I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.
Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?
I just think that it would be the start of rolling back the innovations of recent years, not just Gove's, and I think that would be wrong.
The London Challenge has been a huge success story. I struggle to see how seeking to replicate it elsewhere would be wrong.
I'm not familiar with that but in general what I hear from Labour doesn't encourage me alas.
If you are not familiar with that then you can't have been listening very closely to what Labour has been saying. You should read up about the results it achieved.
I think one should be careful not to claim too much for the London Challenge not least because when it was expanded to Manchester and the Black Country it was not as successful. If one looks at the evaluation of he three challenge areas and consider what worked and what could be improved on there is nothing that requires local authority oversight, let alone control of schools. In fact some of the key recommendations seem to came as standard with academies or free schools.
She seems thoroughly unsuitable. Whatever the truth of her National Front past, anyone proposing that all immigrants should be sent back home is nasty and unpleasant.
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
Wait for pbc's Oxfam haters to find their voice - it wont take long!
From what I've read, Conor Burn' complaint to the Charities Commission is likely to be upheld, re political campaigning by Oxfam.
This is going to get messy.
To be honest a number of charities seem to behave in odd ways, I had Shelter soliciting donations using lines that could have come straight from the Miliband campaign play book.
@JohnRentoul: Biggest political bet ever reported by Wm Hill: £400,000 on Scotland to vote No at odds of 1/4. Bet placed in Surrey by man, no Scots accent
Doesnt the ban on former BNP members extend to former National Front members? It might be useful to invoke that rule if so.
Note the date of that Mail hatchet job - December 2013. So this is not something which has been dug out after her selection, it's something they knew about before they chose her.
OK, it's the Mail, but it does seem a very odd decision by UKIP, almost as though they wanted to give ammunition to their enemies.
Odd is something of an understatement if the accusations are true. Downright bloody stupid might be a better description.
If she was a member of NF then as far as I am aware the ban extends to that organisation as well (though I would have to check that as I might be projecting my own views there).
But whatever the truth of that, choosing someone like her as a candidate if any of the claims are true is just plain suicidal.
@JohnRentoul: Biggest political bet ever reported by Wm Hill: £400,000 on Scotland to vote No at odds of 1/4. Bet placed in Surrey by man, no Scots accent
That's from JohnO's neck of the woods.
For an experiment I'm going to see how much William Hill will allow me to bet on this market online.
Anyone want to make any predictions. I'm going for less than £100
"The Solicitor General and MP for the constituency of Harborough, Edward Garnier opposes, and voted strongly against practically all smoking regulations, in Parliament. Edward Garnier was treated to a £1,132 invitation to the Chelsea Flower Show, by the World’s third largest tobacco company, Japan Tobacco International (which owns Silk Cut, Mayfair, and B&H). Along with a couple other Tory MPs (also voters against smoking regulations), JTI spent around £14,000 wining and dining their new friends in government, in 2011. A month later, six of the MPs invited by big tobacco to the Chelsea Flower Show, tried to block a bill in Parliament banning smoking in private vehicles that had children present."
further reading on Conservative donors, etc, available in the article
Bliss! At last a quick and effective way of navigating Ladbrokes' political markets via Shadsy's blog, without encountering the horror story that is their main website.
Any chance please Shadsy of re-instating your Labour and Conservative GE seat bands, which are priced-up for the LibDems, but seemingly not for the two major parties?
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.
@Smameron - Right, so you think the government are weighing up invitations to the Chelsea Flower Show for a few MPs against the possible health benefits of plain packaging?
Does it not ever occur to you that such a suggestion just make you look completely, utterly bonkers?
This is a serious question. How can anyone, anyone at all, have such a bizarre view of the world?
It's the most seats market, not an overall majority one. The beauty of it is that if you think it's that wrong you can make loads and loads of money based on you being right.
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.
I think RSPCA's popularity has declined in recent times. The publicity from the Christine Gill case was very damaging for them.
Anyone who has bet on UKIP to win in Grimsby should be sectioned by their families for wasting money . Although they did come first in the local elections the turnout was always in this area appallingly low . Their ex Conservative candidate is also the one who managed to split the UKIP group on Lincs CC into 2 opposing halves within a couple of months of the 2013 CC elections .
I'm not saying that Hills' reported £400k bet didn't happen, but it is unfortunate for them that it occurs a day after several press sources incorrectly picked up the story of a £200k bet which was actually taken last year. http://wingsoverscotland.com/against-all-odds/
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.
