Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:59 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86413 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129, 2130 ... 2161  Next

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out
In 60%  60%  [ 247 ]
Out 40%  40%  [ 166 ]
Total votes : 413
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:10 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
The DUP may well be in a strong position owing to the Fixed Term Parliament Act. That is, they can mess up May's Govt. without risking a Corbyn one, piling the pressure on May and emboldening the ERG.

Quote:
But what is being missed are the consequences of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, and the increased leverage it gives to the DUP. Under the act, a parliament runs for five years unless there is a two-thirds majority for an early election or the government loses a vote of no confidence and no-one is able to form a new government within 14 days.

Thanks to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, “confidence votes” have been explicitly drawn to exclude votes on the Budget or the Queen’s Speech. A government only falls if it loses a vote of no confidence. It no longer falls if it loses a major vote, a Budget vote or even the Queen’s Speech.

This obviously increases the leverage of the DUP – and Labour’s ability to harry the government day-to-day. The DUP can hold the government up, by backing them in confidence votes. But they can also let them down by deserting them on essentially everything else to secure bigger concessions from the Conservative Party.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... arliaments


Last edited by Rugby2023 on Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14492
backrow wrote:
do Uganda, Kenya etc even have pensions ?
interesting that the article only shows the pension as a liability - what about the asset side such as the pension provider (at least some of whom would be british owned companies, predominatly invested in Uk assets including UK gilts) or the asset that retired UK pensioners receive an income and can spend it on Blue Rinse, denture cream and Bingo ?

pension deficits will naturally be worse for a country where life expectancy is higher, as well as peoples sense of entitlement that the state should provide. the sooner a Uk govt sets about properly funding peoples old age, such as Australians enforced superannuation scheme, the better. Alternatively, just stop providing a state pension at all & the hideous cost.

I do agree that the selling off of state assets has gone on way too long, and at too much long term costs - not so much the privitisation of utilities things, but schools selling their playing fields type.

Stop providing a state pension, let old people starve to death? Its one solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19773
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
do Uganda, Kenya etc even have pensions ?
interesting that the article only shows the pension as a liability - what about the asset side such as the pension provider (at least some of whom would be british owned companies, predominatly invested in Uk assets including UK gilts) or the asset that retired UK pensioners receive an income and can spend it on Blue Rinse, denture cream and Bingo ?

pension deficits will naturally be worse for a country where life expectancy is higher, as well as peoples sense of entitlement that the state should provide. the sooner a Uk govt sets about properly funding peoples old age, such as Australians enforced superannuation scheme, the better. Alternatively, just stop providing a state pension at all & the hideous cost.

I do agree that the selling off of state assets has gone on way too long, and at too much long term costs - not so much the privitisation of utilities things, but schools selling their playing fields type.

Stop providing a state pension, let old people starve to death? Its one solution


perhaps people can start providing for their own old age food needs ?
if they had more money in their pocket thanks to not having to pay tax for fund state pension, then they would have more money to put aside for their own age. If they choose to spunk it on clothes and holidays and normal stuff people with no sense of planning do, so be it.

to be clear, I'm just putting it there as an extreme example, I actually think people should be forced to pay a superannuation tax for their old age - sadly it would be political suicide in a low tax expectation, high provision entitlement such as the average Uk voter lives in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14492
backrow wrote:
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
do Uganda, Kenya etc even have pensions ?
interesting that the article only shows the pension as a liability - what about the asset side such as the pension provider (at least some of whom would be british owned companies, predominatly invested in Uk assets including UK gilts) or the asset that retired UK pensioners receive an income and can spend it on Blue Rinse, denture cream and Bingo ?

pension deficits will naturally be worse for a country where life expectancy is higher, as well as peoples sense of entitlement that the state should provide. the sooner a Uk govt sets about properly funding peoples old age, such as Australians enforced superannuation scheme, the better. Alternatively, just stop providing a state pension at all & the hideous cost.

I do agree that the selling off of state assets has gone on way too long, and at too much long term costs - not so much the privitisation of utilities things, but schools selling their playing fields type.

Stop providing a state pension, let old people starve to death? Its one solution


perhaps people can start providing for their own old age food needs ?
if they had more money in their pocket thanks to not having to pay tax for fund state pension, then they would have more money to put aside for their own age. If they choose to spunk it on clothes and holidays and normal stuff people with no sense of planning do, so be it.

to be clear, I'm just putting it there as an extreme example, I actually think people should be forced to pay a superannuation tax for their old age - sadly it would be political suicide in a low tax expectation, high provision entitlement such as the average Uk voter lives in.


