At my daughters' primary school, there was absolutely no attention paid to the 11+ whatsoever. Literally zero. No prep, no support, no nothing. If you were a poor kid aspiring to get into QE Boys or Henrietta Barnet - forget it. Not gonna happen. The two local grammars have kids commuting in from places like Uxbridge. You are up against every swotty kid in a 35-mile radius, and if their parents can afford private tuition or better tuition than yours can, well, tough luck. Expect no help or support from the school.
This is a major problem. Of course if there were grammar schools everywhere the 35 mile commute problem would disappear, but the aspiration and coaching one would remain.
Even my grammar school was almost no help in the Oxford entrance exam, a teacher found a couple of past papers but i was on my own basically. It was amazing to hear the stories of the amount of coaching the private school kids had had when I got there.
And dumbing everyone down to the same level is surely not the answer, as the rest of your post which I am not quoting puts so very well.
The reason that this is a problem is that in most of the country we only have super-grammars that effectively are private schools without the fees. There are very few of them and so people are willing to invest a large amount of money in private tuition to avoid c£100k+ of school fees (per pupil) going forward if they get in.
My friend lives c 30 miles from Reading. The Grammar there gets 750 applicants for 150 places. c200 pass the exam; the 150 places are than allotted based on proximity to the school. As he lives so far away even if his son passed he would be in the bottom 50 due to distance.
Expand the number of grammars to the 33% level there was pre 1970s and you solve this problem.
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
The abolition of grammar schools was a hugely popular policy when it came in because alongside it meant the abolition of secondary moderns as well. That was why Maggie T when she was Ed Sec continued with the programme that had been started by Labour.
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
The reintroduction of grammar schools doesn't have to mean a return to poor secondary moderns.
State secondary education funding should slanted in favour of the non grammar schools - essentially an extension of the excellent pupil premium policy. Grammars should also transfer pupils at 13 and at six form to cater for late developers.
Jack - we must stop writing from the same script ;-) As someone forking out 1000s for selective education for my children I'd welcome the return of state grammars (and so would my cellar).
You educate your children from the cellar !! ....
At Auchentennach Castle I have dungeons for the essential re-education of the yellow peril.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
O/T but 188 Conservative councillors have been returned unopposed. I'm not sure how many are guaranteed election, due to a shortage of opponents, but it's probably similar.
Surprisingly, two UKIP councillors have also been returned unopposed.
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
The LibDems would be mad to go into coalition on those numbers.
They do seem utterly obsessed with being in Government though - or is this just the sound of a party that is hoping to have 40 seats and a favourable result for itself (Lab/Con > 300-330) ?
Interesting how prescient his predictions were, not that he was the only one predicting such events. Anyway the powers that be can't say they weren't warned.
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higher aspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
Grammars are great for the kids from poor families who get into them. And as Kent shows, Grammars take on less than average kids from free school meal families.
So, as all the analysis shows, for the rest the existence of Grammars are a disaster.
Only if you accept that the non grammar schools must be a disaster.
I most certainly don't. They should be a power house for a highly skilled work force and not factories for far too many of the lower skilled and barely numerate and literate.
The poor in our society are not well served by too many of our present day secondary modern schools aka Comprehensives, where the only comprehensive thing about them is their all too regular failure of the less advantaged.
The solution to the deep educational problems in Kent will mean sweeping away the Grammars here, not adding to them.
Then poorer children in Kent can enjoy the same increased learning chances as their cohort in all the other non selective LEAs.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
To their credit the LibDems have said they would (only) work with the largest party. Not that they have much of it left but their credibility would be destroyed if they went with Lab on those numbers.
Edit: they said it last time - haven't noticed if they have repeated it for this time round.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
To their credit the LibDems have said they would (only) work with the largest party. Not that they have much of it left but their credibility would be destroyed if they went with Lab on those numbers.
Edit: they said it last time - haven't noticed if they have repeated it for this time round.
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
Edit - the 5 are Perth and North Perthshire, Angus, Moray, Banff and Buchan and Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
Apols if posted before - but great article from Fraser Nelson:
Has no one bothered to explain the basic rules of politics to Nicola Sturgeon? Fraser Nelson is baffled by the SNP leader's bizarre decision to mix with members of the public
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
They should push hard in all those seats to try and get some seconds off Labour. They'll then be positioned as the best anti-SNP party in 2020.
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
To their credit the LibDems have said they would (only) work with the largest party. Not that they have much of it left but their credibility would be destroyed if they went with Lab on those numbers.
Edit: they said it last time - haven't noticed if they have repeated it for this time round.
What do they do then ?
Vote through Lab Queen's speech, abstain ?
Vote against ?
If Lab are the largest party it won't matter because they will have the SNP in some form or other. If Cons are largest party we have Coalition Mk II (long my belief) and on we continue.
Today, with the public sector wage issue, they are burnishing their left-wing credentials in preparation for a shopping list (cf moments after 2010 results) to present to the Cons on May 8th.
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
They should push hard in all those seats to try and get some seconds off Labour. They'll then be positioned as the best anti-SNP party in 2020.
They will definitely beat Labour in BRS, DCT, all 5 highland seats. They might in D and G, probably won't this time in Edin SW, Defo won't in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and it's a toss up in Argyll
Edit - with SLab and Slib collapsing, they may find themselves second in some unlikely places too - Gordon, Fife etc but 'some way back'
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
I'm not sure why there's an argument about Grammar schools. I went to one years ago while virtually all my friends went to the secondary modern. The main difference I could see was expectation and discipline. The teachers were extremely variable in both and facilities were similar.
The plus of the eleven-plus was that if you passed, expectations increased and the classes were seldom disrupted.
That should be achieved in Comprehensives but my kids went to ones where that wasn't the case. The concept of trying to hide cleverness for fear of bullying was present.
The advantage of fee-paying schools are that they have the advantage of expectation and discipline and perhaps the contacts made.
