King Cole, low wages due to globalisation and increased competitiveness across the world will be a problem for all parties.
I also don't think not being part of the EU entails doing no trade and having no travel to/from the continent.
Didn’t it would mean “no’ (or “non”!) It’ll all be a lot more difficult. Must ask my F1 contacts what would happen to their company if Britain left the EU. Would, at the moment, be very surprised if there was a contingency plan, but there might be.
Moses The 1600 worse off tag was used on the Andrew Neil programme by the lady named below...Lucy Powell in her role as spokeperson for the Labour Party and she should know...shouldn't she
Mr. Financier, on the other hand, a more interested population is likelier to turn out.
Yes, but many of the online polls have the combination of DK and WNV at around 20% - so making a VI of 80% of the electorate!! Also they have a significant number of 18-24 in the mix, when PBers are seriously doubting if that percentage are registered.
I'm always impressed by tales of teachers indoctrinating children and getting them to vote Labour: I couldn't get the so and sos to start a sentence with a capital letter or finish it with a full stop.
It's more influence than indoctrination. The vast majority of my teachers were soft-left (some hard left) and there was a skew to both what they chose to teach, the evidence/textbooks they used, and how they taught it. Teachers are very important in leading pupils interpretations.
History, geography, politics, English and science were most affected.
I had three politics teachers during my time at school. Two were old school Labour, but to be fair respected the fact I had a different view as a budding Conservative. The third was a Conservative, but kept very quiet about it. He told me he "kept his mouth shut" in the staff room.
Isn't that a "tie"? Nice meme, but you wouldn't want to try that on with Andrew Neil - ask Lucy "real world (aka wrong) Powell.
I suspect teachers may by sympathy be more likely to vote Labour - but also likely to vote against the government - hence the tie in 2010.
5 years of Lucy Powell "economics" of "widening the tax base" during a time of record employment (lower personal allowance?) may see them falling for the charms of the Tories again....
I loved that Lucy Powell interview, apparently the workers aren't paying enough taxes!
The point being made is that the workers aren't earning enough to pay enough taxes.
must be all that coalition taking the low paid out of the tax system. Can't see why putting them back in is better.
Because earning enough to pay taxes gives people a stake in society. Hiding the decline in peoples standard of living by removing them from the tax net is a zero sum game - hence we can no longer afford an effective army, police force etc.
So by removing low paid from tax is a bad thing then. Due to the fact said low paid have now been lifted out of tax we can't afford good public services.
Ok, glad we got that cleared up.
@monksfieldIf we want high quality services, they have to be paid for. And lifting a vast proportion of the population out of tax all together doesn't help with that. The fundamental problem is low pay. Anyway, must go to work.
So to widen the tax base the lower paid will be drawn back into tax. How will that improve their "standard of living" . It makes the low pay you mention ...errrr lower in real disposable income available.
If any right of centre of party put that view forward then they would get torn to shreds. The argument would be that the cost of public services was falling disproportionally on the lower paid.
Basically to some people it matters not a jot what the Tories or the coalition do they are wrong. Even when taking people out of tax?
Moses The 1600 worse off tag was used on the Andrew Neil programme by the lady named below...Lucy Powell in her role as spokeperson for the Labour Party and she should know...shouldn't she
Ok still there then and arguing in the face of reality.
Nope. Not a Labour supporter, except relative to the Tories. And as a public sector worker my standard of living remains substantially worse than it was when the Coalition took over.
That's the unfortunate consequence of being dependent on sound government finances for your job security and income.
Sound public finances = stable public sector employment and salaries.
Just looked at the nonsensical ComRes breakdowns by region, what a joke. I also looked at the Lucy Powell interview with Andrew Neal and have to agree with Mike Smithson that she gave a strong and spirited performance and compares very favourably with the Alan Duncan car crash on the same programme.As for Teachers voting Labour, not surprising considering Tory policies.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
King Cole, the majority of F1 teams are based in a relatively small area of England. Not only does this help recruitment (staff can often change teams without moving house or having their kids move school), supply chains have also built up in these areas.
I'd be surprised if it led to a change.
That said, it's also utterly insignificant compared with the freedom to govern ourselves.
I'm always impressed by tales of teachers indoctrinating children and getting them to vote Labour: I couldn't get the so and sos to start a sentence with a capital letter or finish it with a full stop.