I don't disagree with a superannuation tax but you already have PRSI, is that not supposed to be for benefits? I understand people won't want higher PRSI but sometimes governments need to do unpopular things, selling off the family china to avoid the hard decisions hasn't exactly been a roaring success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19773
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
do Uganda, Kenya etc even have pensions ?
interesting that the article only shows the pension as a liability - what about the asset side such as the pension provider (at least some of whom would be british owned companies, predominatly invested in Uk assets including UK gilts) or the asset that retired UK pensioners receive an income and can spend it on Blue Rinse, denture cream and Bingo ?

pension deficits will naturally be worse for a country where life expectancy is higher, as well as peoples sense of entitlement that the state should provide. the sooner a Uk govt sets about properly funding peoples old age, such as Australians enforced superannuation scheme, the better. Alternatively, just stop providing a state pension at all & the hideous cost.

I do agree that the selling off of state assets has gone on way too long, and at too much long term costs - not so much the privitisation of utilities things, but schools selling their playing fields type.

Stop providing a state pension, let old people starve to death? Its one solution


perhaps people can start providing for their own old age food needs ?
if they had more money in their pocket thanks to not having to pay tax for fund state pension, then they would have more money to put aside for their own age. If they choose to spunk it on clothes and holidays and normal stuff people with no sense of planning do, so be it.

to be clear, I'm just putting it there as an extreme example, I actually think people should be forced to pay a superannuation tax for their old age - sadly it would be political suicide in a low tax expectation, high provision entitlement such as the average Uk voter lives in.


I don't disagree with a superannuation tax but you already have PRSI, is that not supposed to be for benefits? I understand people won't want higher PRSI but sometimes governments need to do unpopular things, selling off the family china to avoid the hard decisions hasn't exactly been a roaring success.



we'll have none of that fancy foreign mick PRSI rubbish here thanks - its National insurance.
We do have it - sadly its just not enough, the 11% rate (to cover everything) is pretty much what the aussies charge for their Pension alone (I may be a few years out on the stats here as been a while since I've been involved in anything related to this.)

I entirely agree with you about selling the family China not working well. its short sightedness in the extreme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3024
Rugby2023 wrote:
The DUP may well be in a strong position owing to the Fixed Term Parliament Act. That is, they can mess up May's Govt. without risking a Corbyn one, piling the pressure on May and emboldening the ERG.

Quote:
But what is being missed are the consequences of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, and the increased leverage it gives to the DUP. Under the act, a parliament runs for five years unless there is a two-thirds majority for an early election or the government loses a vote of no confidence and no-one is able to form a new government within 14 days.

Thanks to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, “confidence votes” have been explicitly drawn to exclude votes on the Budget or the Queen’s Speech. A government only falls if it loses a vote of no confidence. It no longer falls if it loses a major vote, a Budget vote or even the Queen’s Speech.

This obviously increases the leverage of the DUP – and Labour’s ability to harry the government day-to-day. The DUP can hold the government up, by backing them in confidence votes. But they can also let them down by deserting them on essentially everything else to secure bigger concessions from the Conservative Party.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... arliaments



If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:09 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
Nobleman wrote:
If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.

It wouldn't actually be one though. Conceivably, May could then hold a separate confidence vote and win it (which she probably would considering Tories & DUP won't vote for Corbyn).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:18 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.

It wouldn't actually be one though. Conceivably, May could then hold a separate confidence vote and win it (which she probably would considering Tories & DUP won't vote for Corbyn).



Yip. The ERG consistently say there's no government confidence vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3024
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.

It wouldn't actually be one though. Conceivably, May could then hold a separate confidence vote and win it (which she probably would considering Tories & DUP won't vote for Corbyn).


Theresa May will almost certainly use the vote on the deal as a vote of no confidence, in order to get it through. These are the same tactics that John Major used with the Maastricht treaty in 1993.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:35 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
Nobleman wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.

It wouldn't actually be one though. Conceivably, May could then hold a separate confidence vote and win it (which she probably would considering Tories & DUP won't vote for Corbyn).


Theresa May will almost certainly use the vote on the deal as a vote of no confidence, in order to get it through. These are the same tactics that John Major used with the Maastricht treaty in 1993.

