Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Miliband’s departure leaves Blairites leaderless

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Miliband’s departure leaves Blairites leaderless

It’s been said that New Labour was more of sect than a movement. Now shorn of a leader the moderate faction has no-one else to turn to. David Miliband’s defeat in the 2010 leadership election showed that New Labor could not easily endure beyond Blair.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Dan Hodges?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Leaderless organisations tend to be more unpredictable than organisations with leaders, especially those that have a low morale. We might see some emphatically loyal statements from noted Blairites or uncontrollably disloyal actions, or both.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    "David Miliband’s departure leaves Blairites leaderless"

    I'm sure wee Dougie and Murphy will get by, somehow. ;)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536
    The centrists in Labour are leaderless and being directed to the exit. Time to join the LDs.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    I think this is the significance of the departure but underneath that he probably wouldn't have given up if there was a reasonable chance of a non-stealth Blairite resurgence so it's not that significant really.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    They'll fall into line. Ed M's now secure unless he decides to blow his own kneecaps off, so even if they had a leader they'd not have the courage to take any action and change the current direction of the party, so they can save any arguments for when Ed Ms's handing out Cabinet posts - I'm sure that will help define who falls where within the party.

    And remember - two party's in government arguing amongst themselves is an embarrasing shambles, but a single party doing so is not worthy of comment.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Peter Oborne's verdict on -

    David Miliband a colossus? He’s a greedy failure in a cosmic sulk

    The political breed the Labour MP represents has done extraordinary harm to the nation’s governance

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9957008/David-Miliband-a-colossus-Hes-a-greedy-failure-in-a-cosmic-sulk.html
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,624
    tim said:

    I'll do it.

    Sounds like what they need, somebody prepared to take a strong stand on infrastructure spending and cats.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the Blairites.

    They need to start over rather than hankering back to "the old days"
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    tim said:

    I'll do it.

    Sounds like what they need, somebody prepared to take a strong stand on infrastructure spending and cats.
    In the Middle Ages, they used to put cats in the foundations of buildings. That sounds like the basis for some joined-up policymaking.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    FPT
    "UKIP's target must be to beat the 27.8% they polled in Eastleigh."

    I think Rotherham may be a better template
    Labour 46%
    Ukip 21%
    BNP 8%

    modified by the momentum since then but how much?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536
    IOS said:

    I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the Blairites.

    They need to start over rather than hankering back to "the old days"

    Shouldn't they just disband, they were a failure.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It will be interesting to see how a Labour govt holds together in a period of austerity. After all, which of the "Tory cuts" will be reversed? What will they cut instead?

    It will be like rats in a sack. I hope they have time to give me a big pay rise before the inevitable collapse.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Excellent piece by Henry G.
  • I hope they have time to give me a big pay rise before the inevitable collapse.

    Amen to that!

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    Henry G "Ed Miliband will be deposed this year" Manson blesses us with his startling wisdom on the Milibandian Labour party.

    Brilliant.

    Next, can we have a joint threader from Mike Smithson and *tim* on "the total and overwhelming irrelevance of UKIP oh sorry I was completely wrong". Alternatively, Robert Smithson could advise us on the superb wisdom of European monetary union with Pluto.

    And while they are all busy with their tasks, SeanT could advise us how long he stood in the queue on Monday during the "bank run ? Was there anyone else with him ?

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Channel4News Most government departments have been told to prepare for cuts to their budgets of around 10 per cent, government sources say #C4news
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    edited March 2013


    They won 3 general elections. There isn't a tory in the country that can win one.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Meanwhile, a bit of a whoops-a-daisy moment beckons on the bedroom tax...

    Is this the very same Frank Field lauded by Plato and the PB Tories...?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brick-up-your-doors-knock-down-the-walls-labour-mp-frank-field-makes-dramatic-call-before-bedroom-tax-hits-8552262.html


  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    IOS said:



    They won 3 general elections. There isn't a tory in the country that can win one.

    Blair won three elections, Brown and the Brownies won none.

    Blair and Mandelson were repulsive in many ways, but knew how to win. I think that Ed Milliband has the required political ruthlessness.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    FPT
    "I realise I'm in a minority of one on here, but it's worth reiterating that - unlike Spain or Ireland - Cyprus's problems really have nothing to do with the Euro."

    None of the SPIIGs (PIIGS seems rude to me) or their banks could have got into anywhere near as much trouble if it wasn't assumed they'd be back-stopped by el krauts.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @FOXINSOXUK

    'It will be interesting to see how a Labour govt holds together in a period of austerity. After all, which of the "Tory cuts" will be reversed? What will they cut instead?'

    Or just tell us how much tax & national insurance will be increased to pay for benefits being re-instated, which millions of voters are now looking forward to.
  • It's been sickening, listening to the praise heaped on David Milliband today. You'd think he was giving up on South Shields, mid term, to become the Dalai Lama, or something.
    He's just feathering his nest, after sucking at the teat of Westminster. Does anyone outside of his coterie believe that he's doing it for altruistic reasons, rather than the huge salary, limo, and glory of a top job in a charity in New York, with all the doors that'll open?
    He and his ilk, from all sides of the political spectrum, make me puke. He's no better, or worse than Mensch, and she's pathetic.

