The result that sticks out to me like a sore thumb there is not Eastleigh but Oldham East and Saddleworth.
Why did the Lib Dems do so well there, when they've tanked utterly elsewhere in the North.
1. the circumstances of the by-election 2. the decision by the Tories to not campaign very hard (quite a few seemed to vote tactically for their new coalition partners) 3. before the rise of UKIP
If there was another by-election there now I imagine the Lib Dems would do worse.
They've had some reasonable results in locals though.
Yes, thats a fair analysis - alot of tactical anti-Woolas/pro Watkins votes there.
It's also a very divided constituency. I have no idea what actually happened but I wouldnt be surprised if Lib Dems in Oldham switched to Labour while Lib Dems elsewhere stayed with them and some Tories right across the constituency voted tactically for them (particularly where squeezed hard by Lib Dems).
I think things would be very different in a by-election now due to UKIP (but they wont be anywhere there in a GE).
EU law is such that rUK students would not pay tuition fees, provided both Scotland and rUK are in the EU, unless Scotland charges its own residents. This need not be a bar to access. The evidence in England is that there has been little effect on either the numbers or social mix of students going to university.
Scotland should be more positive about this. English undergraduates at Scottish Universities are going to be a source of migrants attuned to Scottish values, well educated and comfortable in Scottish culture. Scotland just needs to be welcoming to them and encourage them to stay on afterwards. It would be Scotlands gain and Englands loss.
Of course the problem is unlikely to happen, as the Unionists tell us. Either Scotland or EWNI won't be in the EU ... [needle on irony meter flicks up]
No, independence is a choice - and it comes with both advantages and disadvantages. This is one of the disadvantages - something the SNP have been very reluctant to concede - and as we saw this week, currency is nowhere near as "obvious" as the SNP would wish - having set out the disadvantages to rUK of a currency union it would be a very "brave" CoE who agreed to one.
You're missing the point I am making. Which is that those who use the student fees issue are urging real (though still so far only potential) distress upon real people and real families, just to make their gleeful political points. If independence is seen by the Unionists as a way for EWNI to exploit its neighbours and do harm to its neighbour's citizens as well as its own subjects, then it does not reflect well on the Unionist philosophy.
Are they not just warning about the potential downside to voting 'yes'?
Some may be. The ones who approve of tuition fees in England but also gleefully celebrate the possibility of Scottish universities being overwhelmed by English students looking for a 'free' degree aren't. They like the idea.
I cant see why any Scot, unionist or nationalist, would like the idea of their university system being overwhelmed in that way. If you're talking about non Scots then they're probably best ignored on this issue as they dont have a vote.
It is not a question of wanting our University system to be overwhelmed. It is just a particularly vivid example of how the current Union works in favour of Scotland and allows them to go their own way in a way that, perversely, they would not be able to go in the event of independence.
It also shows the dishonesty of the SNP leadership who are simply not willing to acknowledge any downside on independence no matter how obvious it is to the rest of us. It is a serious weakness in their campaign and it is not surprising that Better Together want to highlight it.
There are in fact a lot of downsides to the no fee system in Scotland, the largest of which has been a significant reduction in the number of indiginous Scots getting into the better Universities as a result of budget driven reduction in places that the Scottish government is willing/able to pay for.
Our Universities are becoming ever more dependent on students from not only England but also other non-EU countries to make the books balance. The wife of a friend of mine has been in China and India this year drumming up business for Edinburgh.
This is not necessarily a bad thing as our Universities are useful earners of foreign currency and create links with the rest of the world but it is getting easier for a Scot who is willing to pay to get into a top University in England than it is to get into one in Scotland.
Reports on Twitter that Gordon Birtwistle, a Lib Dem MP, has called for Maajid Nawaz to be deselected (presumably over the Jesus and Mo issue). Anyone heard this officially confirmed/denied?
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
I can see no way out of the situation that you describe, provided we both stay in the EU.
I would suggest charging Scottish student fees, but having a repayment system set so that fee repayments were 100% tax deductable against Scottish income tax, in effect meaning that they are never repaid.
Thanks for the constructive discussion. That is an interesting solution, if indeed (as you say) it is ever needed. though I'm thinking it still needs to find some source of loans so the students could get the money to go to uni at all without the fiscal malpractice and moral risk inherent in the EWNI solution of the Student Loan Company (especially with its privatisation).
For the state to take on the entire loan capital would partly resolve that - perhaps writing it all off 100% ab initio for asset accounting purposes.
I don't think that this would get past the whines of discrimination from those EU states who might believe in charging enormous tuition fees, but as this is currently only EWNI I believe, the problem is unique in its magnitude and the Scots may well win in the EU courts against an EWNI that is (improbably?) still in the EU, without needing to go to such a solution. Failing that, it might be necessary to widen the definition of tax deductibility to avoid hassle from those states in the European courts, but it may not be such a bad thing to have tax deductible education rather than some of the other things that are deductible at the moment.
In any case, the - entirely genuine - Scottish case for preference for Scottish students might well win in the EU courts ab initio.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24226624 From this report the overall percentage of undergraduates in Scotland seems to be about 75% Scots and 15% EWNI with 10% from the rest of the EU (the data apparently excluding non-EU students). I'd reckon that is a reasonably healthy figure but bearing in mind it conceals variations. I've seen a table for the percentage of EWNI students in Scotland which showed enormous variation between universities but that will be due in large part to the students that offer themselves - St Andrews has a rather different market, if that is the right word, to some of the other universities.
Just got back from an interesting canvass with our E Mids Euro-candidates. They are very much better-organised than I am - descending on a ward at a time with 40 or so helpers (obviously varying individuals but huge turnout by our standards) going round with them hoovering it up. Nearly all voters at home, thanks to the light drizzle. I gather from talking to some of the people who've been in different places with the group that the UKIP vote seems very unevenly distributed - loads in Boston, hardly any in Aspley (Nottingham) or this part of Broxtowe (the ward is a fairly comfortable C1/C2 suburb, typically white couples aged 50-70). Labour was pretty strong today.
What struck me about the voters was that they were thoroughly aware of the Euros and treating them very much like the GE - whether they supported us or not, they seemed keen to vote. I don't remember that at ANY previous Euro election. Could be just an odd sample, but I wonder if turnout won't be quite a bit higher than we think.
It is not a question of wanting our University system to be overwhelmed. It is just a particularly vivid example of how the current Union works in favour of Scotland and allows them to go their own way in a way that, perversely, they would not be able to go in the event of independence.
It also shows the dishonesty of the SNP leadership who are simply not willing to acknowledge any downside on independence no matter how obvious it is to the rest of us. It is a serious weakness in their campaign and it is not surprising that Better Together want to highlight it.
There are in fact a lot of downsides to the no fee system in Scotland, the largest of which has been a significant reduction in the number of indiginous Scots getting into the better Universities as a result of budget driven reduction in places that the Scottish government is willing/able to pay for.
Our Universities are becoming ever more dependent on students from not only England but also other non-EU countries to make the books balance. The wife of a friend of mine has been in China and India this year drumming up business for Edinburgh.
This is not necessarily a bad thing as our Universities are useful earners of foreign currency and create links with the rest of the world but it is getting easier for a Scot who is willing to pay to get into a top University in England than it is to get into one in Scotland.
I'm not happy about the problems either but you might at least have acknowledged that one of the reasons for the lack of funding is precisely the Barnett formula effect - English [effectively] Government cuts funding for free tuition fees, Scots lose their funding pro rata.
Just got back from an interesting canvass with our E Mids Euro-candidates. They are very much better-organised than I am - descending on a ward at a time with 40 or so helpers (obviously varying individuals but huge turnout by our standards) going round with them hoovering it up. Nearly all voters at home, thanks to the light drizzle. I gather from talking to some of the people who've been in different places with the group that the UKIP vote seems very unevenly distributed - loads in Boston, hardly any in Aspley (Nottingham) or this part of Broxtowe (the ward is a fairly comfortable C1/C2 suburb, typically white couples aged 50-70). Labour was pretty strong today.
What struck me about the voters was that they were thoroughly aware of the Euros and treating them very much like the GE - whether they supported us or not, they seemed keen to vote. I don't remember that at ANY previous Euro election. Could be just an odd sample, but I wonder if turnout won't be quite a bit higher than we think.
