The problems of the execrable Tony Abbott down under provide part of the answer.
Rightwing governments aren't at all popular. That's why I don't expect a swingback here.
The Aussie economy is in big trouble, hence so are the ruling party and Abbott. Changing leaders won't help.
Problem in Australia is that the love red tape more than any country. If you speak to people who live there, they will tell you that dealing with government can be painful.
The politics is worse than the UK, both nationally and in each state. It is bitter nasty stuff, where they seem to disagree on as much as they can.
Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.
I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.
Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
You can go whistle!
Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.
That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.
{Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.
Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
LAB most seats 2.44 Ed PM 2.3
Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
Try the Prime Minister after Cameron market, though there is a lack of liquidity. I got 2.64 on Ed last night.
Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.
I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.
Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
You can go whistle!
Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.
That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.
{Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.
Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
LAB most seats 2.44 Ed PM 2.3
Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
BJO - read my odds comparison with PP net of commission below, you might just be surprised!
But it's become split because people are unconvinced by the Conservatives.
I think that is wishful thinking.
The Conservatives have always been the party of capital, country and (small 'c') conservatism. The interests of capital and the rest have diverged.
I don't think there's any way to get around that. David Cameron tried to forge a new coalition, of social liberals and capital. And that doesn't seem to be large enough, either.
The only good news is that the left has fissured too.
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.
I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.
Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
You can go whistle!
Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.
That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.
{Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.
Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
LAB most seats 2.44 Ed PM 2.3
Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
Try the Prime Minister after Cameron market, though there is a lack of liquidity. I got 2.64 on Ed last night.
Ed 2.34 on that now so Lab most seats is now rightfully higher
Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.
I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.
Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
You can go whistle!
Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.
That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.
{Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.
Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
LAB most seats 2.44 Ed PM 2.3
Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
Try the Prime Minister after Cameron market, though there is a lack of liquidity. I got 2.64 on Ed last night.
Ed 2.34 on that now so Lab most seats is now rightfully higher
I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.
Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!
Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?
Should be a real vote winner..
Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......
Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
The State does not own children. Parents should be free to bring up children according to their own values.
Absolutely correct but the state should not have to pay for it though. Must be huge waste in Scotland where you have two half empty schools side by side rather than one state school.
One solution has been to design the new schools side by side almost as one, so they could very easilu be integrated fully. Some people were not happy to put it mildly.
Yes bigots weren't happy - and we have seen what indulging them has achieved elsewhere this week.
Why are there no faith Universities ? I'm sure teenagers would queue up to pay £9k a year to study say the history of evolution under Romanist thinking - you would have a degree in 7 days...
Don't know what you are talking about in the first para, but I have not been reading the papers recently.
And that second para is grossly unfair to many people across the spectrum (as well as being based on an inaccurate understanding of Genesis: as any fule kno, it took 6 days). Much of the 19th century work was done by churchmen and the allegedly church vs science debates were far more of the character of Church and Kirk civil wars at times.
The nearest that I have come across such faith colleges is in the USA and those aren't run by RCs.
Interestingly, although Prof Fisher makes the Tories very narrow favourites to win the most seats, he is very much more bullish about Rd Miliband's chances of becoming PM which he calculates as being 56% (or odds on), compared with David Cameron's 19% chance, equivalent to being just over a 4/1 shot. Please don't knock me over in the rush to take PP's 11/8 (2.375 decimal) against Ed (maximum stake £22), which equates to a Betfair price of 2.45 before their 5% commission (currently they go 2.30).
The flaw in that is it assumes the LDs and SNP will bunk up with Ed Miliband, whilst the LDs will pontificate as to whether they want to play a 'kingmaker' role with the Conservatives.
I'm not confident on either of those percentages, based on those assumptions, but if Cameron is ahead on seats and votes (which he looks like he will be) he has a better than 2/1 chance of staying as PM, IMHO.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example.
They wouldn't do that, Ed is very unpopular in Scotland so they'd want him as PM.
If there's a Labour PM after the election, it will be Ed Miliband. End of story.
Well, not actually end of story - the likelihood is that he'd rapidly become so unpopular, and the government so chaotic, and the economy so badly hit, that plots and coups would resurface. But that will be later.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example.
They wouldn't do that, Ed is very unpopular in Scotland so they'd want him as PM.
If there's a Labour PM after the election, it will be Ed Miliband. End of story.
Well, not actually end of story - the likelihood is that he'd rapidly become so unpopular, and the government so chaotic, and the economy so badly hit, that plots and coups would resurface. But that will be later.
Although obviously he will be PM / Labour will be in power for a decade or so as you have said all along despite the chaos
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.
I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.
Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
You can go whistle!
Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.
That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.
{Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.
Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
LAB most seats 2.44 Ed PM 2.3
Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
Try the Prime Minister after Cameron market, though there is a lack of liquidity. I got 2.64 on Ed last night.
Ed 2.34 on that now so Lab most seats is now rightfully higher
2.34 - 2.64 is the spread. Why not ask for 2.5?
and wait and hope ..... alternatively take PP's 11/8 now (max £22) which equates to 2.45 with Betfair.
But it's become split because people are unconvinced by the Conservatives.
I think that is wishful thinking.
The Conservatives have always been the party of capital, country and (small 'c') conservatism. The interests of capital and the rest have diverged.
I don't think there's any way to get around that. David Cameron tried to forge a new coalition, of social liberals and capital. And that doesn't seem to be large enough, either.
The only good news is that the left has fissured too.
I'd broadly agree but I'd argue there was a bit more to the economic appeal of the Tories than just capital. For many people, like my Grandmother, they represented stability for people who were fairly affluent, secure and wary of socialism. You could argue that the secure middle class vote is shrinking, fewer people own their own homes and business assets have been sold abroad. I'm sure a shrinking secure middle class is a delight for capitalists who want cheap easy labour but the Tories have always relied on it since universal suffrage.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example.
