Brexit or Britain Stronger?

[GigiFusc]

The idea that Vaz is gay or Bi is far, far secondary to the fact that he paid prostitutes to have sex with him.

[Coin Biter]

The idea that Vaz is gay or Bi is far, far secondary to the fact that he paid prostitutes to have sex with him.

That was the reason for his stepping down as Home Affairs Select Committee head, certainly. I think he'd have difficulty with the argument made that there was a conflict of interest, given that the committee will be making recommendations on law changes on prostitution in the future (including whether to go for the model of criminalising someone in Vaz's position).

If the conflict hadn't been as direct as that, he probably would have stuck it out. His entire career is characterised by refusing to apologise or resign.

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

Hoist on his own petard - there wouldn't have been a story without Vaz' upstanding family man act.

The Brexit word from Europe seems to suggest that the withdrawal from the EU can't be accelerated, so the timetable will put the actual resolution of any exit deal slap bang in the middle of an election year (2020). Utter coincidence, I am sure.

[Kieran_Frost]

Well yes. Of course, Vaz is 59, and was elected to Parliament as long ago as 1987, some four years after the notorious Bermondsey by-election at which Peter Tatchell's sexuality was used against him, to disgraceful effect. I don't know how open a politician like Vaz could be in those days. A lot has changed since then, of course, and we don't know the basis of his marriage or his understanding with his family.

Agreed; though we still see a trend of those who've been in the public eye for a long time less likely to come out, compared to rising stars who are on the scene openly LGBT from when they enter. Times are changing, but still a great number live in the closet (sadly).

The idea that Vaz is gay or Bi is far, far secondary to the fact that he paid prostitutes to have sex with him.

Oh of course, hence why I said slight "twinge" of sadness. It's not the main point we should take from it, but any man or woman who is (in their mind) stuck in a marriage that does not make them whole is a sad thing (esp. when it comes to oppressing one's sexuality).

[Kieran_Frost]

Theresa May: UK will lead world in free trade
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37291832

Theresa May said the UK could become "the global leader in free trade" as she faced calls to clarify the government's post-Brexit vision. Making a G20 summit statement, the PM refused to give a "running commentary" or "reveal our hand prematurely". She was speaking in the Commons after Australia and the UK began "preliminary discussions" about a new trade deal. Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo predicted an agreement between the countries "when the time is right".
But with the UK unable to sign deals while still in the European Union, he said an agreement would not be able to happen until the UK left the EU in two-and-a-half years' time. Australia has been earmarked as the first potential new trade partner for the UK once it leaves the EU. Addressing MPs, Mrs May said India, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore were also keen to remove trade barriers. She pledged to "think through the issues in a sober and considered way", adding: "So we will not take decisions until we are ready. We will not reveal our hand prematurely and we will not provide a running commentary on every twist and turn of the negotiation." During her statement, Mrs May was urged to set out what the government wanted to achieve from Brexit negotiations, with the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Roberston asking: "Does she seriously expect to be able to hold out for years in not confirming whether she wants the UK to remain a member of the single market?"

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said it was "unclear" what the government was "trying to do". He accused Mrs May of supporting "free trade dogma" rather than a policy that "values human rights and human dignity". The Labour leader later faced calls to clarify whether he supported the UK's continuing membership of the EU single market. Labour sources said Mr Corbyn thought the UK's Brexit negotiations should aim to secure "full access to the single market" in goods and services.
But a spokesman for the Labour leader said Mr Corbyn had campaigned against aspects of the single market and would oppose a deal that included "aspects of the existing architecture" that were damaging to working people and public services.
Asked if Mr Corbyn wanted the UK to remain a full member of the EU single market the spokesman said there was a question about what "membership of the single market" actually meant. Labour MP and Remain campaigner Chuka Umunna called for clarity from his party, saying: "Labour should be fighting for Britain to stay in the single market, not turning a blind eye to its advantages."
[MORE IN LINK]