Turnout has falllen at EVERY Euro election since the first one. I would be astonished if this one broke the trend.
You're missing the point I am making. Which is that those who use the student fees issue are urging real (though still so far only potential) distress upon real people and real families, just to make their gleeful political points. If independence is seen by the Unionists as a way for EWNI to exploit its neighbours and do harm to its neighbour's citizens as well as its own subjects, then it does not reflect well on the Unionist philosophy.
Are they not just warning about the potential downside to voting 'yes'?
Some may be. The ones who approve of tuition fees in England but also gleefully celebrate the possibility of Scottish universities being overwhelmed by English students looking for a 'free' degree aren't. They like the idea.
It's indeed the tone in which they do it. Constructive discussion is fine - but what we are getting isn't, with some notable exceptions such as Mr foxinsox (for which this is an extension of a previous discussion in which he was also notably constructive).
It is not a question of wanting our University system to be overwhelmed. It is just a particularly vivid example of how the current Union works in favour of Scotland and allows them to go their own way in a way that, perversely, they would not be able to go in the event of independence.
It also shows the dishonesty of the SNP leadership who are simply not willing to acknowledge any downside on independence no matter how obvious it is to the rest of us. It is a serious weakness in their campaign and it is not surprising that Better Together want to highlight it.
There are in fact a lot of downsides to the no fee system in Scotland, the largest of which has been a significant reduction in the number of indiginous Scots getting into the better Universities as a result of budget driven reduction in places that the Scottish government is willing/able to pay for.
Our Universities are becoming ever more dependent on students from not only England but also other non-EU countries to make the books balance. The wife of a friend of mine has been in China and India this year drumming up business for Edinburgh.
This is not necessarily a bad thing as our Universities are useful earners of foreign currency and create links with the rest of the world but it is getting easier for a Scot who is willing to pay to get into a top University in England than it is to get into one in Scotland.
I'm not happy about the problems either but you might at least have acknowledged that one of the reasons for the lack of funding is precisely the Barnett formula effect - English [effectively] Government cuts funding for free tuition fees, Scots lose their funding pro rata.
No decent human would defend the SNP's educational apartheid laws. Beyond repulsive.
I cant see why any Scot, unionist or nationalist, would like the idea of their university system being overwhelmed in that way. If you're talking about non Scots then they're probably best ignored on this issue as they dont have a vote.
Oh, I'm all for ignorance (sic). I think Carnyx was specifically talking about those outside Scotland though.
'If independence is seen by the Unionists as a way for EWNI to exploit its neighbours and do harm to its neighbour's citizens as well as its own subjects, then it does not reflect well on the Unionist philosophy.'
Just got back from an interesting canvass with our E Mids Euro-candidates. They are very much better-organised than I am - descending on a ward at a time with 40 or so helpers (obviously varying individuals but huge turnout by our standards) going round with them hoovering it up. Nearly all voters at home, thanks to the light drizzle. I gather from talking to some of the people who've been in different places with the group that the UKIP vote seems very unevenly distributed - loads in Boston, hardly any in Aspley (Nottingham) or this part of Broxtowe (the ward is a fairly comfortable C1/C2 suburb, typically white couples aged 50-70). Labour was pretty strong today.
What struck me about the voters was that they were thoroughly aware of the Euros and treating them very much like the GE - whether they supported us or not, they seemed keen to vote. I don't remember that at ANY previous Euro election. Could be just an odd sample, but I wonder if turnout won't be quite a bit higher than we think.
Turnout has falllen at EVERY Euro election since the first one. I would be astonished if this one broke the trend.
Good afternoon, everyone. Reports on Twitter that Gordon Birtwistle, a Lib Dem MP, has called for Maajid Nawaz to be deselected (presumably over the Jesus and Mo issue). Anyone heard this officially confirmed/denied?
I'm not happy about the problems either but you might at least have acknowledged that one of the reasons for the lack of funding is precisely the Barnett formula effect - English [effectively] Government cuts funding for free tuition fees, Scots lose their funding pro rata.
The way Barnett operates on this as I understand it is that Scotland gets a pro rata share of what the English spend on funding FE. The grant system in England means the money being spent there on supporting students in FE has fallen and this does indeed mean a pro rata reduction in the Scottish grant.
Scotland has the option of making good this shortfall from elsewhere in the budget but that is not easy. The result has been the forced amalgamation of various colleges with large reductions in full time staff and, now, cuts in staffing levels at Universities. Dundee has indicated that there will be a 10% cut in academic staff just in the last week.
So I think we are in agreement. The question I am asking is whether it is really the top priority for Scotland to have no loans for fees when this reduces the opportunities for Scots and makes it very difficult for its Universities to compete internationally and specifically with English Universities.
I ask this question with some diffidence because, like you, I did not pay fees (indeed I got a grant) and as the first member of my family ever to go to University I really don't know if I would have gone but for the system then in place.
There are no easy answers here. Loans were not introduced by Labour and the tories because they did not like people going to University. Rather they wanted to fund a substantial increase in numbers and this was the only way they could get the numbers to add up.
What does get my goat is the SNP saying that there are these "free" options without admitting the consequences with or without independence. We have seen the same with cancer drugs that are not available in Scotland because people like me now get their prescriptions free. Their attitude to governing has been like being in charge of a sweetie shop, handing out free wares but with little acknowledgement of the hard choices that are having to be made now and would have to be made in an independent country.
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
At the moment, it's not discrimination against anyone as it is based on residency - and to argue otherwise is to accept the corollary that E/W/NI have been discriminating against the Scots since the grants system began, I seem to recall in the inter-war years. And that is of course nonsense. Nobody ever complained. The whole problem arose because the London government in its wisdom tore up that settlement and expected the Scots to follow suit. You'd be more accurate to blame the entire mess on that and the West Lothian question (and the LDs).
What happens in the future remains to be seen but the whole point of my argument is that there is a real potential practical problem because of the exceptional situation in Britain and Ireland, with the highest fees in the EU next to the lowest fees and both in the same language area. This would arise not because of any intent to discriminate but as a derived consequence of differential social policies in different states. It may be convenient to present this - which has not happened yet - as discrimination but in reality the English students are the victims of their own home government rather than the Scots one. Nor would it be particularly self-reliant or creditable to - effectively - sponge off a neighbouring state for a key element of one's own polity. The issue needs to be resolved somehow, if necessary by a court case in the EU to see if it is indeed discrimination. If so then fine, it will of course have to be sorted. If not, then it's not discrimination.
In any case, the No campaigners keep telling us we won't be in the EU, and their allies keep telling us EWNI won't be in the EU either, so perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about it till it happens. I'm just so narked at the tone of some of the comments made on this issue.
Off topic, is Lynne Featherstone's base going to be undermined by this - or are some not in her constituency?
I dont remember the exact boundaries but the Lib Dem wards in that borough are very much concentrated in her seat. There's always a degree of turnover in London wards but in 2012 the Lib Dems took a battering here, difficult to see anything else but a significant number of losses and the Westminster seat going next year.
Mr. Carnyx, I'd dispute that a European court's judgement on discrimination amounts to an objective assessment (though obviously it would be legally binding).
Scotland would very likely be in the EU, but it's possible if negotiations went very badly then it could be vetoed. It'd be ironic if pro-EU Scotland ended up leaving against the will of the people, whilst EU-sceptic England remained a member.
Just got back from an interesting canvass with our E Mids Euro-candidates. They are very much better-organised than I am - descending on a ward at a time with 40 or so helpers (obviously varying individuals but huge turnout by our standards) going round with them hoovering it up. Nearly all voters at home, thanks to the light drizzle. I gather from talking to some of the people who've been in different places with the group that the UKIP vote seems very unevenly distributed - loads in Boston, hardly any in Aspley (Nottingham) or this part of Broxtowe (the ward is a fairly comfortable C1/C2 suburb, typically white couples aged 50-70). Labour was pretty strong today.
What struck me about the voters was that they were thoroughly aware of the Euros and treating them very much like the GE - whether they supported us or not, they seemed keen to vote. I don't remember that at ANY previous Euro election. Could be just an odd sample, but I wonder if turnout won't be quite a bit higher than we think.
Turnout has falllen at EVERY Euro election since the first one. I would be astonished if this one broke the trend.
I accept that is not the case for the UK because we started off as having one of the lowest turnouts and everyone has gradually come towards our level.