Oh, I did, Mr. Watcher, and they aren't the only ones. Far too many charities, including nearly all the big ones, have priorities that seem to amount to providing their senior staff extremely comfortable lifestyles.
William Hill's maximum stake online on the Indy ref is 200 quid. Any more and you have to ring up and they say the maximum you can place over the phone is 750 quid.
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - Likely Con Hold Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC
If Jack is right (and I wouldn't dare suggest otherwise), then there's some good value in the 'likely' selections:
Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)
Cambridge, LibDem: 5/4 PP, Evens Ladbrokes [I'm already on at 6/4]
It's the most seats market, not an overall majority one.
I know that you know that Wont stop the victory bunting going up though with PB Tories
I'll never forget the PB Kinnocks taking a victory for granted and saying there would be no crossover until after the election
While being completely condescending to people who actually managed to get their crossover prediction spot on at the same time. That was the classy touch.
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.
Oh, I did, Mr. Watcher, and they aren't the only ones. Far too many charities, including nearly all the big ones, have priorities that seem to amount to providing their senior staff extremely comfortable lifestyles.
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
Anyone who has bet on UKIP to win in Grimsby should be sectioned by their families for wasting money . Although they did come first in the local elections the turnout was always in this area appallingly low . Their ex Conservative candidate is also the one who managed to split the UKIP group on Lincs CC into 2 opposing halves within a couple of months of the 2013 CC elections .
Whatever the relative merits of the ex-conservative, she was not the one responsible for splitting the UKIP group on Lincs CC. That lies entirely at the feet of Chris Pain who was thrown out of the party after allegations of racism.
Maybe it was historically, but when you introduce a whole bunch of intolerant barbaric values in the UK, as has been on display with a lot of these schools, you realise you now need to start defining what we've had traditionally to latch on to.
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - Likely Con Hold Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC
If Jack is right (and I wouldn't dare suggest otherwise), then there's some good value in the 'likely' selections:
Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)
Cambridge, LibDem: 5/4 PP, Evens Ladbrokes [I'm already on at 6/4]
Croydon Central, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)
Great Yarmouth, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)
Any views?
Cambridge is a LibDem loss I also suspect they'll lose North Cornwall
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - Likely Con Hold Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC
If Jack is right (and I wouldn't dare suggest otherwise), then there's some good value in the 'likely' selections:
Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)
Cambridge, LibDem: 5/4 PP, Evens Ladbrokes [I'm already on at 6/4]
Croydon Central, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)
Great Yarmouth, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)
Any views?
I'm on the Lib Dems in Cambridge at 7/4 (for pennies with Paddy Power). I see value there at evens or longer.
I'm wary about the Conservatives in both Croydon Central and Enfield North.
My theories on Great Yarmouth will be elucidated tomorrow alongside other UKIP targets.
Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.
An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.
Oh, I did, Mr. Watcher, and they aren't the only ones. Far too many charities, including nearly all the big ones, have priorities that seem to amount to providing their senior staff extremely comfortable lifestyles.
Don't get me started on The National Trust.
Yeah, I hear that Victoria Ayling used to be a National Trust member. Disgusting.
@JohnRentoul: Biggest political bet ever reported by Wm Hill: £400,000 on Scotland to vote No at odds of 1/4. Bet placed in Surrey by man, no Scots accent
That's from JohnO's neck of the woods.
For an experiment I'm going to see how much William Hill will allow me to bet on this market online.
Anyone want to make any predictions. I'm going for less than £100
I have £200 at 1-4 with Hills on this market.
It doesn't matter to me who wins though, I will make £20 come what may.
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.
"Victoria Ayling was seen by some as a rising star of the Conservative Party.
In 2010 she came close to causing a general election upset when she reduced Labour MP Austin Mitchell's majority in Great Grimsby to just 714 votes.
Austin Mitchell, who is a critic of the EU, said: "I've got a lot in common with UKIP and Victoria, you consider my views on Europe. But I don't think UKIP will have enough impact to break the two party system."
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.
OT. Having put in a prediction a lot closer than any of the polling firms, albeit having had the advantage of not being constrained to the data alone, can I put in my two pennyworth.
