris' hopes of an easy leadership win.

    Boris never had any hope of an easy win. Or at least, he had about the same chance of an easy win as I have of a threesome with Margot Robbie and Maria Sharapova.

    Gove did of course make that clearer than Boris had wanted, but it made no diffference to the result.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Eagles, fair enough.

    Mr. Jonathan, surely the absence of inflation is the natural status of a scrotum?

    Mr. Doethur, it would've been at least a contest. Gove holed HMS Boris below the waterline and threw a few snakes onto the deck for good measure.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,493

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, while that Yougov poll is not bad for the SNP, I wouldn't call it good either. They'd lose ground in the Scottish Parliament.

    This isn't great either:

    The SNP have been underperforming their poll ratings for several years at real elections. At a Westminster election I strongly suspect they would struggle to end up with 35%.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    justin124 said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, while that Yougov poll is not bad for the SNP, I wouldn't call it good either. They'd lose ground in the Scottish Parliament.

    This isn't great either:

    The SNP have been underperforming their poll ratings for several years at real elections. At a Westminster election I strongly suspect they would struggle to end up with 35%.
    A logical position, but then we all thought that of Corbyn too. If there's one thing we can say with certainty it's that nobody has a clue what's going to happen in the next 7 days never mind the next five years.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,001
    edited October 7
    dixiedean said:

    Barnesian said:

    "The essential requirement of Corbyn succeeding May at Number 10 is for her to remain [as PM until a general election]."

    I agree with that. It's a matter of logic.

    But the next general election could be soon. It is possible that some Tory MPs will see that May continuing as PM in her weakened position will severely damage her party's prospects, but that a Tory leadership election, because of the Brexit schism in the Tory party, would do even more damage.

    In those circumstances, it is possible that sufficient Tory MPs will engineer a hospital pass to Corbyn with a general election in 2018 that he barely wins (or requires a C&S to survive). Given the clock ticking on Brexit and the declining state of the economy, Corbyn would be tightly constrained and probably wouldn't last the five years. A reinvigorated Tory party would then again take power.

    This might be preferable to a Tory civil war and Brexit disaster that leads to a large Corbyn majority in 2022, with Brexit done and dusted (for better or for worse).

    I think there is a reasonable chance of a hospital pass and Corbyn as next PM.

    That was the convoluted thinking of some Tories c. 1995-7.
    There is zero prospect of any Tory MP voting out his own government IMO. It's just not how party politicians think. In any event, with the Tories polling 40pc their prospects are hardly "severely damaged".
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Not sure that is possible now. Looks increasingly like a Corn Laws situation.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,450
    edited October 7

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    Assuming that Rudd, Hammond and Davidson are three, who the hell is the fourth?
    I could cope with Gove.
    We all thought that in 2010. Disillusionment was rapid.

    I think it is known I am not the biggest fan of the Jezziah. But given a choice between a fascist junta led by Corbyn backed by Macdonnell, Abbott, Rayner, Thornberry and other certifiable lunatics, or Michael Gove, I would vote Labour.
    Has he not improved education standards?

    Plus in his brief stint as Justice Secretary, we saw a great reforming mind.
    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.
  • Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Tory war over Europe has been going on for decades.

    The previous three Tory PMs have been destroyed by European affairs.

    In the 19th century the Tory party fractured over trade and tariffs, it could happen again in the next few months.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,362

    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Tory war over Europe has been going on for decades.

    The previous three Tory PMs have been destroyed by European affairs.

    In the 19th century the Tory party fractured over trade and tariffs, it could happen again in the next few months.
    In which case, the most serious question is whether the popcorn should be sweet, salted or caramel.
  • Jonathan said:

    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Tory war over Europe has been going on for decades.

    The previous three Tory PMs have been destroyed by European affairs.

    In the 19th century the Tory party fractured over trade and tariffs, it could happen again in the next few months.
    In which case, the most serious question is whether the popcorn should be sweet, salted or caramel.
    Depends if the party makes the same mistake as 1990.

    Had Mrs Thatcher been forced out because of the poll tax, then the Tory melodrama over Europe wouldn't be so pronounced.

    If Mrs May is toppled over being crap, and not Brexit, then the Tories might be ok.
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 138
    Jonathan said:


    In which case, the most serious question is whether the popcorn should be sweet, salted or caramel.

    Salted popcorn is an abomination. Go for sweet or caramel. :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364

    That caption's bound to ruffle a few feathers:

    It's also clearly untrue. Unbalanced people sometimes kill people, with or without a network.

    Does he think the Colombine shooters were secret ISIS agents?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,963
    rcs1000 said:

    That caption's bound to ruffle a few feathers:

    It's also clearly untrue. Unbalanced people sometimes kill people, with or without a network.

    Does he think the Colombine shooters were secret ISIS agents?
    I think caption = "BREXIT LEADER".

