Vote Cameron,get Boris is the Tory meme from today as if Boris is a magic bullet.
HE`ll probably lose in London if he stood here a third time.
Boris is a buffoon, I don't imagine he plays well outside of the core vote who seem to love him for some reason. There is vast amounts of toxic history, he was sacked for lying to Howard.
He's happy to call Ed a backstabber, I wonder how his wife felt when she discovered he'd knocked up Petronella Wyatt and paid for her abortion whilst still married? Bit betrayed perhaps?
From what I recall at the time, he didn't put in the graft on policy required when the tories were in opposition, he seemed happy to skite by on a quip and a smile.
He'd be the worst possible choice for the tories, another posho too. Miliband must be praying for Boris to become tory leader.
No trolling or cutting and pasting just a Labour voter noting tha the Tories are stuffed, wrong campaign and damaged leader. Miliband could be prime minister,in fact using a mathematical model it is difficult to see how Cameron can hang on, even if he wanted to do so. He is well and truly stuffed.
Or more likely Labour get substantially less seats than the Tories. They can then go cap in hand to that nice Mrs Sturgeon, and never see a LAB candidate elected in Scotland ever again, and their England vote implode when the voters see lots of sweeties going north that they wont be getting. Hope you enjoy it.
Unfortunately that is a very likely scenario, especially when you take in Miliband's weakness and his idealistic left-wing views compared even to the mainstream of the Labour party. It's a pretty dire prospect for the country both at home and in international relations.
Still....Labour on 19% by Christmas will be something to look forward to....
The "good news" for Conservative supporters is that, if Cameron does lose, Labour and Ed Miliband will become hugely unpopular inside a year. I doubt in six months time anyone will admit to ever having voted for him.
What's happened to Labour in Scotland could easily happen to them in the North, and even parts of Wales.
Meanwhile, you'll have a Conservative opposition with a relatively strong parliamentary presence, probably not leeching much more to UKIP (perhaps gaining substantial votes and members back) in opposition to the Labour-led government under a new leader - probably Boris.
The next parliament could run Labour into the ground as a party of national government.
I think the biggest gainers of a weakish Labour administration will be UKIP. They will become the main party of opposition in large swathes of midlands and northern areas and will be a lot more potent being the main opposition to government in those areas. They may need to realign themselves to the left to position them cash in most at the next election. Tory in-fighting over Europe and its aftermath could also benefit UKIP.
Very surprised there's no thread header leading on the Tories regaining the lead with You Gov.
It's presumably a slightly odd rounding effect - the Tory lead is 1 person out of 1799, weighted by what appear to be virtually identical certainty to vote figures.
But I'd agree that despite TNS and ICM moving the other way, you can make a case that the position has inched from a tie to Con+1. Whether that's worth a thread is debtable.
I rather agree that the election isn't exciting, but arguably that reflects a degree of maturity in both parties and electorate. Labour and the Tories are mostly being quite careful - it's fairly easy to see most of the quite limited promises being delivered - more nurses, or a higher IHT threshold. Where a party has a wild moment ("We've found £8bn that we'll throw at the NHS!") the electorate says WTF?? and the party hastily changes the subject.
Politics must be the most frustrating career choice. In much of life elsewhere you decide what you want and get after it. CEOs get the freedom to make decisions and act upon them. But politicans are forever hamstrung by their utter lack of real power - however much we may pretend that they have some. Ed simply can't turn the world into his fantasy bankruptopia. Nigel can't simply close the doors. Dave can't blow off his backbenchers. The Greens will not be allowed to return us to the stone age. It's a life of fighting hard to achieve some, but only some, of what you believe in - and even then only for a while. And if you go at it too hard the next lot will unwind your achievements.
I suppose that, like many people, the prospect of having real power to effect the change I believe in is attractive. But politicians delude themselves if they think they'll get real lasting power. And so all political careers end in failure. Which leaves me wondering what sort of personality type is attracted to politics these days. It's not just showbiz for uglies - it's becoming showbiz for weirdos. Maybe Blair was smart to realise that being PM is perhaps only an entry ticket to things more valuable and rewarding.
Interesting post - I remember the deputy editor of the Economist standing down after one term for just that reason. I've switched back and forth from leadership jobs in the private sector to a backbench role and I recognise the frustrations. It remains rewarding for social democrats (=cautious change) who are happy to be part of a movement rather than insistent on leading the charge themselves. Why a dynamic Tory individualist would want to do it escapes me.
No trolling or cutting and pasting just a Labour voter noting tha the Tories are stuffed, wrong campaign and damaged leader. Miliband could be prime minister,in fact using a mathematical model it is difficult to see how Cameron can hang on, even if he wanted to do so. He is well and truly stuffed.
Or more likely Labour get substantially less seats than the Tories. They can then go cap in hand to that nice Mrs Sturgeon, and never see a LAB candidate elected in Scotland ever again, and their England vote implode when the voters see lots of sweeties going north that they wont be getting. Hope you enjoy it.
Unfortunately that is a very likely scenario, especially when you take in Miliband's weakness and his idealistic left-wing views compared even to the mainstream of the Labour party. It's a pretty dire prospect for the country both at home and in international relations.
Still....Labour on 19% by Christmas will be something to look forward to....
What's happened to Labour in Scotland could easily happen to them in the North, and even parts of Wales.
Meanwhile, you'll have a Conservative opposition with a relatively strong parliamentary presence, probably not leeching much more to UKIP (perhaps gaining substantial votes and members back) in opposition to the Labour-led government under a new leader - probably Boris.
The next parliament could run Labour into the ground as a party of national government.
Ironically, the opposite could also happen. It is called "Expectations Management". Unless the world caves in, Ed will be seen to be doing fine.
One thing we can all vouch for. In every contest, Ed has been underestimated, to his opponents surprise. One of them was his own brother. The other is the Conservative Party and its near rabid supporters.
"Ed is Crap" - we don't see that too often now.
I have said consistently for months, years, that the Conservatives underestimate Ed Miliband. Nothing has changed in that regard.
I simply point out that the Conservatives will be in a strategically good position for an opposition, if they choose to make use of it. Conversely, Labour will be battling to run a government well short of a majority with unreliable allies.
Yes, Ed could impress for the whole nine yards and make it work for the full-term. Yes, the Conservatives could spend the whole parliament repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. But the way the cards will be stacked, they will have a lot they could work with - if they don't act complacently and underestimate Ed.