    I saw on Sky News that the leader of South Shields Labour committee knew nothing about his MP throwing the towel in, until it happened. They are better off without him.

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    McCluskey, Serwotka and the other Union gangbangers must be overwhelmed with delight at how things are opening up for them.

    Less than ten years ago they were facing extinction and now they'll have a direct line to PM Ed Miliband (provided that Hugh Grant and co are'nt in the way), influencing policy more than they've been able to for nearly 40 years.

    It's scary for Britain, but given Labour's discipline in power and willingness to eschew principles in exchange for power, they'll go along with some sure-fire bonkers policies.

    I don't think I'm even being paranoid. McCluskey, Serwotka and others like Crow are probably as left-wing as you can get. God help us.

    With the rise of UKIP on the other flank perhaps the seeds are being sown for polarised politics again.

    After all, the Blair, Cameron, Miliband career politician types are hardly much for the citizens to get excited about, especially when things out there are going shittily wrong.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    tim said:

    Zims.

    You realise benefit spending is up.
    Ther have been no cuts, the incompetent fools increased benefit spending while trying to cut it.

    Well, what are people always complaining about then? Ingrates.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    It's been sickening, listening to the praise heaped on David Milliband today. You'd think he was giving up on South Shields, mid term, to become the Dalai Lama, or something.
    He's just feathering his nest, after sucking at the teat of Westminster. Does anyone outside of his coterie believe that he's doing it for altruistic reasons, rather than the huge salary, limo, and glory of a top job in a charity in New York, with all the doors that'll open?
    He and his ilk, from all sides of the political spectrum, make me puke. He's no better, or worse than Mensch, and she's pathetic.

    I saw on Sky News that the leader of South Shields Labour committee knew nothing about his MP throwing the towel in, until it happened. They are better off without him.

    It's perfect ammo for a Ukip campaign.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I like the picture accompanying the Oborne article:

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02521/miliband_2521088b.jpg
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Bobajob

    'Protests against the plan will be mounted tomorrow in more than 50 towns and cities from Plymouth to Glasgow. Organisers predict at least 13,000 objectors will support the rallies demanding a last-minute rethink by ministers'

    That's a massive turnout, 260 people per demo..
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2013
    In 1997 Blair won a landslide victory over a tired and divided Tory party. Photogenic, articulate, middle class and public school educated, Blair was seen as safe and centrist. Blair's New Labour appeared far more "One Nation" than either Macmillan's governments or Ed Miliband.'s aspirant party.

    Blair's "People's Princess" reaction to Princess Diana's death made him almost royal in the width of the his public appeal. And the 1997-2001 government was a government of economic growth and sound public finances. All the public's fears of union domination, Labour profligacy and Bennite excesses were dissipated in the personal charisma of its new Prime Minister.

    Although Blair's popularity waned it was a slow tide. Even the massive failure of the Iraq War could not prevent Labour's re-election in 2005. But, as with Thatcher, it was not the pubic that wielded the knife but his own party: boredom with Blair, frustation with centrism and complacency saw the acendancy of the Brownites and the abandonment of universal appeal and sound economic management.

    In the five years before Blair's dethronement, Brown had been pumping up the economy by expanding debt even though the economy was booming. The age of universal benefits and full state dependency was being slowly and furtively ushered in. Slowly and imperceptibly the true "one nation" Blairite government had given way to a resdistributive Brownite faction.

    And then the financial crisis of 2007 hit, bringing the biggest bust in history to the PM and Chancellor who had claimed to have abolished the "boom and bust economy". And the UK with its poor regulation of the financial sector and debt primed growth was in the worst position of all major economies to withstand the shock. Debt as a proportion of GDP had grown by over 500% in the last two terms of Labour.

    And what was worse for Labour is that Brown was the absolute opposite of Blair in terms of public appeal. Whatever trust Blair had built with the public in three won elections disappeared in a mere two and half years.

    The Miliband election following Labour's 2010 defeat brought forward rather than closed the Blairite vs Brownite division in the party. In some ways though it disguised the differences. Labour had a choice between two brothers, one elder, one younger. And so the focus was on sibling rivalry, the rights of the first born and fratricide. The policy divisions were obscured. Few focussed on the choice between union hegemony and party independence; between fiscal continence and stimulant dependency; between social reengineering and inclusive appeal; between Labour as a divisive party of the left and a unifying party of the centre.

    And yet against expectations, MP preference and detached judgement, Ed the Younger triumphed over Dave the elder. Blairism died under the same knife that killed David. Labour turned left and returned to the comfort of its old labour roots. Once again the party made itself unelectable.

    The return to the true one nation centrism of Blair will come again. But it will be too late for David Miliband. His time has passed. It is time for him to earn the Blairite shilling on the international stage.