    I also think Farage is welcome to it, it's not an accolade anyone else is likely to covet.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    edited October 7

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 233
    I think everyone knows May needs to be replaced before the next election. The question is when is the right time to do it. Waiting has four advantages. The first is that it increases the chance of a good Brexit deal due to not wasting several months for a new leader to bed in. The second is it gives chance for a new generation of potential leaders to emerge. The third is that it means the new leader can't be blamed for any discontent with any Brexit compromises. The fourth is that the new leader will be introduced to the public closer to the general election, so they seem more of a fresh face for change.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644

    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Was listening to Any Answers today - someone learnedly suggested joint leadership on the lines of Diocletian. Only on Radio 4!

    The moderator Anita Anand was scintillating, incidentally - haven't heard her before, but she had a very nice balance of probing, giving a fair chance to speak and wit. Someone complained that she the connection was bad and she was breaking up - she instantly replied, deadpan, "It's hard to do."
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,782
    2007 Work horse v show pony.



    2017 Work horse v pushmypullu.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Palmer, I hope someone pointed out the tetrarchy was a form of governance that only functioned effectively during Diocletian's time holding the highest office, and that when he abdicated it ended up in a six emperor war.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,493
    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    A level History sounds very different from my experience back in the early 1970s. That consisted of two 3 hour papers each requiring four essay answers. No materials at all.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    What is the model answer for the artist question?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016

    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Was listening to Any Answers today - someone learnedly suggested joint leadership on the lines of Diocletian. Only on Radio 4!
    Diocletian came sixth in the 3.15 at Newmarket today.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 464
    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,650

    Just realised the Conservative leadership situation is like the first year or two of the Diadochi era. Everybody's proclaiming their loyalty to Perdiccas the regent, whilst preparing for inevitable conflict.

    The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.

    Was listening to Any Answers today - someone learnedly suggested joint leadership on the lines of Diocletian. Only on Radio 4!
    Diocletian came sixth in the 3.15 at Newmarket today.
    Show pony not a work horse then.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,493
    stevef said:

    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.

    At the moment he is performing as well as any other Opposition leader just four months after an election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    What is the model answer for the artist question?
    Try here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/386188-history-around-us-candidate-style-answers.pdf

    For the life of me I cannot see what relevance the artist or the diversity of life have to do with that answer.
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 99
    Is this a post from June 8th that's fallen through a wormhole?
    stevef said:

    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    A level History sounds very different from my experience back in the early 1970s. That consisted of two 3 hour papers each requiring four essay answers. No materials at all.
    And that's what in my view it ought to be again. I do not understand this obsession with source analysis.

    However, the 1970s model is what the academic historians roped in to advise the Government asked for - and were overruled.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,527

    twitter.com/StevePeers/status/916645558344978433

    And what is stopping the UK supreme court from (rightly) refusing to pass any appeal onto the ECJ?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,364
    Elliot said:

    I think everyone knows May needs to be replaced before the next election. The question is when is the right time to do it. Waiting has four advantages. The first is that it increases the chance of a good Brexit deal due to not wasting several months for a new leader to bed in. The second is it gives chance for a new generation of potential leaders to emerge. The third is that it means the new leader can't be blamed for any discontent with any Brexit compromises. The fourth is that the new leader will be introduced to the public closer to the general election, so they seem more of a fresh face for change.

    The risk is an unexpected early election, with May vs Corbyn, following a government collapse.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,650
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    A level History sounds very different from my experience back in the early 1970s. That consisted of two 3 hour papers each requiring four essay answers. No materials at all.
    And that's what in my view it ought to be again. I do not understand this obsession with source analysis.

    However, the 1970s model is what the academic historians roped in to advise the Government asked for - and were overruled.
    Who needs experts, after all?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,364
    spire2 said:

    Is this a post from June 8th that's fallen through a wormhole?

    stevef said:

    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.

    It is one that @stevef repeats most days. It seems he is trying to convince himself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    RobD said:

    twitter.com/StevePeers/status/916645558344978433

    And what is stopping the UK supreme court from (rightly) refusing to pass any appeal onto the ECJ?
    I must confess I had wondered that as well. But would it really make any difference? The ECJ can't enforce its rulings within he EU, what chance would it have of doing so on a non member?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 717

    Only four on that list don't terrify me.

    I make it two, personally.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,527
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/StevePeers/status/916645558344978433

    And what is stopping the UK supreme court from (rightly) refusing to pass any appeal onto the ECJ?
    I must confess I had wondered that as well. But would it really make any difference? The ECJ can't enforce its rulings within he EU, what chance would it have of doing so on a non member?
    Quite. If the UK can negotiate this concession I'd say it's a big win ;)
  • Yes, I couldn't agree more, Mike. Corbyn's price for next PM is a complete mystery to me.

