All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. All you need is Gove (all together now) All you need is Gove (everybody) All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need.
Yes, Gove, Gove changes everything: Now I tremble At your name. Nothing in the World will ever Be the same.
@BenM Effectively Friedman makes exactly the same point as when Keynes talks about governments paying people to dig holes and then fill them in again. If your objective is to provide employment, the output is irrelevant.
The only real difference is that one does so derisively and the other does so approvingly.
Just come back and seen this. Education is NOT "any other service". Takes a considerable time and the results last a lifetime. (In it's wider sense, of course, takes a lifetime!)
To compare it with the selling of, for example, baked beans is the greatest fallacy!
Taking out a mortgage can be a decision with longer term consequences than the nature of a child's education. Yet no one would suggest that that fact alone means that there should be no effective choice in the market for credit. That education is a good unto itself is nothing more than ideological dogma.
"WHILE visiting an Asian country in the 1960s, Milton Friedman observed a canal being built. As he walked around, he became perturbed by the lack of tractors or modern machinery. Instead, there were hundreds of men digging with shovels.
Turning to the government representative accompanying him, Friedman asked, “Why are there so few machines?”. “You don’t understand,” the bureaucrat replied. “This is a jobs programme.”
To which Friedman paused, before replying: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons.”"
Shows Friedman's ignorance.
The bloke said the project was a work programme. The canal was the output but the Authority building the asset doesn't seem concerned about inputs as the objective was not profit motivated.
One wonders why that concept couldn't filter into Friedman's tiny mind?
Milton's point was that the canal authority was confused in their objectives.
If their objective was to create the most suitable canal at the best price they were not optimising that.
If their objective was to create jobs (as stated by the individual) they were not maximising that.
Of course, in reality, the authorities were looking at a trade off between employment and output, but then economists deal in simplified models of the economy rather than reality.
(as an aside, BenM, I rather suspect that the Nobel-prize winning Milton Friedman was rather brighter than you. It doesn't mean he was right on this occasion, but he wasn't ignorant, and I suspect didn't have a 'tiny mind')
"WHILE visiting an Asian country in the 1960s, Milton Friedman observed a canal being built. As he walked around, he became perturbed by the lack of tractors or modern machinery. Instead, there were hundreds of men digging with shovels.
Turning to the government representative accompanying him, Friedman asked, “Why are there so few machines?”. “You don’t understand,” the bureaucrat replied. “This is a jobs programme.”
To which Friedman paused, before replying: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons.”"
Shows Friedman's ignorance.
The bloke said the project was a work programme. The canal was the output but the Authority building the asset doesn't seem concerned about inputs as the objective was not profit motivated.
One wonders why that concept couldn't filter into Friedman's tiny mind?
In theory something like British Rail should be just as efficient at providing a train service as say Virgin. Or the NHS vs BUPA for instance. If BenM's comment is representative of the mindset of the public sector official then is it any wonder Gov'ts looking to save cash try and privatise stuff ?
"WHILE visiting an Asian country in the 1960s, Milton Friedman observed a canal being built. As he walked around, he became perturbed by the lack of tractors or modern machinery. Instead, there were hundreds of men digging with shovels.
Turning to the government representative accompanying him, Friedman asked, “Why are there so few machines?”. “You don’t understand,” the bureaucrat replied. “This is a jobs programme.”
To which Friedman paused, before replying: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons.”"
Shows Friedman's ignorance.
The bloke said the project was a work programme. The canal was the output but the Authority building the asset doesn't seem concerned about inputs as the objective was not profit motivated.
One wonders why that concept couldn't filter into Friedman's tiny mind?
As someone who has done some significant shovel work, and used to drive JCBs rather unprofessionally, anyone who sends out a man to dig with a shovel when machinery is available is crazy. Worse, they are also ignoring the health effects on the men - digging with shovels and picks is damned hard work.
Do you want us to do this sort of thing in this country? Inefficient, poor work for the people unfortunate enough to be unemployed? How will you get them to do the work? Reduce unemployment benefit?
And it's not exactly training them, either. When the 'jobs scheme' stops, they go back onto the scrapheap.
A typically harebrained scheme.
If BenM gets to power, expect the following scenes on HS2:
@BenM Effectively Friedman makes exactly the same point as when Keynes talks about governments paying people to dig holes and then fill them in again. If your objective is to provide employment, the output is irrelevant.
The only real difference is that one does so derisively and the other does so approvingly.
Surely even Keynes would have prefferred the most efficient expenditure of cash though. If you are going to have a Gov't splurge of cash on some large infrastructure expenditure better to lay 1000 miles of HS2 track for £10 billion rather than 500 miles of track for the same cost if your workings are twice as efficient.
The idea that CON and LAB education policies are the same is just spin.
Labour's parent academies will have to be in area where there are places needed. They'll be set up by parents and LAs working together. There will be oversight from the local authority and religious groups and academy chains will be prevented from setting them up.
The critical things are oversight and providing schools in areas where they are needed.
"WHILE visiting an Asian country in the 1960s, Milton Friedman observed a canal being built. As he walked around, he became perturbed by the lack of tractors or modern machinery. Instead, there were hundreds of men digging with shovels.
Turning to the government representative accompanying him, Friedman asked, “Why are there so few machines?”. “You don’t understand,” the bureaucrat replied. “This is a jobs programme.”
To which Friedman paused, before replying: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons.”"
Shows Friedman's ignorance.
The bloke said the project was a work programme. The canal was the output but the Authority building the asset doesn't seem concerned about inputs as the objective was not profit motivated.
One wonders why that concept couldn't filter into Friedman's tiny mind?
As someone who has done some significant shovel work, and used to drive JCBs rather unprofessionally, anyone who sends out a man to dig with a shovel when machinery is available is crazy. Worse, they are also ignoring the health effects on the men - digging with shovels and picks is damned hard work.
Do you want us to do this sort of thing in this country? Inefficient, poor work for the people unfortunate enough to be unemployed? How will you get them to do the work? Reduce unemployment benefit?
And it's not exactly training them, either. When the 'jobs scheme' stops, they go back onto the scrapheap.
A typically harebrained scheme.
If BenM gets to power, expect the following scenes on HS2:
I think BenM would critisice this scheme on the basis that horses are being used to provide the power. Better to use 4 strong men or so, would create more employment and cost you 4 pennies a day rather than ha'penny for a big bag of oats.
The key point here is salience. Gove's policies are intensely disliked by most people who are directly affected (typically teachers), to the extent of switching votes. Parents, in general, are unaffected unless they are among the tiny minority involved in running schools, and in my experience they have few strong views one way or the other. I've never met a non-teaching voter who raised the issue of academies or free schools (except for Labour activists).
We had the same thing locally with the tram extension in my constituency. Most people thought it sounded quite a good idea, in a vague sort of way. The people affected by the building hated it, and some Labour voters definitely switched to voting Tory in the (erroneous) belief that the Tories would stop it.
Teachers tend to be anti-government rather thasn left-wing, incidentally - they often see the Government as the boss, handing out tiresome regulations and stingy pay rises. They voted predominantly LibDem in 2010 IIRC from the polling then. They seem generally Labour leaning now, but if Labour gets back in we'll struggle to keep their support.
@BenM Effectively Friedman makes exactly the same point as when Keynes talks about governments paying people to dig holes and then fill them in again. If your objective is to provide employment, the output is irrelevant.
The only real difference is that one does so derisively and the other does so approvingly.
Surely even Keynes would have prefferred the most efficient expenditure of cash though. If you are going to have a Gov't splurge of cash on some large infrastructure expenditure better to lay 1000 miles of HS2 track for £10 billion rather than 500 miles of track for the same cost if your workings are twice as efficient.
BenM's comment just beggars belief tbh.
Like I said, it all depends on what the objectives are. Who knows, the project may have been financed to be executed in that way to deliver as much work experience as possible?