It is not a ringing endorsement for the EU Parliament.
Just got back from an interesting canvass with our E Mids Euro-candidates. They are very much better-organised than I am - descending on a ward at a time with 40 or so helpers (obviously varying individuals but huge turnout by our standards) going round with them hoovering it up. Nearly all voters at home, thanks to the light drizzle. I gather from talking to some of the people who've been in different places with the group that the UKIP vote seems very unevenly distributed - loads in Boston, hardly any in Aspley (Nottingham) or this part of Broxtowe (the ward is a fairly comfortable C1/C2 suburb, typically white couples aged 50-70). Labour was pretty strong today.
What struck me about the voters was that they were thoroughly aware of the Euros and treating them very much like the GE - whether they supported us or not, they seemed keen to vote. I don't remember that at ANY previous Euro election. Could be just an odd sample, but I wonder if turnout won't be quite a bit higher than we think.
Turnout has falllen at EVERY Euro election since the first one. I would be astonished if this one broke the trend.
I accept that is not the case for the UK because we started off as having one of the lowest turnouts and everyone has gradually come towards our level.
It is not a ringing endorsement for the EU Parliament.
If you like we can have a bet on it. I'll offer £10 that UK turnout will be higher this time. Haven't checked if you can gert better odds elsewhere. To add to the picquancy, we could agree that if you win, the money goes to the Better Together effort, and if I win, it goes to my election effort.
< [re Barnett and funding problems in unis and colleges] There are no easy answers here. Loans were not introduced by Labour and the tories because they did not like people going to University. Rather they wanted to fund a substantial increase in numbers and this was the only way they could get the numbers to add up.
What does get my goat is the SNP saying that there are these "free" options without admitting the consequences with or without independence. We have seen the same with cancer drugs that are not available in Scotland because people like me now get their prescriptions free. Their attitude to governing has been like being in charge of a sweetie shop, handing out free wares but with little acknowledgement of the hard choices that are having to be made now and would have to be made in an independent country.
I'd agree with you on much (and on our personal history too). Whether the substantial increase in unis - and colleges together, of course- was a good idea I'm not sure. But that is another matter.
The cancer drugs issue arises primarily because, as I understand it, the Scottish and other NHSes have each their own review bodies which decide whether a given drug is worth the money - inevitably this leads to differential opinions, esp on the margins where cancer drugs can be very expensive for sometimes minimal differences in efficacy which are not yet clear because the clinical trials are so small or not yet published. BTW do you recall any stories about English denied drugs available to Scots, and were they presented in the same way as the reverse situation?
One also needs to ask about the costs of other options. To some extent free prescriptions help prevent manageable conditions getting worse (and needing more serious treatment). Also, a surprisingly high percentage is to people who are eligible for free prescriptions. But the bureaucratic and administrative cost of charging the rest has to be allowed for and to eliminate this makes savings in staffing. There's not actually much difference in cost between a free and a paid scheme - I forget the percentage but I was quite surprised.
In any case this NAO report seems to show little difference between EWNI and Scotland if 2009 data are acceptable, the dfferences probably due to health factors as much as anything http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1213192.pdf (student fees to follow)
Reports on Twitter that Gordon Birtwistle, a Lib Dem MP, has called for Maajid Nawaz to be deselected (presumably over the Jesus and Mo issue). Anyone heard this officially confirmed/denied?
If you like we can have a bet on it. I'll offer £10 that UK turnout will be higher this time. Haven't checked if you can gert better odds elsewhere. To add to the picquancy, we could agree that if you win, the money goes to the Better Together effort, and if I win, it goes to my election effort.
Why not? You're on. According to the EU 34.7% to beat.
I am now off to a lecture at Dundee University about life at the extremes. I don't think it is about wild and reckless betting on PB or even about Scottish independence but I will report back....
There are no easy answers here. Loans were not introduced by Labour and the tories because they did not like people going to University. Rather they wanted to fund a substantial increase in numbers and this was the only way they could get the numbers to add up.
What does get my goat is the SNP saying that there are these "free" options without admitting the consequences with or without independence. We have seen the same with cancer drugs that are not available in Scotland because people like me now get their prescriptions free. Their attitude to governing has been like being in charge of a sweetie shop, handing out free wares but with little acknowledgement of the hard choices that are having to be made now and would have to be made in an independent country.
On fees, I don't think we know the final cost of the loans solution. Either people never earn enough to pay off their loans, or they emigrate, etc. I expect a fair percentage of student loans will never be repaid - is 20-25% too high or about right, do you think? Add to that the costs of low interest rates (as they must surely go up sometime), admin, and of making the SLC book palatable to commercial privatisation, and that accounts for a fair bit of the cost of simply paying grants up front and writing them off. Plus it positively encourages emigration, rather an odd policy for a Tory government perhaps?
And I would suggest that there are two things which go a long way to refute the sweetie shop notion of the SNP - the complete inability to borrow (with a partial recent exception), which means that money spent on Tunnock's means less on Irn-Bru, f you'll forgive the extension of the metaphor, and the refusal of the SNP to indulge in PFI and PPP. The costs and the other disbenefits (especially alienation of public property and control) of such schemes have been horrendous, in the health service and schools above all.
Kellner: "the conservatives should be terrified of UKIP"
Kellner has a point but it's not just the Conservatives who should be terrified. The Lib Dems have seen their position as the NOTA protest vote party completely snatched away from them, and Labour shouldn't be too complacent either. Kellner is simplifying massively by using just one left-right axis and placing UKIP to the right of the Tories.
In doing so, he implies that they're a long way from Labour and Labour voters, which is not necessarily true in WWC socially conservative areas. Many of those areas have a culture that would not countenance voting Tory this side of the 22nd century but a newcomer like UKIP doesn't carry that baggage and isn't affected by the culture to anything liken the same extent. That may not matter so much now, with Labour in opposition, but it may well very much matter were they to return to government next year.
Kellner also concentrates in those comments too much on vote share. Pollsters love vote share and of course it is important but it can also be misleading. Yes, Labour's share went up but their vote received fell from just shy of 18k to not much more than 13k. There will have been churn - given the scale of LD vote loss, and what we know from opinion polls, there probably was a sizable shift from Lib Dem to Labour - but that was all swamped by the miserable turnout. I don't think it's implausible to suggest a small net swing from Lab to UKIP in real votes, as well as nominally, as calculated by vote share.
Wythenshawe and Sale East shows that the small Lab to UKIP swing is dwarfed by the votes shifting from the Tories to Labour, from the Tories to UKIP, and the epic collapse of the Lib Dem Left.
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
MD, would you like to quote or point to anything whatsoever where the SNP discriminate against the English. Methinks you are talking out of your arse.
If you like we can have a bet on it. I'll offer £10 that UK turnout will be higher this time. Haven't checked if you can gert better odds elsewhere. To add to the picquancy, we could agree that if you win, the money goes to the Better Together effort, and if I win, it goes to my election effort.
Why not? You're on. According to the EU 34.7% to beat.
Gulp! Should be fun. I shall be inspired to trudge out even more in pouring rain.
Why can't some people on here see the difference between Blair leading Labour and Cameron leading the Tories? It doesn't matter the wealth or education background of Labour leaders because they are not advocating austerity, they are not promoting policies that will hurt the poor, the vulnerable or many of the working class struggling to survive. They are not promising benefit cuts or banging on about a "global race", whatever that is? The Tory party of 2015 are the enemies of working class people, they are not conservatives at all they are economic neo-liberals and social liberals. The Tory party advocates policies that benefit the wealthiest and the elites.
While some will vote on Euro issues most will vote on overall feel of the party in Westminster. Has any party ever really canvassed on euro issues (apart from in/out)?
Over here, yes, because we can see literally the enemy out of the window. Our SW&G MEPs are racking up the local column inches daily with EU related press releases. The door knocking and public events are similarly on topic.
You're absolutely right though, foxinsoxuk. The non-MEP UK politicians who visit do often struggle to break out of UK centred thinking in their voter sales pitches. For us an EU vote really is about the EU, not a memory of how Labour bankrupted the economy and shattered millions of lives.
BTW Blair and Cameron are NOT the same class. Cameron is an upper class man born and married into wealth and privilege. Blair was genuinely middle class, his father a tax inspector and he married Cherie, a working class scouser. Blair was not rich or wealthy until he left office. Cameron has been rich all his life.
