Feedback from parents about both sets of transfer tests administered by both 11+ examination bodies in Northern Ireland has been very positive.  The registration processes seemed efficient, the examinations were well administered and the results were delivered on time (or, if they were not, it was not the fault of the examination bodies). 

However, a degree of confusion now reigns.  Parents are having difficulty determining what results mean what in terms of admission to the grammar schools.

There are a variety of interlocking issues at work.  It appears that less kids took both tests than would have taken the Department administered transfer tests.  Across the board there is a shortfall of a few thousands kids actually taking transfer tests.  Moreover, the fact that there are two testing bodies means that the scoring and grade bands are not directly comparable to the old selection test bands – because the benchmark scores are based on a much lower base of papers. 

More confusion is introduced because there is no standardised clearing system being administered by the grammar schools.  Moreover some grammars are making the situation even more complicated by implying that they will prioritise applications that place them as the #1 school choice.  This may result in application skews to grammars that have had a history of taking more borderline candidates i.e. parents won’t risk applying to schools that have traditionally had very high entrance requirements.

What would make things easier would be a clear statement from the examination bodies as to what the scores mean.  It seems likely that AQE scores of high nineties to low hundreds implies a good B1 to low A grade rather than a B2 – as was implied in some media articles prior to the notification of results.  However, even such recalibrated scores may be meaningless if the grammars receive too low a volume of eligible applications because too few kids have taken the tests. 

The transfer test bodies could help by issuing some clarifying guidelines to parents and to schools at this time.  Their work is not yet completed.

It was a particular pleasure to attend PZ Myer’s lecture on complexity at Queen’s University last night. 

The lecture focused on how complexity arises naturally (i.e. in nature) to produce apparently designed outcomes.  The apparent design, of course, is the reason why creationists and intelligent design advocates (such as the DUP’s very own Edwin Poots – living proof that Grammar Schools don’t always produce well educated people) argue that there must be a designer AKA, um, God. 

PZ used many examples of how nature does indeed produce – with designed-like qualities – complexity.

My preferred example was – bless ‘em – creatures with a penchant for eating nylon.  No I’m not talking about some fetishist here, I’m referring, of course, to the Flavobacterium Sp. K172 that chomps away merrily on the Nylon effluent produced by plastics manufacturers in Japan. 

Long and short, these bacteria evolved rapidly to attain this rather esoteric ability.  Moreover scientists have managed to replicate this particular process of natural selection in a test tube. 

Over on Wikipedia these celebrity bacteria have their very own page on the role they have played in debunking the creationist and intelligent design mumbo jumbo.

There are a few comments elsewhere on this blog about Martin Salter’s comments about the Pope, his dress and his hypocrisy.  Just in case you missed it, here’s a link to the post and a little taster of what Martin wrote.  Well said Martin – although I’m not sure we’d agree about much else. 

I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the relationship between organised religion and politics. You only have to look across the water at Northern Ireland to understand the minefield that this lethal cocktail can create.

However, yesterday’s comments by the Pope on Britain’s lawmaking could possibly be the first time that a bloke in a dress has complained about equality legislation. According to His Holiness, Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill on how it’s not okay to discriminate against gay people (or old people, or black or disabled people for that matter) “violates natural law”, which is code for saying “we want all the benefits of living in a society where religious freedoms are protected, just as long as we don’t have to afford those protections to others.”

The UUP’s latest cunning plan to do the deal with the Tories after all - after bizarre talks with the DUP about “Unionist Unity” – raises lots of yes…buts.

For example, Michael McGimpsey (pictured) on Spotlight last night, awkwardly positioned behind a strange Dr Who inspired podium device, implied that the electoral arrangements between the two parties applied only to Westminster elections i.e. did not extend to Assembly elections.  I think the Conservatives have a different view. 

He also implied that the arrangement could be suspended if he and the rest of the UUP leadership got the impression that the Conservatives were going a bit cold on the Union. 