    As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.

    It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.

    I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!

    Fill yer boots. :)
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,329
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    A level History sounds very different from my experience back in the early 1970s. That consisted of two 3 hour papers each requiring four essay answers. No materials at all.
    And that's what in my view it ought to be again. I do not understand this obsession with source analysis.

    However, the 1970s model is what the academic historians roped in to advise the Government asked for - and were overruled.
    Who needs experts, after all?
    We have a desperate need for experts but where the hell are they? Can we have Mervyn back for a start.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362
    stevef said:

    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.

    Have to say it's a bold call four months into what might be a 60-month Parliament and contains a hefty dose of wishful thinking and a large dollop of Daily Mail-style propaganda.

    Every prospective Labour Government has been belittled even before it has taken office. Ever since the Zinoviev Letter, a campaign of not-terribly-subtle fear-mongering has preceded the possibility of Labour taking power.

    Labour leaders were characterised as either being pro-Moscow stooges or in the grip of the Unions or simply not being up to the job. Blair was supposedly a weak character who would, once elected, be under the control of the Unions ("New Labour, New Danger"). With the Cold War over, Labour leaders are now under the thumb of the SNP (apparently).

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!

    TMI, Mr Punter, TMI...

    Or has Diane Abbott hacked your account? :smiley:
  • Yes, I couldn't agree more, Mike. Corbyn's price for next PM is a complete mystery to me.

    As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.

    It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.

    I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!

    Fill yer boots. :)

    My lay of the year, indeed the last few years, has been David Miliband, as next Labour leader.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Eagles, aren't you worried an amazing transformation might occur?

  • I wonder what Nigel Farage is going to say now?

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,360
    edited October 7

    spire2 said:

    Is this a post from June 8th that's fallen through a wormhole?

    stevef said:

    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.

    It is one that @stevef repeats most days. It seems he is trying to convince himself.
    He repeats ad nauseam the same message , always with preface he is a Labour supporter .
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,914
    edited October 7

    Mr. Eagles, aren't you worried an amazing transformation might occur?

    The Miliband name is trashed, he'd be better off changing his name to Judas Hitler.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,387
    edited October 7

    I wonder what Nigel Farage is going to say now?

    Tbf to Farage the network of shit drivers is an extensive one.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,392
    edited October 7

    Yes, I couldn't agree more, Mike. Corbyn's price for next PM is a complete mystery to me.

    As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.

    It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.

    I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!

    Fill yer boots. :)

    There's one other possibility. Not saying it's likely but it could happen. It's this:

    The Govt loses an absolutely vital vote on Brexit within the next 18 months and the Govt collapses resulting in an immediate GE.

    OK, there are still caveats - eg Commons would still have to vote for a GE.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,360
    stodge said:

    stevef said:

    Jeremy Corbyn will never be prime minister.

    Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.

    Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.

    A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.

    Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.

    Have to say it's a bold call four months into what might be a 60-month Parliament and contains a hefty dose of wishful thinking and a large dollop of Daily Mail-style propaganda.

    Every prospective Labour Government has been belittled even before it has taken office. Ever since the Zinoviev Letter, a campaign of not-terribly-subtle fear-mongering has preceded the possibility of Labour taking power.

    Labour leaders were characterised as either being pro-Moscow stooges or in the grip of the Unions or simply not being up to the job. Blair was supposedly a weak character who would, once elected, be under the control of the Unions ("New Labour, New Danger"). With the Cold War over, Labour leaders are now under the thumb of the SNP (apparently).

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.
    Good post as always .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    edited October 7
    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    Labour themselves admit their policies would cause economic chaos. I don't think we'll be queuing in six months, but six months of Labour might cause irreparable damage felt 15 years later, as in Venezuela.

    And it is of course those of us who don't have millions to move abroad and support us there who would suffer most. That's the irony of socialism - it hurts the poor most. (Not I suppose that I am currently especially poor.)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125
    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    That's a fair question - for an Art A Level.

    I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,303
    Eye witnesses say the driver was laughing his head off when he was being arrested...if not terrorism, got to think guy has other issues.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    That's a fair question - for an Art A Level.

    I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.

    It's more I can't understand why they think it's in any way relevant to anything we should be studying. The real question, to judge from their answer, is 'explain how the geography and usage of the site has contributed to its development.' So why can't they just ask that?
  • I wonder what Nigel Farage is going to say now?

    Tbf to Farage the network of shit drivers is an extensive one.
    I got into trouble recently by saying 'Saudi car insurances premiums set to quadruple' after posting news about Saudi women were going to be allowed to drive.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Eagles, some people always ovary-act.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    Another Corbyn layer here. He was also very handy in the pre-Theresa May period too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    I wonder what Nigel Farage is going to say now?