Tories need to understand that in life the bottom line is not always the prime motivator. Their urge to make it so is what leads to so many rightwing stuff ups.
@BenM Effectively Friedman makes exactly the same point as when Keynes talks about governments paying people to dig holes and then fill them in again. If your objective is to provide employment, the output is irrelevant.
The only real difference is that one does so derisively and the other does so approvingly.
Surely even Keynes would have prefferred the most efficient expenditure of cash though. If you are going to have a Gov't splurge of cash on some large infrastructure expenditure better to lay 1000 miles of HS2 track for £10 billion rather than 500 miles of track for the same cost if your workings are twice as efficient.
BenM's comment just beggars belief tbh.
Like I said, it all depends on what the objectives are. Who knows, the project may have been financed to be executed in that way to deliver as much work experience as possible?
Then spoons would have definitely been a good idea instead of spades.
@BenM Effectively Friedman makes exactly the same point as when Keynes talks about governments paying people to dig holes and then fill them in again. If your objective is to provide employment, the output is irrelevant.
The only real difference is that one does so derisively and the other does so approvingly.
Surely even Keynes would have prefferred the most efficient expenditure of cash though. If you are going to have a Gov't splurge of cash on some large infrastructure expenditure better to lay 1000 miles of HS2 track for £10 billion rather than 500 miles of track for the same cost if your workings are twice as efficient.
BenM's comment just beggars belief tbh.
Like I said, it all depends on what the objectives are. Who knows, the project may have been financed to be executed in that way to deliver as much work experience as possible?
Tories need to understand that in life the bottom line is not always the prime motivator. Their urge to make it so is what leads to so many rightwing stuff ups.
'Work experience' digging a canal by hand? You're on a different planet.
I look forward to you being the first to volunteer for the back-breaking work if such a scheme were approved. Of course, you'll be safe in your nice cosy office, thinking how wonderful it is that the men are doing 'productive' work.
Let me make it clear: manual work is dirty, hard, disliked, unsexy and dangerous. The idea that it is somehow 'good' to get someone to dig manually instead of using a digger (if applicable to the job) is ridiculous.
The idea that CON and LAB education policies are the same is just spin.
Labour's parent academies will have to be in area where there are places needed. They'll be set up by parents and LAs working together. There will be oversight from the local authority and religious groups and academy chains will be prevented from setting them up.
The critical things are oversight and providing schools in areas where they are needed.
In other word's Labour's position is a reluctant endorsement of Gove's principles and policies undermined by an attempt to frustrate its practices.
The point of a "free school" is that it is free of interference from the meddlings of Cllr.Jobsworth.
The Headmaster and Board of Parent Governors run the school in accordance with national law and guidelines without unnecessary "joined up thinking" and supervisory "oversight".
And why ban religious groups and academy chains? It is one thing to prefer integration as a policy but quite another to prevent parental preference for the schooling of their children by religious organisations. And the exclusion of "academy chains" is just fear of success multiplying.
As for providing schools in areas where they are needed there is no better way to fulfill consumer needs than allowing a free market.
So Labour education policy is to adopt Gove's policies in principle but scrawl lefitst graffiti all over the school walls.
Yet more Muddleband. Ed really was better off with a blank sheet of paper.
"Imagine if unemployed people were asked to do this for their benefits. "
The sort of work Billy Elliott's dad would approve of before he became enlightened about ballet dancing.
Yet ask for such *honest toil* in exchange for benefits... as you note - uproar. When working for a fortnight in Poundland gets bought up as a form of *slavery* - the mind boggles at the reaction to digging land drains.
The key point here is salience. Gove's policies are intensely disliked by most people who are directly affected (typically teachers), to the extent of switching votes. Parents, in general, are unaffected unless they are among the tiny minority involved in running schools, and in my experience they have few strong views one way or the other. I've never met a non-teaching voter who raised the issue of academies or free schools (except for Labour activists).
We had the same thing locally with the tram extension in my constituency. Most people thought it sounded quite a good idea, in a vague sort of way. The people affected by the building hated it, and some Labour voters definitely switched to voting Tory in the (erroneous) belief that the Tories would stop it.
Teachers tend to be anti-government rather thasn left-wing, incidentally - they often see the Government as the boss, handing out tiresome regulations and stingy pay rises. They voted predominantly LibDem in 2010 IIRC from the polling then. They seem generally Labour leaning now, but if Labour gets back in we'll struggle to keep their support.
Give parents and educationalists the freedom to innovate and they start to meet needs that a national government barely recognises let alone serves.
Among the 102 new free schools given the go ahead to open in 2014 are two schools run by the National Autistic Society (NAS) in Lambeth and Cheshire East for children aged four to 19. The NAS is to open its first free school in Reading this September.
Other new schools include The Family School in London, which will offer alternative provision for children with complex psychological, family and mental health problems, as well as The Seva School in Coventry, a co-educational Sikh school for four to 16-year-olds run by the Sevak Education Trust.
No wonder applications for places at Free Schools far exceed availablity. This is the key measure of popularity not some subidiary question in a national political poll.
Are Tesco's going to stock their supermarket shelves with vegetables in accordance with YouGov's findings on relative preference for bananas over oranges?
The key point here is salience. Gove's policies are intensely disliked by most people who are directly affected (typically teachers), to the extent of switching votes. Parents, in general, are unaffected unless they are among the tiny minority involved in running schools, and in my experience they have few strong views one way or the other. I've never met a non-teaching voter who raised the issue of academies or free schools (except for Labour activists).
We had the same thing locally with the tram extension in my constituency. Most people thought it sounded quite a good idea, in a vague sort of way. The people affected by the building hated it, and some Labour voters definitely switched to voting Tory in the (erroneous) belief that the Tories would stop it.
Teachers tend to be anti-government rather thasn left-wing, incidentally - they often see the Government as the boss, handing out tiresome regulations and stingy pay rises. They voted predominantly LibDem in 2010 IIRC from the polling then. They seem generally Labour leaning now, but if Labour gets back in we'll struggle to keep their support.
Give parents and educationalists the freedom to innovate and they start to meet needs that a national government barely recognises let alone serves.
Among the 102 new free schools given the go ahead to open in 2014 are two schools run by the National Autistic Society (NAS) in Lambeth and Cheshire East for children aged four to 19. The NAS is to open its first free school in Reading this September.
Other new schools include The Family School in London, which will offer alternative provision for children with complex psychological, family and mental health problems, as well as The Seva School in Coventry, a co-educational Sikh school for four to 16-year-olds run by the Sevak Education Trust.
No wonder applications for places at Free Schools far exceed availablity. This is the key measure of popularity not some subidiary question in a national political poll.
Are Tesco's going to stock their supermarket shelves with vegetables in accordance with YouGov's findings on relative preference for bananas over oranges?
Would you rather be called an Old Fruit or an Old Vegetable...?
All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. All you need is Gove (all together now) All you need is Gove (everybody) All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need.
Yes, Gove, Gove changes everything: Now I tremble At your name. Nothing in the World will ever Be the same.
Set to work idle hands Shake these thoughts Had I planned them They never would be teasing me As viciously as these
All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. All you need is Gove (all together now) All you need is Gove (everybody) All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need.
Yes, Gove, Gove changes everything: Now I tremble At your name. Nothing in the World will ever Be the same.
Set to work idle hands Shake these thoughts Had I planned them They never would be teasing me As viciously as these
The idea that CON and LAB education policies are the same is just spin.
Labour's parent academies will have to be in area where there are places needed. They'll be set up by parents and LAs working together. There will be oversight from the local authority and religious groups and academy chains will be prevented from setting them up.
The critical things are oversight and providing schools in areas where they are needed.
Can you explain what is wrong about academy chains, per se?
Anthony Wells on today's YouGov & Hopi Sen's Labour analysis - and a thought for OGH?