They wouldn't do that, Ed is very unpopular in Scotland so they'd want him as PM.
If there's a Labour PM after the election, it will be Ed Miliband. End of story.
Well, not actually end of story - the likelihood is that he'd rapidly become so unpopular, and the government so chaotic, and the economy so badly hit, that plots and coups would resurface. But that will be later.
Although obviously he will be PM for a decade or so as you have said all along despite the chaos
No, I've said Labour would probably remain in power, because of disunity amongst their opponents. But not necessarily with Ed as leader.
Indeed I wrote a PB guest article on the very subject:
Of course, this does assume that Labour get round to defenestrating him. It would be the logical thing to do, but this is the party which unanimously chose Gordon Brown as leader and left him in place, so one can't be confident that any coup would actually succeed. But I'm sure there'd be plenty of talk of coups.
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Eminence grisly, if you ask me. It's plausible. But I still think Labour couldn't risk assuming office with a non-Ed PM - just imagine the blowback at the next election (12 months later).
Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.
I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.
Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
You can go whistle!
Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.
That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.
{Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.
Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
LAB most seats 2.44 Ed PM 2.3
Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
Try the Prime Minister after Cameron market, though there is a lack of liquidity. I got 2.64 on Ed last night.
Ed 2.34 on that now so Lab most seats is now rightfully higher
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example.
They wouldn't do that, Ed is very unpopular in Scotland so they'd want him as PM.
If there's a Labour PM after the election, it will be Ed Miliband. End of story.
Well, not actually end of story - the likelihood is that he'd rapidly become so unpopular, and the government so chaotic, and the economy so badly hit, that plots and coups would resurface. But that will be later.
Although obviously he will be PM / Labour will be in power for a decade or so as you have said all along despite the chaos
It would certainly be a risk if they ditched Ed around 2018 and found someone slightly competent.
They could keep the show on the road for another term, especially if the Right remains split...
This is a chimera. The NUT is trying to position the question as one of whether you want competent or incompetent people becoming teachers, to which there is only one answer.
However, we are all taught very important skills and lessons in life by very competent and inspirational people who do not have a PGCE certificate that they attended a one-year university course. They still make exceptional and excellent teachers. A head can judge that.
This is quite clearly producer capture by the NUT, which is trying to defend its influence and dominance over the profession.
Lots of "qualified teachers" don't have a PGCE, and they didn't go away to uni/college to do a certificate. To be "qualified" just means to have Qualified Teacher Status. Lots of people now do their Initial Teacher Training at a school cluster, essentially teaching at a school for a year (generally with a short crash-course before they hit the classroom, and interspersed with a couple of short placements elsewhere for experience of different conditions) while undergoing training provided by their cluster. Although "unqualified" teachers don't complete and validate their QTS, their training experience isn't particularly dissimilar (they're not untrained, they just get school-based training). I can't fathom why the government doesn't simply make it more straightforward for people in that situation to formalise the training they receive into a "qualification", and then the stupid arguments about the dangers of "unqualified" teachers basically disappear.
Interestingly, although Prof Fisher makes the Tories very narrow favourites to win the most seats, he is very much more bullish about Rd Miliband's chances of becoming PM which he calculates as being 56% (or odds on), compared with David Cameron's 19% chance, equivalent to being just over a 4/1 shot. Please don't knock me over in the rush to take PP's 11/8 (2.375 decimal) against Ed (maximum stake £22), which equates to a Betfair price of 2.45 before their 5% commission (currently they go 2.30).
The flaw in that is it assumes the LDs and SNP will bunk up with Ed Miliband, whilst the LDs will pontificate as to whether they want to play a 'kingmaker' role with the Conservatives.
I'm not confident on either of those percentages, based on those assumptions, but if Cameron is ahead on seats and votes (which he looks like he will be) he has a better than 2/1 chance of staying as PM, IMHO.
Casino -
Labour may seriously dislike the SNP and the LibDems, but on nothing like the scale that they hate the Tories. Miliband will go down on his knees to one or other or both to do whatever deal is necessary to prevent Cameron continuing in office.
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
Interestingly, although Prof Fisher makes the Tories very narrow favourites to win the most seats, he is very much more bullish about Rd Miliband's chances of becoming PM which he calculates as being 56% (or odds on), compared with David Cameron's 19% chance, equivalent to being just over a 4/1 shot. Please don't knock me over in the rush to take PP's 11/8 (2.375 decimal) against Ed (maximum stake £22), which equates to a Betfair price of 2.45 before their 5% commission (currently they go 2.30).
The flaw in that is it assumes the LDs and SNP will bunk up with Ed Miliband, whilst the LDs will pontificate as to whether they want to play a 'kingmaker' role with the Conservatives.
I'm not confident on either of those percentages, based on those assumptions, but if Cameron is ahead on seats and votes (which he looks like he will be) he has a better than 2/1 chance of staying as PM, IMHO.
Casino -
Labour may seriously dislike the SNP and the LibDems, but on nothing like the scale that they hate the Tories. Miliband will go down on his knees to one or other or both to do whatever deal is necessary to prevent Cameron continuing in office.
That conjures up some seriously unpleasant mental images.
Well, true. Though sometimes "stand out" prices are more likely to be taken, rather than the usual "one tick shorter/longer". As are psychological prices like 2.0 or 3.0; not sure if 2.5 qualifies!
This is a chimera. The NUT is trying to position the question as one of whether you want competent or incompetent people becoming teachers, to which there is only one answer.
However, we are all taught very important skills and lessons in life by very competent and inspirational people who do not have a PGCE certificate that they attended a one-year university course. They still make exceptional and excellent teachers. A head can judge that.
This is quite clearly producer capture by the NUT, which is trying to defend its influence and dominance over the profession.