No trolling or cutting and pasting just a Labour voter noting tha the Tories are stuffed, wrong campaign and damaged leader. Miliband could be prime minister,in fact using a mathematical model it is difficult to see how Cameron can hang on, even if he wanted to do so. He is well and truly stuffed.
Or more likely Labour get substantially less seats than the Tories. They can then go cap in hand to that nice Mrs Sturgeon, and never see a LAB candidate elected in Scotland ever again, and their England vote implode when the voters see lots of sweeties going north that they wont be getting. Hope you enjoy it.
Unfortunately that is a very likely scenario, especially when you take in Miliband's weakness and his idealistic left-wing views compared even to the mainstream of the Labour party. It's a pretty dire prospect for the country both at home and in international relations.
Still....Labour on 19% by Christmas will be something to look forward to....
The "good news" for Conservative supporters is that, if Cameron does lose, Labour and Ed Miliband will become hugely unpopular inside a year. I doubt in six months time anyone will admit to ever having voted for him.
What's happened to Labour in Scotland could easily happen to them in the North, and even parts of Wales.
Meanwhile, you'll have a Conservative opposition with a relatively strong parliamentary presence, probably not leeching much more to UKIP (perhaps gaining substantial votes and members back) in opposition to the Labour-led government under a new leader - probably Boris.
The next parliament could run Labour into the ground as a party of national government.
Ironically, the opposite could also happen. It is called "Expectations Management". Unless the world caves in, Ed will be seen to be doing fine.
One thing we can all vouch for. In every contest, Ed has been underestimated, to his opponents surprise. One of them was his own brother. The other is the Conservative Party and its near rabid supporters.
"Ed is Crap" - we don't see that too often now.
***Anecdote alert***
I hear it (Ed is Crap) whenever he is mentioned on TV. Having an apolitical wife it is odd to hear her exclamations of despair and scorn for either one of two politicians when they are shown. Ed or Nigel get her animated in a way that is negative to them, and now Nicola is also getting her opprobrium.
As they say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors, but in her 60th year she has commented on politics voluntarily for the first time, and done so with venom and frequency. I doubt she is typical, I doubt pollsters will pick this up.
I'm not presently intending to put up any more posts before the election, though I might do so if I find that I have something specific to say about some new development.
Great blog post. It just reinforces the sense of likely stalemate. Personally I think Miliband will be a fool to want to govern if Lab don't have most seats. Let the Coalition have the pain in the certain knowledge that they can't get anything radical through Parliament. They'll rip themselves apart on Europe again anyway.
UKIP @woodside2010 13h13 hours ago @Nigel_Farage I went down a street in Derby today. Must have been 50 out of 100 houses with UKIP posters in windows. Derby's gone Farage!
"Popping out of the woodwork" am I .I hardly ever post on sites because its mainly hot air and I only post if I've got something to say based on experience .
Socialism did nothing for me ,who was born into abject poverty.I was lucky enough to go to a grammar school in one of the most deprived part of the country ,still is, and got I on through my own hard work.
Socialism levels people down and is therefore oppressive .Oh we'll give you money,a basic home etc but stay down there where you are ,don't aspire to do better unless of course you are one of the well off elites.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with your socialist utopia.I have lived it.
On topic, I tend to agree with Mike; I've found it harder to become engaged with this election than any since I first became actively involved in politics, in 1992. That's despite the fact that the outcome is uncertain and close, and that I live in a marginal constituency.
Why? Not for any lack of quality in the candidate (once of this parish, incidentally), nor because I don't think the outcome matters: it does. I think maybe it's been the nature of the campaign. It needs to be more than simply about management and national accountancy. Where are the ideas worth fighting for? There are aspects of this election, and this campaign, which are reminiscent of the 1929 election where Baldwin went into it on the uninspiring slogan of "Safety First" (and lost, to a subsequent minority Labour government).
There is a distinct lack of NEW ideas in this election. Its all back to the future stuff.
Actually it seems you missed the big idea of the Labour campaign.
Ed Miliband has been campaigning on Social Inequality and Fairness from day one of his leadership.Initially dismissed as leftist,it is this idea which has gained currency during the campaign and helped Labour shrug off the rabid Tory attacks.
The coalition has been acting to reduce poverty for 5 years after Labour left the poor to suffer for 13 years.
Ed could impress for the whole nine yards and make it work for the full-term. Yes, the Conservatives could spend the whole parliament repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot
It isn't often that I see an idiom used to such perfection. Whilst there are plenty of options - I like the commonly accepted one of the length of an ammunition belt.
Perhaps the most commonly offered explanation is that World War II (1939–1945) aircraft machine gun belts were nine yards long. There are many versions of this explanation with variations regarding type of plane, nationality of gunner, and geographic area. This theory is no longer considered viable, since the phrase predates World War II. However an alternative weapon is the ammunition belt for the British Vickers machine gun, invented and adopted by the British Army before the first World War (1914–1918)[11]
I do not think the Tory campaign particularly useless. Apart from the SNP no one seems to have properly run a campaign.
Con 5/10: rather directionless, and self contradictory, but no major gaffes: "Austerity or Unicorns? We can give you both"
Lab 5/10: A strange combination of earnest gimmickry and agreement with the Tories over key issues (austerity and Trident) that activists and supporters do not believe in.
LD 3/10: Invisible and not making progress
UKIP 4/10: Farage failed to capitalise on debates and "major party" status or to ignite either immigration or Europe as major election issues. Retreated to speaking to usual suspects and shore up the core vote.
Greens 4/10: not really engaged outside the student population.
SNP: 9/10 Sturgeon proving a far more effective leader than Salmond and a battle hardened campaigner; has made devolution issues and constitutional settlement central to the campaign for the first time since the 19th Century Irish Home rule paralysis.
The public are largely bored and unengaged by what is on offer outside Scotland. It is not just Cameron that is uninspired, he matches the mood of the country: resignation to austerity, a recognition that the economy is looking up and a vague sense of disgruntlement about the modern world.
Had an interesting and somewhat depressing dinner with some very switched on and political aware/interested people last night.
Almost total consensus was that they are completely disengaged from the election, with none of the options appealing one little bit. The only bit of spark came from someone (not a LibDem voter) who felt that it was bad for the Tories that the LibDems are about to be smushed into the ground.
Deep concern about the likely games that SNP will play after the election: as a whole the group has an interest in good governance, a stable environment and stable money.
Sorry but Labour will not get substantially fewer seats than the Tories, despite one or two on here asserting this. The more likely scenario is that Labour will get a handful more seats than the Tories and will form the next government with a little help from undetermined friends.