I believe that's against the Fixed Terms Parliament Act 2011, my understanding it can no longer linked to other votes or legislation i.e. it has to be separate motion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33608
Location: Pigdogistan
danny_fitz wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
S Club wrote:
sewa wrote:
This looks a good read, my free articles are used up so if anyone cares to paste in the rest :thumbup:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/10/jeremy-corbyn-says-schools-should-teach-children-grave-injustices/

School children should be taught about the “grave injustices” of the British Empire, Jeremy Corbyn will say on Thursday, prompting a furious response from Tory politicians.

The Labour leader will announce plans to improve the teaching of black British history and the history of the British Empire, colonialism and slavery “to help ensure their legacy is more widely understood across the country”.

Mr Corbyn will outline Labour’s plans to support a new Emancipation Educational Trust, aimed at educating future generations about slavery and the struggle for emancipation.

The trust will tell the story of "how slavery interrupted a rich African and black history", delivering school programmes for young...


British and Irish Empire, thank you very much. I think you do your great country a disservice by overlooking the crucial role you proudly played, shoulder to shoulder with the British in creating and maintaining imperial rule around the world.


Plenty of shit committed by the British Empire involved participation of Irish subjects. It's definitely something that's glossed over and should be more widely taught. :thumbup:


I wonder if the Portugal, Spain, Benin and Nigeria and modern day Arab states tie themselves in knots over their historical involvement in the slave trade?


I doubt it. I'm not suggesting that we should collectively wring our hands and self-flagellate over what our ancestors did, but neither should it be completely dismissed. Just because the Irish were net victims of British bad shit doesn't mean that there weren't Irish participants dishing out the shit in other places.

I'm not really trying to make any particular point, TBH. I just think that every country/ethnic group/religion/culture should at least be aware of the good and the bad in their history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:43 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3024
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.

It wouldn't actually be one though. Conceivably, May could then hold a separate confidence vote and win it (which she probably would considering Tories & DUP won't vote for Corbyn).


Theresa May will almost certainly use the vote on the deal as a vote of no confidence, in order to get it through. These are the same tactics that John Major used with the Maastricht treaty in 1993.

I believe that's against the Fixed Terms Parliament Act 2011, my understanding it can no longer linked to other votes or legislation.


She has already used the tactic for one of the votes on the withdrawal bill. She will almost certainly tell the 40 ERG MPs and the 10 DUP MPs that if they don't vote through her chequers deal then she will call a general election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47552
Location: In the Centre/left wing
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19758
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.

I've covered this before with him. He appears to have studied a different syllabus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
Nobleman wrote:
She has already used the tactic for one of the votes on the withdrawal bill. She will almost certainly tell the 40 ERG MPs and the 10 DUP MPs that if they don't vote through her chequers deal then she will call a general election.

There has to be a 2/3rds vote for a General Election. Tory & DUP won't vote for that, turkeys & Christmas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5585
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
If Theresa May doesn't get her EU deal through parliament then that would be viewed as a vote of no confidence.

It wouldn't actually be one though. Conceivably, May could then hold a separate confidence vote and win it (which she probably would considering Tories & DUP won't vote for Corbyn).


Theresa May will almost certainly use the vote on the deal as a vote of no confidence, in order to get it through. These are the same tactics that John Major used with the Maastricht treaty in 1993.

I believe that's against the Fixed Terms Parliament Act 2011, my understanding it can no longer linked to other votes or legislation i.e. it has to be separate motion.


This is true, but there's nothing to stop them amending the fixed term act, well maybe if Labour absolutely shat themselves at the prospect of a general election and there were some Tory holdouts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:59 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
happyhooker wrote:
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.

I've covered this before with him. He appears to have studied a different syllabus.



It appears so. I remember you telling me what my education consisted of in detail.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47552
Location: In the Centre/left wing
What did you study bimbo?
O level or A level?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11438
bimboman wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.

I've covered this before with him. He appears to have studied a different syllabus.



It appears so. I remember you telling me what my education consisted of in detail.


One of you is lying it appears.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:04 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.



You did a History A level in the 1980'd with no mention of at strikes me as immensely unlikely, but hey I bet you can nail what the Romans did for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47552
Location: In the Centre/left wing
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.



You did a History A level in the 1980'd with no mention of at strikes me as immensely unlikely, but hey I bet you can nail what the Romans did for us.

No mention of what exactly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:07 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
c69 wrote:
What did you study bimbo?
O level or A level?



O level, A grade, Cambridge board.

A level, started not finished, went to work.

