The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Jalapeno

Drew_TNBD said:

Jalapeno said:

Drew_TNBD said:

<snip>

I'm 32. I have a BA in Sonic Arts (ugh... what a fucking monstrous decision!) and if I wanted to go into teaching (which sometimes I do think would be a good idea) I'd have such a mountain of bullshit to climb. It just puts me reet off.

ISTR you'd have to do a post-grad in teaching for a year, and a CRO check - what else ?

I'm not sure if it's that simple. I did an arts degree, but say I wanted to teach English or Physics or something like that. I'd have to plug the holes in my knowledge as well as retrain.

For Primary ? Worth checking out if you're really interested. Correct for secondary specialist subject teachers.

You'd have to work on that potty-mouth of yours too

stickyfiddle

FWIW I had exactly one male teacher before the age of 10. And he turned out to be a paedophile... (i'm not even joking..) 

BUT he was also one of the best teachers I ever had and I'm glad I didn't have only female teachers.

ThePrettyDamned

Drew_TNBD said:

Jalapeno said:

Drew_TNBD said:

<snip>

I'm 32. I have a BA in Sonic Arts (ugh... what a fucking monstrous decision!) and if I wanted to go into teaching (which sometimes I do think would be a good idea) I'd have such a mountain of bullshit to climb. It just puts me reet off.

ISTR you'd have to do a post-grad in teaching for a year, and a CRO check - what else ?

I'm not sure if it's that simple. I did an arts degree, but say I wanted to teach English or Physics or something like that. I'd have to plug the holes in my knowledge as well as retrain.

Anyway, as soon as I got in, you'd have some Emp_Fab style parent trying to get me fired due to political differences!

Exactly. If I wanted to teach, I'd not want to teach science, but that's the condition of the sweet bursary. Perhaps history, or politics. I feel strongly that people need to learn how to compare sources. 

I'm the only one in my group of friends who actively seeks out counter-stories to those I read in order to better understand a scenario. They just read the guardian or the independent or the times,or watch BBC... And that's it - no compare or contrast. 

As well as wanting to teach science you need to prove you're committed - typically that takes working in the sector. Lol @ anyone who wants to get teaching experience AND be paid for it. 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

I think this text is a typo in the paper:
Male students’ choices are in line with the fact that male teachers give them lower grades
I think they meant to type:
Male students’ choices are in line with the fact that female teachers give them lower grades
which would be consistent with the rest of the paper

I'm going by what is printed rather than making assumptions. 

capo4th said:

Good old Corbyn and Labour another devisive soundbite policy. 

Says a man who supports a party who has given out the definitive soundbite of this GE in the form of 'strong and stable leadership'. 

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

I think this text is a typo in the paper:
Male students’ choices are in line with the fact that male teachers give them lower grades
I think they meant to type:
Male students’ choices are in line with the fact that female teachers give them lower grades
which would be consistent with the rest of the paper

I'm going by what is printed rather than making assumptions. 

I'm going on the exec summary at the start of the paper:

Male students tend to bet less when assessed by a female teacher than by an external examiner or by a male teacher. This is consistent with female teachers' grading practices; female teachers give lower grades to male students. Female students bet more when assessed by a male teacher than when assessed by an external examiner or a female teacher. Female students' behavior is not consistent with male teachers' grading practices, since male teachers tend to reward male students more than female students. 

The exec summary makes sense, the conclusion text sounds confused

page 3 also says:

teachers gave better grades to students of their own gender. Hence, male students’ choices are consistent with female teachers’ grading practice, but female students’ choices are not consistent with male teachers’ grading practices

Heartfeltdawn

A mistake like that left in such a paper really should have been picked up on if it is a mistake. I'll leave judgement on that open. 

So if we assume that male students feel they will be lower marked by female teachers they the don't invest as much, don't work as hard and produce a result of lesser quality than if they had a male teacher. So it's chicken and egg time, for the student must produce work of some kind for it to be graded. If the student is uninspired by a female teacher on the basis of gender alone, then that actually point to a pretty conscious bias on behalf of the student irrespective of any bias on the part of the female teacher.  