The critical thing to remember is that Labour is lousy at campaigning at all things European. Even the party doesn't really know what it really stands for and in so far as it does it goes to great pains to hide it, possibly because may judge that its stance will put off more voters than it will attract. Hence its European campaign was about anything but the EU. That sort of thing translates into no more than grudging support in polls from people who will be far less inclined to go to the bother of voting than turnout filters will indicate. So it wasn't any surprise whatsoever that Labour underperformed against its polling in the Euro elections. It might have been much worse for them but for the coincidence of local elections in Labour heartlands.
The same applies to the Conservatives in reverse. Many of its members may have decamped to UKIP, but supporters that remain were left in no doubt where it stood, and the message seemed to be popular. I thought they ran an effective campaign and were picking up momentum which the polls would struggle to detect.
So my prediction was basically that Lab would underperform on the polling, Con would overperform, and UKIP would be there or thereabouts. And so it proved.
What does this tell us about the likely accuracy of GE 2015 polls? Well, nothing at all, because for all these reasons the circumstances of the Euro elections were very different to the context we can expect at GE 2015. As also applies to Newark.
What do I think will happen in 2015? Well, it's nonetheless that Labour will underperform against the polls in GE 2015. But that's nothing to do with anything that we've seen to date, but rather the consequences of the introduction of an untried system of individual voter registration likely to play havoc with registration by transient populations in private rented accommodation.
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.
I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.
I disagree. Segregating the rich and poor is a huge danger to society, one much bigger than any Islamic extremism.
I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.
Did JackW predict an outright Tory victory in 2010?
No.
My ARSE predicted Con largest party on 305 seats.
Shabby to be one seat out. I'll try harder for next year.
How much did it change in the last year though?
The 2010 ARSE projection wasn't in place until the final six months. For 2015 I've extended the period considerably from July 2013.
In 2010 the projection was, much like the 2015 projection so far, pretty stable. The only significant spike was after the first TV debate, which then subsided to polling day.
Did JackW predict an outright Tory victory in 2010?
No.
My ARSE predicted Con largest party on 305 seats.
Shabby to be one seat out. I'll try harder for next year.
How much did it change in the last year though?
The 2010 ARSE projection wasn't in place until the final six months. For 2015 I've extended the period considerably from July 2013.
In 2010 the projection was, much like the 2015 projection so far, pretty stable. The only significant spike was after the first TV debate, which then subsided to polling day.
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.
I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.
Thank you Sean. I always value your opinion on Greater London politics.
Enfield North was on the very cusp of TCTC (Below 500 votes) but I have to call it as the model sees it.
BTW all the "JackW Dozen" TCTC will be "called" come the final week.
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.
I disagree. Segregating the rich and poor is a huge danger to society, one much bigger than any Islamic extremism.
I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.
That seems to me to be a point in favour of single-sex selective education.
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.
I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.
Yet another seat where the losing candidate in 2010 has been reselected for 2015.
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.
I disagree. Segregating the rich and poor is a huge danger to society, one much bigger than any Islamic extremism.
I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.
Segregating rich and poor in education, is hardly a new idea. Aside from the assisted places scheme and scholarships it has been going on since time immemorial. Yet we seem as a society to have managed to struggle on and, in fact, survive rather well. Voluntary apartheid and ghettoisation seems much more of a threat to a coherent society.
Bliss! At last a quick and effective way of navigating Ladbrokes' political markets via Shadsy's blog, without encountering the horror story that is their main website.
Any chance please Shadsy of re-instating your Labour and Conservative GE seat bands, which are priced-up for the LibDems, but seemingly not for the two major parties?
It would also be good to see the constituency betting markets back.
OT. Having put in a prediction a lot closer than any of the polling firms, albeit having had the advantage of not being constrained to the data alone, can I put in my two pennyworth.
The critical thing to remember is that Labour is lousy at campaigning at all things European. Even the party doesn't really know what it really stands for and in so far as it does it goes to great pains to hide it, possibly because may judge that its stance will put off more voters than it will attract. Hence its European campaign was about anything but the EU. That sort of thing translates into no more than grudging support in polls from people who will be far less inclined to go to the bother of voting than turnout filters will indicate. So it wasn't any surprise whatsoever that Labour underperformed against its polling in the Euro elections. It might have been much worse for them but for the coincidence of local elections in Labour heartlands.
The same applies to the Conservatives in reverse. Many of its members may have decamped to UKIP, but supporters that remain were left in no doubt where it stood, and the message seemed to be popular. I thought they ran an effective campaign and were picking up momentum which the polls would struggle to detect.
