To wonder what qualifies he Daily Fail to write this article schools and SATs failure

[MsColouring]

This came up on my fb feed:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682773/Schools-flunk-new-SATs-teachers-call-Nicky-Morgan-s-head.html

Having experienced the damage the new SATs have caused both as a teacher of year 2 and as a parent of an able year 5 child who has been told that she is 'working towards' this article wound me up.

Schools have worked incredibly hard to get children to the new standard despite the goalposts being moved frequently and to blame teachers is totally unfair.

Gove tapped into a very real "thing" when he said people in this country are sick of experts.

As I've remarked elsewhere, it's noticeable that the small number of MPs who are GPs can't shut up about it and call themselves "Dr" at every opportunity, whereas the 20-odd MPs with PhDs who actually are doctors with doctorates keep quiet about it, presumably for fear of being thought too clever for their own good. For example, it's noticeable that Stella Creasy isn't Dr Stella Creasy, and that Gordon Brown wasn't Dr Gordon Brown; on the other hand. Liam Fox and his two first degrees is always Dr Liam Fox.

I believe that although there is some truth to this it has always been a convenient get out clause for the left's failure to be electable.

The left was elected by a landslide in 1997 and then twice more with substantial majorities. They were endorsed by Rupert Murdoch on each occasion.

One comparison that is never discussed when comparing British maths with Singapour maths is the amount of preparation time teachers are given to planning. In Singapore teachers tend to teach less than 50% of the week and use the rest of the time group planning. British teachers are expected to plan in a couple of hours a week non contact time and fit in
triple impact marking etc etc.

The left was elected by a landslide in 1997 and then twice more with substantial majorities. They were endorsed by Rupert Murdoch on each occasion.

That's only really relevant if you think Murdoch's endorsement is the only factor in those victories. As I said, there is a strong argument that rather than actually influencing the outcomes, the Sun are very good at predicting the outcome and hitching themselves to the winning wagon. The Labour victories were largely down to a very weak, split Tory party against a revitalised Labour Party which had an arsenal of PR tactics which were streets ahead of it's opponents and an ability to tap into the popular zeitgeist of what swathes of the population wanted at that time. I think you'd have to search very hard for a Labourite who would lay those entire victories at the door of Murdoch. And incidentally the Labour % of the vote in 2005 was lower than the Conservative % in 2015 which the left constantly moan was unfair which apparently didn't bother them 10 years before. And they never moan about press endorsements which benefit them either.

At the end of the day most of what this boils down to is the fact that the left wing at the moment can't come up with good enough policies to win votes or debates and because they are incapable of doing that themselves, the answer is always to suppress and silence their opponents instead. Which is a bit, y'know, Stalinist.

At the end of the day most of what this boils down to is the fact that the left wing at the moment can't come up with good enough policies to win votes or debates

Given the choice between compromising in order to win elections, and tearing itself to pieces in obsessive arguments over purist issues, the Labour Party always chooses the latter. And if you happen to be poor, vulnerable or in need, tough shit: your local CLP would much rather talk about Cuba and bait Jews than campaign to get into power and re-open your sure-start centre.

That's only really relevant if you think Murdoch's endorsement is the only factor in those victories.

What a bizarre line of argument. Are you saying the influence of the right wing press can simply be discounted because there are also other influences on the way people vote? Further, your belief that The Sun - for instance - merely reflects rather than influences public opinion is, to put it mildly, highly questionable.

What a bizarre line of argument. Are you saying the influence of the right wing press can simply be discounted because there are also other influences on the way people vote? Further, your belief that The Sun - for instance - merely reflects rather than influences public opinion is, to put it mildly, highly questionable.

I find your line of argument rather wearisome too. There's been quite a bit of research which indicates that the Sun's influence is not decisive and it could well be a case of newspapers echoing the views of their readers rather than forming them. In some studies voting patterns of readers of particular newspapers have followed the trends of those who read no newspapers at all.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X15001854

blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-sun-win-elections/20827

www.city.ac.uk/news/2015/april/newspapers-influence-election

www.independent.co.uk/news/it-wasnt-the-sun-wot-won-it-official-1364910.html

It's too nebulous a subject for any truly decisive verdict, but the idea that the right wing press decide the outcome of elections is demonstratably untrue and is merely a convenient left wing trope to absolve themselves of responsibility when they seem to be incapable of making themselves electable.

You're also missing the impact of self selection. Nobody is forced to consume these papers, and in general they will normally choose a newspaper which reflects attitudes they already hold, rather than simply being ciphers with no opinions who are filled like empty vessels based on a random choice of newspaper.

Bill that's all very interesting and, as both you and your sources acknowledge, speculative but my contention that newspaper proprietors wield political influence stands. You are arguing with yourself in challenging the belief that The Sun can win elections; no-one on this thread has said that.

Er,

The left was elected by a landslide in 1997 and then twice more with substantial majorities. They were endorsed by Rupert Murdoch on each occasion.

Are you saying the influence of the right wing press can simply be discounted because there are also other influences on the way people vote?

Both of those comments heavily suggest that Murdoch and the right wing press have a big influence on voting intentions. And in the context of this thread where people are getting their knickers in a twist about right wing papers being forced to add 'balance' (by which they mean being forced to add a left wing perspective eg Tory policy on SATS is terrible) I don't really see what other source of influence is important. It's comment positively or negatively on government policy and therefore a reflection on that governments performance which ultimately translates to the electorates impression and therefore voting intentions.

Yes, Paul Dacre probably has influence over what diet people decide to spend their money on, or the Murdoch papers influence people on how shit they think their football team are. But that's a

Er

I pointed out those three Labour victories principally because you claimed that the left could not win elections.

Yes, they have sometimes been electable over a decade ago. But when they're not, which is the majority of the time (they've been in government for 30 years since 1945 in comparison to the Tories 41) they do tend to blame it on the right wing press and their apparent ability to hypnotise the electorate, despite the fact this is most unlikely to be true. And let's be honest, there isn't really a left wing party that looks vaguely electable at the moment. The Tories internal fighting looks like a nun's tea party in comparison to Labour's.

Anyway, during the lions share of the time they were electable the Guardian were practically the Labour in house mag and Alan Rusbridger et al had huge influence. Why wasn't that a problem? Why weren't the left demanding 'balance' from the Guardian then if it's so important? Probably for the same reason they whinge about FPTP only when it doesn't benefit them. Because few on the left actually really want 'balance' or parity. What they really want is bias in their favour.

I don't get it. The right wing press exerts no influence beyond the trivial - football, diets - but The Guardian is capable of wielding "huge influence"?

When Lord Northcliffe founded the DM he said it was written by office boys for office boys - and excusing the sexism of the day (common to all the papers) it has been true to that mission. Written by the ignorant for the ignorant.

The only press worse than an unregulated press would be a regulated press.

And anyone who thinks the Guardian and the Mirror have not got an agenda too isn't reading them.