    At least David won't be out of a job in 2015.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Another terrific article, Henry. I hope you're right that Labour has moved on to a post-Blairite age, but I'm not entirely convinced.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    john_zims said:

    @FOXINSOXUK

    'It will be interesting to see how a Labour govt holds together in a period of austerity. After all, which of the "Tory cuts" will be reversed? What will they cut instead?'

    This is the funniest thing at all to me. I see loads of idiots (my soppy Facebook friends are a delight) who've been led up a hill by Labour to believe all Tories are evil, slashing friends of the rich and under Labour we'll all be well-off again. Can't wait to see their faces when they either a) reverse no Tory tax changes (the sensible route) or b) start doing what the Unions tell them to do before shatting themselves as the whole economy starts to crumble under the weight of a scared-world-market.

    I almost want a Labour majority just to witness the stark disappointment. Hollande relived!

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Carola said:
    How long till matt realises the inherent menace that the muslim immigrant cats represent? ;^)

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    'You realise benefit spending is up'

    Labour's benefit spending will make it look like petty cash.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,321
    The right of the party were always going to need to rejuvinate themselves. I didn't see David coming to power, so in a way I think this departure will allow for the new grouping (whether "Blairite" attaches or not) it needed after Ed beat David.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,610
    MrJones said:

    FPT
    "I realise I'm in a minority of one on here, but it's worth reiterating that - unlike Spain or Ireland - Cyprus's problems really have nothing to do with the Euro."

    None of the SPIIGs (PIIGS seems rude to me) or their banks could have got into anywhere near as much trouble if it wasn't assumed they'd be back-stopped by el krauts.

    It's certainly true that the Euro added fuel to a burning fire, but Cyprus's banks were out of control even before the country joined the Euro. In the four years to the end of 2007 (when they had only just joined the EU, and were - if I read the Laiki bank annual report correctly - were still on the Cyprus Pound) Laiki's balance sheet trebled.

    I want to put that in context. If, in a normal economy, bank lending grows at the same rate as nominal GDP it would increase, say, 25% in three years. Yet Cyprus managed to see lending treble in three years. According to the World Bank (see links on the previous thread), even before Cyprus joined the Euro, it has the second highest level of private indebtedness in the world (relative to GDP) after Iceland.

    So, I don't think it's fair to say that the Cyprus banks got into the position they did solely as a result of the Euro. Cyprus was Iceland on the Med.

    Now, as I'm rather bored of being classified as a Euro-fanatic by SeanT - on the basis that I don't think all problems within 3,000km of Primrose Hill are the result of the EU and the Euro - I will happily agree that:

    * Low interest rates (suitable for Germany) led to credit bubbles and speculative property investment in Spain and Ireland, which were responsible for a large chunk of the economic pain those countries are feeling now

    and

    * The existence of the Euro caused excessive wage convergence between Greece and the rest of the Eurozone, which have led to many of the problems there. (Although I think you also need to recognise that when a country is hiring Goldman Sachs to try and hide its debt levels, and you allow a rampant culture of tax evasion to flourish, then you cannot simply point and say 'it's all their fault, not mine.'
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    john_zims said:

    @Tim

    'You realise benefit spending is up'


    Labour's benefit spending will make it look like petty cash.


    Yeah, but Twistedfirestopper and I have dibs on massive pay rises first. Its what we pay our union subs for. I suggest a windfall tax on Merseyside off licenses to pay for it.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    FPT, Socrates: You're running away from this bet. I've made you two offers ; either a) specify the powers that you think will be transferred and I will give you odds, or b) a 10/1 bet that you are correct that an SNP First Minister will describe any transferred powers as a "big deal".

    The fact that you have now rejected both offers does not suggest to me that I am the one being "deliberately difficult".
  • samsam Posts: 727
    After much fiddling with my Heath Robbo... I have arrived at these numbers for South Shields vote %...

    LD Con Lab UKIP BNP
    4.3 6.0 53.2 26.5 2.9

    Using 65% Middlebrough 35% Rotherham data, giving UKIP 70% of 2010 BNP votes 19% of 2010 Con votes 8% of 2010 LD vote s& 7% of 2010 Lab votes

    Assuming an turnout of 35%
    19% LD2010 voting LD , 8% UKIP 73% not voting
    17% Con2010 voting Con, 19% UKIP, 64% not voting
    63% Lab2010 voting Lab 7% UKIP 30% not voting
    27% BNP2010 voting BNP 70% UKIP


    Problems...
    It doesnt account for people who didnt vote in 2010
    I am not sure that turnout is high enough
    I have over estimated the likely hood of 2010 BNP voters voting, although that may be taken care of by an over estimation of "others" at 7.1%

    Any more f ups obvious?




  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    tim said:

    Kle4

    Well it's a very good question how Osborne and Cameron have managed to get the blame for austerity while not actually doing any austerity.

    It's certainly quite funny; the opposition pillory them for both savage cuts and borrowing too much because they haven't been cutting, while many in the Tory ranks rail against the fact that they aren't really cutting.