For example if David Cameron were to wake up a few days after becoming Prime Minister and mutter to Samantha, “Hey Sam, I dunno why, but this morning I’m not that hot on the Union,” McGimpsey would be lobbying old Reg to pull out of the arrangements and return the UUP to regional irrelevance.

Also, how is the Westminster candidate carve-up supposed to work?  My expectation, when I was on the joint committee, was that there would be a 50/50 split between UUP nominees and Conservative.  But I’m sure the UUP will have a different view. 

And how will the joint committee ensure that the candidate list reflects all of our community and not just a part of it?  Oh and how will the joint committee make a bold statement that this new brand is intent on establishing non-sectarian politics here?

This pact is, as I’m bored typing, chock full of difficulties.  The next two weeks are going to be interesting.  I look forward to seeing the candidate line-up.

I’m bored with having a go at the UUP.  They’re too easy to make fun of.  Orange Order/DUP meetings this minute, Unionist Unity next, then public and unequivocal support for the deal with the Conservatives this morning.  (Just a pity that Michael McGimpsey couldn’t muster much enthusiam for the deal last night on BBC Spotlight). 

Anyway, time to move on temporarily.  Let’s focus on the TUV lot. 

I wandered over to David Vance’s blog, A Tangled Web, yesterday and inserted a comment on one of has rant-posts. 

David doesn’t like criticism.  When I asked what his/TUV’s end-game might be he wasn’t too pleased.  After all we hear lots about the “no terrorists in government” ideal but we know nothing about what the TUV proposes as a replacement.  Direct rule?  I suspect it’s more along the lines of Protestant rule.  A Protestant Ulster for a Protestant People kinda idea.  Jumped-up Atheists like me wouldn’t be that welcome I suspect. 

This was David’s rebuttal of my request for further information:

“That you cannot see the essential immorality of terrorists in government speaks volume. That you display stunning ignorance of TUV membership is charming.

“Now then, what you and your ilk will have to get used to is that not all unionists are push-overs and there are plenty who understand that nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right regardless of what you think. Grow up, wise up and join TUV, you’ll feel the better for it.”

So there you have it.  The TUV are no push-overs.  The “Party’s” key unique selling point is that, by joining, people will feel better for it.  I suspect not. 

In fact here are all the key words you’ll need to summarise what the TUV stands for: dusty, damp halls, Protestant People, union flags over trestle tables, speakers shouting indignance, ham sandwiches (made with white pan loaf), cold stewed tea served from big aluminium pots (if you’re lucky), LOL this and LOL that, preceptories (whatever they are), marches, loyal orders, Shinners, sell-outs, deals, no truck with, white knuckles, God and tutting and Ulster.

Both The Guardian and The Times are running stories this morning about Owen Paterson’s tri-partite talks held in Hatfield House earlier in the month. 

Both stories suggest that the discussions focused on the creation of a united Unionist party in Northern Ireland politics.  In effect Paterson’s ambition was for the UUP and DUP to be absorbed into the Conservative Party.  This foolish initiative back-fired badly when the DUP promptly spilled the beans to the media.  A couple of the UUP’s more moronic MLAs played neatly into the DUP’s plans and argued the merits of Unionist unity as well.

This ill-conceived plan illustrates the extent of Paterson’s political naivity.  He may have learned his lessons from the experience but the learning comes too late.  In my view David Cameron needs to act swiftly to restore faith in his Northern Ireland project.  He could start by replacing Paterson.

However, the UUP ‘relationship’ is all but dead now.  Many UUP supporters of the link with the Conservative Party can show their support by joining the Conservative Party.  The Party should put up 18 candidates here at the general election – drawn entirely from its own membership. 

And I’m pretty sure that the three excellent candidates who withdrew from the candidate race would throw their hats back in.

PZ Myers

I’m especially delighted that PZ Myers, Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, and the American Humanist Association’s Humanist of the Year last year, will be giving a public lecture in Queen’s University on Friday evening.  His topic will be Complexity and Creationism – Promoting Evolutionary Biology to Non-Specialists. 