On topic: One thing that isn't mentioned in the article is that only for the first and last general elections in that last half century (out of 13) have the Tories been led into a General Election by an Old Etonian.
In 1964, Alec Douglas-Home, expected to lose horribly (from taking over as PM in October 1963 to the dissolution of Parliament in late September 1964, the Conservatives trailed by an average of 8.5% in the polls), did surprisingly well - coming within 3 seats of denying Labour their majority, within 7 seats of being level in seats with Labour, and within 12 seats of retaining their own majority.
In 2010, Cameron put on 108 seats in a single election.
The non-Etonians: Heath lost 51 seats (the average polling deficit of the Tories deteriorated when he took over from Home), gained 69 seats, lost 34 seats and lost 20 seats in his four elections, winning one of these four. Thatcher gained 63 seats, gained 58 seats and lost 22 seats in her three elections, winning all three. Major lost 39 seats (but had been expected to lose far more) and 178 seats in his two elections, winning one out of two. Hague gained one seat in his only election. Howard gained 32 seats in his only election.
So of those Old Etonian elections - one was one that was expected to be lost badly (and was only barely lost); the other was one where the Conservatives were starting from so far back that they had to break post-war records for seat gains by the Tories just to become the largest party.
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
MD, would you like to quote or point to anything whatsoever where the SNP discriminate against the English. Methinks you are talking out of your arse.
How about the (almost certainly illegal) plan to discriminate on Uni fees?
How did Blair get educated at fettes "the Eton of Scotland?". Harriet Harman is an Aristocrat as is Hilary Benn. Even Ed Miliband has a rarefied upbringing as the Son of a professor at a top university. Horny handed sons of toil they ain't.
BTW Blair and Cameron are NOT the same class. Cameron is an upper class man born and married into wealth and privilege. Blair was genuinely middle class, his father a tax inspector and he married Cherie, a working class scouser. Blair was not rich or wealthy until he left office. Cameron has been rich all his life.
BTW Blair and Cameron are NOT the same class. Cameron is an upper class man born and married into wealth and privilege. Blair was genuinely middle class, his father a tax inspector and he married Cherie, a working class scouser. Blair was not rich or wealthy until he left office. Cameron has been rich all his life.
Major's 1992 campaign was certainly helped by his background and the Tories can clearly not do the same with Cameron. But ultimately it is the message, not the background, of the messenger that is important. After all state educated Hague (the first Tory leader to attend a comprehensive) and Howard both lost and as Mike says Macmillan and Eden (both old Etonians) won overall majorities, as did old Harrovians Baldwin and Churchill in 1951 and Cameron did ensure the Tories were the largest party in 2010. If the Tories lose Cameron will probably be succeeded by a state educated rightwinger, but that is inevitable in the swing of the pendulum!
EU law is such that rUK students would not pay tuition fees, provided both Scotland and rUK are in the EU, unless Scotland charges its own residents. This need not be a bar to access. The evidence in England is that there has been little effect on either the numbers or social mix of students going to university.
Scotland should be more positive about this. English undergraduates at Scottish Universities are going to be a source of migrants attuned to Scottish values, well educated and comfortable in Scottish culture. Scotland just needs to be welcoming to them and encourage them to stay on afterwards. It would be Scotlands gain and Englands loss.
Of course the problem is unlikely to happen, as the Unionists tell us. Either Scotland or EWNI won't be in the EU ... [needle on irony meter flicks up]
No, independence is a choice - and it comes with both advantages and disadvantages. This is one of the disadvantages - something the SNP have been very reluctant to concede - and as we saw this week, currency is nowhere near as "obvious" as the SNP would wish - having set out the disadvantages to rUK of a currency union it would be a very "brave" CoE who agreed to one.
You're missing the point I am making.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
How did Blair get educated at fettes "the Eton of Scotland?". Harriet Harman is an Aristocrat as is Hilary Benn. Even Ed Miliband has a rarefied upbringing as the Son of a professor at a top university. Horny handed sons of toil they ain't.
BTW Blair and Cameron are NOT the same class. Cameron is an upper class man born and married into wealth and privilege. Blair was genuinely middle class, his father a tax inspector and he married Cherie, a working class scouser. Blair was not rich or wealthy until he left office. Cameron has been rich all his life.
None of them are advocating policies that hurt the working class or the poorest. None of them are in favour of a small state, benefit cuts, NHS privatisation, a race to the bottom in wages or cutting "red tape" or in other words no employment or Labour market protections.
None of them are in favour of a small state, benefit cuts, NHS privatisation, a race to the bottom in wages or cutting "red tape" or in other words no employment or Labour market protections.
Regrettably nobody at all is advocating those things which is why I don't have anyone to vote for right now.
I do not deny that they espose left wing values (though the Blairs seem better at redistributing wealth to themselves) all I am saying is that they are posh. Do you deny that?
How did Blair get educated at fettes "the Eton of Scotland?". Harriet Harman is an Aristocrat as is Hilary Benn. Even Ed Miliband has a rarefied upbringing as the Son of a professor at a top university. Horny handed sons of toil they ain't.
BTW Blair and Cameron are NOT the same class. Cameron is an upper class man born and married into wealth and privilege. Blair was genuinely middle class, his father a tax inspector and he married Cherie, a working class scouser. Blair was not rich or wealthy until he left office. Cameron has been rich all his life.
None of them are advocating policies that hurt the working class or the poorest. None of them are in favour of a small state, benefit cuts, NHS privatisation, a race to the bottom in wages or cutting "red tape" or in other words no employment or Labour market protections.
Pinkrose Blair is upper middle class, his father was actually a barrister and lecturer at Durham. However, Cameron is genuinely upper class descended from William IV and a distant cousin of the Queen as well as attending Eton. In fact he is even posher than Macmillan, whose ancestors were crofters. Cameron is a genuinely posh PM, the poshest since Douglas Home
We're getting fed up of posters swearing at each other.
Words like twat and such like (even if asterisked out) are not acceptable, especially when describing one another.
Moderation is going to be light this weekend, if people cannot be civil, then they will find their posting privileges revoked on our return later on this evening.
If someone swears at you, just ignore it.
The Mike and moderating team will get round to speaking to people who transgress.
I do not deny that Blair is posh in relative terms BUT in the nuances of the English class system, he is not in the same league as Cameron. Cameron has lived a rarefied existence, his whole life, of both wealth and privilege. And has gone on to marry into this very narrow circle too. As I say the more important point is that, Cameron is also enacting policies that benefit people like him and hurt the poorest and most vulnerable. Labour does not advocate those things.
I agree. Any country becoming independent will be subject to a variety of challenges, but Salmonds bluster and denial over the currency, the EU legal advice and university fees does give off the vibe of a snake oil salesman rather than someone who understands the issues. Swinney seems more up to speed. Salmond may be the first PM of an independent Scotland, but may well be defenestrated shortly afterwards.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
EU law is such that rUK students would not pay tuition fees, provided both Scotland and rUK are in the EU, unless Scotland charges its own residents. This need not be a bar to access. The evidence in England is that there has been little effect on either the numbers or social mix of students going to university.
Scotland should be more positive about this. English undergraduates at Scottish Universities are going to be a source of migrants attuned to Scottish values, well educated and comfortable in Scottish culture. Scotland just needs to be welcoming to them and encourage them to stay on afterwards. It would be Scotlands gain and Englands loss.
Of course the problem is unlikely to happen, as the Unionists tell us. Either Scotland or EWNI won't be in the EU ... [needle on irony meter flicks up]
No, independence is a choice - and it comes with both advantages and disadvantages. This is one of the disadvantages - something the SNP have been very reluctant to concede - and as we saw this week, currency is nowhere near as "obvious" as the SNP would wish - having set out the disadvantages to rUK of a currency union it would be a very "brave" CoE who agreed to one.
You're missing the point I am making.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
Who really cares whether someone is posh or working class? Ridiculous discussion. There is good and bad in everyone. I am sure there are plenty of upper class folk with the ability to empathise and many working class that don't spend their lives being bitter about other peoples privilege
Nick Clegg is also upper class, his mother coming from the Russian aristocracy
Again, before Coalition Lib Dems did not advocate the policies that the Tories do/did. In Government they have supported the Tories and their policies and have plummeted in the polls as those who were duped and betrayed by the Lib Dems have returned home to Labour or gone to the Greens etc.