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

Interesting takeaway from BBC Question Time is not that Corbyn was seen to have won by commentators - this wasn't his first time having his feet held to the fire and his strategy of being as harmless as possible seems to be paying off - the interesting thing was seeing Owen Smith tested under those conditions for the first time. There were some remarkable flipflops - like condemning Islamophobia only to support the discredited and Islamophobic Prevent strategy seconds later, then saying Prevent didn't work, then saying he wanted to increase funding - and on one occasion when a question wasn't going well, he accused the audience member of "abuse" for pressing Smith for an answer, but what probably went down most poorly was his attempts to repeat common press smears, particularly his attempts to call Corbyn an antisemite - such smears work in the press, but face-to-face the subject can just deny them outright and pressing them further runs the risk of looking like bullying, and that seemed to be how the BBC's audience viewed it. I believe William Shakespeare referred to such under-performing in public venues as "shitting the bed."

Also grammar schools are making a comeback in England, Wales and Scotland - erm. Okay then.
I come from Northern Ireland where the school system is segregated in ways you wouldn't believe in the 21st century, so the Grammar system continues to cast its shadow here. Basically, grammar schools are a two-tier system where kids do nothing but tests so they can be appraised for entry into "better" schools, but in practice what happens is that privately-run institutions cherry-pick students so the troublemakers, the poor, and the generally undesirable are left behind in underfunded state-run schools to prepare for a life of unemployment. I recall a common problem was that disabled or special needs kids tended not to do well in the selection process.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'LL GIVE EVERY CHILD A CHANCE
by The Prime Minister
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-reality.html

Yesterday I laid out the first step of an ambitious plan to set Britain on the path to being the great meritocracy of the world.

It is a vision of a Britain where advantage is based on merit not privilege, talent not circumstance, hard work not background. It is a vision of a country where everyone plays by the same rules and ordinary, working class people have more control over their lives. A vision of a society where everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow.

And the plan I laid out yesterday – a good school place for every child that caters to their individual talents, abilities and needs – is the starting point: putting government firmly at the service of ordinary working class people and building a great meritocracy in our nation.
That means committing to the task of spreading opportunity, because when people lose a sense of opportunity they lose a sense of hope. So the changes I outlined to our school system yesterday – not just more school places but more good school places, not just more new schools but more good new schools catering to the needs and abilities of each individual child – are designed to spread opportunity across society.

Because at the moment, opportunity is too often the preserve of the wealthy or a quirk of circumstance. Those who can afford to can move near a good school, pay to go private or fund the extra tuition their child needs to succeed. Those with the right connections and contacts can get on, while those who have none simply cannot.

I want to correct this manifest unfairness. Giving every child the chance of a good education that’s right for them is the place to start. To do this – to deliver a good school place for every child – we will need to think differently. We will encourage and help our universities, faith groups such as the Catholic Church and independent schools to establish, sponsor or support new state schools. And yes, we will change the rules to allow for a new generation of grammar schools where there is demand and on the condition they act to raise outcomes for all pupils, particularly those from lower income households.

These New Grammars are important, because at the moment selection exists if you’re wealthy but doesn’t exist if you’re not. I want to change that. I know I was incredibly lucky when I was a young girl growing up. My education was varied: I went to a grammar school that became a comprehensive – and for a short time I attended a private school. I know too that my teachers made me the woman I am today.

I want every child to have the kind of opportunities that I enjoyed. I want every parent to have the peace of mind that comes with knowing their children will get the chance to go a great school. And I want every teacher and every school to have the resources and the capacity to deliver on those promises.

I know these things will not just happen overnight. They require bold decisions and a lot of hard work, and no doubt there will be opposition to overcome.

But as I set out yesterday, I am determined that we will build a school system that works for everyone. That is a hallmark of a truly meritocratic Britain.


May, pictured at Holton Park Grammar in Oxfordshire in 1971, says she wants every child to have the same ‘opportunities that I enjoyed’

[Coin Biter]

After Corbyn's victory in the leadership contest, it will be interesting to see how Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet will change, if at all - whether those who stepped down or refused to serve will now be involved. Emily Thornberry, for example, is currently holding down two roles - Shadow Foreign Secretary and shadowing David Davis as Minister for Brexit - will she continue to cover both roles?