So my prediction was basically that Lab would underperform on the polling, Con would overperform, and UKIP would be there or thereabouts. And so it proved.
What does this tell us about the likely accuracy of GE 2015 polls? Well, nothing at all, because for all these reasons the circumstances of the Euro elections were very different to the context we can expect at GE 2015. As also applies to Newark.
What do I think will happen in 2015? Well, it's nonetheless that Labour will underperform against the polls in GE 2015. But that's nothing to do with anything that we've seen to date, but rather the consequences of the introduction of an untried system of individual voter registration likely to play havoc with registration by transient populations in private rented accommodation.
Really good analysis. I think the impact of the new voter system on inner cities in particular needs a lot more attention from punters, though those seats tend not to be marginal. Is it correct that new voters now have to produce their NI number?
On Europe, in Broxtowe we defied advice and put out a lot of stuff about the EU and our splendid policies (didn't mention Mr Juncker though!). Did a bit better than similar neighbouring seats and pushed the Tories into a poor third place, though UKIP still won comfortably.
By the way, FWIW Labour expects to win Cambridge in a canter. It's exactly the sort of seat where the swing from the LibDems is largest.
Anyone who has bet on UKIP to win in Grimsby should be sectioned by their families for wasting money . Although they did come first in the local elections the turnout was always in this area appallingly low . Their ex Conservative candidate is also the one who managed to split the UKIP group on Lincs CC into 2 opposing halves within a couple of months of the 2013 CC elections .
Whatever the relative merits of the ex-conservative, she was not the one responsible for splitting the UKIP group on Lincs CC. That lies entirely at the feet of Chris Pain who was thrown out of the party after allegations of racism.
you are being disingenuous . Chris Pain was expelled after the rebel group of 6 councillors broke away and the allegations of racism appeared at that time . Given Ayling's NF history they are exposed as a smoke screen .
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.
I disagree. Segregating the rich and poor is a huge danger to society, one much bigger than any Islamic extremism.
I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.
What a terrible example to back up your 'case'. Thatcher ,as far as I am aware, went o a school anyone rich or poor could go to . Also I am sure the school Maggie went to is very proud of her .
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
I read a while ago their anti -fraud manager (of all people) got convicted of nicking tens of thousands of pounds from them. That's bad enough but possibly could be explained by bad luck or mere incompetence on the organisation's part but to top it all they gave a near £30,000 golden handshake to him . I won't be donating to Oxfam again especially as their paid staff are on defined benefit pension schemes which ultimately means that staff are ahead of the queue above even potential recipients of aid if push comes to shove
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
OT. Having put in a prediction a lot closer than any of the polling firms, albeit having had the advantage of not being constrained to the data alone, can I put in my two pennyworth.
The critical thing to remember is that Labour is lousy at campaigning at all things European. Even the party doesn't really know what it really stands for and in so far as it does it goes to great pains to hide it, possibly because may judge that its stance will put off more voters than it will attract. Hence its European campaign was about anything but the EU. That sort of thing translates into no more than grudging support in polls from people who will be far less inclined to go to the bother of voting than turnout filters will indicate. So it wasn't any surprise whatsoever that Labour underperformed against its polling in the Euro elections. It might have been much worse for them but for the coincidence of local elections in Labour heartlands.
The same applies to the Conservatives in reverse. Many of its members may have decamped to UKIP, but supporters that remain were left in no doubt where it stood, and the message seemed to be popular. I thought they ran an effective campaign and were picking up momentum which the polls would struggle to detect.
So my prediction was basically that Lab would underperform on the polling, Con would overperform, and UKIP would be there or thereabouts. And so it proved.
What does this tell us about the likely accuracy of GE 2015 polls? Well, nothing at all, because for all these reasons the circumstances of the Euro elections were very different to the context we can expect at GE 2015. As also applies to Newark.
What do I think will happen in 2015? Well, it's nonetheless that Labour will underperform against the polls in GE 2015. But that's nothing to do with anything that we've seen to date, but rather the consequences of the introduction of an untried system of individual voter registration likely to play havoc with registration by transient populations in private rented accommodation.
By the way, FWIW Labour expects to win Cambridge in a canter. It's exactly the sort of seat where the swing from the LibDems is largest.
Labour may well expect to win Cambridge in a canter however the evidence is that the swing from the Lib Dems is certainly not the largest . The Labour lead over the Lib Dems was at it's largest in the 2012 local elections but has fallen in both 2013 and 2014 .