And this is the general fucking merry-go-round with educational stats of this nature. I spent two bloody years wrestling the things at university. You go to one place, teaching bias is suggested. The introduction of the link Drew posted up mentioned a Swedish experiment which found a lack of teacher bias by gender but some evidence of bias by ethnicity. So different areas of the world will have different issues. Trying to tie those up into one all-encompassing definitive statement is incredibly hard. A study that revolves around student perception with no mention of social background of students and no analysis of factors that might cause student bias is poking into interesting areas but much more is needed to come to real conclusions. 

mellowsun

Fretwired said:

Labour manifesto proving popular .. surge in support for Labour from young over scrapping tuition fees, nationalisation of railways, Royal Mail and power stations, taxing the rich, hefty property taxes .... what's not to like .. May's landslide looking less likely now ....

only if they get out of bed to vote. History suggests they won't. I predict the biggest Tory landslide ever.

capo4th

thomasw88 said:

capo4th said:

Good old Corbyn and Labour another devisive soundbite policy. 

Does Jeremy not realise how much the city contributes to U.K. GDP and HMRC receipts the man is a first class idiot oh no he would rather nationalise the railways for his union mates.

Dude read the fecking manifesto rather than continually spouting absolute bollocks

Hey dude listen to me, the Labour manifesto is the biggest load of nonsense ever created for an election by a political party.

Fantasy rainbow tinted pipe dreams and policies created for the unions.

Please enlighten me as to which part of my quote above you take offence to as it all looks rather factual to me.

The Labour Party is a shambles and its leader is a bearded fool with a prune for a brain.

Soundbites telling voters and hardworking people what they want to hear to try and win a vote without a hope in hell of achieving anything whatsoever written in their manifesto. 

Labour will suffer another humiliating defeat in the election and hopefully we will see Corbyn and Diane Abbott disappear into a dark hole where they can play rudies and do long multipcation together.

Make some good decisions to improve your life but don't rely on the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn.

Drew_TNBD

Heartfeltdawn said:

A mistake like that left in such a paper really should have been picked up on if it is a mistake. I'll leave judgement on that open. 

So if we assume that male students feel they will be lower marked by female teachers they the don't invest as much, don't work as hard and produce a result of lesser quality than if they had a male teacher. So it's chicken and egg time, for the student must produce work of some kind for it to be graded. If the student is uninspired by a female teacher on the basis of gender alone, then that actually point to a pretty conscious bias on behalf of the student irrespective of any bias on the part of the female teacher.  

And this is the general fucking merry-go-round with educational stats of this nature. I spent two bloody years wrestling the things at university. You go to one place, teaching bias is suggested. The introduction of the link Drew posted up mentioned a Swedish experiment which found a lack of teacher bias by gender but some evidence of bias by ethnicity. So different areas of the world will have different issues. Trying to tie those up into one all-encompassing definitive statement is incredibly hard. A study that revolves around student perception with no mention of social background of students and no analysis of factors that might cause student bias is poking into interesting areas but much more is needed to come to real conclusions. 

I'm not dodging the conversation btw, just don't think we should clog up the thread with our jollies. I did email them to find out if it was a typo though. 

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

A mistake like that left in such a paper really should have been picked up on if it is a mistake. I'll leave judgement on that open. 

people get snowblind re-reading their own paper for the 50th time, reviewers should pick up errors, but they do happen

ChuckManual

capo4th said:

Soundbites telling voters and hardworking people what they want to hear to try and win a vote without a hope in hell of achieving anything whatsoever written in their manifesto. 

...is, in fairness, a criticism that can be levelled at every manifesto, produced by every single political party, since Moses was in short trousers.

fields5069

...and is the worst excuse to not vote for a political party, in my opinion. If you prefer Tory ideology, that's fair enough, I wish more people would react positively to the manifesto of their party of choice.

As pointed out on the Guardian, Labour's draft manifesto is hardly radical, I find a lot in it to like. It's definitely aspirational, but I would be interested to hear actual hostile analysis of the figures and the reasons why the opposition finds the ideas laughable.

Just laughing is lazy.

thomasw88

capo4th said:

thomasw88 said:

capo4th said:

Good old Corbyn and Labour another devisive soundbite policy. 