Lots of "qualified teachers" don't have a PGCE, and they didn't go away to uni/college to do a certificate. To be "qualified" just means to have Qualified Teacher Status. Lots of people now do their Initial Teacher Training at a school cluster, essentially teaching at a school for a year (generally with a short crash-course before they hit the classroom, and interspersed with a couple of short placements elsewhere for experience of different conditions) while undergoing training provided by their cluster. Although "unqualified" teachers don't complete and validate their QTS, their training experience isn't particularly dissimilar (they're not untrained, they just get school-based training). I can't fathom why the government doesn't simply make it more straightforward for people in that situation to formalise the training they receive into a "qualification", and then the stupid arguments about the dangers of "unqualified" teachers basically disappear.
Fair points. I just think much of teaching comes down to understanding people, knowing your subject, self-control, and emotional intelligence.
I've had some truly fantastic teachers and mentors in my life who've been far above and beyond the quality of some of the 'professional' teachers who've used orthodox process-based methods to teach me rigidly to a syllabus.
"More than 9,000 people have fallen off the electoral register in the Black Country and South Staffordshire. In South Staffordshire there has been a drop of 3, 488 over the last year while there are 2,189 fewer people registered in Sandwell. Some 1,681 people have fallen off the register in Cannock Chase, with 597 in Walsall, 551 in Dudley and 539 in Wolverhampton. In total the number registered in all areas has gone from 1,008,632 to 999, 587". Cannock Chronicle
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example.
They wouldn't do that, Ed is very unpopular in Scotland so they'd want him as PM.
If there's a Labour PM after the election, it will be Ed Miliband. End of story.
Well, not actually end of story - the likelihood is that he'd rapidly become so unpopular, and the government so chaotic, and the economy so badly hit, that plots and coups would resurface. But that will be later.
Although obviously he will be PM for a decade or so as you have said all along despite the chaos
No, I've said Labour would probably remain in power, because of disunity amongst their opponents. But not necessarily with Ed as leader.
Indeed I wrote a PB guest article on the very subject:
Of course, this does assume that Labour get round to defenestrating him. It would be the logical thing to do, but this is the party which unanimously chose Gordon Brown as leader and left him in place, so one can't be confident that any coup would actually succeed. But I'm sure there'd be plenty of talk of coups.
Yeah I changed it to include labour in power for a decade, I thought you'd say that
The best idea would be for the conservatives to do better, there's no point blaming everyone else. If labour are that rubbish they'll be voted out
"More than 9,000 people have fallen off the electoral register in the Black Country and South Staffordshire. In South Staffordshire there has been a drop of 3, 488 over the last year while there are 2,189 fewer people registered in Sandwell. Some 1,681 people have fallen off the register in Cannock Chase, with 597 in Walsall, 551 in Dudley and 539 in Wolverhampton. In total the number registered in all areas has gone from 1,008,632 to 999, 587". Cannock Chronicle
Has the Cannock Chase MP has moved out of the area yet?
"More than 9,000 people have fallen off the electoral register in the Black Country and South Staffordshire. In South Staffordshire there has been a drop of 3, 488 over the last year while there are 2,189 fewer people registered in Sandwell. Some 1,681 people have fallen off the register in Cannock Chase, with 597 in Walsall, 551 in Dudley and 539 in Wolverhampton. In total the number registered in all areas has gone from 1,008,632 to 999, 587". Cannock Chronicle
Has the Cannock Chase MP has moved out of the area yet?
The lesser spoken of 150/1 tip????? Prob PBs biggest ever should it cop???
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Good analysis. My view is that the Labour grandees simply won't allow Ed to make himself PM off the back of the SNP. It's risk doing to their party in England what's happened in Scotland. The Conservatives could easily get a boon off the back of it as the "English" party under a new leader.
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
People often forget, that it was the SNP that helped bring down a Labour government and usher in 18 years of a Tory Government.
I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.
Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!
Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?
Should be a real vote winner..
Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
Bob, they do not have protestant schools. They have everyday public authority schools.
PS: re catholic schools , whilst I don't like religion in public funded schools at all , given they tend to get good results it is unlikely they will disappear.
Malky, 99% right - but on a point of PB detail, to the 366 RC schools it seems one has to add one Jewish school and 3 Episcopalian [i.e. Anglican church when it's disestablished, as it is in Scotland].
It reduces but hardly eliminates the potential argument that if RCs get their sectarian education funded by the state, why not, say, Jedi Knights or Wiccans? It would make more sense to have none at all (with an exception for Anglicans in England - they are after all the operators of that particular theocracy).
indeed - the RC church is hardly short of cash. Cut off the taxpayer funding and see if they survive.
I seem to remember a voucher system was proposed by somebody - but howled down..
There are plenty that do. But you forget of course that Catholics pay taxes too. They're not getting some freebie from the state but what they pay for. In some cases these were schools which were established before the state came and nationalised them.
But, hey, let's concentrate on schools that by and large do a good job and ignore those schools which do not. Very sensible.
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Eminence grisly, if you ask me. It's plausible. But I still think Labour couldn't risk assuming office with a non-Ed PM - just imagine the blowback at the next election (12 months later).
Don't forget: Oliver Letwin is the eminence grise.
I o'clock news yesterday had a short piece on private education. One in five Labour MP's were privately educated but rising and one in two Tories but falling.
A prospective Labour and Tory candidate were on talking about what it tells us about how representative our MP's are and whether it matters.
The Tory said he was from a poor background but with a lot of parental help and hard work went to Manchester University and started his own business which he'd been doing successfully for 10 years. He had no problem with private education and for proof Cameron who had been to Eton has made Britain the most sucessful economy in Europe.
The Labour candidate said she had left school at 16 pregnant without any qualifications. She got involved in organizing a group of people whose rights were being trampled on and then through the union movement got involved in politics. She knew how the bedroom tax was hurting people at first hand and how foodbanks were a life saver for many people that she knew. She said politics to be more representative
If Ed really wanted to give people a reason to vote labour he should give this girl a PPB of her own. She sounded authentic in a way very few of the Labour front bench ever do.