The Birmingham schools that are being investigated were doing very well academically, a big recent turn around in grades
Same as Tower Hamlets.
Could the fact that they are almost exclusively faith schools in all but name be the reason?
"In 1997 its schools were rated the worst in the country and the following year Ofsted declared the council’s education department, the best-funded in the country, to be failing.
Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman welcomed the report, saying: “The transformation of the borough’s schools is a wonderful success story."
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
2. Work out how to recreate the academic success of faith-based schools in secular schools.
I think we need to do 2 before we worry about 1
The academic success of faith schools is nothing to do with religion making either good teaching or pupils its the general intake of kids (ie those usually with interested parents). There is nothing to solve before you need to get rid of 1) imo
Really good analysis. I think the impact of the new voter system on inner cities in particular needs a lot more attention from punters, though those seats tend not to be marginal. Is it correct that new voters now have to produce their NI number?
...
The new voter registration system will see the number of people on the register fall and I suspect by quite large amounts. I spent a month last winter trudging the street of Hurstpierpoint and district knocking on doors and trying to get people who had not responded to the councils invitation to register as a voter. Of nearly 400 households on my list I managed to get just under 200 to sign up. If I had had to get the National Insurance Number for each voter I doubt I would have got into double figures. That is in nice, comfortable, law-abiding (it is an offence not to fill in voter registration forms) rural Sussex. What it will be like in inner city areas I dread to think.
Education is a subject I feel quite strongly about – as fees for my two are very painful. It is ultimately a good thing for society if richer and poorer children can be educated together. But it is not reasonable to expect those who are better off to do deliberate damage to their children’s life chances in the name of social unity. Ain’t gonna happen. Not human nature.
Here in the Netherlands where I live they don’t really have private schools. Everyone goes to the local school. And here’s the problem – they’re rather good.
The political left in the UK decries social exclusion, inequality, unfairness, etc and claims to want to end that. Please would they STFU. The biggest obstacle to achieving such a goal in the UK by a country mile is the woeful, shameful, pig-headed refusal of the state education system to demand and enforce standards. From primary schools to university the educational establishment seem to be on a socialist ideological crusade. Gove may have many things to dislike about him – but being wrong on education is not among them. He’s the first SoS education since forever to address the real underlying malaise with our education system. And so they hate him.
So…I’ll stop paying private school fees and send my girls to the local comp just as soon as the local comp can give them an equivalent education and life chances. And until then I will pay up - with huge resentment that I’m paying twice for education and an army of yammering lefty monkeys who want to keep our education system as fu<ked up as it is. Privatise the entire system and hand out vouchers.
Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.
2. Work out how to recreate the academic success of faith-based schools in secular schools.
I think we need to do 2 before we worry about 1
The academic success of faith schools is nothing to do with religion making either good teaching or pupils its the general intake of kids (ie those usually with interested parents). There is nothing to solve before you need to get rid of 1) imo
There was a recent article in the Economist about improvements in London's educational standards which gave as one reason (among several) the involvement of religious organisations in providing out of hours classes and homework clubs for children.
Did JackW predict an outright Tory victory in 2010?
No.
My ARSE predicted Con largest party on 305 seats.
Shabby to be one seat out. I'll try harder for next year.
Wow so whn Tories were on 38 Lab on 25 in polls in May 2010 you predicted 305 seats.
Yet now Lab are mid 30's and Tories 5% behind you are going for Tory net gains.
Interesting obviously expecting big swingback
We will see for what its worth I would reckon Lab about 310-315 and Tories about 275-280.
Interesting 11 months ahead.
Whilst I enjoy the plaudits for 2010 in many ways the projection was a little easier than you allude to. Although clearly to within one seat was mildly satisfying.
Much of the projection information and intelligence is hidden in plain sight. It's how your model crunches and weights that information together with other more fluid factors that will determine your initial calculation.
Finally there is X .... that elusive combination of experience, nous and personal tea leaves that you add to favoured mix and bingo, there you have it.
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.
I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.
Thank you Sean. I always value your opinion on Greater London politics.
Enfield North was on the very cusp of TCTC (Below 500 votes) but I have to call it as the model sees it.
BTW all the "JackW Dozen" TCTC will be "called" come the final week.
Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?
I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.
I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.
Thank you Sean. I always value your opinion on Greater London politics.