Re grammar schools what is interesting about May's proposal is that it is, on paper, a very risky one. It will be popular with the grassroots, but even many Conservatives don't want a return to grammar schools. The previous Education Secretary has denounced the idea, and it is by no means certain it would get through the Commons - let alone the Lords. This is either a sign of confidence, or an attempt to divert the debate from Brexit. Or maybe May just feels that strongly about grammar schools. Who knows.

Some education systems use selection. But the legacy of the 11 plus, the single exam which determined a child's future, is one which is a continuing source of outrage to many. It was a crude measure to determine a child's future and divided families.

It is untrue to imply that academic selection operates irrespective of wealth/social standing. Well-to-do families are much more able to prepare their children for exams, through private tuition or other means. For example, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both indeed attended grammar schools. They also had both attended independent fee-paying schools, perhaps briefly in May's case.

Even if it weren't the case that grammar schools advantage the better off, they would have the potential to lower the standards of other schools. Everyone is aware that there are good schools in the UK, whether comprehensives, academies, private schools and so on. Well-off families can already arrange for their children to be able to attend those schools, either by buying properties in expensive catchment areas, paying fees, and so on.

The real problem is the schools which do not meet proper standards, and reintroducing an official two tier secondary school service in which pupils are consigned to inferior schools at an early age if they do not meet exams is likely to exacerbate problems with the schooling system rather than improve them.

[jeanvaljean]

I am more worried about the expansion of faith schools, but that may be because I don't know much about the grammar school system. I like grammar in my schools, I don't like religion in my schools.

[GigiFusc]

I'LL GIVE EVERY CHILD A CHANCE
by The Prime Minister
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-reality.html

Yesterday I laid out the first step of an ambitious plan to set Britain on the path to being the great meritocracy of the world.

It is a vision of a Britain where advantage is based on merit not privilege, talent not circumstance, hard work not background. It is a vision of a country where everyone plays by the same rules and ordinary, working class people have more control over their lives. A vision of a society where everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow.

And the plan I laid out yesterday – a good school place for every child that caters to their individual talents, abilities and needs – is the starting point: putting government firmly at the service of ordinary working class people and building a great meritocracy in our nation.
That means committing to the task of spreading opportunity, because when people lose a sense of opportunity they lose a sense of hope. So the changes I outlined to our school system yesterday – not just more school places but more good school places, not just more new schools but more good new schools catering to the needs and abilities of each individual child – are designed to spread opportunity across society.

Because at the moment, opportunity is too often the preserve of the wealthy or a quirk of circumstance. Those who can afford to can move near a good school, pay to go private or fund the extra tuition their child needs to succeed. Those with the right connections and contacts can get on, while those who have none simply cannot.

I want to correct this manifest unfairness. Giving every child the chance of a good education that’s right for them is the place to start. To do this – to deliver a good school place for every child – we will need to think differently. We will encourage and help our universities, faith groups such as the Catholic Church and independent schools to establish, sponsor or support new state schools. And yes, we will change the rules to allow for a new generation of grammar schools where there is demand and on the condition they act to raise outcomes for all pupils, particularly those from lower income households.

These New Grammars are important, because at the moment selection exists if you’re wealthy but doesn’t exist if you’re not. I want to change that. I know I was incredibly lucky when I was a young girl growing up. My education was varied: I went to a grammar school that became a comprehensive – and for a short time I attended a private school. I know too that my teachers made me the woman I am today.

I want every child to have the kind of opportunities that I enjoyed. I want every parent to have the peace of mind that comes with knowing their children will get the chance to go a great school. And I want every teacher and every school to have the resources and the capacity to deliver on those promises.

I know these things will not just happen overnight. They require bold decisions and a lot of hard work, and no doubt there will be opposition to overcome.

But as I set out yesterday, I am determined that we will build a school system that works for everyone. That is a hallmark of a truly meritocratic Britain.