Diane Abbott knows the score.
The solution? Above a certain level, move children into areas they are good at. I was a natural scientist but spent four years in the compulsory Art lessons washing the saucers.
@TOPPING On the numbers I've just given though, PC, SNP, SDLP, Labour, Green vote down a Conservative Queen's speech. Dave resigns - he simply can't form a Gov't that will pass a budget.
As @Neil of this parish has pointed out the Labour party is the closest ideologically to the Conservatives.
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
Edit - the 5 are Perth and North Perthshire, Angus, Moray, Banff and Buchan and Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
So focus on the same seats they have always focused on (hardly the concentrated focus your wording implies) and as always fail to make any real headway.
Tories will be extinct again on May 8th, there's too many Labour votes waiting to back the SNP in BRS and DCT.
Tactically voting is generally overplayed (usually by losers clinging on to hope). But there is one tactical vote you can always rely on - "keeping out the Tories" in any Scottish seat.
O/T but 188 Conservative councillors have been returned unopposed. .
Home counties = North Korea!
This is the big round of local elections. Some parties have real difficulty getting people to stand in far-flung wards.
In Eden District Council, 17 seats out of 38 have been returned unopposed, and 2 more councillors are guaranteed election, due to a shortage of opponents. In fact, the Conservatives have already won 14 seats, without a vote cast.
OTOH, in highly marginal Gravesham, 3 Labour councillors have been returned unopposed, and 2 more are guaranteed election. That does sound like the Conservatives have screwed up their nominations.
"I'm not sure why there's an argument about Grammar schools. I went to one years ago while virtually all my friends went to the secondary modern. The main difference I could see was expectation and discipline. The teachers were extremely variable in both and facilities were similar.
...
That should be achieved in Comprehensives but my kids went to ones where that wasn't the case. The concept of trying to hide cleverness for fear of bullying was present. "
That boils down to the teachers and it seems that low expectations seem to be the standard outside of a few places, so people don't fail.
It's the same at universities. Biggest difference between the places I've worked has come from expectations of what you're doing, the expectations of the personal standards you keep and the discipline to do it.
Where I am now is difficult because the students are allowed to have exceptionally low expectations of what is acceptable work.
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
Edit - the 5 are Perth and North Perthshire, Angus, Moray, Banff and Buchan and Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
So focus on the same seats they have always focused on (hardly the concentrated focus your wording implies) and as always fail to make any real headway.
Tories will be extinct again on May 8th, there's too many Labour votes waiting to back the SNP in BRS and DCT.
Tactically voting is generally overplayed (usually by losers clinging on to hope). But there is one tactical vote you can always rely on - "keeping out the Tories" in any Scottish seat.
Even the Anti-Tory vote is confusing in Berwickshire Roxburgh, Selkirk though.
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
@TOPPING On the numbers I've just given though, PC, SNP, SDLP, Labour, Green vote down a Conservative Queen's speech. Dave resigns - he simply can't form a Gov't that will pass a budget.
Not necessarily - it would depend on whether all of those parties simultaneously wanted a quick election (or an attempt at a super-weak minority Miliband government). Some of them might decide that it would be in their interests to let the Conservatives stagger on in chaos for a bit. In that case they only need to abstain, muttering some cant about 'stability, financial markets, not the right time, blah blah'.
I have to say that none of these scenarios are likely to be attractive or beneficial to the economy and the country in general. But then, you've all followed my advice over the last couple of years and protected yourselves as best you can, haven't you?
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
Edit - the 5 are Perth and North Perthshire, Angus, Moray, Banff and Buchan and Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
So focus on the same seats they have always focused on (hardly the concentrated focus your wording implies) and as always fail to make any real headway.
Tories will be extinct again on May 8th, there's too many Labour votes waiting to back the SNP in BRS and DCT.
Tactically voting is generally overplayed (usually by losers clinging on to hope). But there is one tactical vote you can always rely on - "keeping out the Tories" in any Scottish seat.
Even the Anti-Tory vote is confusing in Berwickshire Roxburgh, Selkirk though.
Most people won't have a clue, or even less a care.
But there will be a message "vote for us to keep out the Tories" between Labour activists and SNP activists. And who is most likely to have the number of activists to get that message across best?
@TOPPING On the numbers I've just given though, PC, SNP, SDLP, Labour, Green vote down a Conservative Queen's speech. Dave resigns - he simply can't form a Gov't that will pass a budget.
As @Neil of this parish has pointed out the Labour party is the closest ideologically to the Conservatives.
Sorry I misunderstood - yes if the numbers don't work then they don't work.
My point was that Nick can't work with anyone but the largest party. We would be looking at election v2.
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
O/T but 188 Conservative councillors have been returned unopposed. .
Home counties = North Korea!
This is the big round of local elections. Some parties have real difficulty getting people to stand in far-flung wards.
In Eden District Council, 17 seats out of 38 have been returned unopposed, and 2 more councillors are guaranteed election, due to a shortage of opponents. In fact, the Conservatives have already won 14 seats, without a vote cast.
OTOH, in highly marginal Gravesham, 3 Labour councillors have been returned unopposed, and 2 more are guaranteed election. That does sound like the Conservatives have screwed up their nominations.
It might be time to relax the criteria for standing in local elections. Why do you need anyone to nominate you at all? If you are crazy enough to stand and take the risk of being elected that should probably be enough.
In my school - there was a late entry girl - let's call her Lisa - she played up and tried to re-create her comp persona of classroom anarchist/cheeky chappy.
It lasted about 2 weeks before our Head of Biology - a fearsome old girl called Ms Hodgeson told her before the whole class that she'd amount to nothing with that attitude and no one would think she was clever when she was 20 with poor qualifications.
That shut her right up. A bit more of that would do wonders for quite a few who simply aren't used to getting attention for the right reasons.
