It's great that Cameron is quoting Shakespeare. It reminds me that one of the most subversive things that Shakespeare does is put fine words into the mouths of unpleasant people. Here's the 'usurper' Henry IV, who has used people to help him seize the throne and kill the previous king:
"How now, my Lord of Worcester? 'Tis not well
That you and I should meet upon such terms
As now we meet. You have deceived our trust
And made us doff our easy robes of peace
To crush our old limbs in ungentle steel."
Dear oh dear, poor Henry - having to face the very same kind of rebellion (barons rising up against the king) as he organised himself. Note the pompous 'deceived our trust' - which is precisely what he himself did.
Sunday, 10 January 2016
"I'm hating being on television..." Unknown MP resigns from committee that no one's heard of.
You won't know me, but I am a member of a parliamentary Labour sub-committee that you've never heard of and it gives me enormous pain to say that I'm going to have to resign. I'm afraid, here I am on television and if there's one thing I really didn't want to do, it's come on television. I'm hating being on television. I really am. Later, "The Westminster Bubble' show is going to be covering this, which I think is an excellent thing because this matter of me being unknown and a member of a committee you haven't heard of really needs to be aired. It's a major news item and shows just how deeply divided the Corbynistas have made our beloved Labour Party. In fact, the people who run the 'The Westminster Bubble' are good honest people who have no vested in interest in saying that the Labour Party is deeply divided and the group I belong to, - called 'Suspect' - have no vested interest or ulterior motive in talking about a divided Labour Party. The whole thing makes me very sad. Could I just say hello to my mother?
Saturday, 9 January 2016
'Naming of parts' approach to grammar and testing children
I think the reason why the 'naming of parts' approach to 'grammar' hinders an interest in grammar and language is that it presents a false picture of how grammar works.
I believe that humans invented grammar as a branch of human behaviour. If we are to name parts of grammar it is a mistake to treat grammar as if it is a sealed system on the 'communications' model.
'Determiner' is a classic case of this type of terminology. It implies that the sole function and purpose of the word in question is to 'determine' something that comes after it. That is 'sealed system' thinking.
In fact, to take 'my' as an example, in say, 'My table is red', the function within language at that moment is not simply to 'determine' something coming after it. It is to indicate possession (thus the old 'possessive' word at least has the merit of saying why we have the word in the language.) However, it is also doing something 'cohesively' i.e. in helping words stick together: it is referring to whoever is the 'me' who may e.g. have appeared earlier in the text or, in the case of a conversation, may be present as 'me' outside of the text in 'real life': 'my' will nearly always refer to these 'me's prior, or exterior to that phrase.
That's why humans invented this bit of grammar.
I would suggest that most of the 'sealed system' grammar is deadly boring to most people precisely because it is abstracted from everything that is interesting about language! Of course, some people are fascinated by sealed systems of anything. There is a fascination in trying to deduce a code from something that is not saying 'this is my code'. It feels like insider knowledge, only known to the priesthood.
Even better, you can then use it to test children and prove that some are cleverer than others or work harder than others and you can entrap them in useless and ambiguous tests in which the terminology of the sealed system is itself all over the place.
I believe that humans invented grammar as a branch of human behaviour. If we are to name parts of grammar it is a mistake to treat grammar as if it is a sealed system on the 'communications' model.
'Determiner' is a classic case of this type of terminology. It implies that the sole function and purpose of the word in question is to 'determine' something that comes after it. That is 'sealed system' thinking.
In fact, to take 'my' as an example, in say, 'My table is red', the function within language at that moment is not simply to 'determine' something coming after it. It is to indicate possession (thus the old 'possessive' word at least has the merit of saying why we have the word in the language.) However, it is also doing something 'cohesively' i.e. in helping words stick together: it is referring to whoever is the 'me' who may e.g. have appeared earlier in the text or, in the case of a conversation, may be present as 'me' outside of the text in 'real life': 'my' will nearly always refer to these 'me's prior, or exterior to that phrase.
That's why humans invented this bit of grammar.
I would suggest that most of the 'sealed system' grammar is deadly boring to most people precisely because it is abstracted from everything that is interesting about language! Of course, some people are fascinated by sealed systems of anything. There is a fascination in trying to deduce a code from something that is not saying 'this is my code'. It feels like insider knowledge, only known to the priesthood.
Even better, you can then use it to test children and prove that some are cleverer than others or work harder than others and you can entrap them in useless and ambiguous tests in which the terminology of the sealed system is itself all over the place.
My position as head of the BBC's flagship politics programme...