    The government may have been increasingly demonstrated its lack of competence as time goes by, with some staggering ineptitude, but I don't think it's been quite bad enough or will be quite bad enough to merit what could be its end as among the most unpopular government ever in this country, hated from within and without in different measures.

    Honestly, Cromwell had an easier time trying to get a grip on the competing civilian and military interests, presbyterians and crypto-royalists than this government has had to handle.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536
    IOS said:



    They won 3 general elections. There isn't a tory in the country that can win one.

    Ah yes, for you winning elections is the raison d'etre, for the rest of us it's leaving the country in better shape than they found it. And New labour didn't.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Fenster

    'I almost want a Labour majority just to witness the stark disappointment. Hollande relived!'

    Me too.

    Not only millions of voters are now looking forward to having their benefits restored and enhanced,students are looking forward to having their Uni fees cut to £6,000 and public sector workers to significant pay increases.That's before you get to the NHS & education.



    .
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Funny to see both sides try to claim the other is climbing down on an issue, and both being equally guilty of cherry picking qualifications and definitions et al, from the outside that is.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,624
    edited March 2013
    rcs1000 said:

    OT Can you post a bitcoin address for donations to the site?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    @Sam
    "giving UKIP 70% of 2010 BNP votes"

    I think that's probably an over-estimate. I'd have said max 50%.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,520
    edited March 2013
    I have a policy committee formulated basis for action.That the stakeholders in the Blairite vision will at some point reach the conclusion that evidence based policy, and not a judge lead inquiry, should be used to reach a national consensus on their future.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Can anyone help to identify any members of the brat pack standing behind David Mellor on this clip at 4 minutes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMnaiOy3AI4&amp
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,610
    Anyone who wants to make a Bitcoin contribution can use the following address: 13ZKYQo7zfQgEPBvQr1Y12RaE8AJ8Q8iMA
  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    Unions have accused it of behaving like a party within a party

    Oh, the irony.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    @JamesKelly

    Apart from loons like the Blairite cuckoo Hodges and the more eccentric tories it's pretty obvious little Ed has appeased the Biarites more than enough to ensure a fairly trouble free time from now on. Anyone who thinks little Ed is red in tooth and claw clearly hasn't been paying attention to all the 'one nation' posturing and triangulation as well as his very amusing attempts to compare himself to Thatcher.

    Little Ed became the stop David candidate for the leadership which is what confused so many to then think there was ever that much difference in policy between David and little Ed. There never was, but so infuriated were the Blairites with little Ed for daring to stand against David (and then win) that any minute policy difference was then blown up into some proxy battle between the Blairites and the so called 'left' in labour.

    Balls isn't going to reverse the cuts and the union backers little Ed cunningly got on board (just by dint of not being an uber-Blairite standard bearer like David) are now very far from happy with little Ed.

    If there had been a huge policy gulf then when the Blairite whispers against little Ed were doing the rounds they might have been far more successful. Instead labour MPs could see that the Blairite Brownite wars had degenerated to the point where the only thing the Blairites were really railing against was the fact that their man hadn't won.

    The Blair Brown infighting was always primarily about power and not policy. Who was in power and who was not. That's why it was so toxic. There was no one overwhelming issue and policy that either faction could then fight it out on for supremacy. (Like Europe is for disgruntled tories) So in the absence of one clear policy to settle, every policy then became a proxy for infighting. Even when the differences were largely cosmetic.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited March 2013
    @Alanbrooke

    All political parties believe that the country will be left in a better position than they found it, once their policies are implemented, and so the longer they are in power the better it will be for everyone. The longer they are in government, the more the are willing to justify to themselves not doing so in certain areas as the price for general improvement in others, as they cannot admit the other lot may have done better (or they'd quit their current party, a rare occurence).

    It's just one of the many political, not partisan, behaviours I like to bang on about. If a party canvasser tried to tell me their side was morally better, or the other side only cared about winning and not governing well, as their side does, I'd be tempted to laugh in their face at the scale of the party blinkers they have attached.

    The justifications for why party x is always better, even when they appear to have messed up, can get very amusing though. I enjoyed Gordon Brown's lot stating that because the country was in trouble it was no time for amateurs, so best stick with him, as it essentially argued for never changing government at all - don't change at a time of negative uncertainty, and no need to change when things going well - and I imagine Cameron will try a similar move in 2015.

    "Look, I know I said we'd eliminate the deficit and have growth at X by now, but the fact that we've not managed either is proof that you shouldn't vote us out now, or all our progress will be undone!"
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    @MickPork

    That is a very good summary of things.
  • One less Labour politician must be good news for the UK.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,624
    rcs1000 said:

    Anyone who wants to make a Bitcoin contribution can use the following address: 13ZKYQo7zfQgEPBvQr1Y12RaE8AJ8Q8iMA

    Thanks.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Just read this BBC article about changes to GCSE testing disadvantaging girls, with the old point about going exams only hinders them compared to boys (which as far as I'm aware is true), but a couple of points in the piece just struck me as a bit weird.