"I'm not sure why there's an argument about Grammar schools. I went to one years ago while virtually all my friends went to the secondary modern. The main difference I could see was expectation and discipline. The teachers were extremely variable in both and facilities were similar.
...
That should be achieved in Comprehensives but my kids went to ones where that wasn't the case. The concept of trying to hide cleverness for fear of bullying was present. "
That boils down to the teachers and it seems that low expectations seem to be the standard outside of a few places, so people don't fail.
It's the same at universities. Biggest difference between the places I've worked has come from expectations of what you're doing, the expectations of the personal standards you keep and the discipline to do it.
Where I am now is difficult because the students are allowed to have exceptionally low expectations of what is acceptable work.
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
If you look at who Mr Hodges' mother is and then who his employer is you can see why he wants people to only vote Tory or Labour. With his record as the anti-Nostradamus of our times any prediction he makes in favour of a party should be treated as something of a curse.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
To their credit the LibDems have said they would (only) work with the largest party. Not that they have much of it left but their credibility would be destroyed if they went with Lab on those numbers.
Edit: they said it last time - haven't noticed if they have repeated it for this time round.
What do they do then ?
Vote through Lab Queen's speech, abstain ?
Vote against ?
If Lab are the largest party it won't matter because they will have the SNP in some form or other. If Cons are largest party we have Coalition Mk II (long my belief) and on we continue.
Today, with the public sector wage issue, they are burnishing their left-wing credentials in preparation for a shopping list (cf moments after 2010 results) to present to the Cons on May 8th.
It sounds as if the Libs will try to drive a hard bargain even though their vote and seat tally will likely have fallen by 50 percent. At what point does Cameron tell them to sling their hook and go for a minority government?
'Dan Hodges always has interesting ideas when it comes to Ukip, but tends to underestimate the party. Last year we were told before the European election that the party was "finished". Then we were told that Farage and his party would disintegrate over the summer. Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.'
@TOPPING On the numbers I've just given though, PC, SNP, SDLP, Labour, Green vote down a Conservative Queen's speech. Dave resigns - he simply can't form a Gov't that will pass a budget.
As @Neil of this parish has pointed out the Labour party is the closest ideologically to the Conservatives.
Sorry I misunderstood - yes if the numbers don't work then they don't work.
My point was that Nick can't work with anyone but the largest party. We would be looking at election v2.
I think the Lib Dems would vote for the CON Queen's speech - but it wouldn't pass, and abstain the Labour one in this scenario.
They aren't "working with" the Gov't in that case.
After the 'warnings' yesterday, had David Cameron dialled down the SNP rhetoric?
At the end of David Cameron's interview on This Morning, presenter Phillip Schofield previews the next segment on the programme, which features a man who can "pinch your wallet, your watch and even your tie without you noticing".
David Cameron is heard off camera, quipping: "Who's that, Alex Salmond?"
@David_Cameron: Labour won't rule out a deal with the SNP. A vote for one is a vote for the other. Join @ScotTories & vote Conservative to keep the SNP out.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Probably the same result - Lab/LibDem Coalition with tacit SNP/PC/Green support.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
To their credit the LibDems have said they would (only) work with the largest party. Not that they have much of it left but their credibility would be destroyed if they went with Lab on those numbers.
Edit: they said it last time - haven't noticed if they have repeated it for this time round.
They didn't say that last time - Clegg said something about the leading party having the "moral right to be the first to try to form a government" or something vague like that. In practice this turned out to mean that they had the privilege of being the first people to offer the LibDems a deal, after which they then went and talked to the other party to see if they could offer a better one.
Also in 2010 Clegg studiously avoided (despite being directly asked) whether he was talking about the party with the most votes or the party with the most seats.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
That's a volcano? a lot of cold lava and slag there methinks.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
Does this push Conservatives to vote Labour or does it further push Labour voters to vote SNP though ?
Lord Tebbit makes my blood run cold. He was a great Voice Of Reason in the 80s with his blunt talk against the Loony Left. For a decade, he's been a relic of the past.
I know Kippers love him as they love so many things of times-gone-by. I voted for Mrs T in 1987 because Sue Lawley was appalling rude to Mr Tebbit - and even canvassed for them in Croydon.
I can't bear to read his missives now - they feel as Back To The Future as Red Ken and the GLC. He's a brave soul who suffered terribly as a result of the Brighton bombing and his devotion to his wife is awesome. But that aside, I wouldn't vote for his views nowadays.
Speaking of that - I got an email from CCHQ a few weeks ago penned by Cecil Parkinson of all people. WTF was that about? I didn't like his smarmy persona in the 80s nevermind in 2015.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
A warning to JackW not to expose his ARSE to all and sundry. If he does, he can expect certain people to start sniffing and poking around the ARSE. Most painful if all it produces is a haggis of diarrhea.
After the 'warnings' yesterday, had David Cameron dialled down the SNP rhetoric?
At the end of David Cameron's interview on This Morning, presenter Phillip Schofield previews the next segment on the programme, which features a man who can "pinch your wallet, your watch and even your tie without you noticing".
David Cameron is heard off camera, quipping: "Who's that, Alex Salmond?"
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him.
Given the multiple meanings of DP, that caused a raised eyebrow and a faint sense of nausea.
Jenny Scott was too lovely to have done anything improper with Andrew Neil!
Andrew Neil +1 for the joke to work
Portillo?! Ugh Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl. I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
Edit - the 5 are Perth and North Perthshire, Angus, Moray, Banff and Buchan and Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
So focus on the same seats they have always focused on (hardly the concentrated focus your wording implies) and as always fail to make any real headway.
Tories will be extinct again on May 8th, there's too many Labour votes waiting to back the SNP in BRS and DCT.
Tactically voting is generally overplayed (usually by losers clinging on to hope). But there is one tactical vote you can always rely on - "keeping out the Tories" in any Scottish seat.
