Westminstenders: 30 days to save us all!

[RedToothBrush]

It's quite remarkable to watch the British press atm.

It's like it doesn't understand English. Well only if its English spoken by foreigners.

Merkel made the observation that the UK had spent two years looking at the Irish border but had failed to come up with a workable solution, and now Johnson has waltzed in and made statements about how the backstop must go, and only has 30 days in which this can be achieved.

The British press writes this up as Merkel giving the UK a deadline to come up with a new solution.

Which is nonsense. The UK have a deadline to save itself, from itself and that's 31st October. This is a self imposed deadline.

Meanwhile comes out with the Brexiteer smack down that he didn't think the UK wS leaving the EU to regain its sovereignty only to become a vassalage or junior partner to the US.

Both these ideas being the result of leaving the EU have long been key issues. From before the ref. Both have been the UK's to solve in order to get the terms the UK wants from a deal.

The referendum was about choosing to align with the EU or to ditch that and rights and align closely with the US. Then Trump happened and the sell on this got harder, but still essentially the same. And it continues.

And then there was the Irish border. The magic solution to Brexit that doesn't break the GFA. I personally think there isn't one as long as the DUP have their red lines about the Irish sea.

So here we are. More than 3 years after the ref.

Leavers still have no plan. Apart for charge headlong over the cliff. Remains still have their heads wedged up their own backsides and also, after spending months criticising every one else on social media anyway who makes a stand again this bull shit.

Yet the newspapers fail to report what Merkel said or why the UK has this issue in the first place. Its an ongoing exercise in national delusion and self denial.

On what planet is voting for self destruction a sensible attitude? Most people did not want 'no deal' at the start. They've been led down that route, much like the proverbial frog left in slowly boiling water.

It might be good if someone could set the General Election for Nov 12 - just after Nov 11. "Lest we forget", let not disaster capitalism reign.

This thread does come close to implying that much of the population that be assumed to have a low IQ because they don't agree with Mumsnet. This is a highly questionable assumption, and even if you feel that IQ tests are valid, they imply a bellcurve, with most of the population in the average range, and extremes of ability and lack of ability being fairly rare. They do not imply that half of the population are stupid.

Half the population are of below average intelligence. An arithmetic certainty. What it means is up for debate. But the fact itself is not.

You can have your own opinions. But not your own facts.

I wish I was that young
Me too, they have cheekbones and everything!
I'm flattered BigChoc

In the interests of levity.
Our new boss with appropriate music.
twitter.com/Dgarza888/status/1165896883820040192

Cherin - if Iceland can grow tomatoes and bananas, then maybe Scotland can grow oranges using hydro, wind and tidal power

And if ScottishPower and SSE are no longer having to pay the transmission charges to National Grid to service London/the South East, then they may have spare capacity

And dh wrote an essay when he was studying for the MW qualification about global warning that talked about the potential future opportunity for a wine industry in Yorkshire and further North in the Central Belt

DGR - reminds me of the time that Gove, as Education Secretary, told a Select Committee that he wanted all schools to be above average

I.Q tests prove only one thing...you can do I.Q tests. There is a pupil in my dgd school who has an I.Q of 164. Did this mean that that pupil got the highest grades in their GCSEs? Nope it did not. My dgd had better results and she's never done an I.Q test in her life and has no intention of doing one ever.

I tell my learners that when a politician uses the word average, the first thing to think is “which average are you using.?” and the second is “why?”.

Good to hear that some organisations are not just rolling over and Beleaving in Brexit:

From the LibDem Mark Pack
The independent Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a radio advertisement from the Home Office about the process for EU citizens to apply to remain in the UK after Brexit.

The Home Office’s advert claimed the system is really simple. The ASA decided otherwise, as the New European reports:

The government department’s radio advert, which was broadcast on April 13, told EU citizens that they only needed to have simple ID details to hand in order to apply to stay in the UK after Brexit.

“All you need is your passport or ID card and to complete an online form,” said the advert.

However, many EU citizens have been asked to provide further documentation, prompting the ASA to rule that the advert is “misleading”.

Christine Jardine, new to the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary brief, commented:

It’s appalling the way EU citizens have been treated by the Tories since the referendum. We’ve already heard far too many cases of people not receiving the Settled Status they are entitled to. The Home Office putting out misleading adverts about how to apply only makes it worse.

reminds me of the time that Gove, as Education Secretary, told a Select Committee that he wanted all schools to be above average

He wasn't the first Education Sec to believe that. John Patten was another. He came a cropper when he called Tim Brighouse a nutter. Tim Brighouse sued and won. That seemed to finish Patten's career. Tim Brighouse had been the Chief Education Officer for Oxfordshire and then later was responsible for London schools.