Though 180 degrees apart they were both perfect caracatures of their respective positions.
I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.
Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!
Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?
Should be a real vote winner..
Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
Bob, they do not have protestant schools. They have everyday public authority schools.
PS: re catholic schools , whilst I don't like religion in public funded schools at all , given they tend to get good results it is unlikely they will disappear.
Malky, 99% right - but on a point of PB detail, to the 366 RC schools it seems one has to add one Jewish school and 3 Episcopalian [i.e. Anglican church when it's disestablished, as it is in Scotland].
It reduces but hardly eliminates the potential argument that if RCs get their sectarian education funded by the state, why not, say, Jedi Knights or Wiccans? It would make more sense to have none at all (with an exception for Anglicans in England - they are after all the operators of that particular theocracy).
indeed - the RC church is hardly short of cash. Cut off the taxpayer funding and see if they survive.
As the Irish Labour party is finding it would be easier to prise a shotgun out of Charlton Heston's cold dead hands than to prise schools out of the RC church's control.
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
People often forget, that it was the SNP that helped bring down a Labour government and usher in 18 years of a Tory Government.
I wonder if they'd be so helpful in May.
2007-2011 the SNP government was propped up by the Tories in Holyrood..The Tories have rightful expectation to have the favour paid back.An SNP/Tory coalition would not surprise me at all.As long as Labour rule out any possible coalition with the Tories.
But it's become split because people are unconvinced by the Conservatives.
I think that is wishful thinking.
The Conservatives have always been the party of capital, country and (small 'c') conservatism. The interests of capital and the rest have diverged.
I don't think there's any way to get around that. David Cameron tried to forge a new coalition, of social liberals and capital. And that doesn't seem to be large enough, either.
The only good news is that the left has fissured too.
I'd broadly agree but I'd argue there was a bit more to the economic appeal of the Tories than just capital. For many people, like my Grandmother, they represented stability for people who were fairly affluent, secure and wary of socialism. You could argue that the secure middle class vote is shrinking, fewer people own their own homes and business assets have been sold abroad. I'm sure a shrinking secure middle class is a delight for capitalists who want cheap easy labour but the Tories have always relied on it since universal suffrage.
A big chunk of middle-class people now either are employed in the public sector or have a partner who is. A government that might perform public spending cuts would be perceived as severe threat to such a couple's financial stability in a way that a government that might ratchet up the tax rate would not.
"More than 9,000 people have fallen off the electoral register in the Black Country and South Staffordshire. In South Staffordshire there has been a drop of 3, 488 over the last year while there are 2,189 fewer people registered in Sandwell. Some 1,681 people have fallen off the register in Cannock Chase, with 597 in Walsall, 551 in Dudley and 539 in Wolverhampton. In total the number registered in all areas has gone from 1,008,632 to 999, 587". Cannock Chronicle
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
Yes, I think there was massive delusion about the whole centre left majority thing (Polly Toynbee et al) which was exploded by the AV referendum.
As such the left is just as fractured as the Right - actually more so - and consequently FPTP is now utterly dicredited as a voting system.
"I'm sure teenagers would queue up to pay £9k a year to study say the history of evolution under Romanist thinking - you would have a degree in 7 days..."
They say ignorance is bliss, so you should be happy. Evolution and the Big Bang have long been accepted by the Church.
Google "Father of the Big Bang" - you may get a shock.
Interestingly, although Prof Fisher makes the Tories very narrow favourites to win the most seats, he is very much more bullish about Rd Miliband's chances of becoming PM which he calculates as being 56% (or odds on), compared with David Cameron's 19% chance, equivalent to being just over a 4/1 shot. Please don't knock me over in the rush to take PP's 11/8 (2.375 decimal) against Ed (maximum stake £22), which equates to a Betfair price of 2.45 before their 5% commission (currently they go 2.30).
The flaw in that is it assumes the LDs and SNP will bunk up with Ed Miliband, whilst the LDs will pontificate as to whether they want to play a 'kingmaker' role with the Conservatives.
I'm not confident on either of those percentages, based on those assumptions, but if Cameron is ahead on seats and votes (which he looks like he will be) he has a better than 2/1 chance of staying as PM, IMHO.
Casino -
Labour may seriously dislike the SNP and the LibDems, but on nothing like the scale that they hate the Tories. Miliband will go down on his knees to one or other or both to do whatever deal is necessary to prevent Cameron continuing in office.
Ed Miliband will. But his party might not let him. They might well prefer to let a seriously weak and incapacitate lame duck Tory government limp on for a year, and they go for the big win under a new leader.
And what about what the SNP and Lib Dems want?
I think some are making a bit of a leap in thinking the SNP are just an "extra Scottish" adjutant of the Labour Party, to be counted in their column. They want independence and will manipulate the UK political process in any way they can to get it. Several Labour grandees have already worked this out.
Same goes for the Lib Dems - who were assumed to be a Labour-lite party last time - not so. They will also do what they perceive as being best for them.
If the Labour Party displays this sort of arrogance and entitlement during coalition negotiations, again, it might struggle to put together any sort of governing coalition whatsoever. They might not be able to meet the price of SNP/Lib Dem demands either, even if they do get their attitude right.
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
Yes, I think there was massive delusion about the whole centre left majority thing (Polly Toynbee et al) which was exploded by the AV referendum.
As such the left is just as fractured as the Right - actually more so - and consequently FPTP is now utterly dicredited as a voting system.
I blame the internet. That is not a facetious comment.
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Eminence grisly, if you ask me. It's plausible. But I still think Labour couldn't risk assuming office with a non-Ed PM - just imagine the blowback at the next election (12 months later).
Don't forget: Oliver Letwin is the eminence grise.
People criticise Ollie Letwin unfairly in my book.
If it wasn't for him testing the poll tax on the Scots, we might not be talking about the possibility of Dave remaining PM after May.