"Hopi has sadly committed one of my pet hates and looked at what has happened to 2010 past voters for each party without considering the chunk that are saying don’t know or won’t vote – but it shouldn’t change the interesting conclusion that some of Labour’s lost support in recent months is former Lib Dem voters moving from Lab to UKIP, presuming people looking for the most convenient “anti-government vote”.
Anthony is quite right there but his employers are really to blame. For YouGov present their data in a highly misleading way by excluding the DKs from their previous vote figures.
Other pollsters do it differently and you can get better figures.
I should add that when I do breakdowns like this on PB I always include the don't knows
Anthony Wells on today's YouGov & Hopi Sen's Labour analysis - and a thought for OGH?
"Hopi has sadly committed one of my pet hates and looked at what has happened to 2010 past voters for each party without considering the chunk that are saying don’t know or won’t vote – but it shouldn’t change the interesting conclusion that some of Labour’s lost support in recent months is former Lib Dem voters moving from Lab to UKIP, presuming people looking for the most convenient “anti-government vote”.
The point of a "free school" is that it is free of interference from the meddlings of Cllr.Jobsworth.
Are you not familiar with the aphorism that Michael Gove's desk is the largest LEA in the country?
Exactly, this is centralisation to the Secretary of State's office That Tory councillor in Eastbourne who jumped ship last week did so after Gove changed the people running a Free School project
You will be recognised as a provider that is approved and held to account by the Secretary of State.
Decisions by the Secretary of State are final and there will be no formal appeals process for unsuccessful applicants.
Assuming you make good progress against the key milestones in the pre-opening stage, the Secretary of State will then make a decision on whether to enter into a Funding Agreement – this represents final approval.
The Articles can be changed by special resolution of the members, but the Funding Agreement imposes the obligation for members to seek the consent of the Secretary of State.
I am not particularly a fan of Gove, but he clearly gets under the skin of the other parties and is unashamed in his combatitivness. That is why I put a few quid on him as next Tory leader.
The point of a "free school" is that it is free of interference from the meddlings of Cllr.Jobsworth.
Are you not familiar with the aphorism that Michael Gove's desk is the largest LEA in the country?
Exactly, this is centralisation to the Secretary of State's office That Tory councillor in Eastbourne who jumped ship last week did so after Gove changed the people running a Free School project
You will be recognised as a provider that is approved and held to account by the Secretary of State.
Decisions by the Secretary of State are final and there will be no formal appeals process for unsuccessful applicants.
Assuming you make good progress against the key milestones in the pre-opening stage, the Secretary of State will then make a decision on whether to enter into a Funding Agreement – this represents final approval.
The Articles can be changed by special resolution of the members, but the Funding Agreement imposes the obligation for members to seek the consent of the Secretary of State.
One of the problems that Gove's policies are likely to have is their lack of positive impact on many parents. So let's say I end up having to send my daughter to a private school because there are no primary schools within half an hour's travel of my home in central London (this happened) - my starting point is being pretty fed up with the state education system, and my default is to be negatively disposed towards the bloke who's had several years to sort it out. If I'm not particularly politically engaged, I don't get much further than the assumption that he owns the problem. I don't have a tribal loathing of Gordon Brown to fall back on in order to contort myself into blaming Labour.
Now, two things could happen. The first is that a couple of free schools open close to where I live, that are not targeted at pupils of a different faith to our family, and don't focus primarily on subject, values or principles that we don't think will fit our daughter. In that case I'm probably pretty happy. Personally, I don't believe in this kind of market-obsessed approach, but I'm likely to swallow my ideological objections because my daughter is now getting a good education for free. Oh, if she gets in, of course. That's quite important too.
The second thing that could happen is that no free school of this nature opens in my area, or an unsuitable one opens, or my daughter can't get a place there. In each of these cases I'm pissed off. Even more so at the budget cuts affecting the quality of, and number of places at, existing schools in order to fund the free schools programme (and due to secrecy surrounding their funding I'm likely to assume things worse than they really are, because there's no public information available to prove the contrary). Not only do I continue to be annoyed that the education system is failing my daughter, but it's exacerbated by seeing Gove wasting huge amounts of time and energy on what I'll probably see as an ideological project that benefits very few even while there are problems affecting many.
Because of the slow pace of opening free schools and the lack of targeting them at areas of particular pressure on places, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a massive proportion of parents will be closer to option 1 than option 2. This is where Charles' point on the salience of tim's polling seems to break down: the parents who get to experience option 1 still vote next time round. And based on a quick anecdotal sample of my friends who are parents, the quality of the education the state can offer their children is number 1 or 2 on their list of issues that will determine their vote.
If the education system was going to be (geographically) saturated by free schools by 2015, then polling on the impact of actual experience of free school policy would be a useful predictive tool. If provision is going to remain patchy (choose the term "market-led" or"postcode lottery" depending on your ideological preference) then current day polling of a current sample of parents is probably a better predictive tool.
One of the problems that Gove's policies are likely to have is their lack of positive impact on many parents. So let's say I end up having to send my daughter to a private school because there are no primary schools within half an hour's travel of my home in central London (this happened) - my starting point is being pretty fed up with the state education system, and my default is to be negatively disposed towards the bloke who's had several years to sort it out. If I'm not particularly politically engaged, I don't get much further than the assumption that he owns the problem. I don't have a tribal loathing of Gordon Brown to fall back on in order to contort myself into blaming Labour.
Now, two things could happen. The first is that a couple of free schools open close to where I live, that are not targeted at pupils of a different faith to our family, and don't focus primarily on subject, values or principles that we don't think will fit our daughter. In that case I'm probably pretty happy. Personally, I don't believe in this kind of market-obsessed approach, but I'm likely to swallow my ideological objections because my daughter is now getting a good education for free. Oh, if she gets in, of course. That's quite important too.
The second thing that could happen is that no free school of this nature opens in my area, or an unsuitable one opens, or my daughter can't get a place there. In each of these cases I'm pissed off. Even more so at the budget cuts affecting the quality of, and number of places at, existing schools in order to fund the free schools programme (and due to secrecy surrounding their funding I'm likely to assume things worse than they really are, because there's no public information available to prove the contrary). Not only do I continue to be annoyed that the education system is failing my daughter, but it's exacerbated by seeing Gove wasting huge amounts of time and energy on what I'll probably see as an ideological project that benefits very few even while there are problems affecting many.
Because of the slow pace of opening free schools and the lack of targeting them at areas of particular pressure on places, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a massive proportion of parents will be closer to option 1 than option 2. This is where Charles' point on the salience of tim's polling seems to break down: the parents who get to experience option 1 still vote next time round. And based on a quick anecdotal sample of my friends who are parents, the quality of the education the state can offer their children is number 1 or 2 on their list of issues that will determine their vote.
If the education system was going to be (geographically) saturated by free schools by 2015, then polling on the impact of actual experience of free school policy would be a useful predictive tool. If provision is going to remain patchy (choose the term "market-led" or"postcode lottery" depending on your ideological preference) then current day polling of a current sample of parents is probably a better predictive tool.
I think you may have got your option 1 & option 2 the wrong way round in your conclusion, but I absolutely agree.
Net net this will be a vote change for parents who experience the policy directly - whether it is positive or negative depends on what they experience.
I'm less convinced that the 'no change' will result in a positive vote against the government - would tend to drive towards "they're all useless" rather than "the other lot are better". I'm also not sure the whole funding thing has cut through to any significant degree
One of the problems that Gove's policies are likely to have is their lack of positive impact on many parents. So let's say I end up having to send my daughter to a private school because there are no primary schools within half an hour's travel of my home in central London (this happened) - my starting point is being pretty fed up with the state education system, and my default is to be negatively disposed towards the bloke who's had several years to sort it out. If I'm not particularly politically engaged, I don't get much further than the assumption that he owns the problem. I don't have a tribal loathing of Gordon Brown to fall back on in order to contort myself into blaming Labour.