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
In my school - there was a late entry girl - let's call her Lisa - she played up and tried to re-create her comp persona of classroom anarchist/cheeky chappy.
It lasted about 2 weeks before our Head of Biology - a fearsome old girl called Ms Hodgeson told her before the whole class that she'd amount to nothing with that attitude and no one would think she was clever when she was 20 with poor qualifications.
That shut her right up. A bit more of that would do wonders for quite a few who simply aren't used to getting attention for the right reasons.
"I'm not sure why there's an argument about Grammar schools. I went to one years ago while virtually all my friends went to the secondary modern. The main difference I could see was expectation and discipline. The teachers were extremely variable in both and facilities were similar.
...
That should be achieved in Comprehensives but my kids went to ones where that wasn't the case. The concept of trying to hide cleverness for fear of bullying was present. "
That boils down to the teachers and it seems that low expectations seem to be the standard outside of a few places, so people don't fail.
It's the same at universities. Biggest difference between the places I've worked has come from expectations of what you're doing, the expectations of the personal standards you keep and the discipline to do it.
Where I am now is difficult because the students are allowed to have exceptionally low expectations of what is acceptable work.
Ms Plato that only works in a school were the prevailing culture is pro-(academic) achievement. In most Comps the teacher saying that would be laughed at.
Lord Tebbit makes my blood run cold. He was a great Voice Of Reason in the 80s with his blunt talk against the Loony Left. For a decade, he's been a relic of the past.
I know Kippers love him as they love so many things of times-gone-by. I voted for Mrs T in 1987 because Sue Lawley was appalling rude to Mr Tebbit - and even canvassed for them in Croydon.
I can't bear to read his missives now - they feel as Back To The Future as Red Ken and the GLC. He's a brave soul who suffered terribly as a result of the Brighton bombing and his devotion to his wife is awesome. But that aside, I wouldn't vote for his views nowadays.
Speaking of that - I got an email from CCHQ a few weeks ago penned by Cecil Parkinson of all people. WTF was that about? I didn't like his smarmy persona in the 80s nevermind in 2015.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
You are so wrong about UKIP, Plato, and you always have been. On the contrary, UKIP looks to the future while keeping the best things from the past and rejecting all the bilge accumulated by the Lab/Lib/Con party, as a real conservative party should.
Lord Tebbit makes my blood run cold. He was a great Voice Of Reason in the 80s with his blunt talk against the Loony Left. For a decade, he's been a relic of the past.
I know Kippers love him as they love so many things of times-gone-by. I voted for Mrs T in 1987 because Sue Lawley was appalling rude to Mr Tebbit - and even canvassed for them in Croydon.
I can't bear to read his missives now - they feel as Back To The Future as Red Ken and the GLC. He's a brave soul who suffered terribly as a result of the Brighton bombing and his devotion to his wife is awesome. But that aside, I wouldn't vote for his views nowadays.
Speaking of that - I got an email from CCHQ a few weeks ago penned by Cecil Parkinson of all people. WTF was that about? I didn't like his smarmy persona in the 80s nevermind in 2015.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
You are so wrong about UKIP, Plato, and you always have been. On the contrary, UKIP looks to the future while keeping the best things from the past and rejecting all the bilge accumulated by the Lab/Lib/Con party, as a real conservative party should.
A warning to JackW not to expose his ARSE to all and sundry. If he does, he can expect certain people to start sniffing and poking around the ARSE. Most painful if all it produces is a haggis of diarrhea.
hhmmm ....
My ARSE, diarrhoea and a UKIP PBer .....
There's a link there somewhere but PB must ensure a certain standard of taste ....
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
If Labour do any kind of deal with the SNP, Scottish Labour will be dead forever: there will be no further reason to vote Labour in Scotland. The Scottish Tories would probably overtake SLAB, in time.
The logic is inescapable.
Not only that. The 2020 GE would become an extinction level event for Labour in England too. If the numbers allow it Miliband will be tempted to claim the right to govern even if he has 'lost' the election. Constitutionally this is quite admissible. But have he or his party thought through the longer-term consequences of this?
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I'm hearing weird Ed is going to call for nationalisation of Tesco
Nationalism in a nutshell - lumber the taxpayer with failing businesses and stuff them full of party men. Grotesque perversion of socialism, and cheating at capitalism.
Well isam hasn't got back to me but I think the 4.2 available on Betfair Exchange on the Tories in Thanet South (just over 3/1 net of commission) looks fair.
£700 looking to lay at a stand-out price is interesting, though.
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I understand your point entirely. I don't think it will be enough in DCT, but as I said, I could be wrong and the SNP May well take it as Ashcroft suggests. It will be close. All the border seats will be close between SNP and Con, with Lab featuring in D and G.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
For as long as Scotland pays a £10bn annual subsidy to England, the maths will always favour Independence, just as they do today, just as they did before the Referendum and just as the will tomorrow.
All it needs to achieve Yes in 2018 is to make sure there is enough fear of the UK future to overcome the fear of Independence for the last 200,000 votes needed to pass the vote. A rabid English population filled with bile and invective is stoking up the fear of the UK future quite nicely.
Things are getting better and better for Independence.
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
I think there is a slight unionist 'silent' majority there too. No good at all in FPTP mind but in a forced choice Yes/No question, No would be favourite again.
Personally I'd vote No and SNP every time I reckon.
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I understand your point entirely. I don't think it will be enough in DCT, but as I said, I could be wrong and the SNP May well take it as Ashcroft suggests. It will be close. All the border seats will be close between SNP and Con, with Lab featuring in D and G.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
that's a fair point and if they had more time then it might help them pull things back. But they don't have two or three electoral cycles, with the next Referendum pretty much certain before 2020, the Union will be over before they get their electoral position sorted.
And they'd still have problems capitalising in 2025 or 2030 as the Tory toxicity really is taking a ridiculously long time to dissipate.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
If Labour do any kind of deal with the SNP, Scottish Labour will be dead forever: there will be no further reason to vote Labour in Scotland. The Scottish Tories would probably overtake SLAB, in time.