It's more influence than indoctrination. The vast majority of my teachers were soft-left (some hard left) and there was a skew to both what they chose to teach, the evidence/textbooks they used, and how they taught it. Teachers are very important in leading pupils interpretations.
History, geography, politics, English and science were most affected.
I had three politics teachers during my time at school. Two were old school Labour, but to be fair respected the fact I had a different view as a budding Conservative. The third was a Conservative, but kept very quiet about it. He told me he "kept his mouth shut" in the staff room.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
My wife and I have never been phone polled on our landline, for the last 12 months since she went on maternity there's almost always been someone home. Not sure what the odds of never having been polled are, but 6 times seems a lot.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
I don't even have a phone plugged in to my landline. I don't think my OH's parent's have been phone polled this time round even though they are in the key marginal of Pudsey. With the importance of the seat one perhaps might expect at least 1 call ?
Just looked at the nonsensical ComRes breakdowns by region, what a joke. I also looked at the Lucy Powell interview with Andrew Neal and have to agree with Mike Smithson that she gave a strong and spirited performance and compares very favourably with the Alan Duncan car crash on the same programme.As for Teachers voting Labour, not surprising considering Tory policies.
Good to see some progress on the spaces-after-full-stops issue. What did volcanopete think of Lucy?
I'm always impressed by tales of teachers indoctrinating children and getting them to vote Labour: I couldn't get the so and sos to start a sentence with a capital letter or finish it with a full stop.
It's more influence than indoctrination. The vast majority of my teachers were soft-left (some hard left) and there was a skew to both what they chose to teach, the evidence/textbooks they used, and how they taught it. Teachers are very important in leading pupils interpretations.
History, geography, politics, English and science were most affected.
I had three politics teachers during my time at school. Two were old school Labour, but to be fair respected the fact I had a different view as a budding Conservative. The third was a Conservative, but kept very quiet about it. He told me he "kept his mouth shut" in the staff room.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
When fox jr was doing science at school I was appalled by how little science was involved. There was a lot of "debate" over vaccines or genetics, but it was very often science free opinion.
I think that at primary school, teachers are so lacking in science knowledge, that kids are poorly prepared for secondary school. At secondary school there is now a fear of kids doing experiments (the fun, interactive bits) so they never make up the lost ground, and pad it out with worthless debates and discussion.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
I was pleased to discover yesterday that my plan for waylaying punters as they log on to mainstream websites and asking their VI is already a thing, sort of. The FT will let you read articles online, despite being unregistered, if you agree to participate in a quick survey. I was asked about my new car (easy question as I don't have one).
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
Observing AGW is science, but deciding what to do about it (If anything) is a political calculation.
Just looked at the nonsensical ComRes breakdowns by region, what a joke. I also looked at the Lucy Powell interview with Andrew Neal and have to agree with Mike Smithson that she gave a strong and spirited performance and compares very favourably with the Alan Duncan car crash on the same programme.As for Teachers voting Labour, not surprising considering Tory policies.
Good to see some progress on the spaces-after-full-stops issue. What did volcanopete think of Lucy?
I'm always impressed by tales of teachers indoctrinating children and getting them to vote Labour: I couldn't get the so and sos to start a sentence with a capital letter or finish it with a full stop.
It's more influence than indoctrination. The vast majority of my teachers were soft-left (some hard left) and there was a skew to both what they chose to teach, the evidence/textbooks they used, and how they taught it. Teachers are very important in leading pupils interpretations.
History, geography, politics, English and science were most affected.
I had three politics teachers during my time at school. Two were old school Labour, but to be fair respected the fact I had a different view as a budding Conservative. The third was a Conservative, but kept very quiet about it. He told me he "kept his mouth shut" in the staff room.
How does one have a “political" view of science?
Start by googling Trofim Lysenko.
Interesting. Of course you can only make up your own 'science' for so long. It's either correct or it's not. The MMR scare was another example and the anti-AGW movement another much more serious example.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
Not true.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary
Are you allowed out on your own?
OK, so this is what they mean by taking things out of context - and you look like an expert.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
Not true.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
I read an article recently about the desire to have even LESS practical chemistry and replace it with theory tests. WTF?
It's like learning about sex by reading anatomy text books.