Enfield North was on the very cusp of TCTC (Below 500 votes) but I have to call it as the model sees it.
BTW all the "JackW Dozen" TCTC will be "called" come the final week.
The real problem is ongoing demographic change. Ten years ago, Turkey Street was a safe Conservative ward. Now it looks out of reach. Even Chase is starting to look vulnerable.
It hasn't really ebbed or flowed anywhere, has it? They had the original meeting of 28 which produced Hungary, Sweden, Holland and UK against while Germany was vague, producing a potential blocking minority. Then Merkel immediately got push-back and endorsed Juncker which left the right-wing opponents short, and nothing has moved since.
I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.
Isn't prejudice wonderful! Another great example.
Yes, Oliver. She did. So did Harriet Harman, albeit a much posher and fee-payng one. And Stella Creasy. And Rachel Reeves. And, going back a bit further to Maggie's generation, Barbara Castle.
So presumably you think that it wasn't a coincidence that they went to selective single-sex schools as well?
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-city-challenge-programme
"Atos warning over work fitness tests"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27767779
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-queries-tory-funds-from-tobacco-industry-1310207.html
If she was a member of NF then as far as I am aware the ban extends to that organisation as well (though I would have to check that as I might be projecting my own views there).
But whatever the truth of that, choosing someone like her as a candidate if any of the claims are true is just plain suicidal.
Lab 1.96
Con 2.08
crossover beckons?
I once told one of their smug chuggers they could get someone else to subsidize Cameron Robb's huge salary.
The charity racket has been discussed here many times.
For an experiment I'm going to see how much William Hill will allow me to bet on this market online.
Anyone want to make any predictions. I'm going for less than £100
"The Solicitor General and MP for the constituency of Harborough, Edward Garnier opposes, and voted strongly against practically all smoking regulations, in Parliament. Edward Garnier was treated to a £1,132 invitation to the Chelsea Flower Show, by the World’s third largest tobacco company, Japan Tobacco International (which owns Silk Cut, Mayfair, and B&H). Along with a couple other Tory MPs (also voters against smoking regulations), JTI spent around £14,000 wining and dining their new friends in government, in 2011. A month later, six of the MPs invited by big tobacco to the Chelsea Flower Show, tried to block a bill in Parliament banning smoking in private vehicles that had children present."
further reading on Conservative donors, etc, available in the article
http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-curse-of-the-tory-donors/
Bliss! At last a quick and effective way of navigating Ladbrokes' political markets via Shadsy's blog, without encountering the horror story that is their main website.
Any chance please Shadsy of re-instating your Labour and Conservative GE seat bands, which are priced-up for the LibDems, but seemingly not for the two major parties?
Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.
We are currently a million miles from being level on seats.
Two words to PB Tories Mitt Romney
Does it not ever occur to you that such a suggestion just make you look completely, utterly bonkers?
This is a serious question. How can anyone, anyone at all, have such a bizarre view of the world?
Look out for the corks flying.
Certain Tory Majority imminent
http://wingsoverscotland.com/against-all-odds/
The public is also more savvy to the organisation's relativism, ie its silence on Halal etc.
I'd say that was 2 million miles.
William Hill's maximum stake online on the Indy ref is 200 quid. Any more and you have to ring up and they say the maximum you can place over the phone is 750 quid.
Even the link description has something for everyone!
Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)
Cambridge, LibDem: 5/4 PP, Evens Ladbrokes [I'm already on at 6/4]
Croydon Central, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)
Great Yarmouth, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)
Any views?
@jimwaterson: Michael Gove Previously Said It Was “unBritish” To Define Britishness http://t.co/dNkwK8VNad
True - he's PB's best anti-tipster
Another PB Tory who can't do maths.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275679/all-faith-based-schools-are-trojan-horse-schools-lets-ban-every-single-one-of-them/
Northern Rock will be forgotten by next weekend from 2007 will never be beaten
Whatever the relative merits of the ex-conservative, she was not the one responsible for splitting the UKIP group on Lincs CC. That lies entirely at the feet of Chris Pain who was thrown out of the party after allegations of racism.
Chances of any bookie laying that bet- absolute zero.
IMO.
I also suspect they'll lose North Cornwall
I'm wary about the Conservatives in both Croydon Central and Enfield North.
My theories on Great Yarmouth will be elucidated tomorrow alongside other UKIP targets.
It doesn't matter to me who wins though, I will make £20 come what may.