The logic is inescapable.
Not only that. The 2020 GE would become an extinction level event for Labour in England too. If the numbers allow it Miliband will be tempted to claim the right to govern even if he has 'lost' the election. Constitutionally this is quite admissible. But have he or his party thought through the longer-term consequences of this?
That would be welcome but whats your rationale for it?
O/T but 188 Conservative councillors have been returned unopposed. .
Home counties = North Korea!
This is the big round of local elections. Some parties have real difficulty getting people to stand in far-flung wards.
In Eden District Council, 17 seats out of 38 have been returned unopposed, and 2 more councillors are guaranteed election, due to a shortage of opponents. In fact, the Conservatives have already won 14 seats, without a vote cast.
OTOH, in highly marginal Gravesham, 3 Labour councillors have been returned unopposed, and 2 more are guaranteed election. That does sound like the Conservatives have screwed up their nominations.
STV has reduced uncontested seats significantly in local government and reduced the threat of one-party states.Scotland has long been a testing ground,the poll tax.The change to STV has been a positive one.The rest of the UK could learn a lot from this.
Not, I have to say, the witty line you'd expect from a man under great pressure and about to lose an election. Unless he really is glad it is all about to be over (though the closing remarks at the start of the clip suggested a man reasonably fired up)
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
I think there is a slight unionist 'silent' majority there too. No good at all in FPTP mind but in a forced choice Yes/No question, No would be favourite again.
Personally I'd vote No and SNP every time I reckon.
There seems to be a myth developing that the Referendum polling was wrong and there is a silent Tory/Unionist bloc ready to keep Scotland from Independence.
It's not true. All the Eve of Polls said that the vote was going to be 53% or 54% No. In the end it was 55% which, personally, I believe is explained entirely by people intending to vote Yes and "bottling it" (the Quebec Effect). Others call sampling error and some methodological problems.
But that's not hugely important. What matters is that in a plebiscite of nearly 4m people, the polling was only out by at most 50,000 votes. That's pretty good in terms of accuracy.
It also means that the "shy Tory/Unionist" vote does not exist.
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I understand your point entirely. I don't think it will be enough in DCT, but as I said, I could be wrong and the SNP May well take it as Ashcroft suggests. It will be close. All the border seats will be close between SNP and Con, with Lab featuring in D and G.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
that's a fair point and if they had more time then it might help them pull things back. But they don't have two or three electoral cycles, with the next Referendum pretty much certain before 2020, the Union will be over before they get their electoral position sorted.
And they'd still have problems capitalising in 2025 or 2030 as the Tory toxicity really is taking a ridiculously long time to dissipate.
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
Lord Tebbit makes my blood run cold. He was a great Voice Of Reason in the 80s with his blunt talk against the Loony Left. For a decade, he's been a relic of the past.
I know Kippers love him as they love so many things of times-gone-by. I voted for Mrs T in 1987 because Sue Lawley was appalling rude to Mr Tebbit - and even canvassed for them in Croydon.
I can't bear to read his missives now - they feel as Back To The Future as Red Ken and the GLC. He's a brave soul who suffered terribly as a result of the Brighton bombing and his devotion to his wife is awesome. But that aside, I wouldn't vote for his views nowadays.
Speaking of that - I got an email from CCHQ a few weeks ago penned by Cecil Parkinson of all people. WTF was that about? I didn't like his smarmy persona in the 80s nevermind in 2015.
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
You are so wrong about UKIP, Plato, and you always have been. On the contrary, UKIP looks to the future while keeping the best things from the past and rejecting all the bilge accumulated by the Lab/Lib/Con party, as a real conservative party should.
I believe I am a good bit younger than you Mike, and so I did not live through some of the bits of the past that you have. I therefore do not have firs-hand experience of them. But looking back, from my perspective, I see little that could be described as 'best', and virtually nothing that would fit in the modern world and society.
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
- MHT, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I understand your point entirely. I don't think it will be enough in DCT, but as I said, I could be wrong and the SNP May well take it as Ashcroft suggests. It will be close. All the border seats will be close between SNP and Con, with Lab featuring in D and G.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
that's a fair point and if they had more time then it might help them pull things back. But they don't have two or three electoral cycles, with the next Referendum pretty much certain before 2020, the Union will be over before they get their electoral position sorted.
And they'd still have problems capitalising in 2025 or 2030 as the Tory toxicity really is taking a ridiculously long time to dissipate.
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
The SNP would become a reformed centre-right party. An independent Scotland could no way exist as a socialist welfare paradise. It would need to be pro-business, low tax, minimal regulation. The SNP is what it needs to be at any time.
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
I really do not think that enough people within the SNP will care. They don't have that many paid employees, they don't have the number of careerists, they aren't a party devoted to power for power's sake.
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I understand your point entirely. I don't think it will be enough in DCT, but as I said, I could be wrong and the SNP May well take it as Ashcroft suggests. It will be close. All the border seats will be close between SNP and Con, with Lab featuring in D and G.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
that's a fair point and if they had more time then it might help them pull things back. But they don't have two or three electoral cycles, with the next Referendum pretty much certain before 2020, the Union will be over before they get their electoral position sorted.
And they'd still have problems capitalising in 2025 or 2030 as the Tory toxicity really is taking a ridiculously long time to dissipate.
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
Nah, they'll all move to Quebec to keep up the fight!
what a remarkable quote from Cameron as reported by the kipper journalist
Patrick O'Flynn@oflynnmep·1 hr1 hour ago Cam message to electorate:"if you vote for who you believe in then you might end up with someone you despise even more than me." Dismal.
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
For as long as Scotland pays a £10bn annual subsidy to England, the maths will always favour Independence, just as they do today, just as they did before the Referendum and just as the will tomorrow.