    For instance, it makes the point that girls have been outperforming boys for more than 20 years, which if we accept there is no average intelligence difference between boys and girls, would surely suggest the current system is biased against boys wouldn't it?

    If boys and girls really do perform so significantly differently between coursework and exams, I'm not really certain how we arrive at a system which is still challenging for both without overly focusing on testing models which benefit one over the other.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21955004
  • Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 360
    @tim The frivolous stuff is hilarious and highly valued as ever Tim.
    But as Britain's second last Blairite, your view would be of interest.
    Are Blairites Leaderless ? Are you gutted ? Or do you disagree with Henry ?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    kle4 said:

    Just read this BBC article about changes to GCSE testing disadvantaging girls, with the old point about going exams only hinders them compared to boys (which as far as I'm aware is true), but a couple of points in the piece just struck me as a bit weird.

    For instance, it makes the point that girls have been outperforming boys for more than 20 years, which if we accept there is no average intelligence difference between boys and girls, would surely suggest the current system is biased against boys wouldn't it?

    If boys and girls really do perform so significantly differently between coursework and exams, I'm not really certain how we arrive at a system which is still challenging for both without overly focusing on testing models which benefit one over the other.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21955004

    single-sex schools
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    FPT, Socrates: You're running away from this bet. I've made you two offers ; either a) specify the powers that you think will be transferred and I will give you odds, or b) a 10/1 bet that you are correct that an SNP First Minister will describe any transferred powers as a "big deal".

    The fact that you have now rejected both offers does not suggest to me that I am the one being "deliberately difficult".

    I'm trying to have a bet on a major issue, and you're trying to bury into specifics.

    On bet (a), I have offered "further tax raising power" as what will be transferred.

    Bet (b) I'm happy to have as long as we use a proper list of terms to cover what could be said to cover such a message. You have simply ignored that request.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Paul Mason in Cyprus on Newsnight.

    He has Euros in his pocket but if he tries to go through customs they'll take most of them off him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    MrJones said:

    kle4 said:

    Just read this BBC article about changes to GCSE testing disadvantaging girls, with the old point about going exams only hinders them compared to boys (which as far as I'm aware is true), but a couple of points in the piece just struck me as a bit weird.

    For instance, it makes the point that girls have been outperforming boys for more than 20 years, which if we accept there is no average intelligence difference between boys and girls, would surely suggest the current system is biased against boys wouldn't it?

    If boys and girls really do perform so significantly differently between coursework and exams, I'm not really certain how we arrive at a system which is still challenging for both without overly focusing on testing models which benefit one over the other.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21955004

    single-sex schools
    But then boys would not learn how to do coursework and girls not how to perform in an exam, when certain of each may well buck the trend on which they are best at, as well as not learning the skill of either - which given the reaction action teaching facts in favour of vague 'skills' (rather than, ISK, both) would be a no-no for some I think.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    @tim

    Maybe I'm seeing things but the blond guy on the left-hand side of the screen looks a lot like a young version of Andrew Lansley...
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,630
    edited March 2013
    GMB and Unison probably have sour grapes because Progress has been more effective than them in getting candidates selected. Unions should raise their game in terms of modern selection campaigns.

    Can we rule out Harriet staying as Deputy Leader for Life?

    Out of the 4 mentioned, Murphy is the one currently with more chances to win a Deputy contest IMO. If he works out that there're second preferences. Byrne is the least likely. I can picture him neck and neck with the Diane Abbott for last place.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,520
    Is Maguire really going to go for the LAB position in South Shield or is that bunkum ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,610
    kle4 said:

    Just read this BBC article about changes to GCSE testing disadvantaging girls, with the old point about going exams only hinders them compared to boys (which as far as I'm aware is true), but a couple of points in the piece just struck me as a bit weird.

    For instance, it makes the point that girls have been outperforming boys for more than 20 years, which if we accept there is no average intelligence difference between boys and girls, would surely suggest the current system is biased against boys wouldn't it?

    If boys and girls really do perform so significantly differently between coursework and exams, I'm not really certain how we arrive at a system which is still challenging for both without overly focusing on testing models which benefit one over the other.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21955004

    What I heard (which may not actually be true), was that the average IQ for girls is slightly higher than for boys. However, there is greater variance around the mean for boys, so as you get more selective, the number of boys increases relarive to girls.

    On this basis, you'd expect girls to outperform at GCSE, be on level-pegging at A-Levels, and then fall further behind at degree level and beyond.

    However, I'd note that Larry Summers lost his job for espousing such views. So don't take this as gospel.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    Kelvin Mackenzie former Editor of The Sun has just predicted Labour landslide victory in 2015

    Never known for his tendency towards understatement, Kelvin would have been more convincing had he not managed to insert the name Leveson into every sentence.

    David Miliband, Frank Field, Kelvin Mackenzie.

    It is making me all nostalgic, tim.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,630
    Pulpstar said:

    Is Maguire really going to go for the LAB position in South Shield or is that bunkum ?