Be careful what you wish for... In all honesty if it finishes 50/50 I'd rather see a weak and unpopular Tory Government trying to cling to power. It won't be a pretty sight.
I agree with this.
First, Ed is more unpopular than his party, so if a credible candidate can be found (& I think there are some untainted by Blair & Brown), then a change of leader will help Labour. There is more upside in a leader change for Labour than the Tories.
Second, there are Holyrood and Welsh Assembly elections next year. It would be better for Labour to assume power after them.
UKIP @woodside2010 13h13 hours ago @Nigel_Farage I went down a street in Derby today. Must have been 50 out of 100 houses with UKIP posters in windows. Derby's gone Farage!
Posters don't equate to votes as many have discovered.
Vote Cameron,get Boris is the Tory meme from today as if Boris is a magic bullet.
HE`ll probably lose in London if he stood here a third time.
Boris is a buffoon, I don't imagine he plays well outside of the core vote who seem to love him for some reason. There is vast amounts of toxic history, he was sacked for lying to Howard.
He's happy to call Ed a backstabber, I wonder how his wife felt when she discovered he'd knocked up Petronella Wyatt and paid for her abortion whilst still married? Bit betrayed perhaps?
From what I recall at the time, he didn't put in the graft on policy required when the tories were in opposition, he seemed happy to skite by on a quip and a smile.
He'd be the worst possible choice for the tories, another posho too. Miliband must be praying for Boris to become tory leader.
Johnson is a complete tool, a vote loser. One day, an on screen appearance will result in the permanent destruction of my TV.
How are things looking in Bosworth? Apart from Loughborough it is the only Leics seat that is close to marginal. Hard to see the LDs taking it though despite the bonkers incumbent.
Bosworth looking very positive - to the extent that I looked up the odds against a Lib Dem win -(14-1). Not just a bonkers Conservative but a Lib Dem council that is effective. Hoping for big UKIP vote that might just let us through.
I have known Hinckley since 1975 when I was buying hosiery for Sainsburys and John Lewis - The Lib Dems are based in an old hosiery factory - very nostalgic!
LD take Bosworth does seem unlikely considering the national polls, but to stay in the running for a second election matters, it could be quite soon and I am confident of an LD revival in time.
I think on balance that the crushing of SLAB will prove cathartic for Labour - a need to re-evaluate, just as the Tories did post 1997. Whilst I heartily dislike the SNP holding the rest of us hostage if NOM happens - I see that as a fairly short-term issue to endure.
Re-aligning Scots politics into something more balanced away from Red, Redder, Reddest will surely be healthier for those who want more choice.
I do not think the Tory campaign particularly useless. Apart from the SNP no one seems to have properly run a campaign.
Con 5/10: rather directionless, and self contradictory, but no major gaffes: "Austerity or Unicorns? We can give you both"
Lab 5/10: A strange combination of earnest gimmickry and agreement with the Tories over key issues (austerity and Trident) that activists and supporters do not believe in.
LD 3/10: Invisible and not making progress
UKIP 4/10: Farage failed to capitalise on debates and "major party" status or to ignite either immigration or Europe as major election issues. Retreated to speaking to usual suspects and shore up the core vote.
Greens 4/10: not really engaged outside the student population.
SNP: 9/10 Sturgeon proving a far more effective leader than Salmond and a battle hardened campaigner; has made devolution issues and constitutional settlement central to the campaign for the first time since the 19th Century Irish Home rule paralysis.
The public are largely bored and unengaged by what is on offer outside Scotland. It is not just Cameron that is uninspired, he matches the mood of the country: resignation to austerity, a recognition that the economy is looking up and a vague sense of disgruntlement about the modern world.
Had an interesting and somewhat depressing dinner with some very switched on and political aware/interested people last night.
Almost total consensus was that they are completely disengaged from the election, with none of the options appealing one little bit. The only bit of spark came from someone (not a LibDem voter) who felt that it was bad for the Tories that the LibDems are about to be smushed into the ground.
Deep concern about the likely games that SNP will play after the election: as a whole the group has an interest in good governance, a stable environment and stable money.
I do not think the Tory campaign particularly useless. Apart from the SNP no one seems to have properly run a campaign.
Con 5/10: rather directionless, and self contradictory, but no major gaffes: "Austerity or Unicorns? We can give you both"
Lab 5/10: A strange combination of earnest gimmickry and agreement with the Tories over key issues (austerity and Trident) that activists and supporters do not believe in.
LD 3/10: Invisible and not making progress
UKIP 4/10: Farage failed to capitalise on debates and "major party" status or to ignite either immigration or Europe as major election issues. Retreated to speaking to usual suspects and shore up the core vote.
Greens 4/10: not really engaged outside the student population.
SNP: 9/10 Sturgeon proving a far more effective leader than Salmond and a battle hardened campaigner; has made devolution issues and constitutional settlement central to the campaign for the first time since the 19th Century Irish Home rule paralysis.
The public are largely bored and unengaged by what is on offer outside Scotland. It is not just Cameron that is uninspired, he matches the mood of the country: resignation to austerity, a recognition that the economy is looking up and a vague sense of disgruntlement about the modern world.
Had an interesting and somewhat depressing dinner with some very switched on and political aware/interested people last night.
Almost total consensus was that they are completely disengaged from the election, with none of the options appealing one little bit. The only bit of spark came from someone (not a LibDem voter) who felt that it was bad for the Tories that the LibDems are about to be smushed into the ground.
Deep concern about the likely games that SNP will play after the election: as a whole the group has an interest in good governance, a stable environment and stable money.
You could have just said group of ultra rich people like myself concerned they are not going to be able to keep making megabucks when the Tories get their jotters, Jeeves where is the port..
UKIP @woodside2010 13h13 hours ago @Nigel_Farage I went down a street in Derby today. Must have been 50 out of 100 houses with UKIP posters in windows. Derby's gone Farage!
Posters don't equate to votes as many have discovered.
Vote Cameron,get Boris is the Tory meme from today as if Boris is a magic bullet.
HE`ll probably lose in London if he stood here a third time.
Boris is a buffoon, I don't imagine he plays well outside of the core vote who seem to love him for some reason. There is vast amounts of toxic history, he was sacked for lying to Howard.
He's happy to call Ed a backstabber, I wonder how his wife felt when she discovered he'd knocked up Petronella Wyatt and paid for her abortion whilst still married? Bit betrayed perhaps?
From what I recall at the time, he didn't put in the graft on policy required when the tories were in opposition, he seemed happy to skite by on a quip and a smile.
He'd be the worst possible choice for the tories, another posho too. Miliband must be praying for Boris to become tory leader.