Now, two things could happen. The first is that a couple of free schools open close to where I live, that are not targeted at pupils of a different faith to our family, and don't focus primarily on subject, values or principles that we don't think will fit our daughter. In that case I'm probably pretty happy. Personally, I don't believe in this kind of market-obsessed approach, but I'm likely to swallow my ideological objections because my daughter is now getting a good education for free. Oh, if she gets in, of course. That's quite important too.
The second thing that could happen is that no free school of this nature opens in my area, or an unsuitable one opens, or my daughter can't get a place there. In each of these cases I'm pissed off. Even more so at the budget cuts affecting the quality of, and number of places at, existing schools in order to fund the free schools programme (and due to secrecy surrounding their funding I'm likely to assume things worse than they really are, because there's no public information available to prove the contrary). Not only do I continue to be annoyed that the education system is failing my daughter, but it's exacerbated by seeing Gove wasting huge amounts of time and energy on what I'll probably see as an ideological project that benefits very few even while there are problems affecting many.
Because of the slow pace of opening free schools and the lack of targeting them at areas of particular pressure on places, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a massive proportion of parents will be closer to option 1 than option 2. This is where Charles' point on the salience of tim's polling seems to break down: the parents who get to experience option 1 still vote next time round. And based on a quick anecdotal sample of my friends who are parents, the quality of the education the state can offer their children is number 1 or 2 on their list of issues that will determine their vote.
If the education system was going to be (geographically) saturated by free schools by 2015, then polling on the impact of actual experience of free school policy would be a useful predictive tool. If provision is going to remain patchy (choose the term "market-led" or"postcode lottery" depending on your ideological preference) then current day polling of a current sample of parents is probably a better predictive tool.
I think you may have got your option 1 & option 2 the wrong way round in your conclusion, but I absolutely agree.
Net net this will be a vote change for parents who experience the policy directly - whether it is positive or negative depends on what they experience.
I'm less convinced that the 'no change' will result in a positive vote against the government - would tend to drive towards "they're all useless" rather than "the other lot are better". I'm also not sure the whole funding thing has cut through to any significant degree
Good spot - you're right on the options 1 & 2. Ooops.
I think "no change" is a huge problem for any government after a few years because electorates gradually blame incumbents more and more as the term goes on - it's worse due to the Tories' particular approach of continuing to act as if they're in opposition and tell the electorate how rubbish everything is, too. Gove isn't being smart in denigrating "average local schools" unless there's a similar statement along the lines of "but it's OK cos in 2 years time every parent will be able to choose a free school". Otherwise you feed the very discontent which is inevitably an electoral problem for the party in power.
All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. All you need is Gove (all together now) All you need is Gove (everybody) All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need.
Yes, Gove, Gove changes everything: Now I tremble At your name. Nothing in the World will ever Be the same.
Set to work idle hands Shake these thoughts Had I planned them They never would be teasing me As viciously as these
Is this Gove? Is this Gove?
Gove lifts us up where we belong...
The power of Gove is a curious thing Make a Labour man weep, makes a Tory man sing Change a hawk to a little white dove More than a feeling that's the power of Gove
All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. All you need is Gove (all together now) All you need is Gove (everybody) All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need.
Yes, Gove, Gove changes everything: Now I tremble At your name. Nothing in the World will ever Be the same.
Set to work idle hands Shake these thoughts Had I planned them They never would be teasing me As viciously as these
Is this Gove? Is this Gove?
Gove lifts us up where we belong...
The power of Gove is a curious thing Make a Labour man weep, makes a Tory man sing Change a hawk to a little white dove More than a feeling that's the power of Gove
Ms Harvie claimed around 42m into the programme that she wasn’t an official ‘Better Together’ representative, “nor do I speak for a political party – I’m a businesswoman”. But an alert reader noticed that she looked a lot like another Amanda Harvie...
Readers can make their own judgements about whether promising to be a “voice at the heart of David Cameron’s Conservative government” counts as “speaking for a political party” or not. All we’ll say is that if a Tory candidate is going to appear on a TV show masquerading as a political neutral, we’d at least advise wearing a different suit to the one on their election leaflet.
One of the problems that Gove's policies are likely to have is their lack of positive impact on many parents. So let's say I end up having to send my daughter to a private school because there are no primary schools within half an hour's travel of my home in central London (this happened) - my starting point is being pretty fed up with the state education system, and my default is to be negatively disposed towards the bloke who's had several years to sort it out. If I'm not particularly politically engaged, I don't get much further than the assumption that he owns the problem. I don't have a tribal loathing of Gordon Brown to fall back on in order to contort myself into blaming Labour.
Now, two things could happen. The first is that a couple of free schools open close to where I live, that are not targeted at pupils of a different faith to our family, and don't focus primarily on subject, values or principles that we don't think will fit our daughter. In that case I'm probably pretty happy. Personally, I don't believe in this kind of market-obsessed approach, but I'm likely to swallow my ideological objections because my daughter is now getting a good education for free. Oh, if she gets in, of course. That's quite important too.
The second thing that could happen is that no free school of this nature opens in my area, or an unsuitable one opens, or my daughter can't get a place there. In each of these cases I'm pissed off. Even more so at the budget cuts affecting the quality of, and number of places at, existing schools in order to fund the free schools programme (and due to secrecy surrounding their funding I'm likely to assume things worse than they really are, because there's no public information available to prove the contrary). Not only do I continue to be annoyed that the education system is failing my daughter, but it's exacerbated by seeing Gove wasting huge amounts of time and energy on what I'll probably see as an ideological project that benefits very few even while there are problems affecting many.
Because of the slow pace of opening free schools and the lack of targeting them at areas of particular pressure on places, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a massive proportion of parents will be closer to option 1 than option 2. This is where Charles' point on the salience of tim's polling seems to break down: the parents who get to experience option 1 still vote next time round. And based on a quick anecdotal sample of my friends who are parents, the quality of the education the state can offer their children is number 1 or 2 on their list of issues that will determine their vote.
If the education system was going to be (geographically) saturated by free schools by 2015, then polling on the impact of actual experience of free school policy would be a useful predictive tool. If provision is going to remain patchy (choose the term "market-led" or"postcode lottery" depending on your ideological preference) then current day polling of a current sample of parents is probably a better predictive tool.
I think you may have got your option 1 & option 2 the wrong way round in your conclusion, but I absolutely agree.
Net net this will be a vote change for parents who experience the policy directly - whether it is positive or negative depends on what they experience.
I'm less convinced that the 'no change' will result in a positive vote against the government - would tend to drive towards "they're all useless" rather than "the other lot are better". I'm also not sure the whole funding thing has cut through to any significant degree
Good spot - you're right on the options 1 & 2. Ooops.
I think "no change" is a huge problem for any government after a few years because electorates gradually blame incumbents more and more as the term goes on - it's worse due to the Tories' particular approach of continuing to act as if they're in opposition and tell the electorate how rubbish everything is, too. Gove isn't being smart in denigrating "average local schools" unless there's a similar statement along the lines of "but it's OK cos in 2 years time every parent will be able to choose a free school". Otherwise you feed the very discontent which is inevitably an electoral problem for the party in power.
Yes, but at least 'average local school' is less emotive than 'bog-standard comprehensive'. I think you're right in the trend - but not sure that 5 years will be meaningful (especially given it's a coalition and the legacy was pretty awful). If the Tories haven't fixed it by 2020 then they deserve everything they get...
Jonny Pickering @jonnyp_90 17 Jun Stuart Hall got 15 months for sexually abusing 13 children. After London riots lad was jailed for 16 months for stealing a f***ing ice cream
Ms Harvie claimed around 42m into the programme that she wasn’t an official ‘Better Together’ representative, “nor do I speak for a political party – I’m a businesswoman”. But an alert reader noticed that she looked a lot like another Amanda Harvie...