 PZ’s science blog Pharyngula featured the fringe meeting I organised at the Conservative Party conference in 2008 – he was amazed that Conservatives in the UK were sufficiently secular and open minded to allow Professor Richard Dawkins to address a fringe conference.

Following the resignation of Alex Kane as Communications Director of the UUP one would have imagined that Sir Reg would have wanted to replace Alex with a public advocate of the partnership with the Conservatives. 

Instead Alex has been replaced by an Orangeman and apparent advocate for UUP-DUP “unionist unity” – Danny Kennedy.  Moreover, if Kennedy took a psychometric test I don’t think it’d reveal communications skills as a key attribute. 

After the leaked Hatfield House talks hit the headlines locally it was Danny who was trotted-out by the UUP at Stormont to argue why these talks were a good thing.  “The pro-Union people will welcome these talks,” he said.  By “pro-Union people” read “Protestant.”

He also appeared on the BBC’s Hearts and Minds Programme last week to defend the UUP’s decision to have secret talks with the DUP before Christmas – organised by the Orange Order.  He and Sammy Wilson of the DUP were practically at one on the programme  - agreeing enthusiastically with each other.  According to Kennedy, “It’s perfectly natural for those with a pro-Union disposition to have conversations with each other…perfectly natural to look at might happen in the future…”

Last week Owen Paterson and Sir Reg Empey issued statements indicating that the partnership between both parties was solid.  However, let’s look at where this relationship is.  There has been continued delay and vacillation on the part of the UUP committee to work with the Conservatives to select candidates – resulting in two cancelled trips by David Cameron to Northern Ireland to announce them.  The UUP’s one MP has announced she will be running as an independent rather than running as a Conservative and Unionist.  The UUP has had secret talks with the DUP about “Unionist unity”.  3 excellent Conservative candidates have withdrawn because of moves towards UUP/DUP unity.  And now the UUP has elevated an Orangeman and “Unionist unity” advocate to the role of Head of Communications.

One really has to ask what more the UUP has to do before Owen Paterson withdraws from this absurd partnership.  Surely this must be the final straw. 

Sir Reg Empey, if he is serious about a partnership with the Conservatives, should be removing the Party whip from Danny Kennedy and David McNarry.  However, now one of them is the Party’s official spokesman.

I gather that Alex Kane, Communications Director of the UUP, and News Letter hack, has resigned his UUP role.

Alex and I have had our run-ins in the past and have had one or two public spats.  It’ll be interesting to hear his reasons for resigning.

Yesterday I wrote to Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home and asked him to allow me write an article arguing why the so-called partnership between the Conservative Party and the UUP was now completely discredited.  He declined my offer. 

Tim was always very keen to offer me space when I was Vice Chair of the Conservatives here – prior to my expulsion as an officer of the Party.  Moreover he is very happy to provide Owen Paterson virtually unlimited blog inches.  Just yesterday he covered the unfolding events here…and featured statements from Sir Reg and Owen. 

However, he refused me the opportunity to argue why the partnership is now throughly discredited – based on the disingenuous behaviour by the UUP leadership and the lack of discipline within the Party.  This lack of discipline allows the incumbent MP to distance herself from her own leadership and for 2 MLAs (Danny Kennedy and David McNarry) to publically back a union with the DUP - without any attempt by the leadership to distance itself from them (largely because they are part of that leadership). 

Tim’s decision to refuse me any opportunity to counteract the Paterson/Empey propaganda shows a clear lack of balance in Conservative Home editorial policy.  Tim must know that this deal is full of holes.  However his owner and paymaster, Lord Ashcroft, has been backing the UUP/Conservative deal with his personal wealth and bank-rolled Jim Nicholson’s election campaign.  Therefore criticism of the “partnership” is a little bit too close to Conservativehome. 

Come on Tim.  You know you want to.