Johnson is a complete tool, a vote loser. One day, an on screen appearance will result in the permanent destruction of my TV.
"Popping out of the woodwork" am I .I hardly ever post on sites because its mainly hot air and I only post if I've got something to say based on experience .
Socialism did nothing for me ,who was born into abject poverty.I was lucky enough to go to a grammar school in one of the most deprived part of the country ,still is, and got I on through my own hard work.
Socialism levels people down and is therefore oppressive .Oh we'll give you money,a basic home etc but stay down there where you are ,don't aspire to do better unless of course you are one of the well off elites.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with your socialist utopia.I have lived it.
But it's now the Tories who are living the socialist dream. You will get no change out of the Conservatives under Cameron, et al. Only UKIP will start us on the road to recovery with the return of Grammar Schools to give a leg up to the clever lads and lasses of our growing underclass, among its many good policies.
Very surprised there's no thread header leading on the Tories regaining the lead with You Gov.
It's presumably a slightly odd rounding effect - the Tory lead is 1 person out of 1799, weighted by what appear to be virtually identical certainty to vote figures.
But I'd agree that despite TNS and ICM moving the other way, you can make a case that the position has inched from a tie to Con+1. Whether that's worth a thread is debtable.
Politics must be the most frustrating career choice. In much of life elsewhere you decide what you want and get after it. CEOs get the freedom to make decisions and act upon them. But politicans are forever hamstrung by their utter lack of real power - however much we may pretend that they have some. Ed simply can't turn the world into his fantasy bankruptopia. Nigel can't simply close the doors. Dave can't blow off his backbenchers. The Greens will not be allowed to return us to the stone age. It's a life of fighting hard to achieve some, but only some, of what you believe in - and even then only for a while. And if you go at it too hard the next lot will unwind your achievements.
I suppose that, like many people, the prospect of having real power to effect the change I believe in is attractive. But politicians delude themselves if they think they'll get real lasting power. And so all political careers end in failure. Which leaves me wondering what sort of personality type is attracted to politics these days. It's not just showbiz for uglies - it's becoming showbiz for weirdos. Maybe Blair was smart to realise that being PM is perhaps only an entry ticket to things more valuable and rewarding.
Interesting post - I remember the deputy editor of the Economist standing down after one term for just that reason. I've switched back and forth from leadership jobs in the private sector to a backbench role and I recognise the frustrations. It remains rewarding for social democrats (=cautious change) who are happy to be part of a movement rather than insistent on leading the charge themselves. Why a dynamic Tory individualist would want to do it escapes me.
It escapes you does it. 'you know wot', it escapes you because you smear all tories as 'individualists'. We know there is an election on, there is no need to ram it down our throats with your cheap nasty poropaganda.
Just to add to the mix: Red Box daily poll has Labour 1 point ahead, though Con 1 point ahead on a "Wisdom Index" basis ("who do you think will win?"):
Being PM in a coalition during difficult times must be very stressful and the thought of another 5 years of the same must be very disheartening. It is not just UK issues, but also problems around the world, which at the moment are not being tackled. There is a lack of leadership around the world. Obama is lame duck, EU country leaders are not working together because there is no agreement, Russia/Putin cold war style games and conflicts in Middle East/North Africa.
The pressure of the job 24/7 and an election campaign for even more pressure probably fills him with dread. The next 5 years, may be more difficult than the last 5 years, because spending cuts will be more difficult to find, when there is demand for more spending in some areas. Cameron would not get away with not finding money for Defence at 2%. Finding £8bn extra above inflation for the NHS, more spending on education to ensure adequate places etc etc. Then the promises made during the election campaign, ruling out some tax increases and money for various policies. Does not add up and will be impossible if the world economy declines.
This thread header marks a new low for this site. Why would anyone take any notice of Tim "I want to be famous" Montgomerie.
I agree the whole story is nonsense, completly unsubstantiable. Add to that its not being reported on the BBC, breakfast tv (so far), nor in the handful of newspapers i leafed through this morning including the times, its not even in the politics section of sky news......The 0.0000001 percent of peeps who have seen will have forgotten by lunchtime.
"Popping out of the woodwork" am I .I hardly ever post on sites because its mainly hot air and I only post if I've got something to say based on experience .
Socialism did nothing for me ,who was born into abject poverty.I was lucky enough to go to a grammar school in one of the most deprived part of the country ,still is, and got I on through my own hard work.
Socialism levels people down and is therefore oppressive .Oh we'll give you money,a basic home etc but stay down there where you are ,don't aspire to do better unless of course you are one of the well off elites.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with your socialist utopia.I have lived it.
But it's now the Tories who are living the socialist dream. You will get no change out of the Conservatives under Cameron, et al. Only UKIP will start us on the road to recovery with the return of Grammar Schools to give a leg up to the clever lads and lasses of our growing underclass, among its many good policies.
And I daresay UKIP will cure cancer, banish night, and lead to goodwill between all men.
Ed could impress for the whole nine yards and make it work for the full-term. Yes, the Conservatives could spend the whole parliament repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot
It isn't often that I see an idiom used to such perfection. Whilst there are plenty of options - I like the commonly accepted one of the length of an ammunition belt.
Perhaps the most commonly offered explanation is that World War II (1939–1945) aircraft machine gun belts were nine yards long. There are many versions of this explanation with variations regarding type of plane, nationality of gunner, and geographic area. This theory is no longer considered viable, since the phrase predates World War II. However an alternative weapon is the ammunition belt for the British Vickers machine gun, invented and adopted by the British Army before the first World War (1914–1918)[11]
Not at all sure that can be true for Vickers machine gun ammo belts - they are alot less than 9 yards long. I know. I've fired one many times. Typical belt length was 250 rounds at around 3 yards max.
Being PM in a coalition during difficult times must be very stressful and the thought of another 5 years of the same must be very disheartening. It is not just UK issues, but also problems around the world, which at the moment are not being tackled. There is a lack of leadership around the world. Obama is lame duck, EU country leaders are not working together because there is no agreement, Russia/Putin cold war style games and conflicts in Middle East/North Africa.
The pressure of the job 24/7 and an election campaign for even more pressure probably fills him with dread. The next 5 years, may be more difficult than the last 5 years, because spending cuts will be more difficult to find, when there is demand for more spending in some areas. Cameron would not get away with not finding money for Defence at 2%. Finding £8bn extra above inflation for the NHS, more spending on education to ensure adequate places etc etc. Then the promises made during the election campaign, ruling out some tax increases and money for various policies. Does not add up and will be impossible if the world economy declines.