Readers can make their own judgements about whether promising to be a “voice at the heart of David Cameron’s Conservative government” counts as “speaking for a political party” or not. All we’ll say is that if a Tory candidate is going to appear on a TV show masquerading as a political neutral, we’d at least advise wearing a different suit to the one on their election leaflet.
I'd just gently point out that saying that you are not an official representative of a campaign or of a specific party doesn't equate to 'masquerading as a political neutral'.
I'm not an official spokesman of the Tory Party (or even a member) but I expect that few would believe I'm entirely neutral on all things political...
"Is that why you wanted to draw our attention to it?"
If she did so well, Carlotta, why wasn't SHE keener to draw our attention to it? It can't possibly be that the Tory brand is toxic in Scotland, we know that, you've ruled that out as a possibility many times, so I'm absolutely stumped as to a potential explanation.
I'd just gently point out that saying that you are not an official representative of a campaign or of a specific party doesn't equate to 'masquerading as a political neutral'.
I'd just gently point out that if you don't want people to feel misled, it might be better to disclose that you were a Conservative Party candidate in a general election just three years ago.
One of the problems that Gove's policies are likely to have is their lack of positive impact on many parents. So let's say I end up having to send my daughter to a private school because there are no primary schools within half an hour's travel of my home in central London (this happened) - my starting point is being pretty fed up with the state education system, and my default is to be negatively disposed towards the bloke who's had several years to sort it out. If I'm not particularly politically engaged, I don't get much further than the assumption that he owns the problem. I don't have a tribal loathing of Gordon Brown to fall back on in order to contort myself into blaming Labour.
Now, two things could happen. The first is that a couple of free schools open close to where I live, that are not targeted at pupils of a different faith to our family, and don't focus primarily on subject, values or principles that we don't think will fit our daughter. In that case I'm probably pretty happy. Personally, I don't believe in this kind of market-obsessed approach, but I'm likely to swallow my ideological objections because my daughter is now getting a good education for free. Oh, if she gets in, of course. That's quite important too.
The second thing that could happen is that no free school of this nature opens in my area, or an unsuitable one opens, or my daughter can't get a place there. In each of these cases I'm pissed off. Even more so at the budget cuts affecting the quality of, and number of places at, existing schools in order to fund the free schools programme (and due to secrecy surrounding their funding I'm likely to assume things worse than they really are, because there's no public information available to prove the contrary). Not only do I continue to be annoyed that the education system is failing my daughter, but it's exacerbated by seeing Gove wasting huge amounts of time and energy on what I'll probably see as an ideological project that benefits very few even while there are problems affecting many.
Because of the slow pace of opening free schools and the lack of targeting them at areas of particular pressure on places, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a massive proportion of parents will be closer to option 1 than option 2. This is where Charles' point on the salience of tim's polling seems to break down: the parents who get to experience option 1 still vote next time round. And based on a quick anecdotal sample of my friends who are parents, the quality of the education the state can offer their children is number 1 or 2 on their list of issues that will determine their vote.
If the education system was going to be (geographically) saturated by free schools by 2015, then polling on the impact of actual experience of free school policy would be a useful predictive tool. If provision is going to remain patchy (choose the term "market-led" or"postcode lottery" depending on your ideological preference) then current day polling of a current sample of parents is probably a better predictive tool.
The good doctor famously opined:
"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
I remain unpersuaded that a poll respondent needs to have "actual experience of free school policy" to give an opinion which is a "useful predictive tool".
What is needed is a basic understanding of the policy being proposed and its alternatives.
The problem with polling on subsidiary questions is we have little feedback on the extent to which respondents understand the issues being polled. What percentage of those polled know who Michael Gove is and what office and responsibilities he holds? What percentage are aware of his "Free Schools" policy even at a high level let alone the detailed arguments for and against? And this is before we consider the broader range of the current government's educational policies.
The probability is that the sample polled is not fully aware of person or policy and therefore relies principally on the information provided in the pollster's question and/or uninformed prejudice to supply an answer. Very, very few of the respondents are likely to have any direct experience of Free Schools and only a slightly larger group will have an informed opinion,
Of course votes and political opinions are formed on the basis of prejudice and lack of detailed information, so the current polling returns are a useful measure of current views. Yet they are far from being what you term a "predictive tool" with regard to general election rather than current voting intention.
Public opinion is far more likely to be influenced by public debate on the issues as experience with the Free Schools matures. This will particularly apply when the first examination results are revealed. We are a year or so off this critical debate.
In the interim the current results should be noted as being of interest but of little long term significance.
I'd just gently point out that saying that you are not an official representative of a campaign or of a specific party doesn't equate to 'masquerading as a political neutral'.
I'd just gently point out that if you don't want people to feel misled, it might be better to disclose that you were a Conservative Party candidate in a general election just three years ago.
Oh come now, Charles. It's highly relevant information that would fundamentally affect people's perceptions of her, therefore they have a right to know. If she wants to offer mitigating evidence, then she could have been allowed a few moments to explain why she's moved on from the Conservative Party since 2010 (if indeed she has).
'Yes Scotland says women and young shifting to independence'
"The shift has been picked up by the same polling system that identified the surge which swept the SNP to an unprecedented majority in the 2011 Holyrood elections.
While those campaigning for a No vote are still in the lead, Yes Scotland believes there is evidence of growing support for independence among what is seen as two key groups of the electorate.
"This new, robust research is based on a sample several times the size of a conventional poll," said a Yes Scotland strategist...
The other surprise finding also contradicts recent polling in finding the strongest support for independence among those aged 16-24.
"There is now a majority among these young voters in favour of Yes," it was claimed.
The other area of strength for the pro-independence cause is among parents with children aged 11 to 15, where there is also a majority in favour."
Oh come now, Charles. It's highly relevant information that would fundamentally affect people's perceptions of her, therefore they have a right to know. If she wants to offer mitigating evidence, then she could have been allowed a few moments to explain why she's moved on from the Conservative Party since 2010 (if indeed she has).
Oh come now, Charles. It's highly relevant information that would fundamentally affect people's perceptions of her, therefore they have a right to know. If she wants to offer mitigating evidence, then she could have been allowed a few moments to explain why she's moved on from the Conservative Party since 2010 (if indeed she has).
Given that the independence debate is a cross-party one, why does her position on, say, foreign policy matter beyond whether it should be decided in London or Scotland? She could be Labour, LibDem, Tory or even - I understand - a portion of SNP voters and be in favour of preserving the constitutional status quo
"She could be Labour, LibDem, Tory or even - I understand - a portion of SNP voters and be in favour of preserving the constitutional status quo"
'Voters' - yes. Parliamentary candidates - no. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single 2010 SNP candidate who doesn't support independence (although if I've overlooked one doubtless our resident troll will be along to correct me).
@RichardJMurphy #g8 says bearer shares, nominee directors and nominee shareholders must all be banned - big changes for UK
Don't think that there are that many bearer shares left in the UK? It's more of a Swiss and BVI thing. None of the other changes really bother me - probably on balance a good thing.
"She could be Labour, LibDem, Tory or even - I understand - a portion of SNP voters and be in favour of preserving the constitutional status quo"
'Voters' - yes. Parliamentary candidates - no. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single 2010 SNP candidate who doesn't support independence (although if I've overlooked one doubtless our resident troll will be along to correct me).
My point was that you can hold pro or anti independence views regardless of party. Hence, unless you are speaking as an official representative, party affiliation doesn't matter
Joan McAlpine: 'We've tamed son of poll tax.. but no thanks to Labour'
IT was branded “son of poll tax” when first introduced – and for good reason.
The council tax was only a slight improvement on the hated Thatcher tax, which charged rich and poor the same. Son of poll tax was also unfair...
The council tax more than doubled in Scotland between 1997 and 2007, after which the new SNP government froze it.
Aberdeen City was especially bad – it saw a 72 per cent rise up to 2007. With Band D bills of £1230, Aberdonians still pay the highest council tax in Scotland. It is therefore beyond comprehension why the Labour candidate in this Thursday’s Donside by-election wants power to raise the council tax again.