    He tweeted he's uninterested.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Socrates : I'm trying to "bury into specifics"? I'm afraid specifics are rather important in determining whether someone has won a bet or not. You are plainly not interested in a bet with any credibility. Both offers remain open if you're prepared to get serious.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Dr Sarah Wollaston was re-adopted as Tory candidate for Totnes on 4th March:

    http://www.totnesconservatives.co.uk/news/totnes-conservatives-re-adopt-dr-sarah-wollaston-mp
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2013
    The latest craze seems to be a red box with two pink horizontal stripes:

    http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-equality-box-spreads-social-media-185401100.html
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Chuka is being touted as the heir to Miliband. Unlucky.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "I know how you get rid of the immigrant Muslim cat infestation - remove the like button."

    *APPLAUSE*
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    O/T For all the lather in this country about bank lending, Bloomberg says that less than 3% of Chinese small and medium size enterprises can borrow from established banks, mostly due to lack of collateral. They borow from "shadow" banks at very high interest rates.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AndyJS said:

    Dr Sarah Wollaston was re-adopted as Tory candidate for Totnes on 4th March:

    http://www.totnesconservatives.co.uk/news/totnes-conservatives-re-adopt-dr-sarah-wollaston-mp

    If the Tories had any sense they would promote her. When she deviates from party line it is almost always because she is right and the party wrong.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Just read this BBC article about changes to GCSE testing disadvantaging girls, with the old point about going exams only hinders them compared to boys (which as far as I'm aware is true), but a couple of points in the piece just struck me as a bit weird.

    For instance, it makes the point that girls have been outperforming boys for more than 20 years, which if we accept there is no average intelligence difference between boys and girls, would surely suggest the current system is biased against boys wouldn't it?

    If boys and girls really do perform so significantly differently between coursework and exams, I'm not really certain how we arrive at a system which is still challenging for both without overly focusing on testing models which benefit one over the other.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21955004

    What I heard (which may not actually be true), was that the average IQ for girls is slightly higher than for boys. However, there is greater variance around the mean for boys, so as you get more selective, the number of boys increases relarive to girls.

    On this basis, you'd expect girls to outperform at GCSE, be on level-pegging at A-Levels, and then fall further behind at degree level and beyond.

    However, I'd note that Larry Summers lost his job for espousing such views. So don't take this as gospel.
    I tend a lot more towards socialisation factors regarding work habits (alongside expectations etc).
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited March 2013
    Good article, Henry.

    Of course the problem isn't now. Ed M is secure, and has been since he became leader, early wobbles notwithstanding. He's not great as a leader, but neither is he so poor that he can seriously be challenged. Both points were obvious from the start, even if many Labour supporters - including IIRC Henry - thought Ed M wouldn't last long.

    But the problem still remains: what if Labour win the next election, which seems at the very least a strong possibility?

    Ed Miliband may be good enough to scrape home in conditions supremely favourable for the opposition. And then...? Those conditions supremely favourable for the opposition will suddenly become excruciatingly difficult for PM Miliband, made much worse by the fact that he has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to prepare the ground - quite the opposite, in fact.

    David Miliband, for all his faults, did at least seem to understand the challenges and compromises of government. His younger brother shows no signs of doing so,
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited March 2013

    Socrates : I'm trying to "bury into specifics"? I'm afraid specifics are rather important in determining whether someone has won a bet or not. You are plainly not interested in a bet with any credibility. Both offers remain open if you're prepared to get serious.

    On the first offer, I have replied. You are ignoring it. On the second offer, I have mentioned my concerns and made a counter-offer. You are ignoring that too.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    One of my favourite books of 2012, "NW" by Zadie Smith, is reviewed by Theodore Dalrymple:

    http://city-journal.com/2013/23_1_otbie-multicultural-london.html
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    edited March 2013
    "You are yet to give a reason why my counter offer with a list of terms the SNP could use is unacceptable."


    Because you're trying to get into a "Bingo!" bet. I made abundantly clear earlier that your suggestion of a bet based on your own vague conception of what constitutes "substantial" powers or what constitutes "SNP approval" was beyond ludicrous, because it was non-falsifiable. Nevertheless, I called your bluff when you specified that the SNP would call such powers a "big deal", and yes, unsurprisingly it turns out you were bluffing.

    Let's get serious. You think that in the event of a No vote, Scotland will receive substantial new powers. Tell me what you think those specific powers will be, and let's have a bet on it.

    EDIT : This was a response to a comment by Socrates, of which an 'edit' appears to have removed each and every word.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    "You are yet to give a reason why my counter offer with a list of terms the SNP could use is unacceptable."


    Because you're trying to get into a "Bingo!" bet. I made abundantly clear earlier that your suggestion of a bet based on your own vague conception of what constitutes "substantial" powers or what constitutes "SNP approval" was beyond ludicrous, because it was non-falsifiable. Nevertheless, I called your bluff when you specified that the SNP would call such powers a "big deal", and yes, unsurprisingly it turns out you were bluffing.

    Let's get serious. You think that in the event of a No vote, Scotland will receive substantial new powers. Tell me what you think those specific powers will be, and let's have a bet on it.