Yes, it must fill him with dread. Thankfully for Cameron EICIPM is up for the job.
UKIP @woodside2010 13h13 hours ago @Nigel_Farage I went down a street in Derby today. Must have been 50 out of 100 houses with UKIP posters in windows. Derby's gone Farage!
Posters don't equate to votes as many have discovered.
Vote Cameron,get Boris is the Tory meme from today as if Boris is a magic bullet.
HE`ll probably lose in London if he stood here a third time.
Boris is a buffoon, I don't imagine he plays well outside of the core vote who seem to love him for some reason. There is vast amounts of toxic history, he was sacked for lying to Howard.
He's happy to call Ed a backstabber, I wonder how his wife felt when she discovered he'd knocked up Petronella Wyatt and paid for her abortion whilst still married? Bit betrayed perhaps?
From what I recall at the time, he didn't put in the graft on policy required when the tories were in opposition, he seemed happy to skite by on a quip and a smile.
He'd be the worst possible choice for the tories, another posho too. Miliband must be praying for Boris to become tory leader.
Johnson is a complete tool, a vote loser. One day, an on screen appearance will result in the permanent destruction of my TV.
Boris is not a vote loser you don't get to be a Tory mayor in a Labour city if your that. He is not a fool either. The rest of the watchers comments I agree with though.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
Being PM in a coalition during difficult times must be very stressful and the thought of another 5 years of the same must be very disheartening. It is not just UK issues, but also problems around the world, which at the moment are not being tackled. There is a lack of leadership around the world. Obama is lame duck, EU country leaders are not working together because there is no agreement, Russia/Putin cold war style games and conflicts in Middle East/North Africa.
The pressure of the job 24/7 and an election campaign for even more pressure probably fills him with dread. The next 5 years, may be more difficult than the last 5 years, because spending cuts will be more difficult to find, when there is demand for more spending in some areas. Cameron would not get away with not finding money for Defence at 2%. Finding £8bn extra above inflation for the NHS, more spending on education to ensure adequate places etc etc. Then the promises made during the election campaign, ruling out some tax increases and money for various policies. Does not add up and will be impossible if the world economy declines.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
Just 1? Is that the reason why the others in many areas remain crap....
This election campaign has been very flat because all of the main parties do not know how to tackle the major problems that beset this country and if they do have solutions they are scared to reveal those to the electorate.
Nigel Farage wants to 'cut BBC to the bone' by dramatically slashing licence fee
THE BBC should be “cut to the bone” and its licence fee slashed from £145.50 to £48.50, Nigel Farage said yesterday.
This is one UKIP policy I disagree with. I would completely end the BBC licence fee, and make that organisation free to do as it wished by competing with others in the broadcasting market. Of course slashing the fee to £48.50 is better than nothing, but a clean break is better still.
Very surprised there's no thread header leading on the Tories regaining the lead with You Gov.
It's presumably a slightly odd rounding effect - the Tory lead is 1 person out of 1799, weighted by what appear to be virtually identical certainty to vote figures.
But I'd agree that despite TNS and ICM moving the other way, you can make a case that the position has inched from a tie to Con+1. Whether that's worth a thread is debtable.
You're going to get one anyway. I've just written the PB poll average piece for the first half of the campaign. (Rather than doing a 30-day average for April and a 6-day one for May, which seems pointless, I've split the period into two 18-day halves).
This election campaign has been very flat because all of the main parties do not know how to tackle the major problems that beset this country and if they do have solutions they are scared to reveal those to the electorate.
One of the most sensible things I've seen written about this election. Couldn't agree more. Although suspect PBers could get into a nice lather arguing about what those problems are!
ComRes @ComResPolls 34s35 seconds ago "The South West battle between the Lib Dems and the Tories will be fascinating" says @Andrew_ComRes #PollwatchLive
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
Why does the alternative to a Grammar School have to be a Secondary Modern? I would have thought we were capable of tailoring the alternatives to get the best out of the pupils. (I'm not sure that Grammar Schools are the answer, but the current system fails far too many young people).
I doubt our least able students benefit from the experience of achieving notoriety for residing at the bottom of a single large local school. That is no better for them than a Secondary Modern.
Sian Morgan @Sian__Morgan 6m6 minutes ago #pollwatchlive @ComResPolls poll shows 19 point swing to SNP in Labour held seats in Scotland- mainly in safest. Confirms Lib Dem collapse
An interesting historical note: it was the Arausio disaster (in death toll terms on a par with Cannae or the Teutoberg Forest) which prompted the re-election of Marius to the consulship [even though only a few years had passed rather than the legal limit of 10]. After this he got numerous consecutive consulships. The Marius-Sulla bickering [bit modern, not au fait with the details] did not necessarily strengthen the creaking republic.
Nigel Farage wants to 'cut BBC to the bone' by dramatically slashing licence fee
THE BBC should be “cut to the bone” and its licence fee slashed from £145.50 to £48.50, Nigel Farage said yesterday.
This is one UKIP policy I disagree with. I would completely end the BBC licence fee, and make that organisation free to do as it wished by competing with others in the broadcasting market. Of course slashing the fee to £48.50 is better than nothing, but a clean break is better still.
UKIP also advocate decriminalising the TV Licence. That's a significant step to making it an optional subscription.
"We will decriminalise one crime: non-payment of the TV licence fee. This will become a civil rather than a criminal offence."
Tesco has reported the worst results in its history with a record statutory pre-tax loss of £6.4bn for the year to the end of February. That compares with annual pre-tax profit of £2.26bn a year earlier. It is the biggest loss suffered by a UK retailer and one of the largest in the country's corporate history. Around £4.7bn of the losses were the result of the fall in property value of its UK stores, 43 of which it said would close earlier this month.
This election campaign has been very flat because all of the main parties do not know how to tackle the major problems that beset this country and if they do have solutions they are scared to reveal those to the electorate.
One of the most sensible things I've seen written about this election. Couldn't agree more. Although suspect PBers could get into a nice lather arguing about what those problems are!
The election is boring because all parties - even the SNP and Ukip - are fighting over a narrow stretch of the political centre ground. I think it's more a sign that there aren't any major problems with this country so there's not much to argue about (compare with the 1970s and 80s, and the further back you go the bigger the difference between the parties)
Mr. Borough, when the media are shallow sensationalist scalp-hunters and the electorate are apathetic, disinterested and often misinformed by the media, politicians who know the answers are unpopular have a choice between honesty and lacking the power to implement necessary changes, or dishonesty and getting elected.