May, pictured at Holton Park Grammar in Oxfordshire in 1971, says she wants every child to have the same ‘opportunities that I enjoyed’

It stinks of right wing in here. Jesus won't be happy.

[jeanvaljean]

This is wonderfully written:

Opening grammar schools is like buying a show elephant. Those who are concerned by the ethics of it are initially outnumbered by those who like the theory of it, and you can satisfy your doubts about the purchase by dressing it up nicely and generously letting a few of the local disadvantaged kids have a ride on it for free. But you won’t be able to hide the mountain of shit slowly accumulating behind it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-..._11948808.html

[GigiFusc]

This is wonderfully written:



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-..._11948808.html

nice...

[Kieran_Frost]

After Corbyn's victory in the leadership contest, it will be interesting to see how Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet will change, if at all - whether those who stepped down or refused to serve will now be involved. Emily Thornberry, for example, is currently holding down two roles - Shadow Foreign Secretary and shadowing David Davis as Minister for Brexit - will she continue to cover both roles?

I'm very curious, post Corbyn victory (because COME ON, he has to win) how the shadow cabinet will be. Most of the naysayers have already quit; so that, at-least, makes life easier.

Re grammar schools what is interesting about May's proposal is that it is, on paper, a very risky one. It will be popular with the grassroots, but even many Conservatives don't want a return to grammar schools. The previous Education Secretary has denounced the idea, and it is by no means certain it would get through the Commons - let alone the Lords. This is either a sign of confidence, or an attempt to divert the debate from Brexit. Or maybe May just feels that strongly about grammar schools. Who knows.

Some education systems use selection. But the legacy of the 11 plus, the single exam which determined a child's future, is one which is a continuing source of outrage to many. It was a crude measure to determine a child's future and divided families.

As far as I'm aware, it's not only going to be 11+; you can take it at 13 and 16 (so it's not a "one chance and then your doomed" situation -- which is a VERY good revision).

The real problem is the schools which do not meet proper standards, and reintroducing an official two tier secondary school service in which pupils are consigned to inferior schools at an early age if they do not meet exams is likely to exacerbate problems with the schooling system rather than improve them.

Agreed this is a problem, but schools also need the power to remove those who hinder the learning of others (which, when based on location, is far harder). Academic requirement is a good way to filter out those who do not try to learn/do not wish to learn, and sadly aid in stopping others learning (which means teachers have more time to focus on actually educating, rather than playing bad cop to disruptive pupils).

It stinks of right wing in here. Jesus won't be happy.

[GigiFusc]

You're kidding right? You can't see posting a report by the Daily Mail - the most right wing newspaper in Britain, about the new right wing leader of an increasingly right wing driven Tory party forcing through and incredibly right wing school agenda? Comeon, please.

[Kieran_Frost]

You're kidding right? You can't see posting a report by the Daily Mail - the most right wing newspaper in Britain, about the new right wing leader of an increasingly right wing driven Tory party forcing through and incredibly right wing school agenda? Comeon, please.

a) while the link is to the Daily Mail, it's merely a link to a website with the Prime Minister's statement. The link to the website is immaterial; had the Guardian been the link, the words of the article would not have changed.
b) the Tory part isn't "increasingly right wing"; that's very misinformed. They are (and have been) far closer to the middle than the party used to be; and compared to other right wing parties around the world, they are still incredibly liberal
c) the idea that posting anything linked to the Tories makes this place "stink of right wing" might be your view (erroneous though it is); but intolerance is not something anyone should aspire to (and trying to shut down perfectly legitimate news because you have a clear bias against a legitimate political party is disappointing -- not to mention undemocratic). This thread is for EVERYONE, not just those YOU approve of. And it's sort of both amusing yet sad that it's the (one would assume) "liberal-leaning" posters who are consistently the ones hurling the nastiest comments at political parties, and trying to shut down legitimate posts in this thread. If you want to make rebuttles, do. If you want to just name call and throw shade, I'd suggest not.