All it needs to achieve Yes in 2018 is to make sure there is enough fear of the UK future to overcome the fear of Independence for the last 200,000 votes needed to pass the vote. A rabid English population filled with bile and invective is stoking up the fear of the UK future quite nicely.
Things are getting better and better for Independence.
Oh dear. You're going to need professional help, and probably some medication, when you realise It Ain't So.
I think you underestimate the capacity for self delusion in this particular case.
Oh dear. You're going to need professional help, and probably some medication, when you realise It Ain't So.
I don't know, with the SNP working on it to the north of the border, and the Tories working on it to the south, I can easily see the next referendum passing
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
I really do not think that enough people within the SNP will care. They don't have that many paid employees, they don't have the number of careerists, they aren't a party devoted to power for power's sake.
Although, and this ties in with the blues keeping in contention in 10-15 etc, on independence, the SNP have to find a new core message, which by definition will shed some of it's current support which is an impressively broad church of the political spectrum. If that message is, as I suspect, a left wing one (to ensure no return of SLab), the Tartan Tories and centrists may be looking to a centre-right group shorn of English Toryism....
what a remarkable quote from Cameron as reported by the kipper journalist
Patrick O'Flynn@oflynnmep·1 hr1 hour ago Cam message to electorate:"if you vote for who you believe in then you might end up with someone you despise even more than me." Dismal.
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
For as long as Scotland pays a £10bn annual subsidy to England, the maths will always favour Independence, just as they do today, just as they did before the Referendum and just as the will tomorrow.
All it needs to achieve Yes in 2018 is to make sure there is enough fear of the UK future to overcome the fear of Independence for the last 200,000 votes needed to pass the vote. A rabid English population filled with bile and invective is stoking up the fear of the UK future quite nicely.
Things are getting better and better for Independence.
Oh dear. You're going to need professional help, and probably some medication, when you realise It Ain't So.
I think you underestimate the capacity for self delusion in this particular case.
Have you fully costed up that Green manifesto yet ?
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
I really do not think that enough people within the SNP will care. They don't have that many paid employees, they don't have the number of careerists, they aren't a party devoted to power for power's sake.
Although, and this ties in with the blues keeping in contention in 10-15 etc, on independence, the SNP have to find a new core message, which by definition will shed some of it's current support which is an impressively broad church of the political spectrum. If that message is, as I suspect, a left wing one (to ensure no return of SLab), the Tartan Tories and centrists may be looking to a centre-right group shorn of English Toryism....
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the huge number of people in the SNP that would be perfectly happy with the party itself dissolving after Independence is established.
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
- MHT, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
I know of one well regarded school in South Bucks that is so fed up with boys struggling to adapt because they were not bright enough to pass the 11+ without their parents spending a fortune on coaching that they are bringing in their own entrance exam.
As I said my youngest granddaughter has just passed, in her class three boys passed with the aid of huge coaching. These boys are going to the aforementioned school, have never been in the top group in any subject in all their time at primary school, and will struggle big time when they move up.
My next grandson takes his 11+ in a couple of years and I cannot see him passing, what is the point of coaching your kids to pass an exam that sends them to a school they will struggle at and be unhappy?
Much as I love grammar schools the coaching aspect is an issue, and one that seems to be being addressed by individual schools setting their own entrance exams.
Labour have very little to squeeze in BRS, but it might just be enough to see the SNP over the line I suppose. labour will not be voting SNP in DCT as they are second and will be looking to take the seat. Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
You're not getting my point.
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
I understand your point entirely. I don't think it will be enough in DCT, but as I said, I could be wrong and the SNP May well take it as Ashcroft suggests. It will be close. All the border seats will be close between SNP and Con, with Lab featuring in D and G.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
ir electoral position sorted.
And they'd still have problems capitalising in 2025 or 2030 as the Tory toxicity really is taking a ridiculously long time to dissipate.
If a referendum passes though - the SNP could well lose the likes of MalcolmG to a reformed, new centre-right party.
The SNP would become a reformed centre-right party. An independent Scotland could no way exist as a socialist welfare paradise. It would need to be pro-business, low tax, minimal regulation. The SNP is what it needs to be at any time.
I doubt it - would take an extended period - perhaps a generation of failed socialism to turn the voters around, even then accelerated brain draining would make it irrelevant. It would be like Ireland without the medical technology sector.
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
For as long as Scotland pays a £10bn annual subsidy to England, the maths will always favour Independence, just as they do today, just as they did before the Referendum and just as the will tomorrow.
All it needs to achieve Yes in 2018 is to make sure there is enough fear of the UK future to overcome the fear of Independence for the last 200,000 votes needed to pass the vote. A rabid English population filled with bile and invective is stoking up the fear of the UK future quite nicely.
Things are getting better and better for Independence.
Oh dear. You're going to need professional help, and probably some medication, when you realise It Ain't So.
I think you underestimate the capacity for self delusion in this particular case.
Have you fully costed up that Green manifesto yet ?
I dont understand ... I downloaded it for free. I cant believe they're going to charge for it...
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
- MHT, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
I know of one well regarded school in South Bucks that is so fed up with boys struggling to adapt because they were not bright enough to pass the 11+ without their parents spending a fortune on coaching that they are bringing in their own entrance exam.
As I said my youngest granddaughter has just passed, in her class three boys passed with the aid of huge coaching. These boys are going to the aforementioned school, have never been in the top group in any subject in all their time at primary school, and will struggle big time when they move up.
My next grandson takes his 11+ in a couple of years and I cannot see him passing, what is the point of coaching your kids to pass an exam that sends them to a school they will struggle at and be unhappy?
Much as I love grammar schools the coaching aspect is an issue, and one that seems to be being addressed by individual schools setting their own entrance exams.
A grammar school in every town will also help.
Ilford still has a Grammar School each for boys and girls.
And some sobering reading for our excitable Nat friends.