Huzzah for Ollie Letwin, the true, long term, master strategist.
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
Yes, I think there was massive delusion about the whole centre left majority thing (Polly Toynbee et al) which was exploded by the AV referendum.
As such the left is just as fractured as the Right - actually more so - and consequently FPTP is now utterly dicredited as a voting system.
The same FPTP that got 68% in said referendum is "utterly discredited"? I think you're projecting again [and I say that as an AV voter].
"I'm sure teenagers would queue up to pay £9k a year to study say the history of evolution under Romanist thinking - you would have a degree in 7 days..."
They say ignorance is bliss, so you should be happy. Evolution and the Big Bang have long been accepted by the Church.
Google "Father of the Big Bang" - you may get a shock.
True. It's the evangelical wing of Christianity (almost wholly protestant in origin) which harbours the creationists. (a generalism, there are creationists in all parts of christianity, islam, hinduism, etc, etc.)
The RC church has been involved in temporal scholarship in general, and science in particular, for centuries. [minor screw-ups like the persecution of Galileo aside]
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
I have wondered about Westminster North, not so much for the reason given in the article (mansion tax), but because the Conservative performance last time may have been hit by the internal feuding over Joanne Cash. Also demographic changes.
Eltham is also an interesting suggestion, I have friends there and I have the impression it's becoming a more prosperous area.
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
Wouldn't agree that Heywood and middleton is UKIPs best chance of taking a labour seat
But it's become split because people are unconvinced by the Conservatives.
I think that is wishful thinking.
The Conservatives have always been the party of capital, country and (small 'c') conservatism. The interests of capital and the rest have diverged.
I don't think there's any way to get around that. David Cameron tried to forge a new coalition, of social liberals and capital. And that doesn't seem to be large enough, either.
The only good news is that the left has fissured too.
I'd broadly agree but I'd argue there was a bit more to the economic appeal of the Tories than just capital. For many people, like my Grandmother, they represented stability for people who were fairly affluent, secure and wary of socialism. You could argue that the secure middle class vote is shrinking, fewer people own their own homes and business assets have been sold abroad. I'm sure a shrinking secure middle class is a delight for capitalists who want cheap easy labour but the Tories have always relied on it since universal suffrage.
Yes, I think that's right.
I think people have failed to realise that technology is eliminating or shipping a large number of jobs off-shore that were previously secure and well paid.
Take your local accountant. He earned a good income doing the books for a bunch of local companies. They were sticky customers. He could afford a nice house and foreign holidays.
But now, someone starting a business today can use something like Xero or Intuit, and can get web based accountancy and payroll done - with no human intervention.
And for more complex stuff, there are tax accountants who have 85% of their staff sitting in India, and effectively just have UK based salespeople.
The same is going to be true for a lot of traditional, middle class, incomes. (Does conveyancing really need to be done by someone sitting in an office in the UK?)
And no political party is going to be able to reverse the trend - short of giving up on free trade altogether.
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
People often forget, that it was the SNP that helped bring down a Labour government and usher in 18 years of a Tory Government.
I wonder if they'd be so helpful in May.
Have you seen the SNP recently ???
More chance of them joining ISIS than propping up a Conservative Government.
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
I have wondered about Westminster North, not so much for the reason given in the article (mansion tax), but because the Conservative performance last time may have been hit by the internal feuding over Joanne Cash. Also demographic changes.
Eltham is also an interesting suggestion, I have friends there and I have the impression it's becoming a more prosperous area.
V good ukip candidate in Eltham, prob one of their best IMO and it made my third tier of possibles based on 2010 stats
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
People often forget, that it was the SNP that helped bring down a Labour government and usher in 18 years of a Tory Government.
I wonder if they'd be so helpful in May.
Have you seen the SNP recently ???
More chance of them joining ISIS than propping up a Conservative Government.
I can see ISIS being a bit too moderate for the SNP's tastes.
Put it this way.
If Dave offered the following to the SNP, Devo Everything except Foreign Affairs and Defence, and the power for Edinburgh to call its own plebiscites in exchange for EV4EL, will the SNP really turn that down?
Good point. I love gaming the SNP - you just have to ask at every turn "What is best for getting independence?"
Yes, the astonishing thing is that many people, especially on the left, seem to think that the SNP are on Labour's side. Of course this is the exact opposite of the truth - Labour are the enemy which the SNP need to destroy, whereas the Conservatives are a convenient bogeyman, and it's in the SNP's interest to keep the bogeyman to hand.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
People often forget, that it was the SNP that helped bring down a Labour government and usher in 18 years of a Tory Government.
I wonder if they'd be so helpful in May.
Have you seen the SNP recently ???
More chance of them joining ISIS than propping up a Conservative Government.
I can see ISIS being a bit too moderate for the SNP's tastes.
Put it this way.
If Dave offered the following to the SNP, Devo Everything except Foreign Affairs and Defence, and the power for Edinburgh to call its own plebiscites in exchange for EV4EL, will the SNP really turn that down?
Yes.
They may consider abstaining if he abandons trident, that's about it.
As an aside, with potentially five parties getting 8+% at the election (and the SNP not being far behind this level), and no party topping 34%, the hurdle for getting seats is going to be a lot lower than in the past. I think this could cause people to underestimate the number of seats UKIP could win.
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
I have wondered about Westminster North, not so much for the reason given in the article (mansion tax), but because the Conservative performance last time may have been hit by the internal feuding over Joanne Cash. Also demographic changes.
Eltham is also an interesting suggestion, I have friends there and I have the impression it's becoming a more prosperous area.
I'm not sure the trend is your friend. There was nothing to particularly frighten Labour in the 2014 results in these constituencies. I'd be surprised at anything other than two holds. (We all laughed about Joanne Cash but did she have that much of an impact on the result?)