Without hands-on experience, we can't create the scientists we need to flourish. My favourite hours of chemistry [I'm a huge fan of this subject] were the fume cupboard cock-ups, flash tests, bucket experiments and WOW moments. All the Laws in the world are meaningless without titration or thermo tests et al. That's when the subject comes alive.
Physics experiments just never did it for me. I don't get physics at all. So I married one who did. He didn't get chemistry.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
When fox jr was doing science at school I was appalled by how little science was involved. There was a lot of "debate" over vaccines or genetics, but it was very often science free opinion.
I think that at primary school, teachers are so lacking in science knowledge, that kids are poorly prepared for secondary school. At secondary school there is now a fear of kids doing experiments (the fun, interactive bits) so they never make up the lost ground, and pad it out with worthless debates and discussion.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
When fox jr was doing science at school I was appalled by how little science was involved. There was a lot of "debate" over vaccines or genetics, but it was very often science free opinion.
I think that at primary school, teachers are so lacking in science knowledge, that kids are poorly prepared for secondary school. At secondary school there is now a fear of kids doing experiments (the fun, interactive bits) so they never make up the lost ground, and pad it out with worthless debates and discussion.
So our vitally required skill-sets needed to compete with Asia, will go further into decline. No wonder the UK is having to look to other countries for scientists, engineers and medics. Education should be taken out of LA control.
Just looked at the nonsensical ComRes breakdowns by region, what a joke. I also looked at the Lucy Powell interview with Andrew Neal and have to agree with Mike Smithson that she gave a strong and spirited performance and compares very favourably with the Alan Duncan car crash on the same programme.As for Teachers voting Labour, not surprising considering Tory policies.
Good to see some progress on the spaces-after-full-stops issue. What did volcanopete think of Lucy?
I'm always impressed by tales of teachers indoctrinating children and getting them to vote Labour: I couldn't get the so and sos to start a sentence with a capital letter or finish it with a full stop.
It's more influence than indoctrination. The vast majority of my teachers were soft-left (some hard left) and there was a skew to both what they chose to teach, the evidence/textbooks they used, and how they taught it. Teachers are very important in leading pupils interpretations.
History, geography, politics, English and science were most affected.
I had three politics teachers during my time at school. Two were old school Labour, but to be fair respected the fact I had a different view as a budding Conservative. The third was a Conservative, but kept very quiet about it. He told me he "kept his mouth shut" in the staff room.
How does one have a “political" view of science?
Start by googling Trofim Lysenko.
Interesting. Of course you can only make up your own 'science' for so long. It's either correct or it's not. The MMR scare was another example and the anti-AGW movement another much more serious example.
No. The counterexample is the great sunlight scare. Until five years ago scientists were losing their jobs for suggesting, what is now the absolutely orthodox view, that keeping out of the sun to avoid skin cancer had its drawbacks in causing vitamin D deficiency. Note: quite simply, losing their jobs - not having their views challenged or even being asked to tone them down a bit. Do you consider that those scientists were "making up their own science"?
Mr. Song, science isn't democracy. You don't 'win' by having most people on your side. You 'win' by being right.
Miss Plato, not much of a chemistry fan, but sodium and potassium in buckets of water definitely caught my attention. I also remember a pile of metal filings (some sort of aluminium compound, I think) being set alight with a brilliant purple flame.
Science isn't a popularity contest - many huge leaps in our knowledge have come from a single person standing out.
Before Priestley isolated oxygen [and still didn't quite know what he'd done] - it was accepted fact that fire was created by Phlogiston. That mistaken theory held back developments for decades.
Robert Hooke, Ole Borch, Mikhail Lomonosov, and Pierre Bayen (fr) all produced oxygen in experiments in the 17th and the 18th century but none of them recognized it as a chemical element.[27] This may have been in part due to the prevalence of the philosophy of combustion and corrosion called the phlogiston theory, which was then the favored explanation of those processes.
Established in 1667 by the German alchemist J. J. Becher, and modified by the chemist Georg Ernst Stahl by 1731,[66] phlogiston theory stated that all combustible materials were made of two parts. One part, called phlogiston, was given off when the substance containing it was burned, while the dephlogisticated part was thought to be its true form, or calx.[63]
Highly combustible materials that leave little residue, such as wood or coal, were thought to be made mostly of phlogiston; whereas non-combustible substances that corrode, such as iron, contained very little. Air did not play a role in phlogiston theory, nor were any initial quantitative experiments conducted to test the idea; instead, it was based on observations of what happens when something burns, that most common objects appear to become lighter and seem to lose something in the process.[63] The fact that a substance like wood actually gains overall weight in burning was hidden by the buoyancy of the gaseous combustion products. Indeed one of the first clues that the phlogiston theory was incorrect was that metals, too, gain weight in rusting (when they were supposedly losing phlogiston).