    EDIT : This was a response to a comment by Socrates, of which an 'edit' appears to have removed each and every word.

    I didn't say they would call the powers "a big deal". I said they would call them a big deal. Do you not understand quotation marks? I'm very happy to specify in a falsifiable manner what a big deal would mean in precise terms: anything described as "broad", "substantial", "expansive", "major", "significant", "considerable", "substantive", "sizable" or "extensive". Why won't you accept this?

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "I'm very happy to specify in a falsifiable manner what a big deal would mean in precise terms: anything described as "broad", "substantial", "expansive", "major", "significant", "considerable", "substantive", "sizable" or "extensive". Why won't you accept this?"

    Did you actually read the comment you've just quoted? I answered precisely that question there. Hint: It was in the very first sentence.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Oborne spot on - and David twice the statesman rEd will ever be.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Poland Is Not Yet Lost

    But its leaders remain determined to give disaster a chance":
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/poland-is-not-yet-lost/
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    "I'm very happy to specify in a falsifiable manner what a big deal would mean in precise terms: anything described as "broad", "substantial", "expansive", "major", "significant", "considerable", "substantive", "sizable" or "extensive". Why won't you accept this?"

    Did you actually read the comment you've just quoted? I answered precisely that question there. Hint: It was in the very first sentence.

    What the hell is a bingo bet? All the words I used are different terms for saying the same thing: that the transfer of powers is more than "nothing". If any of those terms are used by the SNP in reference to the new powers, then those powers will be more than nothing.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "If any of those terms are used by the SNP in reference to the new powers, then those powers will be more than nothing."

    With respect, Socrates, that is bollocks. Do you seriously expect me to let you have ten words, that can be said by anyone in the SNP at any time, in any context, and have you as the sole arbiter of whether they were said "in reference to the new powers"?

    Get real. Two choices - a) specify what powers you think will be transferred and let's bet on that (my strong preference because it's a non-stupid bet), or b) choose ONE phrase to be used by the First Minister only.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    But the problem still remains: what if Labour win the next election

    I think you may have been spinning for Osbrowne for just a bit too long if you seriously think that is a 'problem' anyone in labour will be worrying about very much. As long as Cameron puts chum before party, by keeping the toxic liability Osbrowne in place, then little Ed will be more than grateful to the tories for gifting them his lead and handing him the next election on a plate via Osbrowne.

    Ed Miliband may be good enough to scrape home in conditions supremely favourable for the opposition. And then...? Those conditions supremely favourable for the opposition will suddenly become excruciatingly difficult for PM Miliband, made much worse by the fact that he has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to prepare the ground - quite the opposite, in fact

    You DO realise that is precisely the same situation the tories had in 2010 and from then on. With the only difference being that Cammie and Osbrowne couldn't even win a majority.

    David Miliband, for all his faults, did at least seem to understand the challenges and compromises of government. His younger brother shows no signs of doing so,

    No, he had studied Blair long enough and hard enough to posture on issues with the requisite furrowed brow while throwing out platitudes and railing against the straw man wing of his party that was never really there.

    That's not leadership, that's positioning.

    To be a leader you still have to have the 'killer instinct' that gets you the job in the first place. Little Ed comes up just as short as David when it comes to the 'big picture' or standing for anything meaningful, but little Ed still won the leadership (to the Blairites fury) and David will always be the 'nearly man' left holding a banana and just not having what it takes to finish off either Brown or little Ed.

    Blair never stood for anything, never had a purpose outside winning and retaining power yet they still want to emulate him (Cameroons and Cleggites too) because the surface gloss beguiled and fooled them. As did Blair's easy wins against a hopeless opposition.

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,630
    O'Farrell wants a lady: Be great to see a female MP in South Shields. Safe Labour seats like this are a chance to show we are serious about more women in Parliament
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Just catching up with last night's Newsnight Scotland. Brilliant line from Alex Massie -

    "Now, it is obviously a great shame that so many Tory voters have had to die before the party was prepared to look reality in the face, but..."
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rcs1000 said:


    What I heard (which may not actually be true), was that the average IQ for girls is slightly higher than for boys. However, there is greater variance around the mean for boys, so as you get more selective, the number of boys increases relarive to girls.

    On this basis, you'd expect girls to outperform at GCSE, be on level-pegging at A-Levels, and then fall further behind at degree level and beyond.

    I'm not sure that follows. What it would suggest is that at, say, degree level, you might expect men to get more firsts and thirds, with women getting more upper and lower seconds, but even that would depend on other factors (work habits and so on) being equal.

    Intelligence is a bit overrated anyway. If you ask the average person whether they'd like to be more intelligent, more charismatic or better looking, you'd probably find the latter two choices more popular. If you asked employers if they wished their staff more intelligent, more diligent or harder working, I suspect it would be the same story.

    Academics get hung up about intelligence but theirs is a small niche.

    The key to success in life is to be slightly better than average at two different things, and find a job that combines them.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    "If any of those terms are used by the SNP in reference to the new powers, then those powers will be more than nothing."