Does Jeremy not realise how much the city contributes to U.K. GDP and HMRC receipts the man is a first class idiot oh no he would rather nationalise the railways for his union mates.

Dude read the fecking manifesto rather than continually spouting absolute bollocks

Hey dude listen to me, the Labour manifesto is the biggest load of nonsense ever created for an election by a political party.

Fantasy rainbow tinted pipe dreams and policies created for the unions.

Please enlighten me as to which part of my quote above you take offence to as it all looks rather factual to me.

The Labour Party is a shambles and its leader is a bearded fool with a prune for a brain.

Soundbites telling voters and hardworking people what they want to hear to try and win a vote without a hope in hell of achieving anything whatsoever written in their manifesto. 

Labour will suffer another humiliating defeat in the election and hopefully we will see Corbyn and Diane Abbott disappear into a dark hole where they can play rudies and do long multipcation together.

Make some good decisions to improve your life but don't rely on the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn.

Soundbites like 'Strong and stable'  - how many u turns have the tories done in recent years?  or soundbites like
'brexit means brexit' -  which means what exactly?   The tories are by far  the worst witth regards to meangingless soundbites and just because they don't get scrutinised by the MSM doesn't mean that you should just swallow the utter crap they are spouting.

As for fantasty rainbow tinted pipe dreams -  How many of the Tories financial self imposed targets have they actually hit since 2010?  A big clue its rhymes with fugger hall..

Do you actually believe May's latest nonsensical promise to restrict net immigration to the 10's of thousands? 

My point to you is that you continually  slate labour without actually making references to what they're actually saying. 

siremoon

fields5069 said:

...and is the worst excuse to not vote for a political party, in my opinion. If you prefer Tory ideology, that's fair enough, I wish more people would react positively to the manifesto of their party of choice.

As pointed out on the Guardian, Labour's draft manifesto is hardly radical, I find a lot in it to like. It's definitely aspirational, but I would be interested to hear actual hostile analysis of the figures and the reasons why the opposition finds the ideas laughable.

Just laughing is lazy.

.. and easy.

It reads like a project by a 1st year politics student at the University of East London.  Full of spite and union centric socialist ideology.  I'm struggling to understand how crippling British business with huge tax hikes and empowering unions to make whatever demands they like is going to improve levels of employment.  As to it being aspirational - maybe if you're a member of Unite, GMB, RMT or ASLEF but good luck to everyone else.  Oh and good luck also if you've got a pension because putting massive taxes on the City of London is going to do wonders for that.

Fretwired

thomasw88 said:

Soundbites like 'Strong and stable'  - how many u turns have the tories done in recent years? 

Most voters don't take an interest in politics - slogans work (watch TV adverts for proof) and May's is working a treat for her as it's what most people want. You'll notice the Tories have positioned the election as a straightforward choice between May and Corbyn. Labour have some decent polices, but look incompetent as they have a £37 billion black hole in their costings, they send shadow cabinet members like Diane Abbott out to give car crash style interviews and Jeremy Corbyn is leader - the public don't like him.

As for U-turns ... government changing their minds when they get feedback from the public is a good thing isn't it? Thatcher ploughed on regardless even in the face of massive opposition - the Poll Tax riots forced her into an embarrassing climbdown.

Drew_TNBD

siremoon said:

fields5069 said:

...and is the worst excuse to not vote for a political party, in my opinion. If you prefer Tory ideology, that's fair enough, I wish more people would react positively to the manifesto of their party of choice.

As pointed out on the Guardian, Labour's draft manifesto is hardly radical, I find a lot in it to like. It's definitely aspirational, but I would be interested to hear actual hostile analysis of the figures and the reasons why the opposition finds the ideas laughable.

Just laughing is lazy.

.. and easy.

It reads like a project by a 1st year politics student at the University of East London.  Full of spite and union centric socialist ideology.  I'm struggling to understand how crippling British business with huge tax hikes and empowering unions to make whatever demands they like is going to improve levels of employment.  As to it being aspirational - maybe if you're a member of Unite, GMB, RMT or ASLEF but good luck to everyone else.  Oh and good luck also if you've got a pension because putting massive taxes on the City of London is going to do wonders for that.