For the first time in over three decades the 2015 GE will see the Left united behind the Labour party. It will not be the 1992 election, the Tories hope for but more 1983 in reverse, a united Left and split Right!
How did Blair get educated at fettes "the Eton of Scotland?". Harriet Harman is an Aristocrat as is Hilary Benn. Even Ed Miliband has a rarefied upbringing as the Son of a professor at a top university. Horny handed sons of toil they ain't.
BTW Blair and Cameron are NOT the same class. Cameron is an upper class man born and married into wealth and privilege. Blair was genuinely middle class, his father a tax inspector and he married Cherie, a working class scouser. Blair was not rich or wealthy until he left office. Cameron has been rich all his life.
None of them are advocating policies that hurt the working class or the poorest. None of them are in favour of a small state, benefit cuts, NHS privatisation, a race to the bottom in wages or cutting "red tape" or in other words no employment or Labour market protections.
Yes they are. They are advocates of mass immigration and opponents of Grammar schools
Why can't some people on here see the difference between Blair leading Labour and Cameron leading the Tories? It doesn't matter the wealth or education background of Labour leaders because they are not advocating austerity, they are not promoting policies that will hurt the poor, the vulnerable or many of the working class struggling to survive. They are not promising benefit cuts or banging on about a "global race", whatever that is? The Tory party of 2015 are the enemies of working class people, they are not conservatives at all they are economic neo-liberals and social liberals. The Tory party advocates policies that benefit the wealthiest and the elites.
Surely tax cuts and cuts in benefits will help the "working class". No-one should be claiming JSA, for example, longer than the 3-6 months it might take to find another job. The true working class should not be funding those who choose to spend a lifetime on benefits.
Could this Welsh policy change by Labour be implemented in England? "In the first instance the proposal is to require all private sector landlords to register with a central agency hosted by Cardiff Council. This registration will involve compulsory training courses aimed at raising the standard of management of their properties." http://www.freedomcentral.org.uk/2014/02/a-welsh-approach-to-housing.html
There are circa 0.5 million private landlords in England, probably equivalent to almost 1 million voters. These are people that will tend to be older and have a high propensity to vote.
PB has the whiff of M'Carthyism about it today as in "When did you last see your father" Shameful..no one chooses the bed they were born in .. get over it..
Surely Blairs background with schooling at fettes and a barrister would make him in the top 1% by income in the country. Cameron may be in the top 0.1% but that is a subtle distinction for most of us.
Class intricacies can be rather arcane, and we are most sensitive to those immediately adjacent to our own position. A Baronet may be sensitive to the status of an Earl, but to me it is all the same. Yet I am aware of the status of a prof with a personal chair and one with a regular one. Both may seem the same to a secretary, but you can be sure that she is sensitive to the difference from an audiotypist!
I do not deny that Blair is posh in relative terms BUT in the nuances of the English class system, he is not in the same league as Cameron. Cameron has lived a rarefied existence, his whole life, of both wealth and privilege. And has gone on to marry into this very narrow circle too. As I say the more important point is that, Cameron is also enacting policies that benefit people like him and hurt the poorest and most vulnerable. Labour does not advocate those things.
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
MD, would you like to quote or point to anything whatsoever where the SNP discriminate against the English. Methinks you are talking out of your arse.
How about the (almost certainly illegal) plan to discriminate on Uni fees?
You know, or should know, that many of the SNP members are English. And as for student fees, if it is discrimination as defined in EU law then it will not happen. If it isn't, then ...
In any case, it's a bit like complaining that your neighbour won't feed your daughter just because you can't be bothered to feed her ...
It's because I am Scottish, and love Scotland, that I despise the SNP so much.
Petty nationalists are a stain on any national character.
SNP, Nazis, BNP, UKIP. Twats, one and all
Ah, yet another Proudscotbut. I'm sure Morris Dancer will be along any minute now to chastise you for your intemperate language.
Spoken like a true McCarthyite. Scott is guilty of unscottish activities according to ThUD the diviner.
Do you agree with ScottP that UKIP are like the Nazis & the BNP?
I agree with him. All nationalist parties are horrible, as history has shown.
In that case that excludes the SNP, as it is not a nationalist party. (Check the name.) If you think they hate the English, Asians, French, etc., then you need to explain why they have so many members and MSPs of those origins ...
Why can't some people on here see the difference between Blair leading Labour and Cameron leading the Tories? It doesn't matter the wealth or education background of Labour leaders because they are not advocating austerity, they are not promoting policies that will hurt the poor, the vulnerable or many of the working class struggling to survive. They are not promising benefit cuts or banging on about a "global race", whatever that is? The Tory party of 2015 are the enemies of working class people, they are not conservatives at all they are economic neo-liberals and social liberals. The Tory party advocates policies that benefit the wealthiest and the elites.
Surely tax cuts and cuts in benefits will help the "working class". No-one should be claiming JSA, for example, longer than the 3-6 months it might take to find another job. The true working class should not be funding those who choose to spend a lifetime on benefits.
lol there speaks someone who has no idea of the reality in 2015. Yes, sure it only takes 6mnths max to walk into another job? What planet are you living on? Most people on minimum wage hardly pay any tax because their poverty wages are topped up by tax credits.
Your post reminds me of Milibands most effective summaries of the Tories: "The Tory party think you make poor people work harder by making them poorer but the rich will only work harder if you make them richer".
It's because I am Scottish, and love Scotland, that I despise the SNP so much.
Petty nationalists are a stain on any national character.
SNP, Nazis, BNP, UKIP. Twats, one and all
Ah, yet another Proudscotbut. I'm sure Morris Dancer will be along any minute now to chastise you for your intemperate language.
Spoken like a true McCarthyite. Scott is guilty of unscottish activities according to ThUD the diviner.
Do you agree with ScottP that UKIP are like the Nazis & the BNP?
I agree with him. All nationalist parties are horrible, as history has shown.
And only a few short months ago you were pleasuring yourself senseless (which wouldn't take long) over Farage's EU speeches. The fickle Right, always looking for a new demagogue.
Real class is like good manners, the ability to put others at ease and both for them to feel comfortable and make others comfortable. As Kipling put it : to walk with Kings yet not lose the common touch. Boris can do this, as can John Major, Prince Harry and Obama, but others cannot. Cameron always appears a little less relaxed with those from other backgrounds, but so did Prescott, and Blair often got it wrong too, sometimes inappropriate and at other times starstruck.
PB has the whiff of M'Carthyism about it today as in "When did you last see your father" Shameful..no one chooses the bed they were born in .. get over it..
Blair is posh. Posh is posh - you can't have "good" posh and "bad" posh based on their perceived politics. Harriet Harman will never be a bit of rough and Tristram Hunt has no problems crossing picket lines.
The Scottish Nats are touchy but that's because people like making fun of their hopes. As that great Irishman said... "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."
And though it's tempting to use the old hobnails, the fun is transient.
It's because I am Scottish, and love Scotland, that I despise the SNP so much.
Petty nationalists are a stain on any national character.
SNP, Nazis, BNP, UKIP. Twats, one and all
Ah, yet another Proudscotbut. I'm sure Morris Dancer will be along any minute now to chastise you for your intemperate language.
Spoken like a true McCarthyite. Scott is guilty of unscottish activities according to ThUD the diviner.
Do you agree with ScottP that UKIP are like the Nazis & the BNP?
I agree with him. All nationalist parties are horrible, as history has shown.
In that case that excludes the SNP, as it is not a nationalist party. (Check the name.) If you think they hate the English, Asians, French, etc., then you need to explain why they have so many members and MSPs of those origins ...
Monica never prints the truth, you will be waiting a while
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
MD, would you like to quote or point to anything whatsoever where the SNP discriminate against the English. Methinks you are talking out of your arse.
How about the (almost certainly illegal) plan to discriminate on Uni fees?
You know, or should know, that many of the SNP members are English. And as for student fees, if it is discrimination as defined in EU law then it will not happen. If it isn't, then ...
In any case, it's a bit like complaining that your neighbour won't feed your daughter just because you can't be bothered to feed her ...
Carlotta's visceral hatred of Scotland precludes any sensible posting regarding a Scottish subject, you will only see lies and bluster
Only 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for more than a year and only about 20% have been out of work for two years. For most of us unemployment is short term.