    With respect, Socrates, that is bollocks. Do you seriously expect me to let you have ten words, that can be said by anyone in the SNP at any time, in any context, and have you as the sole arbiter of whether they were said "in reference to the new powers"?

    No. I'm happy to restrict it to the SNP leader or deputy leader, for it to happen in say, the three weeks following the announcement of a transfer of powers, for the context only to be in direct reference to the new powers, and for Mike or Peter the Punter to be the arbiter.

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    OK, and your choice of one phrase is?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,077
    edited March 2013
    "Elsewhere in Shadow Cabinet Liam Byrne, Stephen Twigg and Jim Murphy carry the torch, but none are in a strong enough position to make much political impact. It was revealing to see how the party faithful view them. In Labourlist’s Shadow Cabinet rankings Murphy was 16th, Flint 17th, Twigg 25th and Byrne 27th out of 27. We are now in a post-Blairite age."

    That is indeed a stark portrayal of the post-Blairite age within the Labour party, to have Murphy only placed 16th in that LabourList Shadow Cabinet rankings is just incredible and sums up just what is wrong within the Labour party right now. And its that kind of inward looking and misguided view that should give Labour's opponents comfort despite the current polling.

    Murphy was the politician who got the EU Constitution through Parliament without the promised referendum while holding the Europe brief. He then became an extremely effective Scottish Secretary who took on Alex Salmond in his own back yard and beat him hands down. I did warn that Murphy was one of the most astute and impressive Labour politicians around at the time on PB to much derision from our SNP supporters. He over saw an amazing result for Labour in Scotland at the last GE, and I rate him as the most impressive Shadow Cabinet Minister, who was handed just about the toughest brief of any Labour Shadow Minister in the form of Defence.

    While others on here talked of Balls and Cooper etc. Its actually been Murphy up against the equally impressive Hammond who has quietly shone in an area that should have been totally toxic for Labour in Opposition, and yet again with little recognition of this fact. Take the former rising star of Cooper, she has totally paled into insignificance as a Labour robotic sound bite up against Theresa May. May of course is the much talked up Conservative Leadership contender by some Labour posters on this site, an irony that most of them have missed it has to be said.

    Both Murphy and Alexander remain two of the best media performers for their party, yet Ed Miliband and Ed Balls chose to leave them out of the picture and failed to utilise them in the run up to the Holyrood Elections. And looking at the result, it speaks volumes of their poor strategy in this area. They took the Scottish Labour vote for granted, and it cost the party dear. If Ed Miliband is happy to wave goodbye to any talent that might be stained with the Blairite success while embracing and promoting Brownite failure, the next GE result is not nailed on for him or his party by a long shot.

  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    "I know how you get rid of the immigrant Muslim cat infestation - remove the like button."

    *APPLAUSE*


    http://blog.beardbrand.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/cat-stevens.jpg
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    "I know how you get rid of the immigrant Muslim cat infestation - remove the like button."

    *APPLAUSE*


    imagehttp://blog.beardbrand.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/cat-stevens.jpg

    with apologies, gets coat etc

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "He then became an extremely effective Scottish Secretary who took on Alex Salmond in his own back yard and beat him hands down."

    2009 European election result under Jim Murphy :

    SNP 29.1%
    Labour 20.8%

    Of course in a Euro election Jackanory Jim couldn't claim that a vote for the SNP or Lib Dems "would let the Tories in", which was quite literally the only argument he had going for him in 2010.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited March 2013

    OK, and your choice of one phrase is?

    Why should I have to choose one phrase when the SNP could express the same sentiment a dozen different ways? I'm not trying to predict precisely how Alex Salmond talks, I'm trying to predict his viewpoint. This is absurd. It's like trying to make a bet on David Cameron announcing an in-out referendum with someone insisting on getting the precise sentence right.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    hm, how do you post an image then...
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    O'Farrell wants a lady: Be great to see a female MP in South Shields. Safe Labour seats like this are a chance to show we are serious about more women in Parliament

    Charlotte Church would be a laugh!

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "I'm not trying to predict precisely how Alex Salmond talks, I'm trying to predict his viewpoint."

    I'm sorry, but with my money at stake I'm not prepared to have you do that in a way that isn't clearly falsifiable.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    "I'm not trying to predict precisely how Alex Salmond talks, I'm trying to predict his viewpoint."

    I'm sorry, but with my money at stake I'm not prepared to have you do that in a way that isn't clearly falsifiable.

    You don't seem to understand what the term falsifiable means. If I have given you nine terms, and one of those terms isn't used, then it will be falsified.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    You've hurriedly edited again -

    "It's like trying to make a bet on David Cameron announcing an in-out referendum with someone insisting on getting the precise sentence right"

    It isn't even remotely like that, An in-out referendum is an in-out referendum regardless of what words he uses. If you want there to be that kind of equivalence, you have to spell out what these "substantial" new powers that you claim to anticipate will actually look like.
This discussion has been closed.