The oil price is going nowhere, except, maybe, down. The North Sea will suffer worse than most oil producing regions, as it is such an expensive and declining reservoir.
The result is that Scotland, which already faces a hideous "fiscal cliff", will be insolvent (or face enormous tax rises and deficits) if it votes for independence in the foreseeable future (~10 years).
Sturgeon knows this. She knows she would lose another referendum because the maths of indy have worsened, not improved. This is why she is so oddly reticent about full fiscal autonomy, after demanding it a few months ago.
I predict the SNP will become a civil nationalist party, like regional parties in Europe: ruling the roost at home, but never quite achieving (or even wanting?) full independence.
You mean a regional party just like the Tories in England !!
Lord Tebbit calling on Tories to vote Labour north of the border is such an unusual intervention from a Tory with Tebbit's pedigree.However,even a stopped clock is right twice a day,Labour is the only party which will protect the union.The Tories have become English separatists.Labour is the party of unionists,the 55%.
If Labour do any kind of deal with the SNP, Scottish Labour will be dead forever: there will be no further reason to vote Labour in Scotland. The Scottish Tories would probably overtake SLAB, in time.
The logic is inescapable.
I think SLAB and SLID are about to become zombie parties much like the Scottish Tories with core support levels below what's required to compete in a FPTP system. Therefore, SLAB having already lost Scotland may as well do a deal with the SNP.
Based on current polling the "mainstream parties" are also going to get squeezed in Holyrood 2016, as the SNP hoover up virtually all of the constituency seats leaving SLAB, SLID and the Tories fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. The SNP if they can get their regional list support to over 50% could also squeeze the mainstream parties as well.
My next grandson takes his 11+ in a couple of years and I cannot see him passing, what is the point of coaching your kids to pass an exam that sends them to a school they will struggle at and be unhappy?
Do remember that kids mature at different times. When I was seven, I was in the remedial class of a very state ordinary junior school in west London.
And I went on to go to Cambridge. I was just (a) young in my year, and (b) a late developer.
Comments
My friend lives c 30 miles from Reading. The Grammar there gets 750 applicants for 150 places. c200 pass the exam; the 150 places are than allotted based on proximity to the school. As he lives so far away even if his son passed he would be in the bottom 50 due to distance.
Expand the number of grammars to the 33% level there was pre 1970s and you solve this problem.
IMHO Con need to stay 290+ to remain with the option of government with 30-40 LibDem/DUP MP's.
Surprisingly, two UKIP councillors have also been returned unopposed.
Interesting how prescient his predictions were, not that he was the only one predicting such events. Anyway the powers that be can't say they weren't warned.
Then poorer children in Kent can enjoy the same increased learning chances as their cohort in all the other non selective LEAs.
Edit: they said it last time - haven't noticed if they have repeated it for this time round.
Vote through Lab Queen's speech, abstain ?
Vote against ?
Thinking about Scottish Toryism for a moment, their strategy has to be a 18-19% strategy with their entire focus on the three border seats, the five Aberdeenshire, Eastern highland and Perth seats, Stirling, Renfrewshire, Edinburgh SW and Argyll and the Ayr area with the aim of doubling their pandas and having secondary pandas in the rest for future elections/the scotparl.
I think they'll hang on in DCT, they should take BRS and on the best of possible nights they would squeak D and G, they will/should be second in all 5 of the highland seats, but how far behind? The rest mentioned need real legwork.
Edit - the 5 are Perth and North Perthshire, Angus, Moray, Banff and Buchan and Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11554583/Nigel-Farages-battle-to-win-South-Thanet-will-go-down-in-election-history.html
Today, with the public sector wage issue, they are burnishing their left-wing credentials in preparation for a shopping list (cf moments after 2010 results) to present to the Cons on May 8th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg
Edit - with SLab and Slib collapsing, they may find themselves second in some unlikely places too - Gordon, Fife etc but 'some way back'
Then we were told that Ukip would never win a single seat in the House of Commons.
Until May 2015, they have not. By-elections don't really count, since they were a protest party swiping the sitting MP.
After the GE you may gloat as to how many UKIP MPs there are.
I'm not sure why there's an argument about Grammar schools. I went to one years ago while virtually all my friends went to the secondary modern. The main difference I could see was expectation and discipline. The teachers were extremely variable in both and facilities were similar.
The plus of the eleven-plus was that if you passed, expectations increased and the classes were seldom disrupted.
That should be achieved in Comprehensives but my kids went to ones where that wasn't the case. The concept of trying to hide cleverness for fear of bullying was present.
The advantage of fee-paying schools are that they have the advantage of expectation and discipline and perhaps the contacts made.
Diane Abbott knows the score.
The solution? Above a certain level, move children into areas they are good at. I was a natural scientist but spent four years in the compulsory Art lessons washing the saucers.
On the numbers I've just given though, PC, SNP, SDLP, Labour, Green vote down a Conservative Queen's speech. Dave resigns - he simply can't form a Gov't that will pass a budget.
As @Neil of this parish has pointed out the Labour party is the closest ideologically to the Conservatives.
Tories will be extinct again on May 8th, there's too many Labour votes waiting to back the SNP in BRS and DCT.
Tactically voting is generally overplayed (usually by losers clinging on to hope). But there is one tactical vote you can always rely on - "keeping out the Tories" in any Scottish seat.
In Eden District Council, 17 seats out of 38 have been returned unopposed, and 2 more councillors are guaranteed election, due to a shortage of opponents. In fact, the Conservatives have already won 14 seats, without a vote cast.
OTOH, in highly marginal Gravesham, 3 Labour councillors have been returned unopposed, and 2 more are guaranteed election. That does sound like the Conservatives have screwed up their nominations.
...
That should be achieved in Comprehensives but my kids went to ones where that wasn't the case. The concept of trying to hide cleverness for fear of bullying was present. "
That boils down to the teachers and it seems that low expectations seem to be the standard outside of a few places, so people don't fail.