That might be OK if it was only the very rich who paid more. But a rise hits everyone, especially those in work with low or average wages.
That is why Mark McDonald, the SNP candidate, is getting such a warm reception on the Donside doorsteps. The council tax is almost the only household bill controlled in Scotland – and it’s the only one that isn’t rising.
Gove don't give no compensation Gove don't pay no bills. Gove don't give no indication Gove just won't stand still. Gove kills drills you through your heart
"My point was that you can hold pro or anti independence views regardless of party. Hence, unless you are speaking as an official representative, party affiliation doesn't matter"
She obviously thought it mattered, otherwise she wouldn't have misled people by specifically claiming she didn't speak for a political party.
"Under rules governing polling, when figures are published from a poll the full data tables of that poll must also be published.
Strict rules by the polling industry body the British Polling Council, state clearly that full tables showing all the questions asked and the full data returned must be made public once figures have been reported."
"My point was that you can hold pro or anti independence views regardless of party. Hence, unless you are speaking as an official representative, party affiliation doesn't matter"
She obviously thought it mattered, otherwise she wouldn't have misled people by specifically claiming she didn't speak for a political party.
It would have been a lie to claim she was speaking for a political party if she wasn't.
Carlotta, you're getting worse than Monica. Let me try and introduce you to the English language and how it's generally used.
"Last Better Together poll you trumpeted" does not refer to the "last poll we discussed". The clue is in the words 'Better Together'. (I take it this a concession that the missing tables from that BT poll have failed to turn up?)
"Strict rules by the polling industry body the British Polling Council" generally only apply to pollsters that are actually members of the British Polling Council. You know, unlike MRUK, the pollster that conducted the dodgy youth survey that you have just prayed in aid yet again.
"Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall said: "This looks like a rookie campaigning error but it has serious consequences for Yes Scotland.
"The rules are clear: if you publish results from your private polling you must publish the full results. You cannot make some polling results public, but then claim it is private."
"Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall said: "This looks like a rookie campaigning error but it has serious consequences for Yes Scotland.
"The rules are clear: if you publish results from your private polling you must publish the full results. You cannot make some polling results public, but then claim it is private."
Bless. McDougall accusing others of a rookie mistake, when he's right in the middle of making a howler himself. The "rules" do not apply to non-BPC pollsters, and in any case they aren't what he appears to think they are. His own organisation withheld certain (presumably inconvenient) results from the last YouGov poll that they commissioned.
Better Together really ought to get a professional in and stop this daily embarrassment.
that published its full results - which enabled you to form the view that it is 'dodgy' - will we be able to see the results of the Yes Scotland private poll to subject it to the same scrutiny?
"will we be able to see the results of the Yes Scotland private poll to subject it to the same scrutiny?"
Can we assume that is also an indirect call for Better Together to publish the missing data from their last YouGov poll? That would be an entirely reasonable presumption, yes?
We all know that your intellectual and moral consistency is beyond reproach, Carlotta, so I look forward to yet more inspirational confirmation of that.
"Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall said: "This looks like a rookie campaigning error but it has serious consequences for Yes Scotland.
"The rules are clear: if you publish results from your private polling you must publish the full results. You cannot make some polling results public, but then claim it is private."
Bless. McDougall accusing others of a rookie mistake, when he's right in the middle of making a howler himself. The "rules" do not apply to non-BPC pollsters, and in any case they aren't what he appears to think they are. His own organisation withheld certain (presumably inconvenient) results from the last YouGov poll that they commissioned.
Better Together really ought to get a professional in and stop this daily embarrassment.
This quote from McDougall's statement suggest that he does know what he is talking about. "The regulations say that if Yes Scotland's pollster is a member of the British Polling Council they must now publish their full tables. "
I'll be charitable and assume you didn't read the statement rather than you chose to ignore the bits you didn't like and hope that no one else would notice.
"Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall said: "This looks like a rookie campaigning error but it has serious consequences for Yes Scotland.
"The rules are clear: if you publish results from your private polling you must publish the full results. You cannot make some polling results public, but then claim it is private."
Bless. McDougall accusing others of a rookie mistake, when he's right in the middle of making a howler himself. The "rules" do not apply to non-BPC pollsters, and in any case they aren't what he appears to think they are. His own organisation withheld certain (presumably inconvenient) results from the last YouGov poll that they commissioned.
Better Together really ought to get a professional in and stop this daily embarrassment.
I'll be charitable and assume you didn't read the statement rather than you chose to ignore the bits you didn't like and hope that no one else would notice.
James rather does have an unfortunate habit of overlooking the bits he doesn't like - a failing not uncommon among his brethren.....
Someone should teach Andrew Strauss how to wear a top hat. Or better still how to procure a hat which doesn't sit on his head like an oversized pudding basin.
Whatever did they teach him at Radley?
It is simply unacceptable for a former England cricket captain to fail such an important sartorial test.
"So, you don't know she's a Conservative candidate - or even still a member of the Conservative Party - and yet you claim she misled people....."
Hmmm. So you didn't notice my post only a few minutes ago suggesting that if she has (commendably) come to her senses about the Tories, she could have come clean about her past association and then briefly explained why she had moved on.
It is simply unacceptable for a former England cricket captain to fail such an important sartorial test.
Not to mention a potential future Conservative candidate. I hope if Strauss is ever asked to comment on Scottish Independence, he declares such a possibility, and is wearing a top hat at the time.
Someone should teach Andrew Strauss how to wear a top hat. Or better still how to procure a hat which doesn't sit on his head like an oversized pudding basin.
Whatever did they teach him at Radley?
It is simply unacceptable for a former England cricket captain to fail such an important sartorial test.
Recently overheard at prep school gate: "I'm really worried only one in four gets into Eton... I guess we should at least be able to get him into Radley, but I really don't want to go any lower than that."
I guess the import is that at least at Radley they still teach them to wear top hats, but once you fall to that impoverished level of education, they don't teach them to wear top hats *well*. Or something.
Because he is causing Lib Demmers to switch to Labour ? I'd say thats bad for LD and good for Labour ! In a round about FPTP way its probably not great for CON, but the LDs will hopefully divorce and state their own education policies before the next election which should get back some of the switchers.
Party A shouldn't really worry too much about people from party B switching to party C. Thats more party B's problem. If you state it is party A's issue then party B has lost their identity and is truly f***ed.
Apropos of nothing much, I've got the 70s prog-rock classic Love Will Embark On An Ideologically-Driven Programme Of Curriculum Reform In The Face Of All Specialist Advice Because It "Worked For Him When He Was At School", All The While Pursuing An Obsessive (But Evidence Free) Process Of Marketisation To The Detriment Of A Generation Of Children on my brain but I can't think of a suitable Gove gag. Can anyone help?
It is simply unacceptable for a former England cricket captain to fail such an important sartorial test.
Not to mention a potential future Conservative candidate. I hope if Strauss is ever asked to comment on Scottish Independence, he declares such a possibility, and is wearing a top hat at the time.
The trouble with that line, McDivvie, is that auld Eck would give up a year's supply of Scotch Pies to be at Ascot in Strauss's place.
Someone should teach Andrew Strauss how to wear a top hat. Or better still how to procure a hat which doesn't sit on his head like an oversized pudding basin.
Whatever did they teach him at Radley?
It is simply unacceptable for a former England cricket captain to fail such an important sartorial test.
Recently overheard at prep school gate: "I'm really worried only one in four gets into Eton... I guess we should at least be able to get him into Radley, but I really don't want to go any lower than that."
I guess the import is that at least at Radley they still teach them to wear top hats, but once you fall to that impoverished level of education, they don't teach them to wear top hats *well*. Or something.
It could have been worse. It is when the Prep School Headmaster suggests in hushed tones that Milton Abbey may be the most suitable destination for Crispin that the parents should worry.