RNC@GOP · 16h
From #Benghazi to Russia, retweet & hold Hillary accountable for her bad choices: http://gop.cm/6010c5z2 #HillaryFiles
RNC@GOP · 10h
.@HillaryClinton lied about #Benghazi. http://gop.cm/6019cgqR Hold her accountable for her failure. #HillaryonABC
RNC@GOP · 14h
Go figure: http://gop.cm/6019c5NZ @HillaryClinton's attempt at rewriting history gets a crucial fact about #Benghazi wrong. #HillaryFiles
RNC@GOP · 20h
Watch: @HillaryClinton called out for ducking responsibility on #Benghazi http://gop.cm/6018ce9n #HillaryFiles
#Benghazi #Benghazi #Benghazi
My ARSE predicted Con largest party on 305 seats.
Shabby to be one seat out. I'll try harder for next year.
"Victoria Ayling was seen by some as a rising star of the Conservative Party.
In 2010 she came close to causing a general election upset when she reduced Labour MP Austin Mitchell's majority in Great Grimsby to just 714 votes.
Austin Mitchell, who is a critic of the EU, said: "I've got a lot in common with UKIP and Victoria, you consider my views on Europe. But I don't think UKIP will have enough impact to break the two party system."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21905321
The critical thing to remember is that Labour is lousy at campaigning at all things European. Even the party doesn't really know what it really stands for and in so far as it does it goes to great pains to hide it, possibly because may judge that its stance will put off more voters than it will attract. Hence its European campaign was about anything but the EU. That sort of thing translates into no more than grudging support in polls from people who will be far less inclined to go to the bother of voting than turnout filters will indicate. So it wasn't any surprise whatsoever that Labour underperformed against its polling in the Euro elections. It might have been much worse for them but for the coincidence of local elections in Labour heartlands.
The same applies to the Conservatives in reverse. Many of its members may have decamped to UKIP, but supporters that remain were left in no doubt where it stood, and the message seemed to be popular. I thought they ran an effective campaign and were picking up momentum which the polls would struggle to detect.
So my prediction was basically that Lab would underperform on the polling, Con would overperform, and UKIP would be there or thereabouts. And so it proved.
What does this tell us about the likely accuracy of GE 2015 polls? Well, nothing at all, because for all these reasons the circumstances of the Euro elections were very different to the context we can expect at GE 2015. As also applies to Newark.
What do I think will happen in 2015? Well, it's nonetheless that Labour will underperform against the polls in GE 2015. But that's nothing to do with anything that we've seen to date, but rather the consequences of the introduction of an untried system of individual voter registration likely to play havoc with registration by transient populations in private rented accommodation.
If true then mr popular Ed Miliband will need to win 57 off LD, PC, Green and SNP..
I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.
Every one the do makes Lab most seats harder.
Every one Lab lose to SNP makes most seats harder.
In 2010 the projection was, much like the 2015 projection so far, pretty stable. The only significant spike was after the first TV debate, which then subsided to polling day.
Enfield North was on the very cusp of TCTC (Below 500 votes) but I have to call it as the model sees it.
BTW all the "JackW Dozen" TCTC will be "called" come the final week.
Let's put this in simple terms.
Do you think Ed needs to make at least 49 gains to become PM?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
I think he needs to find around that many give or take a handful.
Maximum publicity for its campaign.
And the Tory Party attacking it.
The perfect storm indeed.
Yet now Lab are mid 30's and Tories 5% behind you are going for Tory net gains.
Interesting obviously expecting big swingback
We will see for what its worth I would reckon Lab about 310-315 and Tories about 275-280.
Interesting 11 months ahead.
On Europe, in Broxtowe we defied advice and put out a lot of stuff about the EU and our splendid policies (didn't mention Mr Juncker though!). Did a bit better than similar neighbouring seats and pushed the Tories into a poor third place, though UKIP still won comfortably.
By the way, FWIW Labour expects to win Cambridge in a canter. It's exactly the sort of seat where the swing from the LibDems is largest.
We'll see.
1. Stop creating more faith schools.
2. Work out how to recreate the academic success of faith-based schools in secular schools.
I won't be donating to Oxfam again especially as their paid staff are on defined benefit pension schemes which ultimately means that staff are ahead of the queue above even potential recipients of aid if push comes to shove
Same as Tower Hamlets.
Could the fact that they are almost exclusively faith schools in all but name be the reason?