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
"Also in today's papers, Labour are said to be pursuing legal avenues to get Cameron out of Downing Street if he tries to "squat" there in the event of him not being able to command a Commons majority. That could all go a big Bush vs Gore, which could make a messy post-election period positively diabolical. Oh goody.
And finally - remember when the Labour leadership contest was nearly Gordon Brown vs John McDonnell. Well Brown is speaking today in Scotland, arguing that Labour will end austerity quicker than anyone else would. And McDonnell has told the New Statesman (not entirely helpfully, given that the election campaign has started, although he may well be right) that the left of the party will want to exert pressure on Miliband and Balls over austerity. Of course for either to be right, Miliband has to get into Downing Street."
At secondary school there is now a fear of kids doing experiments (the fun, interactive bits) so they never make up the lost ground, and pad it out with worthless debates and discussion.
That's a real shame. I can't recall much chemistry now, despite having an A-level in it, but the lessons were a lot of fun, as we were always doing experiments. We had to wear googles, and occasionally we were made to use fume cupboards, but there were a lot of hands-on practical lessons, and no excessive concern about safety, which was amply demonstrated by the pockmarked and scorched desks. Magnesium was a particular favourite element of ours.
I remember one lesson in particular where a junior teacher was taking the class for our usual teacher, we were heating some yellow gloop up in a test tube and about half the class managed to break their test tubes as the yellow gloop reacted violently, and it all happened in a matter of minutes. I'd love to have seen the teacher explain to the lab staff why quite so much equipment needed replacing after that lesson.
We had an industrial chemist as our Head of Chemistry and she loved regaling us with tales of Oops moments on a massive scale. I think we were evacuated 5x during lab experiments that went wrong, that's not counting multiple incidents of throwing the windows open.
Mr. Song, science isn't democracy. You don't 'win' by having most people on your side. You 'win' by being right.
Miss Plato, not much of a chemistry fan, but sodium and potassium in buckets of water definitely caught my attention. I also remember a pile of metal filings (some sort of aluminium compound, I think) being set alight with a brilliant purple flame.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
In the 1960s I did both physics and chemistry for O level (Northern Board). What I find astonishing now is that in neither subject was the structure of the atom even mentioned. The teaching of the subjects was about 50 years behind the reality.
"Also in today's papers, Labour are said to be pursuing legal avenues to get Cameron out of Downing Street if he tries to "squat" there in the event of him not being able to command a Commons majority. That could all go a big Bush vs Gore, which could make a messy post-election period positively diabolical. Oh goody.
And finally - remember when the Labour leadership contest was nearly Gordon Brown vs John McDonnell. Well Brown is speaking today in Scotland, arguing that Labour will end austerity quicker than anyone else would. And McDonnell has told the New Statesman (not entirely helpfully, given that the election campaign has started, although he may well be right) that the left of the party will want to exert pressure on Miliband and Balls over austerity. Of course for either to be right, Miliband has to get into Downing Street."
It seems pretty clear to me that the national finances will rapidly deteriorate if Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
Isn't that because you live in a marginal seat?
I live in the UK's most phone polled constituency. It isn't fun, though I freak them out by asking them is going to be a published poll or not.
Science isn't a popularity contest - many huge leaps in our knowledge have come from a single person standing out.
Before Priestley isolated oxygen [and still didn't quite know what he'd done] - it was accepted fact that fire was created by Phlogiston. That mistaken theory held back developments for decades.
Robert Hooke, Ole Borch, Mikhail Lomonosov, and Pierre Bayen (fr) all produced oxygen in experiments in the 17th and the 18th century but none of them recognized it as a chemical element.[27] This may have been in part due to the prevalence of the philosophy of combustion and corrosion called the phlogiston theory, which was then the favored explanation of those processes.
Established in 1667 by the German alchemist J. J. Becher, and modified by the chemist Georg Ernst Stahl by 1731,[66] phlogiston theory stated that all combustible materials were made of two parts. One part, called phlogiston, was given off when the substance containing it was burned, while the dephlogisticated part was thought to be its true form, or calx.[63]
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
@Plato - didn't know you were a fellow chemist, but I added engineering to it as I loved knowing how things are made.