It's the same at universities. Biggest difference between the places I've worked has come from expectations of what you're doing, the expectations of the personal standards you keep and the discipline to do it.
Where I am now is difficult because the students are allowed to have exceptionally low expectations of what is acceptable work.
I have to say that none of these scenarios are likely to be attractive or beneficial to the economy and the country in general. But then, you've all followed my advice over the last couple of years and protected yourselves as best you can, haven't you?
But there will be a message "vote for us to keep out the Tories" between Labour activists and SNP activists. And who is most likely to have the number of activists to get that message across best?
My point was that Nick can't work with anyone but the largest party. We would be looking at election v2.
In Clacton and Rochester the UKIP candidate _was_ the sitting MP.
It lasted about 2 weeks before our Head of Biology - a fearsome old girl called Ms Hodgeson told her before the whole class that she'd amount to nothing with that attitude and no one would think she was clever when she was 20 with poor qualifications.
That shut her right up. A bit more of that would do wonders for quite a few who simply aren't used to getting attention for the right reasons.
They aren't "working with" the Gov't in that case.
@David_Cameron: Labour won't rule out a deal with the SNP. A vote for one is a vote for the other. Join @ScotTories & vote Conservative to keep the SNP out.
Also in 2010 Clegg studiously avoided (despite being directly asked) whether he was talking about the party with the most votes or the party with the most seats.
PM: “Who’s that? Alex Salmond?”
via Guido and Paul Waugh.
I know Kippers love him as they love so many things of times-gone-by. I voted for Mrs T in 1987 because Sue Lawley was appalling rude to Mr Tebbit - and even canvassed for them in Croydon.
I can't bear to read his missives now - they feel as Back To The Future as Red Ken and the GLC. He's a brave soul who suffered terribly as a result of the Brighton bombing and his devotion to his wife is awesome. But that aside, I wouldn't vote for his views nowadays.
Speaking of that - I got an email from CCHQ a few weeks ago penned by Cecil Parkinson of all people. WTF was that about? I didn't like his smarmy persona in the 80s nevermind in 2015.
That has to be one of the best quotes of the election.
We need the audio
Similarly in D and G, it comes down to how many Lab defect to SNP and how the Tory vote holds up.
Yep, they might be extinct, they might have 3 or points between. They will be the main challengers in at least 10, and perhaps 15 seats in 2020 if the Kingdom is Virgo intacto
My ARSE, diarrhoea and a UKIP PBer .....
There's a link there somewhere but PB must ensure a certain standard of taste ....
Enoch Powell quotes aplenty.
The great man would not be pleased
The REALITY is irrelevant. The perception is all that matters and most voters start with no particular perception. It is up to activists to publicise and promote the perception to the voters.
So in DCT, the leaflets/street-stalls are full of SNP activists telling people "we're only a couple of points ahead of the Tories, help us keep the Tories out". Labour don't have activists to promote and publicise their side of the story. Result - Labour voters go SNP in decent numbers.
Obviously it;s a clearer message and aimed at Liberals but even then, the SNP have the numbers to get their message across and push Liberals who want to "keep the Tories out" into voting SNP.
£700 looking to lay at a stand-out price is interesting, though.
Edit - essentially Dair, the point I am making us the blues will be first or second (mostly or wholly second!) in 10-15 Scottish seats and therefore challengers in 10-15 seats next time around, or defenders.
All it needs to achieve Yes in 2018 is to make sure there is enough fear of the UK future to overcome the fear of Independence for the last 200,000 votes needed to pass the vote. A rabid English population filled with bile and invective is stoking up the fear of the UK future quite nicely.
Things are getting better and better for Independence.
Personally I'd vote No and SNP every time I reckon.
No, but some people are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnWLZxXwKM
And they'd still have problems capitalising in 2025 or 2030 as the Tory toxicity really is taking a ridiculously long time to dissipate.
Not, I have to say, the witty line you'd expect from a man under great pressure and about to lose an election. Unless he really is glad it is all about to be over (though the closing remarks at the start of the clip suggested a man reasonably fired up)
Encouraging.
It's not true. All the Eve of Polls said that the vote was going to be 53% or 54% No. In the end it was 55% which, personally, I believe is explained entirely by people intending to vote Yes and "bottling it" (the Quebec Effect). Others call sampling error and some methodological problems.
But that's not hugely important. What matters is that in a plebiscite of nearly 4m people, the polling was only out by at most 50,000 votes. That's pretty good in terms of accuracy.
It also means that the "shy Tory/Unionist" vote does not exist.
Can you mention some?
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
- MHT, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
Patrick O'Flynn@oflynnmep·1 hr1 hour ago
Cam message to electorate:"if you vote for who you believe in then you might end up with someone you despise even more than me." Dismal.
so not a quote then.
For once a Rod Liddle article I can wholeheartedly agree with.
As I said my youngest granddaughter has just passed, in her class three boys passed with the aid of huge coaching. These boys are going to the aforementioned school, have never been in the top group in any subject in all their time at primary school, and will struggle big time when they move up.
My next grandson takes his 11+ in a couple of years and I cannot see him passing, what is the point of coaching your kids to pass an exam that sends them to a school they will struggle at and be unhappy?
Much as I love grammar schools the coaching aspect is an issue, and one that seems to be being addressed by individual schools setting their own entrance exams.
A grammar school in every town will also help.
Based on current polling the "mainstream parties" are also going to get squeezed in Holyrood 2016, as the SNP hoover up virtually all of the constituency seats leaving SLAB, SLID and the Tories fighting for regional list seats with the Greens and UKIP. The SNP if they can get their regional list support to over 50% could also squeeze the mainstream parties as well.
And I went on to go to Cambridge. I was just (a) young in my year, and (b) a late developer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-32415303
Stephen Gilbert caught speeding in August, slow pace of justice in Cornwall.