As an aside, with potentially five parties getting 8+% at the election (and the SNP not being far behind this level), and no party topping 34%, the hurdle for getting seats is going to be a lot lower than in the past. I think this could cause people to underestimate the number of seats UKIP could win.
Yes that was my thinking all along... Previous two way marginals become three ways (ooer) and the bar is lowered in terms of votes required to win
We all laughed about Joanne Cash but did she have that much of an impact on the result?
It wasn't so much her personally but the bad publicity, chaos and feuding in the local party. That can't have helped, but it's hard to know how much difference such things make to the final result.
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
I have wondered about Westminster North, not so much for the reason given in the article (mansion tax), but because the Conservative performance last time may have been hit by the internal feuding over Joanne Cash. Also demographic changes.
Eltham is also an interesting suggestion, I have friends there and I have the impression it's becoming a more prosperous area.
I'm not sure the trend is your friend. There was nothing to particularly frighten Labour in the 2014 results in these constituencies. I'd be surprised at anything other than two holds. (We all laughed about Joanne Cash but did she have that much of an impact on the result?)
A 0.6% swing from Lab to Con when compared to say 7% in Harrow East, 6% in Brentford tells you everything.
In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'
It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)
This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. But that's now no longer an option. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories.
Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....
Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour
~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.
There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.
However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
Between them, Conservatives and UKIP routinely poll 50% in England. That's potentially a big centre right constituency.
Notional aggregate positions don't count for much. In practice, UKIP's existence results in more, not fewer, left-wing MPs.
The most egregious example of this was UKIP getting Ed Balls back in 2010.
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
I have wondered about Westminster North, not so much for the reason given in the article (mansion tax), but because the Conservative performance last time may have been hit by the internal feuding over Joanne Cash. Also demographic changes.
Eltham is also an interesting suggestion, I have friends there and I have the impression it's becoming a more prosperous area.
I'm not sure the trend is your friend. There was nothing to particularly frighten Labour in the 2014 results in these constituencies. I'd be surprised at anything other than two holds. (We all laughed about Joanne Cash but did she have that much of an impact on the result?)
A 0.6% swing from Lab to Con when compared to say 7% in Harrow East, 6% in Brentford tells you everything.
Those are very different seats though. We dont have a counterfactual to compare with but my suspicion is that we may overestimate the impact of political stories that we are following keenly but that voters know nothing about (though of course fewer helpers knocking on doors would have had a practical impact).
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Eminence grisly, if you ask me. It's plausible. But I still think Labour couldn't risk assuming office with a non-Ed PM - just imagine the blowback at the next election (12 months later).
Don't forget: Oliver Letwin is the eminence grise.
People criticise Ollie Letwin unfairly in my book. If it wasn't for him testing the poll tax on the Scots, we might not be talking about the possibility of Dave remaining PM after May. Huzzah for Ollie Letwin, the true, long term, master strategist.
The Lib Dems defeating Letwin in 2005 would have been a Conservative gain.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'
It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)
This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. But that's now no longer an option. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories.
Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....
Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour
~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.
There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.
However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
Between them, Conservatives and UKIP routinely poll 50% in England. That's potentially a big centre right constituency.
Notional aggregate positions don't count for much. In practice, UKIP's existence results in more, not fewer, left-wing MPs.
The most egregious example of this was UKIP getting Ed Balls back in 2010.
UKIP didnt cost the Tories that seat. Having fewer than 100 members in the constituency probably did though.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
I wouldn't normally mention this (I'm not directly involved, incidentally) but there's a panel being held on Twitter about working with small presses. Any budding authors may find it of use.
I believe the hashtag will be #sffchrons. #tickboo may also be used (Chrons is an SFF forum for readers and writers, Tickety Boo Press is a new small publisher, which will be releasing the first two Sir Edric Adventures this year/early 2016).
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
LOL!
So, to be clear, he didn't mean any offence to nuns, as long as they're not teachers?
Edited extra bit: weirdly, I'm writing a chapter now which involves a nun's habit. It also includes a chap with a limp, which I've recently developed.
... perhaps I've gained the superpower of writing things that come true! The final scene involving a blonde woman sharing a bath was included entirely for editorial reasons, I hasten to add.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
LOL!
So, to be clear, he didn't mean any offence to nuns, as long as they're not teachers?
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Good analysis. My view is that the Labour grandees simply won't allow Ed to make himself PM off the back of the SNP. It's risk doing to their party in England what's happened in Scotland. The Conservatives could easily get a boon off the back of it as the "English" party under a new leader.
I exaggerate only slightly.
So who does become PM? How does one avoid doing deals with the SNP if there's a hung parliament? A grand coalition. I'm not sure Ed has too much to worry about from the SNP. They seem now to be resolutely anti-Tory. If Miliband unveils a broadly progressive manifesto, dare the SNP to vote him down.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
LOL!
So, to be clear, he didn't mean any offence to nuns, as long as they're not teachers?
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
LOL!
So, to be clear, he didn't mean any offence to nuns, as long as they're not teachers?
Nun too impressive from Tristram Hunt.
He'll be ok as long as he doesn't wimple onto the subject again.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
Let's hope he doesn't make a habit of it
Getting rid of religious schools would be a good thing.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
LOL!
So, to be clear, he didn't mean any offence to nuns, as long as they're not teachers?
Mr. Booth, 'progressive' [a bloody vile term] is not what matters. It's what the SNP can squeeze out of Miliband for Scotland. Left, right, authoritarian, liberal, it's irrelevant. The SNP want trophies they can parade through Glasgow and Edinburgh proclaiming "Look what we got. You voted for us, and we delivered."
Which is a bit catch-22 for Miliband. If he gives nothing, fresh elections, and probably worse for him. If he gives a lot, that enhances the SNP, continuing Labour's bad time in Scotland.
Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm very interested in the defenestration scenarios - the SNP willing to prop up Labour but not Ed, for example. But I just can't see them as that likely. "Not Ed" needs a name.