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
It's not just teachers. By waging war on the public sector and its employee base the Tories have lost the votes of a slice of society that once contributed to the Thatcherite coalition. You reap what you sow, Dave, Francis, George etc.....
You mean that public sector that Ed and Ed are going to cut back as well, they are already pledged to £1bn of local government saving, do you think that is going to happen without anyone losing a job ?
Night follows day, teachers vote Labour ..... surely it was ever thus (and always will be).
look at the March 2010 polling - the Tories were ahead.
32 vs 33?
Isn't that a "tie"? Nice meme, but you wouldn't want to try that on with Andrew Neil - ask Lucy "real world (aka wrong) Powell.
I suspect teachers may by sympathy be more likely to vote Labour - but also likely to vote against the government - hence the tie in 2010.
5 years of Lucy Powell "economics" of "widening the tax base" during a time of record employment (lower personal allowance?) may see them falling for the charms of the Tories again....
I loved that Lucy Powell interview, apparently the workers aren't paying enough taxes!
The point being made is that the workers aren't earning enough to pay enough taxes.
must be all that coalition taking the low paid out of the tax system. Can't see why putting them back in is better.
Yep, the higher personal allowance is one of the more successful and expensive of the government's policies. Based on the budget figures the total impact in the tax year 2015/16 is going to be at least £11bn
In the 1960s I did both physics and chemistry for O level (Northern Board). What I find astonishing now is that in neither subject was the structure of the atom even mentioned. The teaching of the subjects was about 50 years behind the reality.
Science isn't a popularity contest - many huge leaps in our knowledge have come from a single person standing out.
Before Priestley isolated oxygen [and still didn't quite know what he'd done] - it was accepted fact that fire was created by Phlogiston. That mistaken theory held back developments for decades.
Robert Hooke, Ole Borch, Mikhail Lomonosov, and Pierre Bayen (fr) all produced oxygen in experiments in the 17th and the 18th century but none of them recognized it as a chemical element.[27] This may have been in part due to the prevalence of the philosophy of combustion and corrosion called the phlogiston theory, which was then the favored explanation of those processes.
Established in 1667 by the German alchemist J. J. Becher, and modified by the chemist Georg Ernst Stahl by 1731,[66] phlogiston theory stated that all combustible materials were made of two parts. One part, called phlogiston, was given off when the substance containing it was burned, while the dephlogisticated part was thought to be its true form, or calx.[63]
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
@Plato - didn't know you were a fellow chemist, but I added engineering to it as I loved knowing how things are made.
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
Didn't Lavoisier get the chop for being a tax farmer rather than being a chemist? The Revolutionary Government did some pretty good things scientifically - kept on the Jardin du Roi as the Jardin des Plantes which was the nucleus for some very serious biological work into the 19th and 20th centuries and still is.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
When fox jr was doing science at school I was appalled by how little science was involved. There was a lot of "debate" over vaccines or genetics, but it was very often science free opinion.
I think that at primary school, teachers are so lacking in science knowledge, that kids are poorly prepared for secondary school. At secondary school there is now a fear of kids doing experiments (the fun, interactive bits) so they never make up the lost ground, and pad it out with worthless debates and discussion.
It's more that primary school teachers are so proscribed in what they must teach and how they must teach it that there is little or no time to do anything that is not specifically tested. Schools are almost entirely geared up to ensuring they get through OFSTED inspections. It's a crap way to run a school system.
Mole is the SI unit of measurement used to measure the number of things, usually atoms or molecules. One mole of something is equal to 6.0221415×1023 of it. So, "One mole of hydrogen atoms" means 6.0221415×1023 hydrogen atoms. "One mole of grapefruits" means 6.0221415×1023 grapefruits. We call this number Avogadro's number. We use this number because it is the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12, which is the most common kind of carbon. We can measure anything in moles, but it is not very useful for most things because the numbers are so big. For example, one mole of grapefruits would be as big as the earth.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
Isn't that because you live in a marginal seat?
I live in the UK's most phone polled constituency. It isn't fun, though I freak them out by asking them is going to be a published poll or not.
Do you change your answer depending on whether they name Nick Clegg or not ?