    Tbf to Farage the network of shit drivers is an extensive one.
    I got into trouble recently by saying 'Saudi car insurances premiums set to quadruple' after posting news about Saudi women were going to be allowed to drive.
    What would the Saudi adverts for Sheila's Wheels look like?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    That's a fair question - for an Art A Level.

    I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.

    It is straightforward social history, isn't it? The artist is a red herring: they are not asking how to prepare a canvas; what was daily life like at the site for the different classes of people who lived or worked there?

    It is not the "regnal dates and battles" history taught a lifetime ago, certainly, or even "great chaps" of 50 years back but the question seems pretty clear to me as a non-historian. Whether it is useful or not is another matter but you could ask that of most school subjects.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,829
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    That's a fair question - for an Art A Level.

    I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.

    Same way a historian should answer the question "Describe the key physical features of your site. What items might typically be kept there by the owners"

    The majority of the question is meaningless flim.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,511
    edited October 7
    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing (which is odd when you are, rightly, proud of your quality over quantity posting ratio), and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying into propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country (or that they are overly concerned about those who do have millions)?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usually so reasoned and reasonable, on this particular issue you keep bringing up that you do not have millions to move out of country in a way that makes it seem those who disagree with your view are motivated for that reason, having or focusing on those with the millions, and that would seem unkind, unreasonable and unwarranted if that was your intention. Even if your assessment is correct and others' are not, that doesn't mean they blindly follow propaganda, they may have assessed the risk differently, and whether you have millions or they have millions is irrelevant, and some level of concern about those who do possess it moving out of country is not unreasonable (though it should not be the overriding concern, certainly) so why bring it up?

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    That's a fair question - for an Art A Level.

    I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.

    It is straightforward social history, isn't it? The artist is a red herring: they are not asking how to prepare a canvas; what was daily life like at the site for the different classes of people who lived or worked there?

    It is not the "regnal dates and battles" history taught a lifetime ago, certainly, or even "great chaps" of 50 years back but the question seems pretty clear to me as a non-historian. Whether it is useful or not is another matter but you could ask that of most school subjects.
    Well, no they're not. That's what's really strange. Check out the sample answer and it doesn't mention ordinary people once.

    And should we really have red herrings appropriate to a four year old's story book in a public exam? Why do we patronise the candidates like this?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    I'd have thought the exam question was a direct nod to the annales school of history.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364
    RobD said:

    twitter.com/StevePeers/status/916645558344978433

    And what is stopping the UK supreme court from (rightly) refusing to pass any appeal onto the ECJ?
    It's a classic Eurofudge. The UK says "Oh, we will accept the suzerainty of the ECJ, but only when we pass cases to it." The EU says "Hah! They caved and accepted it."

    In reality, no cases are ever sent up. It's win-win.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125
    O/T somebody either has a sick sense of humour, or else a very tin ear.

    Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,511

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he is responsible for the new GCSEs coming through in English and Maths (and the extension top other subjects next year) then yes I would say he has improved standards significantly.

    I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.

    All I can tell you is that source questions (where he material is provided for you) have gone from 8% to 30% of the new A-level asssessment criteria and where I had a candidate who resat a year having done poorly on the old spec he got an A grade on the new one.

    With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:

    Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge

    Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.

    And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:

    http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
    That's a fair question - for an Art A Level.

    I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.

    It is not the "regnal dates and battles" history taught a lifetime ago, certainly, or even "great chaps" of 50 years back but the question seems pretty clear to me as a non-historian. Whether it is useful or not is another matter but you could ask that of most school subjects.
    From my time studying history, a lot of modern historians are very dismissive of what we might call high political or 'great man' history. I always considered the focus on social aspects important, where we can find the evidence, and of different methods of studying and thinking about history, such as the idea of the longue duree and so on, but at times it felt like certain schools ignore that that short term froth, of high politics and regnal dates etc, is still important.

    Also it's more interesting for a lay person, but that's neither here nor there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    I'd have thought the exam question was a direct nod to the annales school of history.

    I would have thought it was a direct nod to that drunken idiocy that is postmodernism.

    Or to the fact that Michael Riley, the man who wrote it, is a tool (I have met him and I am trying to be generous).

    But I can't understand why they think it's appropriate to set a question like that, then send out a sample answer that ignores 50% of the words.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,511
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/StevePeers/status/916645558344978433

    And what is stopping the UK supreme court from (rightly) refusing to pass any appeal onto the ECJ?
    It's a classic Eurofudge. The UK says "Oh, we will accept the suzerainty of the ECJ, but only when we pass cases to it." The EU says "Hah! They caved and accepted it."

    In reality, no cases are ever sent up. It's win-win.
    I am so glad even in the 21st century arguments around sovereignty vs suzerainty should be so crucial.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,303
    edited October 7
    Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?
This discussion has been closed.