I am not a Tory (I am LD) but do not believe that Tories want to grind down the workers, any more than I believe that Labour wants to grow the size of a client state. The Tories believe in tough love, the Labour party is more indulgent, but both are sincere in their belief that their methods are better at looking after the interests of the workers.
Why can't some people on here see the difference between Blair leading Labour and Cameron leading the Tories? It doesn't matter the wealth or education background of Labour leaders because they are not advocating austerity, they are not promoting policies that will hurt the poor, the vulnerable or many of the working class struggling to survive. They are not promising benefit cuts or banging on about a "global race", whatever that is? The Tory party of 2015 are the enemies of working class people, they are not conservatives at all they are economic neo-liberals and social liberals. The Tory party advocates policies that benefit the wealthiest and the elites.
Surely tax cuts and cuts in benefits will help the "working class". No-one should be claiming JSA, for example, longer than the 3-6 months it might take to find another job. The true working class should not be funding those who choose to spend a lifetime on benefits.
lol there speaks someone who has no idea of the reality in 2015. Yes, sure it only takes 6mnths max to walk into another job? What planet are you living on? Most people on minimum wage hardly pay any tax because their poverty wages are topped up by tax credits.
Your post reminds me of Milibands most effective summaries of the Tories: "The Tory party think you make poor people work harder by making them poorer but the rich will only work harder if you make them richer".
I agree. Any country becoming independent will be subject to a variety of challenges, but Salmonds bluster and denial over the currency, the EU legal advice and university fees does give off the vibe of a snake oil salesman rather than someone who understands the issues. Swinney seems more up to speed. Salmond may be the first PM of an independent Scotland, but may well be defenestrated shortly afterwards.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
EU law is such that rUK students would not pay tuition fees, provided both Scotland and rUK are in the EU, unless Scotland charges its own residents. This need not be a bar to access. The evidence in England is that there has been little effect on either the numbers or social mix of students going to university.
Scotland should be more positive about this. English undergraduates at Scottish Universities are going to be a source of migrants attuned to Scottish values, well educated and comfortable in Scottish culture. Scotland just needs to be welcoming to them and encourage them to stay on afterwards. It would be Scotlands gain and Englands loss.
Of course the problem is unlikely to happen, as the Unionists tell us. Either Scotland or EWNI won't be in the EU ... [needle on irony meter flicks up]
No, independence is a choice - and it comes with both advantages and disadvantages. This is one of the disadvantages - something the SNP have been very reluctant to concede - and as we saw this week, currency is nowhere near as "obvious" as the SNP would wish - having set out the disadvantages to rUK of a currency union it would be a very "brave" CoE who agreed to one.
You're missing the point I am making.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
Fox , if you knew absolutely anything about Scottish politics then you would know the answer to your question.
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
I agree. Any country becoming independent will be subject to a variety of challenges, but Salmonds bluster and denial over the currency.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
EU law is such that rUK students would not pay tuition fees, provided both Scotland and rUK are in the EU, unless Scotland charges its own residents. This need not be a bar to access. The evidence in England is that there has been little effect on either the numbers or social mix of students going to university.
Scotland should be more positive about this. English undergraduates at Scottish Universities are going to be a source of migrants attuned to Scottish values, well educated and comfortable in Scottish culture. Scotland just needs to be welcoming to them and encourage them to stay on afterwards. It would be Scotlands gain and Englands loss.
Of course the problem is unlikely to happen, as the Unionists tell us. Either Scotland or EWNI won't be in the EU ... [needle on irony meter flicks up]
No, independence is a choice - and it comes with both advantages and disadvantages. This is one of the disadvantages - something the SNP have been very reluctant to concede - and as we saw this week, currency is nowhere near as "obvious" as the SNP would wish - having set out the disadvantages to rUK of a currency union it would be a very "brave" CoE who agreed to one.
You're missing the point I am making.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
Fox , if you knew absolutely anything about Scottish politics then you would know the answer to your question.
Pinkrose No, the Labour Party is presently polling 36% about what Callaghan got in 1979. The social democrats who left for the SDP have simply returned home and the Liberals are now on about the 13% Steel got in '79 too. Whether the UKIP voters who voted for Cameron in 2010 return home will determine the election
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
Toy with the the words 'deputy leader' and see what you come up with. It isn't rocket science.
oh and on-topic, as ever @DavidL put it perfectly. It matters for the Cons because they have a price of bread problem. It does my nut in when (yet) another Etonian is appointed to some senior position or other (including No.10 policy unit).
They need a bit of positive discrimination and if that means trawling the streets of Wigan or Barnsley to find the right person then so be it. Because otherwise people will begin to suspect there is some kind of agenda at play.
Of course this opens the other can of worms/pandora's box about MPs' pay whereby £65k is a huge pay cut for the average Tory wannabe but is in all likelihood wealth unlimited to an average Lab wannabe (note: excluding cabinet material where, as has been documented, they are all the product of a priveleged background).
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
Toy with the the words 'deputy leader' and see what you come up with. It isn't rocket science.
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
I agree. Any country becoming independent will be subject to a variety of challenges, but Salmonds bluster and denial over the currency.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
Fox , if you knew absolutely anything about Scottish politics then you would know the answer to your question.
N Sturgeon would be a shoo in
This kind of shows up the problem with this site, if one of the most intelligent non Scottish posters is so ignorant on basics of Scottish politics, what does it say about the opinions from the rest.
We need to be careful when applying the 'Not for x years …' arguments because in the 40 years since 1974 there have only been two clearcut changes of Government through General Elections: 1979 and 1997. In other words from a statistician's point of view, the sample size is extremely small. A practical example of this can be seen with the state grammar school (and comprehensive) educated Conservative leader William Hague who simply didn't stand a prayer in 2001.
Thus any argument that begins or contains messages such as 'Not since Harold MacMillan' needs to be treated with appropriate caution.
You can also just as easily state that in the past 40 years the Labour party have only once managed to kick the Conservatives out of office. Which if you wished to extrapolate as a blog writer might make an impressive soundbite, but actually means equally little.
JohnLilburne Personally, I would keep the income based JSA as a minimum support but increase the contributions based JSA so that those who have paid more into the system get more out
A good summary. Will the SDP returnees be happy with Milibandism, whatever that turns out to be, or will there be a new splintering? It does seem as if party allegieces are more fluid all roud.
Pinkrose No, the Labour Party is presently polling 36% about what Callaghan got in 1979. The social democrats who left for the SDP have simply returned home and the Liberals are now on about the 13% Steel got in '79 too. Whether the UKIP voters who voted for Cameron in 2010 return home will determine the election
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
I agree. Any country becoming independent will be subject to a variety of challenges, but Salmonds bluster and denial over the currency.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
Fox , if you knew absolutely anything about Scottish politics then you would know the answer to your question.
N Sturgeon would be a shoo in
This kind of shows up the problem with this site, if one of the most intelligent non Scottish posters is so ignorant on basics of Scottish politics, what does it say about the opinions from the rest.
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
Toy with the the words 'deputy leader' and see what you come up with. It isn't rocket science.
Fox, this is not labour , it would be on a proper vote but would be pretty certain.
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
I agree. Any country becoming independent will be subject to a variety of challenges, but Salmonds bluster and denial over the currency.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
And which part of 'there are downsides to independence, as well as upsides' in my point was unclear?
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
Fox , if you knew absolutely anything about Scottish politics then you would know the answer to your question.
N Sturgeon would be a shoo in
This kind of shows up the problem with this site, if one of the most intelligent non Scottish posters is so ignorant on basics of Scottish politics, what does it say about the opinions from the rest.
Far from short of talent but she is excellent and will make a great First Minister when Alex retires, assuming the SNP can mange to stay together after independence and continue to win elections after 2016. I would expect Alex to only do one term and so it would all be to play for in 2020.
Enlighten me then. Who will be the next leader of the SNP? No need to speculate on a reason, imagine. for example Salmond resigning for personal reasons.
Toy with the the words 'deputy leader' and see what you come up with. It isn't rocket science.
She's been touted as natural successor for a while, and I can't see any obvious opponents. Humza Yousaf maybe, but probably a bit soon.
No rivals at all? Is the SNP that short of talent and ambition?