Irish history was covered quite extensively in the "modern British" section of the O level. Now do have a horrible day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3024
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
She has already used the tactic for one of the votes on the withdrawal bill. She will almost certainly tell the 40 ERG MPs and the 10 DUP MPs that if they don't vote through her chequers deal then she will call a general election.

There has to be a 2/3rds vote for a General Election. Tory & DUP won't vote for that, turkeys & Christmas.


There are only 40 ERG MPs and 10 DUP MPs they wouldn't be able to prevent it. If TM can't get her deal through parliament, then she may well call a GE to get the public support for the deal. When it comes to the crunch the swivel-eyed loons will back down , just as they did in 1993.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:08 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
British history tuition back in the 1980's covered the bad very well. It was before we knew we all needed a safe space to hear bad stuff.

Really? What level of education were you up to in History?
I did both O level and A level History and none of what would be considered the bad stuff was ever covered. Cromwell in Ireland for instance was not mentioned at all in any History lesson I ever went to.
Neither was our deplorable treatment of numerous indigenous "brown" folk.



You did a History A level in the 1980'd with no mention of at strikes me as immensely unlikely, but hey I bet you can nail what the Romans did for us.

No mention of what exactly?



Irish history. Even A level coverage of British history 1910-1925 would have covered Ireland and to cover that would have covered earlier migrations and Cromwell, as I said maybe you're really good on Rome.


Last edited by bimboman on Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:09 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
Nobleman wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
She has already used the tactic for one of the votes on the withdrawal bill. She will almost certainly tell the 40 ERG MPs and the 10 DUP MPs that if they don't vote through her chequers deal then she will call a general election.

There has to be a 2/3rds vote for a General Election. Tory & DUP won't vote for that, turkeys & Christmas.


There are only 40 ERG MPs and 10 DUP MPs they wouldn't be able to prevent it. If TM can't get her deal through parliament, then she may well call a GE to get the public support for the deal. When it comes to the crunch the swivel-eyed loons will back down , just as they did in 1993.



There's 80 in the ERG.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47552
Location: In the Centre/left wing
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.



Your A level in British history didn't cover the Easter rising ? Do f uck off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47552
Location: In the Centre/left wing
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.



Your A level in British history didn't cover the Easter rising ? Do f uck off.

No it did not. Did your A level or Degree or Masters cover it?
An other area of expertise for the ever expanding list.
Schools History curriculums.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:16 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
Nobleman wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
She has already used the tactic for one of the votes on the withdrawal bill. She will almost certainly tell the 40 ERG MPs and the 10 DUP MPs that if they don't vote through her chequers deal then she will call a general election.

There has to be a 2/3rds vote for a General Election. Tory & DUP won't vote for that, turkeys & Christmas.


There are only 40 ERG MPs and 10 DUP MPs they wouldn't be able to prevent it. If TM can't get her deal through parliament, then she may well call a GE to get the public support for the deal. When it comes to the crunch the swivel-eyed loons will back down , just as they did in 1993.

Even Pro-EU Tory MPs aren't voting for a GE with the prospect of Corbyn. No one has any confidence that May would win it. As to public support for the deal, Remainers don't want to leave, and Leavers loathe Chequers. Corbyn would win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
piquant wrote:
This is true, but there's nothing to stop them amending the fixed term act, well maybe if Labour absolutely shat themselves at the prospect of a general election and there were some Tory holdouts

Essentially she'd be asking Tory MPs to vote with Labour on legislation which makes a Corbyn Govt. possible in order to push through a Chequers deal with the EU that is highly unpopular and that Labour will vote against. Difficult to envisage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3024
bimboman wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Nobleman wrote:
She has already used the tactic for one of the votes on the withdrawal bill. She will almost certainly tell the 40 ERG MPs and the 10 DUP MPs that if they don't vote through her chequers deal then she will call a general election.

There has to be a 2/3rds vote for a General Election. Tory & DUP won't vote for that, turkeys & Christmas.


There are only 40 ERG MPs and 10 DUP MPs they wouldn't be able to prevent it. If TM can't get her deal through parliament, then she may well call a GE to get the public support for the deal. When it comes to the crunch the swivel-eyed loons will back down , just as they did in 1993.



There's 80 in the ERG.


That was last month. They're down to 40 now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... style-plan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 3118
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
What did you study bimbo?
O level or A level?



O level, A grade, Cambridge board.

A level, started not finished, went to work.

Oh dear me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53079
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.



Your A level in British history didn't cover the Easter rising ? Do f uck off.

No it did not. Did your A level or Degree or Masters cover it?
An other area of expertise for the ever expanding list.
Schools History curriculums.