Not that politicians are innocent victims. Conflating debt and deficit (either due to deliberate deceit or incompetent ignorance) is a prime example of political perfidy.
I guess that Tesco's contribution to deficit reduction is going to be markedly smaller this year than in past years.
Not 100% sure if its the same for MNCs but I think they'll be able to claim alot of tax back - depending on how they do the books ofc.
I wonder where the Greens' extra 20bn of Corporation Tax to pay for Unicorns is going to come from now that supermarkets are failing, the Oil Price has collapsed, and the Banks have been reengineered to be bulwarks of low returns.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
That's fine, but don't complain about a lack of social mobility or our political class being dominated by those who went to private schools.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
If no one fails then no one can succeed. You seem to want prizes for all and to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "When everyone is somebody, no one's anybody". Most kids don't want to, or have the ability, to study quantum mechanics, ancient greek and you know the aphorism "Don't try and teach a horse to sing..."
The aim of education is to find out what children do best at and get them to meet their potential. Failing them by having the bar too easy to cross, or having the bar too high is the worst you can do. Better have two bars.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
In addition to grammar schools UKIP also advocate vocational education.
"VOCATIONAL EDUCATION As well as allowing existing schools to become grammar schools, we will allow other establishments to become vocational schools or colleges similar to those promoted in Germany and The Netherlands, so pupils develop practical skills.
Further, by linking vocational schools and colleges with industry, we will introduce an option for students to take an apprenticeship qualification instead of four non-core GCSEs. Students can then continue their apprenticeships past the age of 16, working with certified professionals qualified to grade their progress."
I'm currently reading James Bartholomew's "Welfare of Nations". He attributes the low youth unemployment rate of Switzerland and Germany to their vocational education programmes.
This election campaign has been very flat because all of the main parties do not know how to tackle the major problems that beset this country and if they do have solutions they are scared to reveal those to the electorate.
One of the most sensible things I've seen written about this election. Couldn't agree more. Although suspect PBers could get into a nice lather arguing about what those problems are!
The election is boring because all parties - even the SNP and Ukip - are fighting over a narrow stretch of the political centre ground. I think it's more a sign that there aren't any major problems with this country so there's not much to argue about (compare with the 1970s and 80s, and the further back you go the bigger the difference between the parties)
Depends what you mean by major problems. I think our woeful productivity levels and failure to invest in innovation is going to cause us awful problems in a few years time. The balance of payments is dreadful, but nobody seems to care. The level of personal debt is one of the worst in the OECD, but that's probably mainly because of the insane house price/mortgage situation. Kids still leave school unable to read or write. Worrying about social care in old age is terrifying many people. We don't invest in energy generation enough.
On a wider level, we are trashing the environment and using resources with no regard to future generations.
But, hey, what the hell, why don't we all discuss whether the personal tax allowance will go to £12,000 or £12,500.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
@JosiasJessop Learning to read and write would be a big first step in raising standards to help those children at the bottom. It was Labour that abolished grammar schools and then introduced a bizarre system of education by letting kids do what they want with minimum discipline. The Tories tried to alter it (not very hard) but, with the teachers unions in the way, failed miserably.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
The problem is that in many schools and in society in general there is an anti-learning culture; this is far more prevalent in the sorts of schools that the less well off have to attend than it is in the leafy suburbs.
What Grammar Schools offer is the reinforcing effect for those of talent, and a way for the many people in society who can't afford the fees for academically selective schools to begin to compete on a level playing field.
The problem with the previous system was that the (admittedly limited) diversity of school provision - the technical schools - were never completed.
If you ensure there is greater mobility at all stages (to avoid the charge of the 11+ single chance denying late developers), and ensure that there is much greater practical provision in the community schools, then you get the best of all worlds.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
If no one fails then no one can succeed. You seem to want prizes for all and to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "When everyone is somebody, no one's anybody". Most kids don't want to, or have the ability, to study quantum mechanics, ancient greek and you know the aphorism "Don't try and teach a horse to sing..."
The aim of education is to find out what children do best at and get them to meet their potential. Failing them by having the bar too easy to cross, or having the bar too high is the worst you can do. Better have two bars.
I probably don't agree with Rose Rees on much, but as an 11 plus failure with a degree (and an interest in quantum mechanics) I wouldn't want the country to return to sorting the sheep from the goats at age 11.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
Why does the alternative to a Grammar School have to be a Secondary Modern? I would have thought we were capable of tailoring the alternatives to get the best out of the pupils. (I'm not sure that Grammar Schools are the answer, but the current system fails far too many young people).
I doubt our least able students benefit from the experience of achieving notoriety for residing at the bottom of a single large local school. That is no better for them than a Secondary Modern.
The main alternative to grammar schools was supposed to be technical schools, but these proved phenomenally expensive to run (lots of workshops and machinery) so a ternary system quickly became a binary one.
I'm not presently intending to put up any more posts before the election, though I might do so if I find that I have something specific to say about some new development.
This election campaign has been very flat because all of the main parties do not know how to tackle the major problems that beset this country and if they do have solutions they are scared to reveal those to the electorate.
One of the most sensible things I've seen written about this election. Couldn't agree more. Although suspect PBers could get into a nice lather arguing about what those problems are!
The election is boring because all parties - even the SNP and Ukip - are fighting over a narrow stretch of the political centre ground. I think it's more a sign that there aren't any major problems with this country so there's not much to argue about (compare with the 1970s and 80s, and the further back you go the bigger the difference between the parties)
Depends what you mean by major problems. I think our woeful productivity levels and failure to invest in innovation is going to cause us awful problems in a few years time. The balance of payments is dreadful, but nobody seems to care. The level of personal debt is one of the worst in the OECD, but that's probably mainly because of the insane house price/mortgage situation. Kids still leave school unable to read or write. Worrying about social care in old age is terrifying many people. We don't invest in energy generation enough.
On a wider level, we are trashing the environment and using resources with no regard to future generations.
But, hey, what the hell, why don't we all discuss whether the personal tax allowance will go to £12,000 or £12,500.
Millsy and Rottenborough- It is really nice to open up pbCOM and see some intelligent thoughtful posting. Rottenborough, your reply was brilliant
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
If no one fails then no one can succeed. You seem to want prizes for all and to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "When everyone is somebody, no one's anybody". Most kids don't want to, or have the ability, to study quantum mechanics, ancient greek and you know the aphorism "Don't try and teach a horse to sing..."
The aim of education is to find out what children do best at and get them to meet their potential. Failing them by having the bar too easy to cross, or having the bar too high is the worst you can do. Better have two bars.