There is also the sign outside a school near you proclaiming

Excellence for All

Any school worth the name would teach you that is an oxymoron.

Glad your dgd did well sos

Thanks Hooo she's now doing A levels will be in yr 13 in September.

DVDs cohort were the first to sit Goves new gcses for all subjects.

Any school worth the name would teach you that is an oxymoron.

Education speak is full of it though. All teachers should be aiming to be 'outstanding'. Schools lie show off about having nothing but outstanding teachers. but - if all teachers are outstanding then literally none of them will stand out

Iq tests are a clearer indication of intelligence then exam results.

There is a range for average IQs, from memory 90-110, a large section of the population will fall into that. The average average is 100 many won't have that...but again those who fall below that can have decent exam results.

Random fact having an IQ above 140 doesn't automatically qualify a person for Mensa.

And not many pp's imply people are thick they often say it very directly

Of course, silly, they just stand out in comparison to the other comprehensive at the end of the borough that your school is competing with ;-)
But because your kid can only be enrolled in one school at the time, you’ll never know if that’s really true

DP were teachers. Loved by some, hated by others. DF in particular could generate very strong reactions at either end of the spectrum. He really didn’t believe in rating the teachers ;-)

Iq tests are a clearer indication of intelligence then exam results

Particularly this year , when anyone with a pulse, has been hired to do exam marking; including undergraduates for A level, I have read......

GCSE English AQA marking has been described as a'shitshow' in the TES.

www.tes.com/news/exam-board-accused-betraying-gcse-english-pupils

What's the name of that fellah in charge of no deal planning?

I think these exams were his baby.

Who needs real exams when children can be beaten by adults though..........

I.Q tests prove only one thing...you can do I.Q tests. There is a pupil in my dgd school who has an I.Q of 164. Did this mean that that pupil got the highest grades in their GCSEs? Nope it did not. My dgd had better results and she's never done an I.Q test in her life and has no intention of doing one ever.

And GCSEs only prove you can do GCSEs.

It's perfectly possible to have a super high IQ but get no GCSEs. Or perfectly possible to have a lower IQ and good GCSEs.

Behaviour, attention, willingness to work hard etc all also comes into it.

I know a few people who have very high IQs and are high achieving in the work place and quite frankly run rings around most people in arguments or with their general knowledge. They don't have the best academic grades for a variety of reasons. One was kicked out of school. One is severely dyslexic and this was only diagnosed when he was at university. One just couldn't be bothered as it was too boring.

That's the trouble, all these tests are not necessarily going to bring the best of of people and we have a system that has become increasingly obsessed with academica and certain types of knowledge rather than learning stuff and the principles of how to apply that.

50% of the population are below average intelligence. Cos average means the mid point. Does that mean they are stupid? Well it depends on whether you value emotional intelligence and other forms of intelligence.

We are in extremely dangerous territory.

Dear Lewis Goodall.
Yes.
The civil war dynamic has been apparent for some considerable time but no one has been paying attention or taking it seriously.

Still on that course and the polarisation isn't slowing down...

Brexit Party are campaigning this Saturday in Johnson's constituency. Against him...

Kevin Maguire
✔
@Kevin_Maguire
Emergency Budget from Boris Johnson’s Tory regime announced a few mins ago for next Wednesday, 4 Sept. Billed as fast racked 2020-21 spending. Smacks of an early election and Brexit no deal panic

Lets hope DWP do a better job of assessment than Atos and Capita before them

DS works for them and says no. The phrase he used was "they are cunts" and I believe him.

news.sky.com/story/sky-views-both-brexit-tribes-believe-the-other-is-plotting-a-parliamentary-coup-11795803

Reading the above article by Lewis Goodall takes me back to how I felt the day of the referendum result. I voted remain. Remain lost. It was hard to take.

But, I thought, it was extremely close. So, I thought, that means a soft Brexit. Brexit happens, because leave won. But, to be rational, to achieve some sort of unity, it will be soft.

However, the ERG and Farage, and now the Johnson government, have chosen to treat a referendum, possibly a once in a lifetime vote, as if it was an ordinary general election. Where one party, in FPTP, gets to decide everything about which policy to follow. Not interested in bringing together the country. These Brexiteers have now lied and lied, rewritten history that it was the biggest turn out for a vote, pretended it was a huge majority to leave, that voters wanted No Deal all along. People had barely heard of No Deal unless it was Noel Edmonds talking about it on afternoon TV ffs.

It sticks in my craw to say this of course, but if I'd voted leave I would have been annoyed if we didn't leave the EU. I absolutely don't want to leave the EU. I'd be delighted if we didn't. But, if we had to leave, a soft Brexit would have been the pragmatic answer.

Home Office advert banned for 'misleading' EU citizens

64 days....