Still Milton Abbey does have its own farm and golf course so its alumni would certainly know how to wear a tweed cap, Barbour and green Hunters or plus fours and Lyle cardies..
I have my suspicions that tim may be the only Old Miltonian on PB.
All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove, Gove. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is Gove, all you need is Gove, All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need. All you need is Gove (all together now) All you need is Gove (everybody) All you need is Gove, Gove, Gove is all you need.
Yes, Gove, Gove changes everything: Now I tremble At your name. Nothing in the World will ever Be the same.
Set to work idle hands Shake these thoughts Had I planned them They never would be teasing me As viciously as these
Is this Gove? Is this Gove?
Gove lifts us up where we belong...
Stop in the name of Gove before you break my heart!
Comments
Gove changes everything:
Now I tremble
At your name.
Nothing in the
World will ever
Be the same.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02593/signnew_2593256k.jpg
Others here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/signlanguage/10127092/Sign-Language-week-261.html
The only real difference is that one does so derisively and the other does so approvingly.
If their objective was to create the most suitable canal at the best price they were not optimising that.
If their objective was to create jobs (as stated by the individual) they were not maximising that.
Of course, in reality, the authorities were looking at a trade off between employment and output, but then economists deal in simplified models of the economy rather than reality.
(as an aside, BenM, I rather suspect that the Nobel-prize winning Milton Friedman was rather brighter than you. It doesn't mean he was right on this occasion, but he wasn't ignorant, and I suspect didn't have a 'tiny mind')
http://www.railalbum.co.uk/early-railways/london-birmingham-railway-3.htm
But surely "seabus" is a Merseyside delicacy.
BenM's comment just beggars belief tbh.
And in The Land That Taste Forgot - the interiors of private jets > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ultratravel/10125996/Private-jets-incredible-interiors.html
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02592/dining-private-jet_2592735k.jpg
Labour's parent academies will have to be in area where there are places needed. They'll be set up by parents and LAs working together. There will be oversight from the local authority and religious groups and academy chains will be prevented from setting them up.
The critical things are oversight and providing schools in areas where they are needed.
We had the same thing locally with the tram extension in my constituency. Most people thought it sounded quite a good idea, in a vague sort of way. The people affected by the building hated it, and some Labour voters definitely switched to voting Tory in the (erroneous) belief that the Tories would stop it.
Teachers tend to be anti-government rather thasn left-wing, incidentally - they often see the Government as the boss, handing out tiresome regulations and stingy pay rises. They voted predominantly LibDem in 2010 IIRC from the polling then. They seem generally Labour leaning now, but if Labour gets back in we'll struggle to keep their support.
Tories need to understand that in life the bottom line is not always the prime motivator. Their urge to make it so is what leads to so many rightwing stuff ups.
I look forward to you being the first to volunteer for the back-breaking work if such a scheme were approved. Of course, you'll be safe in your nice cosy office, thinking how wonderful it is that the men are doing 'productive' work.
Let me make it clear: manual work is dirty, hard, disliked, unsexy and dangerous. The idea that it is somehow 'good' to get someone to dig manually instead of using a digger (if applicable to the job) is ridiculous.
As you are going on about Tories not understanding it, let us see what a leftie did with such a scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_–_Baltic_Canal
12-25,000 men died, depending on estimate. Although with your track record, you'll probably say it was 'possibly one'. :-)
Does this mean that Ed MiIli will be cutting taxes.....?
LOL
Gove is missing an opportunity here. From what Mike says labour is effecitvely saying no more academies and free schools...
Gove should say that. Labour would prefer it if their education policy was a cryptic mystery, given their lead on this topic.
Imagine if unemployed people were asked to do this for their benefits.
Ben would be up in arms. It wouldn't be 'productive' then.
The point of a "free school" is that it is free of interference from the meddlings of Cllr.Jobsworth.
The Headmaster and Board of Parent Governors run the school in accordance with national law and guidelines without unnecessary "joined up thinking" and supervisory "oversight".
And why ban religious groups and academy chains? It is one thing to prefer integration as a policy but quite another to prevent parental preference for the schooling of their children by religious organisations. And the exclusion of "academy chains" is just fear of success multiplying.
As for providing schools in areas where they are needed there is no better way to fulfill consumer needs than allowing a free market.
So Labour education policy is to adopt Gove's policies in principle but scrawl lefitst graffiti all over the school walls.
Yet more Muddleband. Ed really was better off with a blank sheet of paper.
"Imagine if unemployed people were asked to do this for their benefits. "
The sort of work Billy Elliott's dad would approve of before he became enlightened about ballet dancing.
Yet ask for such *honest toil* in exchange for benefits... as you note - uproar. When working for a fortnight in Poundland gets bought up as a form of *slavery* - the mind boggles at the reaction to digging land drains.
Among the 102 new free schools given the go ahead to open in 2014 are two schools run by the National Autistic Society (NAS) in Lambeth and Cheshire East for children aged four to 19. The NAS is to open its first free school in Reading this September.
Other new schools include The Family School in London, which will offer alternative provision for children with complex psychological, family and mental health problems, as well as The Seva School in Coventry, a co-educational Sikh school for four to 16-year-olds run by the Sevak Education Trust.
No wonder applications for places at Free Schools far exceed availablity. This is the key measure of popularity not some subidiary question in a national political poll.
Are Tesco's going to stock their supermarket shelves with vegetables in accordance with YouGov's findings on relative preference for bananas over oranges?
It's a conundrum :^ )
Shake these thoughts
Had I planned them
They never would be teasing me
As viciously as these
Is this Gove?
Is this Gove?
Do you have the original version in Latin?
Still I am familiar with the aphorism "Qui procul ab oculis, procul a limite cordis" [trans,."out of sight, out of mind"].
"Hopi has sadly committed one of my pet hates and looked at what has happened to 2010 past voters for each party without considering the chunk that are saying don’t know or won’t vote – but it shouldn’t change the interesting conclusion that some of Labour’s lost support in recent months is former Lib Dem voters moving from Lab to UKIP, presuming people looking for the most convenient “anti-government vote”.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7666
Other pollsters do it differently and you can get better figures.
I should add that when I do breakdowns like this on PB I always include the don't knows
An excellent idea of Labours to guarantee a job to all those on benefits for more than a year. We need more canals.
He is a man who seeks after power and is not going to give any up.
Would you prefer 'strategic adviser to 3 out of the top 4 human vaccine companies and all of the leading veterinary vaccine companies'?
Now, two things could happen. The first is that a couple of free schools open close to where I live, that are not targeted at pupils of a different faith to our family, and don't focus primarily on subject, values or principles that we don't think will fit our daughter. In that case I'm probably pretty happy. Personally, I don't believe in this kind of market-obsessed approach, but I'm likely to swallow my ideological objections because my daughter is now getting a good education for free. Oh, if she gets in, of course. That's quite important too.
The second thing that could happen is that no free school of this nature opens in my area, or an unsuitable one opens, or my daughter can't get a place there. In each of these cases I'm pissed off. Even more so at the budget cuts affecting the quality of, and number of places at, existing schools in order to fund the free schools programme (and due to secrecy surrounding their funding I'm likely to assume things worse than they really are, because there's no public information available to prove the contrary). Not only do I continue to be annoyed that the education system is failing my daughter, but it's exacerbated by seeing Gove wasting huge amounts of time and energy on what I'll probably see as an ideological project that benefits very few even while there are problems affecting many.
Because of the slow pace of opening free schools and the lack of targeting them at areas of particular pressure on places, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a massive proportion of parents will be closer to option 1 than option 2. This is where Charles' point on the salience of tim's polling seems to break down: the parents who get to experience option 1 still vote next time round. And based on a quick anecdotal sample of my friends who are parents, the quality of the education the state can offer their children is number 1 or 2 on their list of issues that will determine their vote.