I probably don't agree with Rose Rees on much, but as an 11 plus failure with a degree (and an interest in quantum mechanics) I wouldn't want the country to return to sorting the sheep from the goats at age 11.
That's a red herring; you'd design a future Grammar School system to have additional transfer points (at 13, 14 and 16 much like the independent schools) to catch late developers.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
@JosiasJessop Learning to read and write would be a big first step in raising standards to help those children at the bottom. It was Labour that abolished grammar schools and then introduced a bizarre system of education by letting kids do what they want with minimum discipline. The Tories tried to alter it (not very hard) but, with the teachers unions in the way, failed miserably.
In fact it was the Conservatives who closed most of the grammar schools (and introduced GCSEs and abolished corporal punishment).
And Labour who promoted the teaching of reading (synthetic phonics, literacy hours and so on).
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
It was Labour that abolished grammar schools
Margaret Thatcher holds the prize as the secretary of state who closed or merged the most grammar schools for a comprehensive alternative.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
If no one fails then no one can succeed. You seem to want prizes for all and to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "When everyone is somebody, no one's anybody". Most kids don't want to, or have the ability, to study quantum mechanics, ancient greek and you know the aphorism "Don't try and teach a horse to sing..."
The aim of education is to find out what children do best at and get them to meet their potential. Failing them by having the bar too easy to cross, or having the bar too high is the worst you can do. Better have two bars.
I probably don't agree with Rose Rees on much, but as an 11 plus failure with a degree (and an interest in quantum mechanics) I wouldn't want the country to return to sorting the sheep from the goats at age 11.
That's a red herring; you'd design a future Grammar School system to have additional transfer points (at 13, 14 and 16 much like the independent schools) to catch late developers.
Yep; I'd go with that. A bloody good idea, but too many transfer points would make it unworkable.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
If no one fails then no one can succeed. You seem to want prizes for all and to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "When everyone is somebody, no one's anybody". Most kids don't want to, or have the ability, to study quantum mechanics, ancient greek and you know the aphorism "Don't try and teach a horse to sing..."
The aim of education is to find out what children do best at and get them to meet their potential. Failing them by having the bar too easy to cross, or having the bar too high is the worst you can do. Better have two bars.
I probably don't agree with Rose Rees on much, but as an 11 plus failure with a degree (and an interest in quantum mechanics) I wouldn't want the country to return to sorting the sheep from the goats at age 11.
That's a red herring; you'd design a future Grammar School system to have additional transfer points (at 13, 14 and 16 much like the independent schools) to catch late developers.
It wouldn't happen for more than a few. And grammar schools always favoured the middle-classes (a bit like the present system in fact). I know several people saved from the scrap-heap of failure by the abolition of the grammar school system.
The Times have a piece up on David Laws potentially losing Yeovil.
Con home has an article suggesting that Morely and Outwood, Pudsey and even Leeds North East could be in play for the Cons (!)
There's a reason why CCHQ have been sending activists like moi to West Yorkshire.
I've been in Pudsey a lot, helping Stuart Andrew to hold on.
There's a belief that this is a part of the world, where UKIP could harm Lab more than the Tories, and if the Tories can maintain roughly there 2010 vote share, or slightly down, they could gain a few seats.
That said, I still expect Ed Balls to hold on.
But it might be time for a thread headlined "Is Ed Balls deep in trouble in Morley and Outwood?"
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
@JosiasJessop Learning to read and write would be a big first step in raising standards to help those children at the bottom. It was Labour that abolished grammar schools and then introduced a bizarre system of education by letting kids do what they want with minimum discipline. The Tories tried to alter it (not very hard) but, with the teachers unions in the way, failed miserably.
I don't remember that. I seem to recall it was Margaret Thatcher who closed or merged more grammar schools than anyone else.
Comments
He's happy to call Ed a backstabber, I wonder how his wife felt when she discovered he'd knocked up Petronella Wyatt and paid for her abortion whilst still married? Bit betrayed perhaps?
From what I recall at the time, he didn't put in the graft on policy required when the tories were in opposition, he seemed happy to skite by on a quip and a smile.
He'd be the worst possible choice for the tories, another posho too. Miliband must be praying for Boris to become tory leader.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/f3tdlph8p1/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-210415.pdf
But I'd agree that despite TNS and ICM moving the other way, you can make a case that the position has inched from a tie to Con+1. Whether that's worth a thread is debtable.
I rather agree that the election isn't exciting, but arguably that reflects a degree of maturity in both parties and electorate. Labour and the Tories are mostly being quite careful - it's fairly easy to see most of the quite limited promises being delivered - more nurses, or a higher IHT threshold. Where a party has a wild moment ("We've found £8bn that we'll throw at the NHS!") the electorate says WTF?? and the party hastily changes the subject. Interesting post - I remember the deputy editor of the Economist standing down after one term for just that reason. I've switched back and forth from leadership jobs in the private sector to a backbench role and I recognise the frustrations. It remains rewarding for social democrats (=cautious change) who are happy to be part of a movement rather than insistent on leading the charge themselves. Why a dynamic Tory individualist would want to do it escapes me.
I simply point out that the Conservatives will be in a strategically good position for an opposition, if they choose to make use of it. Conversely, Labour will be battling to run a government well short of a majority with unreliable allies.
Yes, Ed could impress for the whole nine yards and make it work for the full-term. Yes, the Conservatives could spend the whole parliament repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. But the way the cards will be stacked, they will have a lot they could work with - if they don't act complacently and underestimate Ed.
I hear it (Ed is Crap) whenever he is mentioned on TV. Having an apolitical wife it is odd to hear her exclamations of despair and scorn for either one of two politicians when they are shown. Ed or Nigel get her animated in a way that is negative to them, and now Nicola is also getting her opprobrium.
As they say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors, but in her 60th year she has commented on politics voluntarily for the first time, and done so with venom and frequency. I doubt she is typical, I doubt pollsters will pick this up.
And a good omen to start the day:
UKIP @woodside2010 13h13 hours ago
@Nigel_Farage I went down a street in Derby today. Must have been 50 out of 100 houses with UKIP posters in windows. Derby's gone Farage!
Almost total consensus was that they are completely disengaged from the election, with none of the options appealing one little bit. The only bit of spark came from someone (not a LibDem voter) who felt that it was bad for the Tories that the LibDems are about to be smushed into the ground.
Deep concern about the likely games that SNP will play after the election: as a whole the group has an interest in good governance, a stable environment and stable money.