In the 1960s I did both physics and chemistry for O level (Northern Board). What I find astonishing now is that in neither subject was the structure of the atom even mentioned. The teaching of the subjects was about 50 years behind the reality.
I took both in the early 60s (O & C board) and atomic chemistry was taught towards a basic understanding of reaction chemistry. At A level chemistry had to do a 3 hour practical analysis without crib notes.
Should phone polls have a higher (accuracy?) weighting than on-line polls - many of the latter having a more interested population and so may not reflect the responses of the real electorate?
Yes - but how representative now are phone polls? My wife and I have been polled on the same landline six times since GE10. Two Ipsos-MORI polls, ICM on behalf of Ashcroft, and three seat specific surveys.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
Isn't that because you live in a marginal seat?
I live in the UK's most phone polled constituency. It isn't fun, though I freak them out by asking them is going to be a published poll or not.
Do you change your answer depending on whether they name Nick Clegg or not ?
No, my answer changes when on the supplementary questions they asks/tell me "not voting Lib Dem in Sheffield Hallam increases the chances of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls being in Downing Street, would this make you change your voting intention on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not likely at all, and 10 is extremely likely"
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
See what you mean. There was also Lysensko, who is still discredited. However, that’s the point about “science”; it moves forward as a result of disagreement, further testing of theories etc.
I recall that our Zoology master used to let us smoke while dissecting formalin-soaked dogfish. Making alcohol in chemistry was good too. We were, the lesson before, instructed to bring in some orange juice, to taste the product!
Dr Fox, do you know if Zoology students dissect animals nowadays? Or is it all virtual?
Absolutely true re the guillotine - very Cultural Revolution. He was a remarkable intellect, a Mozart of science and all gone within an hour after being on the wrong side of the political scene.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
@Plato - didn't know you were a fellow chemist, but I added engineering to it as I loved knowing how things are made.
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
Science isn't a popularity contest - many huge leaps in our knowledge have come from a single person standing out.
Before Priestley isolated oxygen [and still didn't quite know what he'd done] - it was accepted fact that fire was created by Phlogiston. That mistaken theory held back developments for decades.
Robert Hooke, Ole Borch, Mikhail Lomonosov, and Pierre Bayen (fr) all produced oxygen in experiments in the 17th and the 18th century but none of them recognized it as a chemical element.[27] This may have been in part due to the prevalence of the philosophy of combustion and corrosion called the phlogiston theory, which was then the favored explanation of those processes.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
@Plato - didn't know you were a fellow chemist, but I added engineering to it as I loved knowing how things are made.
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
Didn't Lavoisier get the chop for being a tax farmer rather than being a chemist? The Revolutionary Government did some pretty good things scientifically - kept on the Jardin du Roi as the Jardin des Plantes which was the nucleus for some very serious biological work into the 19th and 20th centuries and still is.
Basically he was very wealthy (an aristo), fell foul of Robespierre and Marat, convicted of adulterating tobacco, executed and 18 months later was formally forgiven and acknowledged he was falsely convicted.
@Financier I didn't know you were a chemistry nerd either. Mine was all at the colour/oxidation end as I went into conservation/restoration of Renaissance art.
My best friend became an industrial organic chemist - a field I can't imagine being more dull. I found organics so boring. Even just thinking about it 20yrs later makes my heart sink!
Mole is the SI unit of measurement used to measure the number of things, usually atoms or molecules. One mole of something is equal to 6.0221415×1023 of it. So, "One mole of hydrogen atoms" means 6.0221415×1023 hydrogen atoms. "One mole of grapefruits" means 6.0221415×1023 grapefruits. We call this number Avogadro's number. We use this number because it is the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12, which is the most common kind of carbon. We can measure anything in moles, but it is not very useful for most things because the numbers are so big. For example, one mole of grapefruits would be as big as the earth.
@Financier I didn't know you were a chemistry nerd either. Mine was all at the colour/oxidation end as I went into conservation/restoration of Renaissance art.
My best friend became an industrial organic chemist - a field I can't imagine being more dull. I found organics so boring. Even just thinking about it 20yrs later makes my heart sink!
Organics was brought alive when my Chem Prof allowed me to work with him on the synthesis of cortizone.
I don't know what made the subject so tedious, I loved biology too and expected to be entranced. Nope.