Well my simplistic O level covered it, Britain 1910-25. As I say the idea that A Modern British history A level wouldn't mention the First World War isn't really believable, and you'd cover the Easter rising even in passing in studying the politics of 1916-17 Britain while studying the First World War. Maybe you did a massively shit exam board.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5585
Rugby2023 wrote:
piquant wrote:
This is true, but there's nothing to stop them amending the fixed term act, well maybe if Labour absolutely shat themselves at the prospect of a general election and there were some Tory holdouts

Essentially she'd be asking Tory MPs to vote with Labour on legislation which makes a Corbyn Govt. possible in order to push through a Chequers deal with the EU that is highly unpopular and that Labour will vote against. Difficult to envisage.


If they didn’t vote in support of May they'd get questions every day until polling day about being gutless. I'm not saying they'd try to make it a confidence motion, but the fixed term act is an administration hurdle to clear rather than an impassable object


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4100
Location: Gaillimh
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.


Purely anecdotic evidence, but picking up the first result after googling "irish history in british curriculum", it certainly makes it sound like you're more representative than your interlocutor: https://www.quora.com/In-British-school ... ain-played


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47552
Location: In the Centre/left wing
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.



Your A level in British history didn't cover the Easter rising ? Do f uck off.

No it did not. Did your A level or Degree or Masters cover it?
An other area of expertise for the ever expanding list.
Schools History curriculums.



Well my simplistic O level covered it, Britain 1910-25. As I say the idea that A Modern British history A level wouldn't mention the First World War isn't really believable, and you'd cover the Easter rising even in passing in studying the politics of 1916-17 Britain while studying the First World War. Maybe you did a massively shit exam board.

It wasn't the best exam board. There is a lot of stuff it didnt cover.
Not a jot about Ireland was mentioned. As I said very little Welsh history was covered, which is strange for a Welsh exam board.
The only time I remember Ireland being covered at all in school was in biology when we looked at potato blight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 10004
piquant wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
piquant wrote:
This is true, but there's nothing to stop them amending the fixed term act, well maybe if Labour absolutely shat themselves at the prospect of a general election and there were some Tory holdouts

Essentially she'd be asking Tory MPs to vote with Labour on legislation which makes a Corbyn Govt. possible in order to push through a Chequers deal with the EU that is highly unpopular and that Labour will vote against. Difficult to envisage.


If they didn’t vote in support of May they'd get questions every day until polling day about being gutless. I'm not saying they'd try to make it a confidence motion, but the fixed term act is an administration hurdle to clear rather than an impassable object

Let's just say it would be politically hazardous and consequently v.unlikely (though not impossible I'll cede).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11212
Toulon's Not Toulouse wrote:
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.


Purely anecdotic evidence, but picking up the first result after googling "irish history in british curriculum", it certainly makes it sound like you're more representative than your interlocutor: https://www.quora.com/In-British-school ... ain-played


I did a bit about the Easter Rising/Independence and the (1960s-90s) Troubles at GCSE. The only Irish stuff we did at A Level was Catholic Emancipation, a bit but not much on The Famine, and then quite a lot on Home Rule. It was British Political History 1812-1914. It wasn't very judgemental or handwringy, though we did once have a discussion with our Teacher about which 19th Century Prime Minister you'd want to have a pint with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11438
Toulon's Not Toulouse wrote:
c69 wrote:
I did A level Modern European and British history as set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) iirc. We didn't even cover much Welsh stuff let alone Irish.
What level of education did you get to in history bimbo?
You seem to know alot about curriculums. I can only talk about my own educational exposure.


Purely anecdotic evidence, but picking up the first result after googling "irish history in british curriculum", it certainly makes it sound like you're more representative than your interlocutor: https://www.quora.com/In-British-school ... ain-played


What? Is Bimbo making up shit again?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86413 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129, 2130 ... 2161  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, bessantj, Biffer29, bimboman, Blake, CarrotGawks, Cartman, CrazyIslander, danthefan, David990, Diego, Google Adsense [Bot], haunch, houtkabouter, iarmhiman, Idle_Wild, I like haggis, Jim Lahey, lorcanoworms, Luckycharmer, Masterji, maverickmak, Monk Zombie, Mr Fedora, Risteard, Rugby2023, SamShark, Sandstorm, Sards, Scrumhead, sockwithaticket, tabascoboy, TheBouncer, Theflier, Ulsters Red Hand, unseenwork, Winnie, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group