My position as head of the BBC's flagship politics programme 'The Westminster Bubble' has come into question. I am proud of my involvement in grassroots politics right from when I was a young man. I and my sister were members of 'Tory Tyros' - an activist youth organisation promoting Tory values. At university, I was member of a Tory student group called 'Conservatives Serve' and following that I am very proud to have served under the then Minister for British Values Sir Brampton Bampton KCG as his private secretary, and election agent.
As the now executive producer on 'The Westminster Bubble' I fail to see why anyone would question my impartiality, particularly in relation to the recent allegations concerning the 'tailor' incident in which we appeared to entrap Jeremy Corbyn into taking the offer of a free suit from one of our intrepid reporters, Michael Rosen.
As I've made clear, this was not in breach of any BBC guidelines. Corbyn clearly needs a new suit and if he appeared to admit that on air and accept the offer, that's a matter for him and his terrorist colleagues to discuss.
My sister is the present Minister for Times Tables. Long may she and they prosper.
How I entrapped Corbyn
You may have seen a blog which I inadvertently wrote and put up on the BBC website. It concerned an incident in which I posed as a tailor and approached Jeremy Corbyn with the offer of a suit. Unbeknownst to Corbyn, I was carrying a camera on my person and the whole incident was filmed. I said to Corbyn that I was a fan of his but felt that his appeal could be broadened if he wore a suit. Corbyn said that I should put it in writing but I pressed him and said that I just wanted to show him my catalogue and that I could offer him a very good deal. He laughed, said that he was glad of my support and took the little pack of samples. I called after him, 'So it's a deal?' He smiled. I said, 'Are you glad I support you?' He said, 'Yes.'
Back in the cutting room, we cut this together as, 'So it's a deal?' 'Yes.' and viewers could see him taking the pack of samples, and we put this out on our politics comedy show, 'The Westminster Bubble' and it's brilliant because in PMQ, Cameron made a joke about Corbyn's suit. Fantastic.
Anyway, I pulled down this blog, because it might give the impression that there was some kind of entrapment going on, or that we creating news rather than reporting it. Some Corbynistas and their hangers-on have objected to the item but I'm glad to say that the BBC has defended our right to do it. After all, Corbyn needs a suit and he didn't say that he didn't want a suit.
Looking good for 'The Westminster Bubble'. Don't forget to keep watching!
Back in the cutting room, we cut this together as, 'So it's a deal?' 'Yes.' and viewers could see him taking the pack of samples, and we put this out on our politics comedy show, 'The Westminster Bubble' and it's brilliant because in PMQ, Cameron made a joke about Corbyn's suit. Fantastic.
Anyway, I pulled down this blog, because it might give the impression that there was some kind of entrapment going on, or that we creating news rather than reporting it. Some Corbynistas and their hangers-on have objected to the item but I'm glad to say that the BBC has defended our right to do it. After all, Corbyn needs a suit and he didn't say that he didn't want a suit.
Looking good for 'The Westminster Bubble'. Don't forget to keep watching!
We all need Doctors. What we don't need are Junior Doctors.
We all need doctors. The thing is, what we don't need are Junior Doctors. Doctors are brilliant, hard-working, brave, overworked people who save lives. Junior Doctors are greedy, deluded and destructive people, who have let themselves become controlled by a small group of Trotskyites who jeopardise the security of the country. I love Doctors. I once went to see a Doctor. So did my wife. And my children. They made us better. That's the kind of work that Doctors do. I once saw a Junior Doctor in a car park outside a hospital. Why wasn't she in the hospital? That's what you get with Junior Doctors. One moment they're in the hospital, the next they're in the Car Park. Small wonder we need to close Accident and Emergency departments. I think we need the NHS 24/7. The Junior Doctors don't. They would rather be in the Car Park. I've always loved and admired doctors. My wife too. I've got a bad foot.
I am a backbench Labour MP and I'm against Corbyn and suddenly everyone wants to interview me...
I am a backbench Labour MP. You may once have seen me on a TV programme about garden paths and why garden paths aren't the way they used to be. I hope so. This week I've been on the TV 14 times, on the radio 13 and a half times, I've been interviewed in the Daily Mail, the Daily Star, Metro, and our local paper, the Wiffly Mercury. My point is this: I am not in favour of Jeremy Corbyn. What I'm saying is that I'm not in favour of Jeremy Corbyn. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying it loud and clear. Very loud and very clear. I am a backbench Labour MP. I think we need to go back to when Labour was electable. When Labour was electable we transformed this country from being nasty into one that was nice. We brought the nation together and stood up against tyrants. We need to go back to that and not give in. Stand up and don't give in. That's my firm belief. I am a happily married man with children. Most of the time. I am a backbench Labour MP. Did you see the programme about garden paths? They aren't the way they used to be, are they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)