It all seemed to be about variants of Nylon but more boring. I have a peculiar interest in cleaning products and always checking out the ingredients to see what novelties are being used to fix a problem. Not a sexy subject, but fascinating and useful. If weird!
@Financier I didn't know you were a chemistry nerd either. Mine was all at the colour/oxidation end as I went into conservation/restoration of Renaissance art.
My best friend became an industrial organic chemist - a field I can't imagine being more dull. I found organics so boring. Even just thinking about it 20yrs later makes my heart sink!
Organics was brought alive when my Chem Prof allowed me to work with him on the synthesis of cortizone.
Warwick & Leamington constituency watch: it has finally kicked off. Personalised letters through the post for myself, my wife and for both of us from Labour over the last few days; a shiny, eight-page flyer from the Tories this morning. We may even - for the first time ever - get canvassed. Such larks.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I believe the Tories have not had a lead with Populus since last August; they'll be happy to have drawn level me thinks.
Could be wrong, but I believe his Lordship uses a varied selection of pollsters, but is rather cagey to admit as to whom and when they are used. - I think some of us are still wandering who the 'relatively new pollster' was that cocked up their polling for him, I know he won't be using them again
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
Before putting any money on the basis of that poll, I would want specific confirmation that the pollster excludes all those who aren't actually registered to vote. Any polling in London without this is going to be damned near worthless....
Comments
Would, at the moment, be very surprised if there was a contingency plan, but there might be.
History, geography, politics, English and science were most affected.
I had three politics teachers during my time at school. Two were old school Labour, but to be fair respected the fact I had a different view as a budding Conservative. The third was a Conservative, but kept very quiet about it. He told me he "kept his mouth shut" in the staff room.
Isn't that a "tie"? Nice meme, but you wouldn't want to try that on with Andrew Neil - ask Lucy "real world (aka wrong) Powell.
I suspect teachers may by sympathy be more likely to vote Labour - but also likely to vote against the government - hence the tie in 2010.
5 years of Lucy Powell "economics" of "widening the tax base" during a time of record employment (lower personal allowance?) may see them falling for the charms of the Tories again....
I loved that Lucy Powell interview, apparently the workers aren't paying enough taxes!
The point being made is that the workers aren't earning enough to pay enough taxes.
must be all that coalition taking the low paid out of the tax system. Can't see why putting them back in is better.
Because earning enough to pay taxes gives people a stake in society. Hiding the decline in peoples standard of living by removing them from the tax net is a zero sum game - hence we can no longer afford an effective army, police force etc.
So by removing low paid from tax is a bad thing then. Due to the fact said low paid have now been lifted out of tax we can't afford good public services.
Ok, glad we got that cleared up.
@monksfieldIf we want high quality services, they have to be paid for. And lifting a vast proportion of the population out of tax all together doesn't help with that. The fundamental problem is low pay. Anyway, must go to work.
So to widen the tax base the lower paid will be drawn back into tax. How will that improve their "standard of living" . It makes the low pay you mention ...errrr lower in real disposable income available.
If any right of centre of party put that view forward then they would get torn to shreds. The argument would be that the cost of public services was falling disproportionally on the lower paid.
Basically to some people it matters not a jot what the Tories or the coalition do they are wrong. Even when taking people out of tax? Ok still there then and arguing in the face of reality.
Sound public finances = stable public sector employment and salaries.
The chances of that happening given the sizes of the electorate and tens of millions to one. It just so happen that there is usually someone to answer the landline and we don't block any calls.
Phone pollsters are now having to make ten or fifteen the overall sample size in order to find people to participate.
Both forms of polling worry me.
I'd be surprised if it led to a change.
That said, it's also utterly insignificant compared with the freedom to govern ourselves.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
Anyone know what time we can expect Cameron to head to Palace?
No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
I think that at primary school, teachers are so lacking in science knowledge, that kids are poorly prepared for secondary school. At secondary school there is now a fear of kids doing experiments (the fun, interactive bits) so they never make up the lost ground, and pad it out with worthless debates and discussion.
Add on 50 SNP spendaholic MPs and it will be Greece/France by Xmas.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Labour is set to make sweeping gains in London with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs losing their seats, according to a new opinion poll.
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-30/big-labour-gains-forecast-for-london/
It's like learning about sex by reading anatomy text books.