The danger to Ed Miliband is more the Lib Dems than the SNP. The SNP would be delighted to have a weak Labour leader who was widely regarded as an illegitimate Prime Minister to deal with.
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
Good analysis. My view is that the Labour grandees simply won't allow Ed to make himself PM off the back of the SNP. It's risk doing to their party in England what's happened in Scotland. The Conservatives could easily get a boon off the back of it as the "English" party under a new leader.
I exaggerate only slightly.
So who does become PM? How does one avoid doing deals with the SNP if there's a hung parliament? A grand coalition. I'm not sure Ed has too much to worry about from the SNP. They seem now to be resolutely anti-Tory. If Miliband unveils a broadly progressive manifesto, dare the SNP to vote him down.
You forget. Cameron is the incumbent PM. He is in office until he resigns. If he has the most seats then he doesn't have to go anywhere unless Miliband can demonstrate he'd be more likely to command the House than he.
Cameron would be the one sitting tight at the helm of a weak Conservative Minority administration, daring the other parties to unite to bring him down.
Iain Martin - Forecaster of the day. Paul Waugh @paulwaugh "11hrs ago RT @iainmartin1: Tomorrow, by middayTristram Hunt: "I have the utmost respect for nuns and all the work that they do" "
Edited extra bit: weirdly, I'm writing a chapter now which involves a nun's habit. It also includes a chap with a limp, which I've recently developed.
... perhaps I've gained the superpower of writing things that come true! The final scene involving a blonde woman sharing a bath was included entirely for editorial reasons, I hasten to add.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
Let's hope he doesn't make a habit of it
Getting rid of religious schools would be a good thing.
Was joking there, but as someone who has never been to church I still think religious schools are a good idea... They get better results. Look at the Trojan horse schools in brum and tower hamlets
If it's not one dogma it's another, religion is a convenient enemy...schools are run in the name of political correctness now, might as well be a religion
I've always wanted to be an eminence grise. I've managed the grise bit but I'm struggling with the eminence.
I thought you were a French speaker, and had spent some time in France?
I'm disappointed that you didn't put the accent aigu in Éminence grise
This is a British site, we don't hold any truck here with continental fripperies.
The one thing I've learnt from my time in France, Les Grenouilles take umbrage at the Les Rosbifisation of their language.
They blame the internet.
But they're so utterly inflexible. The Academie Francaise resists the tiniest nod to modernity or change. If you don't evolve you die. Ask Darwin. If the Frogs were just a little bit relaxed about absorbing other cultures and languages French would thrive. Look at English - it's a dog's breakfast mixed from many many mother tongues contributing to the most vibrant and most versatile and most rapidly evolving language in the world. English dominates for a reason. It's a shameless but very classy whore. And everybody loves a whore!
Comments
The politics is worse than the UK, both nationally and in each state. It is bitter nasty stuff, where they seem to disagree on as much as they can.
The Conservatives have always been the party of capital, country and (small 'c') conservatism. The interests of capital and the rest have diverged.
I don't think there's any way to get around that. David Cameron tried to forge a new coalition, of social liberals and capital. And that doesn't seem to be large enough, either.
The only good news is that the left has fissured too.
And that second para is grossly unfair to many people across the spectrum (as well as being based on an inaccurate understanding of Genesis: as any fule kno, it took 6 days). Much of the 19th century work was done by churchmen and the allegedly church vs science debates were far more of the character of Church and Kirk civil wars at times.
The nearest that I have come across such faith colleges is in the USA and those aren't run by RCs.
I'm not confident on either of those percentages, based on those assumptions, but if Cameron is ahead on seats and votes (which he looks like he will be) he has a better than 2/1 chance of staying as PM, IMHO.
If there's a Labour PM after the election, it will be Ed Miliband. End of story.
Well, not actually end of story - the likelihood is that he'd rapidly become so unpopular, and the government so chaotic, and the economy so badly hit, that plots and coups would resurface. But that will be later.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451
If half of the Lib Dems have been sent packing and Labour has lost the popular vote, they will not want to prop up a government of losers without showing that they have listened to what the public had said. Add to that the fact that Ed Miliband has made it clear that he doesn't want to work with Nick Clegg, and the opportunity to knife him would be very tempting indeed. I can't imagine many senior Labour figures fighting hard on his behalf.
"Not Ed" would presumably be some eminence grise. Alan Johnson would be the obvious choice, if he's standing again. But Yvette Cooper might do. (Or Harriet Harman, he says, clutching his betting slip).
This had over 16k people, so some sensible conclusions can be drawn from the sub samples.
Indeed I wrote a PB guest article on the very subject:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/10/07/richard-nabavi-asks-would-ed-face-a-coup-a-few-months-after-a-labour-victory/
Of course, this does assume that Labour get round to defenestrating him. It would be the logical thing to do, but this is the party which unanimously chose Gordon Brown as leader and left him in place, so one can't be confident that any coup would actually succeed. But I'm sure there'd be plenty of talk of coups.
They could keep the show on the road for another term, especially if the Right remains split...
(The 2.64 on that market is mine, for example)
Labour may seriously dislike the SNP and the LibDems, but on nothing like the scale that they hate the Tories. Miliband will go down on his knees to one or other or both to do whatever deal is necessary to prevent Cameron continuing in office.
Even if the SNP aren't immediately gunning for another go at IndyRef, their main aim is to win the next Holyrood election. To that end they ain't gonna be helpful to Labour, that's for sure.
I've had some truly fantastic teachers and mentors in my life who've been far above and beyond the quality of some of the 'professional' teachers who've used orthodox process-based methods to teach me rigidly to a syllabus.
The best idea would be for the conservatives to do better, there's no point blaming everyone else. If labour are that rubbish they'll be voted out
I exaggerate only slightly.
I wonder if they'd be so helpful in May.