Absolutely. The irony of all this is the Labour policies are directly for the few and not the many. How much money did Bob Crow earn again?? £145K a year and lived in a council house that he didn't need all his life.

Socialists are misguided idiots mentally living in the 1920's.

ToneControl

the extra cash raised from the city would partly come from my under-sized pension fund
I haven't been lucky enough to get a final salary pension from an employer,
and I'd find it very hard to swallow my inadequate pension being raided to pay to renationalise industries that do have final salary schemes

thomasw88

Fretwired said:

thomasw88 said:

Soundbites like 'Strong and stable'  - how many u turns have the tories done in recent years? 

Most voters don't take an interest in politics - slogans work (watch TV adverts for proof) and May's is working a treat for her as it's what most people want. You'll notice the Tories have positioned the election as a straightforward choice between May and Corbyn. Labour have some decent polices, but look incompetent as they have a £37 billion black hole in their costings, they send shadow cabinet members like Diane Abbott out to give car crash style interviews and Jeremy Corbyn is leader - the public don't like him.

As for U-turns ... government changing their minds when they get feedback from the public is a good thing isn't it? Thatcher ploughed on regardless even in the face of massive opposition - the Poll Tax riots forced her into an embarrassing climbdown.

the difference is that the tories seem to be in awe of the daily mail/sun/telegraph. As for May -  for some reason,  someone who doesn't answer anything with anything more than a inane soundbite, refuses to do any interviews which aren't vetted/hosted by known tory sympathisers, and won't do debates is seen as a wise tactic.. They're kind of missing the point. To me it proves that she's shit, and will not be able to conduct a negotiation well.

ToneControl

thomasw88 said:

Fretwired said:

thomasw88 said:

Soundbites like 'Strong and stable'  - how many u turns have the tories done in recent years? 

Most voters don't take an interest in politics - slogans work (watch TV adverts for proof) and May's is working a treat for her as it's what most people want. You'll notice the Tories have positioned the election as a straightforward choice between May and Corbyn. Labour have some decent polices, but look incompetent as they have a £37 billion black hole in their costings, they send shadow cabinet members like Diane Abbott out to give car crash style interviews and Jeremy Corbyn is leader - the public don't like him.

As for U-turns ... government changing their minds when they get feedback from the public is a good thing isn't it? Thatcher ploughed on regardless even in the face of massive opposition - the Poll Tax riots forced her into an embarrassing climbdown.

the difference is that the tories seem to be in awe of the daily mail/sun/telegraph. As for May -  for some reason,  someone who doesn't answer anything with anything more than a inane soundbite, refuses to do any interviews which aren't vetted/hosted by known tory sympathisers, and won't do debates is seen as a wise tactic.. They're kind of missing the point. To me it proves that she's shit, and will not be able to conduct a negotiation well.

listen to this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08q30l1
from 19:30
all about Linton Crosby
this should explain what you see in the media
Learn about the dead cat

I've worked with people like May, they can achieve a lot, even with nervous twitches. She is way more intelligent and competent that Jezza btw.
Would you have have a polished Cameron/Clegg/Blair?
I thought there were a lot of people who prefer the unvarnished leaders like Jezza?
do you want a smooth cameron or a twitchy leader? John Major was very popular

I also reject this idea that Jezza is out there engaging with the public
Everything I've seen he is surrounded by 200 acolytes, and I can't see how he could be harangued by anyone
I assume Farron can't manage more than 20 acolytes so has to talk to the odd disgruntled citizen

Fretwired

thomasw88 said:

the difference is that the tories seem to be in awe of the daily mail/sun/telegraph. As for May -  for some reason,  someone who doesn't answer anything with anything more than a inane soundbite, refuses to do any interviews which aren't vetted/hosted by known tory sympathisers, and won't do debates is seen as a wise tactic.. They're kind of missing the point. To me it proves that she's shit, and will not be able to conduct a negotiation well.

I'd say its inspired. Don't actually promise anything because with Brexit looming there's going to be a lot of crap flying around. Clegg and Cameron promised much in 2010 and it got both into the shit with voters.