"In 1997 its schools were rated the worst in the country and the following year Ofsted declared the council’s education department, the best-funded in the country, to be failing.
Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman welcomed the report, saying: “The transformation of the borough’s schools is a wonderful success story."
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news__events/news/december_2013/boroughs_schools_praised.aspx
Here in the Netherlands where I live they don’t really have private schools. Everyone goes to the local school. And here’s the problem – they’re rather good.
The political left in the UK decries social exclusion, inequality, unfairness, etc and claims to want to end that. Please would they STFU. The biggest obstacle to achieving such a goal in the UK by a country mile is the woeful, shameful, pig-headed refusal of the state education system to demand and enforce standards. From primary schools to university the educational establishment seem to be on a socialist ideological crusade. Gove may have many things to dislike about him – but being wrong on education is not among them. He’s the first SoS education since forever to address the real underlying malaise with our education system. And so they hate him.
So…I’ll stop paying private school fees and send my girls to the local comp just as soon as the local comp can give them an equivalent education and life chances. And until then I will pay up - with huge resentment that I’m paying twice for education and an army of yammering lefty monkeys who want to keep our education system as fu<ked up as it is. Privatise the entire system and hand out vouchers.
1. North Warwickshire Majority 54 (0.1%)
2. Thurrock Majority 92 (0.2%)
3. Hendon Majority 106 (0.2%)
4. Cardiff North Majority 194 (0.4%)
5. Sherwood Majority 214 (0.4%)
6. Norwich South Majority 310 (0.7%)
7. Stockton South Majority 332 (0.7%)
8. Broxtowe Majority 389 (0.7%)
9. Lancaster & Fleetwood Majority 333 (0.8%)
10. Bradford East Majority 365 (0.9%)
11. Amber Valley Majority 536 (1.2%)
12. Waveney Majority 769 (1.5%)
13. Wolverhampton South West Majority 691 (1.7%)
14. Morecambe & Lunesdale Majority 866 (2%)
15. Carlisle Majority 853 (2%)
16. Stroud Majority 1299 (2.2%)
17. Weaver Vale Majority 991 (2.3%)
18. Lincoln Majority 1058 (2.3%)
19. Brighton, Pavilion Majority 1252 (2.4%)
20. Plymouth Sutton & Devonport Majority 1149 (2.6%)
21. Dewsbury Majority 1526 (2.8%)
22. Warrington South Majority 1553 (2.8%)
23. Brent Central Majority 1345 (3%)
24. Bedford Majority 1353 (3%)
25. Brighton, Kemptown Majority 1328 (3.1%)
26. Pudsey Majority 1659 (3.4%)
27. Corby Majority 1895 (3.5%)
28. Brentford & Isleworth Majority 1958 (3.6%)
29. Hove Majority 1868 (3.8%)
30. Enfield North Majority 1692 (3.8%)
31. Hastings & Rye Majority 1993 (4%)
32. Manchester, Withington Majority 1894 (4.2%)
33. Burnley Majority 1818 (4.3%)
34. Ipswich Majority 2079 (4.4%)
35. Dundee East Majority 1821 (4.5%)
36. East Dunbartonshire Majority 2184 (4.6%)
37. Halesowen & Rowley Regis Majority 2023 (4.6%)
38. Nuneaton Majority 2069 (4.6%)
39. Gloucester Majority 2420 (4.8%)
40. Northampton North Majority 1936 (4.8%)
41. Bury North Majority 2243 (5%)
42. Kingswood Majority 2445 (5.1%)
43. Erewash Majority 2501 (5.3%)
44. Blackpool North & Cleveleys Majority 2150 (5.3%)
45. City of Chester Majority 2583 (5.5%)
46. Arfon Majority 1455 (5.6%)
47. Croydon Central Majority 2879 (5.8%)
These plus a few more for me. Otherwise Ed falls well short and lose many of these and Lab will even struggle for biggest party
Much of the projection information and intelligence is hidden in plain sight. It's how your model crunches and weights that information together with other more fluid factors that will determine your initial calculation.
Finally there is X .... that elusive combination of experience, nous and personal tea leaves that you add to favoured mix and bingo, there you have it.
Yes, Oliver. She did. So did Harriet Harman, albeit a much posher and fee-payng one. And Stella Creasy. And Rachel Reeves. And, going back a bit further to Maggie's generation, Barbara Castle.
So presumably you think that it wasn't a coincidence that they went to selective single-sex schools as well?