Ah, I thought you were actually interested, but just knee jerk trolling; silly me.
TUD, you should know better, very few on here are interested in any way , 5 at best counting Easterross and Redcliffe, so easy to know who they are. The few others have been sickened and left.
edit , 6 as Carnyx has recently appeared but as he / she is intelligent and polite I am not convinced he / she will stay long term
Having spent an hour yesterday trawling through the UK PollingReport constituency summaries for the NW and looking at the polls, I cannot see a route to a Tory majority in 2015. Several seats that Labour will expect to regain including Lancaster, Carlisle, Bury North all with squeezable Lib Dem votes.
The Tories have pursued a radical right wing agenda for which they didn't really have a mandate and it has polarised the electorate. Here in Shropshire, the depth of cuts at Shropshire Council has resulted in the deeply unpopular imposition of NPPF - a free for all for developers - some localism! And it hasn't been lost on the public who is responsible. I could see Shrewsbury changing hands in 2015.
Neil But their ideological heirs are not. Fox Indeed, and of course many of the Thatcherites find themselves in UKIP.
On grammar schools I really don't see why we can't have parents balloting to open new grammars as well as close them and why they can have intakes at different ages, including sixth form. Even Finland selects at 16!
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
MD, would you like to quote or point to anything whatsoever where the SNP discriminate against the English. Methinks you are talking out of your arse.
How about the (almost certainly illegal) plan to discriminate on Uni fees?
You know, or should know, that many of the SNP members are English. And as for student fees, if it is discrimination as defined in EU law then it will not happen. If it isn't, then ...
In any case, it's a bit like complaining that your neighbour won't feed your daughter just because you can't be bothered to feed her ...
Carlotta's visceral hatred of Scotland precludes any sensible posting regarding a Scottish subject, you will only see lies and bluster
The only person showing "visceral hatered" is you of any other Scot who does not buy the SNP Koolaid.
Mr. L, indeed. The SNP types might also wish to consider how their wish to discriminate against the English looks to, say, the English. It does not seem consistent with being 'best pals'.
MD, would you like to quote or point to anything whatsoever where the SNP discriminate against the English. Methinks you are talking out of your arse.
How about the (almost certainly illegal) plan to discriminate on Uni fees?
You know, or should know, that many of the SNP members are English. And as for student fees, if it is discrimination as defined in EU law then it will not happen. If it isn't, then ...
In any case, it's a bit like complaining that your neighbour won't feed your daughter just because you can't be bothered to feed her ...
Carlotta's visceral hatred of Scotland precludes any sensible posting regarding a Scottish subject, you will only see lies and bluster
The only person showing "visceral hatered" is you of any other Scot who does not buy the SNP Koolaid.
Dear dear , you are now down to using quotes from turnip head, how the mighty have fallen.
Comments
It's also a very divided constituency. I have no idea what actually happened but I wouldnt be surprised if Lib Dems in Oldham switched to Labour while Lib Dems elsewhere stayed with them and some Tories right across the constituency voted tactically for them (particularly where squeezed hard by Lib Dems).
I think things would be very different in a by-election now due to UKIP (but they wont be anywhere there in a GE).
I cant see why any Scot, unionist or nationalist, would like the idea of their university system being overwhelmed in that way. If you're talking about non Scots then they're probably best ignored on this issue as they dont have a vote.
It also shows the dishonesty of the SNP leadership who are simply not willing to acknowledge any downside on independence no matter how obvious it is to the rest of us. It is a serious weakness in their campaign and it is not surprising that Better Together want to highlight it.
There are in fact a lot of downsides to the no fee system in Scotland, the largest of which has been a significant reduction in the number of indiginous Scots getting into the better Universities as a result of budget driven reduction in places that the Scottish government is willing/able to pay for.
Our Universities are becoming ever more dependent on students from not only England but also other non-EU countries to make the books balance. The wife of a friend of mine has been in China and India this year drumming up business for Edinburgh.
This is not necessarily a bad thing as our Universities are useful earners of foreign currency and create links with the rest of the world but it is getting easier for a Scot who is willing to pay to get into a top University in England than it is to get into one in Scotland.
Reports on Twitter that Gordon Birtwistle, a Lib Dem MP, has called for Maajid Nawaz to be deselected (presumably over the Jesus and Mo issue). Anyone heard this officially confirmed/denied?
For the state to take on the entire loan capital would partly resolve that - perhaps writing it all off 100% ab initio for asset accounting purposes.
I don't think that this would get past the whines of discrimination from those EU states who might believe in charging enormous tuition fees, but as this is currently only EWNI I believe, the problem is unique in its magnitude and the Scots may well win in the EU courts against an EWNI that is (improbably?) still in the EU, without needing to go to such a solution. Failing that, it might be necessary to widen the definition of tax deductibility to avoid hassle from those states in the European courts, but it may not be such a bad thing to have tax deductible education rather than some of the other things that are deductible at the moment.
In any case, the - entirely genuine - Scottish case for preference for Scottish students might well win in the EU courts ab initio.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24226624 From this report the overall percentage of undergraduates in Scotland seems to be about 75% Scots and 15% EWNI with 10% from the rest of the EU (the data apparently excluding non-EU students). I'd reckon that is a reasonably healthy figure but bearing in mind it conceals variations. I've seen a table for the percentage of EWNI students in Scotland which showed enormous variation between universities but that will be due in large part to the students that offer themselves - St Andrews has a rather different market, if that is the right word, to some of the other universities.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-insists-no-plan-3147426
He's getting more and more like that other Alex played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.
What struck me about the voters was that they were thoroughly aware of the Euros and treating them very much like the GE - whether they supported us or not, they seemed keen to vote. I don't remember that at ANY previous Euro election. Could be just an odd sample, but I wonder if turnout won't be quite a bit higher than we think.
It's indeed the tone in which they do it. Constructive discussion is fine - but what we are getting isn't, with some notable exceptions such as Mr foxinsox (for which this is an extension of a previous discussion in which he was also notably constructive).
'If independence is seen by the Unionists as a way for EWNI to exploit its neighbours and do harm to its neighbour's citizens as well as its own subjects, then it does not reflect well on the Unionist philosophy.'
Turnout (wiki)
2009 34%
2004 37.60%
1999 23%
1994 36.80%
1989 36%
1984 33%
1979 32.70%
1999 aside (the introduction of PR List System no less) turnout has been relatively consistent.
"the UKIP vote seems very unevenly distributed - loads in Boston,"
I may have mentioned this once or twice before. But pleased that it's not just my moving in strange circles when I go back there.
If Mark Simmonds were to step done in the next few months, I suspect Farage would have his Christmas and Birthdays all in one.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/01/17/gordon-birtwistle-who-said-gay-marriage-is-just-not-on-hopeful-for-lib-dem-deputy-leadership/
Off topic, is Lynne Featherstone's base going to be undermined by this - or are some not in her constituency?
"12 of Haringey Council’s 21 Lib Dem councillors confirmed they would not be standing in the elections later this year."
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/exodus_of_lib_dem_councillors_in_west_of_haringey_confirmed_for_may_elections_1_3322307
Scotland has the option of making good this shortfall from elsewhere in the budget but that is not easy. The result has been the forced amalgamation of various colleges with large reductions in full time staff and, now, cuts in staffing levels at Universities. Dundee has indicated that there will be a 10% cut in academic staff just in the last week.
So I think we are in agreement. The question I am asking is whether it is really the top priority for Scotland to have no loans for fees when this reduces the opportunities for Scots and makes it very difficult for its Universities to compete internationally and specifically with English Universities.
I ask this question with some diffidence because, like you, I did not pay fees (indeed I got a grant) and as the first member of my family ever to go to University I really don't know if I would have gone but for the system then in place.
There are no easy answers here. Loans were not introduced by Labour and the tories because they did not like people going to University. Rather they wanted to fund a substantial increase in numbers and this was the only way they could get the numbers to add up.
What does get my goat is the SNP saying that there are these "free" options without admitting the consequences with or without independence. We have seen the same with cancer drugs that are not available in Scotland because people like me now get their prescriptions free. Their attitude to governing has been like being in charge of a sweetie shop, handing out free wares but with little acknowledgement of the hard choices that are having to be made now and would have to be made in an independent country.