First, Ed is more unpopular than his party, so if a credible candidate can be found (& I think there are some untainted by Blair & Brown), then a change of leader will help Labour. There is more upside in a leader change for Labour than the Tories.
Second, there are Holyrood and Welsh Assembly elections next year. It would be better for Labour to assume power after them.
Bonkers.
+235.52 Lab Seats, votes
+210.49 Lab Votes, Con seats
+188.95 Con votes, Lab seats
+45.42 Con seats, Con votes
Over all my bookie bets/betfair atm.
Re-aligning Scots politics into something more balanced away from Red, Redder, Reddest will surely be healthier for those who want more choice.
One True Voice, helpful as ever to the blues
And by the way, welcome to PB.
We know there is an election on, there is no need to ram it down our throats with your cheap nasty poropaganda.
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-gb/suite#
The pressure of the job 24/7 and an election campaign for even more pressure probably fills him with dread. The next 5 years, may be more difficult than the last 5 years, because spending cuts will be more difficult to find, when there is demand for more spending in some areas. Cameron would not get away with not finding money for Defence at 2%. Finding £8bn extra above inflation for the NHS, more spending on education to ensure adequate places etc etc. Then the promises made during the election campaign, ruling out some tax increases and money for various policies. Does not add up and will be impossible if the world economy declines.
I'll be on the @ITVLorraine programme at around 0840. Tune in.
Not at all sure that can be true for Vickers machine gun ammo belts - they are alot less than 9 yards long. I know. I've fired one many times. Typical belt length was 250 rounds at around 3 yards max.
I'm sure a way could have been found for Boris to get into Parliament earlier and the Tories could have had a leadership contest around January.
Nobody has forced Cameron to carry on into an election he doesn't really want to win...
the capital will be invested on some more Scottish seat betting.
Nigel Farage wants to 'cut BBC to the bone' by dramatically slashing licence fee
THE BBC should be “cut to the bone” and its licence fee slashed from £145.50 to £48.50, Nigel Farage said yesterday.
This is one UKIP policy I disagree with. I would completely end the BBC licence fee, and make that organisation free to do as it wished by competing with others in the broadcasting market. Of course slashing the fee to £48.50 is better than nothing, but a clean break is better still.
All aboard the ComRes bus as @Andrew_ComRes takes #PollwatchLive audience on a tour of regional polling
Packed house for this morning's #PollwatchLive with @JohnRentoul, @GaryGibbonBlog and @Andrew_ComRes
Decision not to prosecute Lord Janner will be seen as a 'whitewash', politicians warn http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11553894/Decision-not-to-prosecute-Lord-Janner-will-be-seen-as-a-whitewash-politicians-warn.html …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32399114
"The South West battle between the Lib Dems and the Tories will be fascinating" says @Andrew_ComRes #PollwatchLive
I doubt our least able students benefit from the experience of achieving notoriety for residing at the bottom of a single large local school. That is no better for them than a Secondary Modern.
#pollwatchlive @ComResPolls poll shows 19 point swing to SNP in Labour held seats in Scotland- mainly in safest. Confirms Lib Dem collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio#A_skirmish_and_two_routs
An interesting historical note: it was the Arausio disaster (in death toll terms on a par with Cannae or the Teutoberg Forest) which prompted the re-election of Marius to the consulship [even though only a few years had passed rather than the legal limit of 10]. After this he got numerous consecutive consulships. The Marius-Sulla bickering [bit modern, not au fait with the details] did not necessarily strengthen the creaking republic.
"We will decriminalise one crime: non-payment of the TV licence fee. This will become a civil rather than a criminal offence."
p.55
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary
That compares with annual pre-tax profit of £2.26bn a year earlier.
It is the biggest loss suffered by a UK retailer and one of the largest in the country's corporate history.
Around £4.7bn of the losses were the result of the fall in property value of its UK stores, 43 of which it said would close earlier this month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32408661
The end of a once forward looking business is nigh. Tessa Cohen is turning in her grave.
Not that politicians are innocent victims. Conflating debt and deficit (either due to deliberate deceit or incompetent ignorance) is a prime example of political perfidy.
I saw Suzanne Evans on TV yesterday. Quite impressive, and would neutralise some of the attacks on Ukip if used more. Has she a winnable seat?
I was bored by the campaign before it started. Wake me up for the results bit.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
The aim of education is to find out what children do best at and get them to meet their potential. Failing them by having the bar too easy to cross, or having the bar too high is the worst you can do. Better have two bars.
"VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
As well as allowing existing schools to become grammar schools, we will allow other establishments to become vocational schools or colleges similar to those promoted in Germany and The Netherlands, so pupils develop practical skills.
Further, by linking vocational schools and colleges with industry, we will introduce an option for students to take an apprenticeship qualification instead of four non-core GCSEs. Students can then continue their apprenticeships past the age of 16, working with certified professionals qualified to grade their progress."
p.30 of manifesto.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary
I'm currently reading James Bartholomew's "Welfare of Nations". He attributes the low youth unemployment rate of Switzerland and Germany to their vocational education programmes.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-welfare-of-nations
On a wider level, we are trashing the environment and using resources with no regard to future generations.
But, hey, what the hell, why don't we all discuss whether the personal tax allowance will go to £12,000 or £12,500.
What Grammar Schools offer is the reinforcing effect for those of talent, and a way for the many people in society who can't afford the fees for academically selective schools to begin to compete on a level playing field.
The problem with the previous system was that the (admittedly limited) diversity of school provision - the technical schools - were never completed.
If you ensure there is greater mobility at all stages (to avoid the charge of the 11+ single chance denying late developers), and ensure that there is much greater practical provision in the community schools, then you get the best of all worlds.
Millsy and Rottenborough- It is really nice to open up pbCOM and see some intelligent thoughtful posting.
Rottenborough, your reply was brilliant
And Labour who promoted the teaching of reading (synthetic phonics, literacy hours and so on).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/education-the-end-of-the-grammar-school-1179844.html
I've been in Pudsey a lot, helping Stuart Andrew to hold on.
There's a belief that this is a part of the world, where UKIP could harm Lab more than the Tories, and if the Tories can maintain roughly there 2010 vote share, or slightly down, they could gain a few seats.
That said, I still expect Ed Balls to hold on.
But it might be time for a thread headlined "Is Ed Balls deep in trouble in Morley and Outwood?"
Have you ever seen Coburn MEP the only elected UKipper at any level in Scotland?
He has single-handed halved the UKIP vote in Scotland (from not a lot to next to nothing).
Still, glad to see you didn't vote tactically :-)