Without hands-on experience, we can't create the scientists we need to flourish. My favourite hours of chemistry [I'm a huge fan of this subject] were the fume cupboard cock-ups, flash tests, bucket experiments and WOW moments. All the Laws in the world are meaningless without titration or thermo tests et al. That's when the subject comes alive.
Physics experiments just never did it for me. I don't get physics at all. So I married one who did. He didn't get chemistry.
Miss Plato, not much of a chemistry fan, but sodium and potassium in buckets of water definitely caught my attention. I also remember a pile of metal filings (some sort of aluminium compound, I think) being set alight with a brilliant purple flame.
http://tinyurl.com/nkd4qze
Before Priestley isolated oxygen [and still didn't quite know what he'd done] - it was accepted fact that fire was created by Phlogiston. That mistaken theory held back developments for decades.
"Also in today's papers, Labour are said to be pursuing legal avenues to get Cameron out of Downing Street if he tries to "squat" there in the event of him not being able to command a Commons majority. That could all go a big Bush vs Gore, which could make a messy post-election period positively diabolical. Oh goody.
And finally - remember when the Labour leadership contest was nearly Gordon Brown vs John McDonnell. Well Brown is speaking today in Scotland, arguing that Labour will end austerity quicker than anyone else would. And McDonnell has told the New Statesman (not entirely helpfully, given that the election campaign has started, although he may well be right) that the left of the party will want to exert pressure on Miliband and Balls over austerity. Of course for either to be right, Miliband has to get into Downing Street."
I remember one lesson in particular where a junior teacher was taking the class for our usual teacher, we were heating some yellow gloop up in a test tube and about half the class managed to break their test tubes as the yellow gloop reacted violently, and it all happened in a matter of minutes. I'd love to have seen the teacher explain to the lab staff why quite so much equipment needed replacing after that lesson.
Chromium experiments are huge fun.
http://youtu.be/COt65HZCJaA
What should be the fifth website, to give me an even more rounded world view?
@Plato - didn't know you were a fellow chemist, but I added engineering to it as I loved knowing how things are made.
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
And my primary school teacher using her cigarette habit to calculate how she could have bought a new Mini if she gave up. This was 1977.
http://youtu.be/COt65HZCJaA
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
Didn't Lavoisier get the chop for being a tax farmer rather than being a chemist? The Revolutionary Government did some pretty good things scientifically - kept on the Jardin du Roi as the Jardin des Plantes which was the nucleus for some very serious biological work into the 19th and 20th centuries and still is.
If so inclined, you could back over 4.5 at the same time and give yourself 12/1 on a result of 5, 6 or 7.
I recall that our Zoology master used to let us smoke while dissecting formalin-soaked dogfish.
Making alcohol in chemistry was good too. We were, the lesson before, instructed to bring in some orange juice, to taste the product!
Dr Fox, do you know if Zoology students dissect animals nowadays? Or is it all virtual?
One wonders what he could have achieved. @Plato - didn't know you were a fellow chemist, but I added engineering to it as I loved knowing how things are made.
As you say it is the practical that brings the subject alive and fixes it the memory. My lab coat was a mass of threads holding together the holes.
Today, the area of biochemistry is most exciting with gene technology having the potential to prevent many common diseases, as is the promising utility of graphene.
You would love the FRS library which holds some of the original papers of people like Priestley. The French guillotined Lavoisier - shows what happens when you let philisitinic politicians near the important matters in life.
I think they'll wait until after Easter.
Basically he was very wealthy (an aristo), fell foul of Robespierre and Marat, convicted of adulterating tobacco, executed and 18 months later was formally forgiven and acknowledged he was falsely convicted.
My best friend became an industrial organic chemist - a field I can't imagine being more dull. I found organics so boring. Even just thinking about it 20yrs later makes my heart sink!
Anyway £60 of that for me.
If UKIP do get 8 or more then most likely my book covers that for profit anyway.
It all seemed to be about variants of Nylon but more boring. I have a peculiar interest in cleaning products and always checking out the ingredients to see what novelties are being used to fix a problem. Not a sexy subject, but fascinating and useful. If weird!
IIRC he was reported to be a Populus client initially, but others have suggested he's flirted about which makes comparisons between his meaningless.
"The latest survey, conducted for The Sunday Times with less than two weeks to go until voting day, has YES at 51% and NO at 49% "
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/
If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado.
DYOR
Great spot.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
Seriously though, this is more excellent news for the Blue Team.