What happens in the future remains to be seen but the whole point of my argument is that there is a real potential practical problem because of the exceptional situation in Britain and Ireland, with the highest fees in the EU next to the lowest fees and both in the same language area. This would arise not because of any intent to discriminate but as a derived consequence of differential social policies in different states. It may be convenient to present this - which has not happened yet - as discrimination but in reality the English students are the victims of their own home government rather than the Scots one. Nor would it be particularly self-reliant or creditable to - effectively - sponge off a neighbouring state for a key element of one's own polity. The issue needs to be resolved somehow, if necessary by a court case in the EU to see if it is indeed discrimination. If so then fine, it will of course have to be sorted. If not, then it's not discrimination.
In any case, the No campaigners keep telling us we won't be in the EU, and their allies keep telling us EWNI won't be in the EU either, so perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about it till it happens. I'm just so narked at the tone of some of the comments made on this issue.
Scotland would very likely be in the EU, but it's possible if negotiations went very badly then it could be vetoed. It'd be ironic if pro-EU Scotland ended up leaving against the will of the people, whilst EU-sceptic England remained a member.
I accept that is not the case for the UK because we started off as having one of the lowest turnouts and everyone has gradually come towards our level.
It is not a ringing endorsement for the EU Parliament.
The cancer drugs issue arises primarily because, as I understand it, the Scottish and other NHSes have each their own review bodies which decide whether a given drug is worth the money - inevitably this leads to differential opinions, esp on the margins where cancer drugs can be very expensive for sometimes minimal differences in efficacy which are not yet clear because the clinical trials are so small or not yet published. BTW do you recall any stories about English denied drugs available to Scots, and were they presented in the same way as the reverse situation?
One also needs to ask about the costs of other options. To some extent free prescriptions help prevent manageable conditions getting worse (and needing more serious treatment). Also, a surprisingly high percentage is to people who are eligible for free prescriptions. But the bureaucratic and administrative cost of charging the rest has to be allowed for and to eliminate this makes savings in staffing. There's not actually much difference in cost between a free and a paid scheme - I forget the percentage but I was quite surprised.
In any case this NAO report seems to show little difference between EWNI and Scotland if 2009 data are acceptable, the dfferences probably due to health factors as much as anything
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1213192.pdf
(student fees to follow)
Cretin.
And I would suggest that there are two things which go a long way to refute the sweetie shop notion of the SNP - the complete inability to borrow (with a partial recent exception), which means that money spent on Tunnock's means less on Irn-Bru, f you'll forgive the extension of the metaphor, and the refusal of the SNP to indulge in PFI and PPP. The costs and the other disbenefits (especially alienation of public property and control) of such schemes have been horrendous, in the health service and schools above all.
What's the thrust of Labour's euro campaign? The party that's essentially content with things as they are?
Which is bad news for the Conservatives actually as any 'swingback' has to come in a very roundabout way.
Has any party ever really canvassed on euro issues (apart from in/out)?
You're absolutely right though, foxinsoxuk. The non-MEP UK politicians who visit do often struggle to break out of UK centred thinking in their voter sales pitches. For us an EU vote really is about the EU, not a memory of how Labour bankrupted the economy and shattered millions of lives.
In 1964, Alec Douglas-Home, expected to lose horribly (from taking over as PM in October 1963 to the dissolution of Parliament in late September 1964, the Conservatives trailed by an average of 8.5% in the polls), did surprisingly well - coming within 3 seats of denying Labour their majority, within 7 seats of being level in seats with Labour, and within 12 seats of retaining their own majority.
In 2010, Cameron put on 108 seats in a single election.
The non-Etonians: Heath lost 51 seats (the average polling deficit of the Tories deteriorated when he took over from Home), gained 69 seats, lost 34 seats and lost 20 seats in his four elections, winning one of these four.
Thatcher gained 63 seats, gained 58 seats and lost 22 seats in her three elections, winning all three.
Major lost 39 seats (but had been expected to lose far more) and 178 seats in his two elections, winning one out of two.
Hague gained one seat in his only election.
Howard gained 32 seats in his only election.
So of those Old Etonian elections - one was one that was expected to be lost badly (and was only barely lost); the other was one where the Conservatives were starting from so far back that they had to break post-war records for seat gains by the Tories just to become the largest party.
Or not.
You need to give your head a wobble, sunshine.
If Salmond set out a balanced proposition 'this good, this might be tricky at the start, but we'll work through it..' instead of 'free unicorns for everyone!' he might deserve a more respectful hearing - as it is, its the bluff, bluster and (at best) fibs he accuses the Unionists of.
Those worried about access to Uni in the event of independence are right to be - and deserve better than the half baked back of a fag packet reassurance they've been given.....especially as it looks like its going the way of the Sterling Zone....
We're getting fed up of posters swearing at each other.
Words like twat and such like (even if asterisked out) are not acceptable, especially when describing one another.
Moderation is going to be light this weekend, if people cannot be civil, then they will find their posting privileges revoked on our return later on this evening.
If someone swears at you, just ignore it.
The Mike and moderating team will get round to speaking to people who transgress.
Incidentally, we have had threads on next leader for Tories, LibDems and Labour, but who would be next leader of the SNP? I can see that he would have to stand down in the seemingly likely event of a No vote.
For the first time in over three decades the 2015 GE will see the Left united behind the Labour party. It will not be the 1992 election, the Tories hope for but more 1983 in reverse, a united Left and split Right!
"In the first instance the proposal is to require all private sector landlords to register with a central agency hosted by Cardiff Council. This registration will involve compulsory training courses aimed at raising the standard of management of their properties."
http://www.freedomcentral.org.uk/2014/02/a-welsh-approach-to-housing.html
There are circa 0.5 million private landlords in England, probably equivalent to almost 1 million voters. These are people that will tend to be older and have a high propensity to vote.
Class intricacies can be rather arcane, and we are most sensitive to those immediately adjacent to our own position. A Baronet may be sensitive to the status of an Earl, but to me it is all the same. Yet I am aware of the status of a prof with a personal chair and one with a regular one. Both may seem the same to a secretary, but you can be sure that she is sensitive to the difference from an audiotypist!
In any case, it's a bit like complaining that your neighbour won't feed your daughter just because you can't be bothered to feed her ...
Your post reminds me of Milibands most effective summaries of the Tories: "The Tory party think you make poor people work harder by making them poorer but the rich will only work harder if you make them richer".
Blair is posh. Posh is posh - you can't have "good" posh and "bad" posh based on their perceived politics. Harriet Harman will never be a bit of rough and Tristram Hunt has no problems crossing picket lines.
The Scottish Nats are touchy but that's because people like making fun of their hopes. As that great Irishman said... "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."
And though it's tempting to use the old hobnails, the fun is transient.
I am not a Tory (I am LD) but do not believe that Tories want to grind down the workers, any more than I believe that Labour wants to grow the size of a client state. The Tories believe in tough love, the Labour party is more indulgent, but both are sincere in their belief that their methods are better at looking after the interests of the workers.
They need a bit of positive discrimination and if that means trawling the streets of Wigan or Barnsley to find the right person then so be it. Because otherwise people will begin to suspect there is some kind of agenda at play.
Of course this opens the other can of worms/pandora's box about MPs' pay whereby £65k is a huge pay cut for the average Tory wannabe but is in all likelihood wealth unlimited to an average Lab wannabe (note: excluding cabinet material where, as has been documented, they are all the product of a priveleged background).
Thus any argument that begins or contains messages such as 'Not since Harold MacMillan' needs to be treated with appropriate caution.
You can also just as easily state that in the past 40 years the Labour party have only once managed to kick the Conservatives out of office. Which if you wished to extrapolate as a blog writer might make an impressive soundbite, but actually means equally little.
She ticks all the boxes class, race & sex wise and is also a BOOer
edit , 6 as Carnyx has recently appeared but as he / she is intelligent and polite I am not convinced he / she will stay long term
The Tories have pursued a radical right wing agenda for which they didn't really have a mandate and it has polarised the electorate. Here in Shropshire, the depth of cuts at Shropshire Council has resulted in the deeply unpopular imposition of NPPF - a free for all for developers - some localism! And it hasn't been lost on the public who is responsible. I could see Shrewsbury changing hands in 2015.
On grammar schools I really don't see why we can't have parents balloting to open new grammars as well as close them and why they can have intakes at different ages, including sixth form. Even Finland selects at 16!