But, hey, let's concentrate on schools that by and large do a good job and ignore those schools which do not. Very sensible.
A prospective Labour and Tory candidate were on talking about what it tells us about how representative our MP's are and whether it matters.
The Tory said he was from a poor background but with a lot of parental help and hard work went to Manchester University and started his own business which he'd been doing successfully for 10 years. He had no problem with private education and for proof Cameron who had been to Eton has made Britain the most sucessful economy in Europe.
The Labour candidate said she had left school at 16 pregnant without any qualifications. She got involved in organizing a group of people whose rights were being trampled on and then through the union movement got involved in politics. She knew how the bedroom tax was hurting people at first hand and how foodbanks were a life saver for many people that she knew. She said politics to be more representative
If Ed really wanted to give people a reason to vote labour he should give this girl a PPB of her own. She sounded authentic in a way very few of the Labour front bench ever do.
Though 180 degrees apart they were both perfect caracatures of their respective positions.
3 out of the 4 I identified last night [for discussion, not as tips] are included. (My other one was Walsall North - partly in the hope that Winnick might stand down at the last minute, though that wouldn't seem to be like him).
As such the left is just as fractured as the Right - actually more so - and consequently FPTP is now utterly dicredited as a voting system.
"I'm sure teenagers would queue up to pay £9k a year to study say the history of evolution under Romanist thinking - you would have a degree in 7 days..."
They say ignorance is bliss, so you should be happy. Evolution and the Big Bang have long been accepted by the Church.
Google "Father of the Big Bang" - you may get a shock.
And what about what the SNP and Lib Dems want?
I think some are making a bit of a leap in thinking the SNP are just an "extra Scottish" adjutant of the Labour Party, to be counted in their column. They want independence and will manipulate the UK political process in any way they can to get it. Several Labour grandees have already worked this out.
Same goes for the Lib Dems - who were assumed to be a Labour-lite party last time - not so. They will also do what they perceive as being best for them.
If the Labour Party displays this sort of arrogance and entitlement during coalition negotiations, again, it might struggle to put together any sort of governing coalition whatsoever. They might not be able to meet the price of SNP/Lib Dem demands either, even if they do get their attitude right.
If it wasn't for him testing the poll tax on the Scots, we might not be talking about the possibility of Dave remaining PM after May.
Huzzah for Ollie Letwin, the true, long term, master strategist.
I'm disappointed that you didn't put the accent aigu in Éminence grise
The RC church has been involved in temporal scholarship in general, and science in particular, for centuries. [minor screw-ups like the persecution of Galileo aside]
Normally their fieldwork ends on a Thursday and a Sunday.
Their poll released on Monday, had to continue their fieldwork into Monday.
For some reason, pollsters aren't getting the same response rate for the last few months.
Eltham is also an interesting suggestion, I have friends there and I have the impression it's becoming a more prosperous area.
Left, right, middle, etc... I think can all agree there have been FAR too many polls this Parliament?
I mean, it's OK to poll a lot now because we're weeks from the election, but the number of polls from 2010 to 2014 was ridiculous...
I think people have failed to realise that technology is eliminating or shipping a large number of jobs off-shore that were previously secure and well paid.
Take your local accountant. He earned a good income doing the books for a bunch of local companies. They were sticky customers. He could afford a nice house and foreign holidays.
But now, someone starting a business today can use something like Xero or Intuit, and can get web based accountancy and payroll done - with no human intervention.
And for more complex stuff, there are tax accountants who have 85% of their staff sitting in India, and effectively just have UK based salespeople.
The same is going to be true for a lot of traditional, middle class, incomes. (Does conveyancing really need to be done by someone sitting in an office in the UK?)
And no political party is going to be able to reverse the trend - short of giving up on free trade altogether.
More chance of them joining ISIS than propping up a Conservative Government.
They blame the internet.
Worth a pop at big prices
Put it this way.
If Dave offered the following to the SNP, Devo Everything except Foreign Affairs and Defence, and the power for Edinburgh to call its own plebiscites in exchange for EV4EL, will the SNP really turn that down?
They may consider abstaining if he abandons trident, that's about it.
That's not including constituency, marginal or country specific polling.
Add in the private polling conducted by the parties....
Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (-), Con 31 (-), LD 8 (-), UKIP 16 (+2), Others 11 (-2). Tables here: http://popu.lu/sVI06022015
EICIPM (2.30 Betfair)
The most egregious example of this was UKIP getting Ed Balls back in 2010.
@TristramHuntMP: On BBC QT I was trying to make a generalised point about the use of unqualified teachers in schools. I obviously meant no offence to nuns.
I believe the hashtag will be #sffchrons. #tickboo may also be used (Chrons is an SFF forum for readers and writers, Tickety Boo Press is a new small publisher, which will be releasing the first two Sir Edric Adventures this year/early 2016).
So, to be clear, he didn't mean any offence to nuns, as long as they're not teachers?
Edited extra bit: weirdly, I'm writing a chapter now which involves a nun's habit. It also includes a chap with a limp, which I've recently developed.
... perhaps I've gained the superpower of writing things that come true! The final scene involving a blonde woman sharing a bath was included entirely for editorial reasons, I hasten to add.
I wouldn't include Southampton Test, Bolton West or Westminster North.
Which is a bit catch-22 for Miliband. If he gives nothing, fresh elections, and probably worse for him. If he gives a lot, that enhances the SNP, continuing Labour's bad time in Scotland.
Cameron would be the one sitting tight at the helm of a weak Conservative Minority administration, daring the other parties to unite to bring him down.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh
"11hrs ago RT @iainmartin1: Tomorrow, by middayTristram Hunt: "I have the utmost respect for nuns and all the work that they do" "
*Point of pedantry, can women engage in oneupmanship, or should it be oneupPersonship?
If it's not one dogma it's another, religion is a convenient enemy...schools are run in the name of political correctness now, might as well be a religion