If the education system was going to be (geographically) saturated by free schools by 2015, then polling on the impact of actual experience of free school policy would be a useful predictive tool. If provision is going to remain patchy (choose the term "market-led" or"postcode lottery" depending on your ideological preference) then current day polling of a current sample of parents is probably a better predictive tool.
Net net this will be a vote change for parents who experience the policy directly - whether it is positive or negative depends on what they experience.
I'm less convinced that the 'no change' will result in a positive vote against the government - would tend to drive towards "they're all useless" rather than "the other lot are better". I'm also not sure the whole funding thing has cut through to any significant degree
I think "no change" is a huge problem for any government after a few years because electorates gradually blame incumbents more and more as the term goes on - it's worse due to the Tories' particular approach of continuing to act as if they're in opposition and tell the electorate how rubbish everything is, too. Gove isn't being smart in denigrating "average local schools" unless there's a similar statement along the lines of "but it's OK cos in 2 years time every parent will be able to choose a free school". Otherwise you feed the very discontent which is inevitably an electoral problem for the party in power.
Make a Labour man weep, makes a Tory man sing
Change a hawk to a little white dove
More than a feeling that's the power of Gove
Ms Harvie claimed around 42m into the programme that she wasn’t an official ‘Better Together’ representative, “nor do I speak for a political party – I’m a businesswoman”. But an alert reader noticed that she looked a lot like another Amanda Harvie...
Readers can make their own judgements about whether promising to be a “voice at the heart of David Cameron’s Conservative government” counts as “speaking for a political party” or not. All we’ll say is that if a Tory candidate is going to appear on a TV show masquerading as a political neutral, we’d at least advise wearing a different suit to the one on their election leaflet.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-brilliant-disguise/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-brilliant-disguise
Stuart Hall got 15 months for sexually abusing 13 children. After London riots lad was jailed for 16 months for stealing a f***ing ice cream
Is that why you wanted to draw our attention to it?
I'm not an official spokesman of the Tory Party (or even a member) but I expect that few would believe I'm entirely neutral on all things political...
If she did so well, Carlotta, why wasn't SHE keener to draw our attention to it? It can't possibly be that the Tory brand is toxic in Scotland, we know that, you've ruled that out as a possibility many times, so I'm absolutely stumped as to a potential explanation.
I'd just gently point out that if you don't want people to feel misled, it might be better to disclose that you were a Conservative Party candidate in a general election just three years ago.
"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
I remain unpersuaded that a poll respondent needs to have "actual experience of free school policy" to give an opinion which is a "useful predictive tool".
What is needed is a basic understanding of the policy being proposed and its alternatives.
The problem with polling on subsidiary questions is we have little feedback on the extent to which respondents understand the issues being polled. What percentage of those polled know who Michael Gove is and what office and responsibilities he holds? What percentage are aware of his "Free Schools" policy even at a high level let alone the detailed arguments for and against? And this is before we consider the broader range of the current government's educational policies.
The probability is that the sample polled is not fully aware of person or policy and therefore relies principally on the information provided in the pollster's question and/or uninformed prejudice to supply an answer. Very, very few of the respondents are likely to have any direct experience of Free Schools and only a slightly larger group will have an informed opinion,
Of course votes and political opinions are formed on the basis of prejudice and lack of detailed information, so the current polling returns are a useful measure of current views. Yet they are far from being what you term a "predictive tool" with regard to general election rather than current voting intention.
Public opinion is far more likely to be influenced by public debate on the issues as experience with the Free Schools matures. This will particularly apply when the first examination results are revealed. We are a year or so off this critical debate.
In the interim the current results should be noted as being of interest but of little long term significance.
Visitscotland appears to be 'masquerading' as an impartial public body!
Oh come now, Charles. It's highly relevant information that would fundamentally affect people's perceptions of her, therefore they have a right to know. If she wants to offer mitigating evidence, then she could have been allowed a few moments to explain why she's moved on from the Conservative Party since 2010 (if indeed she has).
"The shift has been picked up by the same polling system that identified the surge which swept the SNP to an unprecedented majority in the 2011 Holyrood elections.
While those campaigning for a No vote are still in the lead, Yes Scotland believes there is evidence of growing support for independence among what is seen as two key groups of the electorate.
"This new, robust research is based on a sample several times the size of a conventional poll," said a Yes Scotland strategist...
The other surprise finding also contradicts recent polling in finding the strongest support for independence among those aged 16-24.
"There is now a majority among these young voters in favour of Yes," it was claimed.
The other area of strength for the pro-independence cause is among parents with children aged 11 to 15, where there is also a majority in favour."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-scotland-says-women-and-young-shifting-to-independence.21359529
@RichardJMurphy
#g8 says bearer shares, nominee directors and nominee shareholders must all be banned - big changes for UK
'Voters' - yes. Parliamentary candidates - no. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single 2010 SNP candidate who doesn't support independence (although if I've overlooked one doubtless our resident troll will be along to correct me).
"As unverified, external polling it will be dismissed by pro-Union campaigners."
Don't suppose there's a link to tables or anything like that?
IT was branded “son of poll tax” when first introduced – and for good reason.
The council tax was only a slight improvement on the hated Thatcher tax, which charged rich and poor the same. Son of poll tax was also unfair...
The council tax more than doubled in Scotland between 1997 and 2007, after which the new SNP government froze it.
Aberdeen City was especially bad – it saw a 72 per cent rise up to 2007. With Band D bills of £1230, Aberdonians still pay the highest council tax in Scotland. It is therefore beyond comprehension why the Labour candidate in this Thursday’s Donside by-election wants power to raise the council tax again.
That might be OK if it was only the very rich who paid more. But a rise hits everyone, especially those in work with low or average wages.
That is why Mark McDonald, the SNP candidate, is getting such a warm reception on the Donside doorsteps. The council tax is almost the only household bill controlled in Scotland – and it’s the only one that isn’t rising.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-weve-tamed-son-1959118
Gove don't pay no bills.
Gove don't give no indication
Gove just won't stand still.
Gove kills
drills you through your heart
Gove kills
scars you from the start.
You will no doubt be praising Osborne and Cameron for tracking down the culprits far, far more assiduously than Brown and Blair....
"As unverified, external polling it will be dismissed by pro-Union campaigners."
Don't suppose there's a link to tables or anything like that?"
I'll let you know after you track down the missing tables from the last Better Together poll that you trumpeted.
She obviously thought it mattered, otherwise she wouldn't have misled people by specifically claiming she didn't speak for a political party.
"Under rules governing polling, when figures are published from a poll the full data
tables of that poll must also be published.
Strict rules by the polling industry body the British Polling Council, state clearly that full tables showing all the questions asked and the full data returned must be made public once figures have been reported."
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/80306/better_together_yes_scotland_poll_must_now_be_published.html
So given the tables have not been published, we can only assume Yes Scotland's pollster is not a member of the BPC?
Oh....and the last poll we discussed did publish its data:
http://aqmen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Results_Report_Young_Persons_Survey_May2013_0.pdf
Otherwise you should be careful of accusing her of dishonesty - might get OGH in trouble.
Gove hurts, Gove scars,
Gove wounds and marks,
Any teach not tough,
or strong enough,
To take a lot of pain,
OFSTED's in again,
Gove is like a cloud
Holds a lot of rain,
Gove hurts.....oooooooohhhh Gove hurts
"Last Better Together poll you trumpeted" does not refer to the "last poll we discussed". The clue is in the words 'Better Together'. (I take it this a concession that the missing tables from that BT poll have failed to turn up?)
"Strict rules by the polling industry body the British Polling Council" generally only apply to pollsters that are actually members of the British Polling Council. You know, unlike MRUK, the pollster that conducted the dodgy youth survey that you have just prayed in aid yet again.
"The rules are clear: if you publish results from your private polling you must publish the full results. You cannot make some polling results public, but then claim it is private."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-camp-faces-calls-to-publish-2014-poll-results.21364135
Otherwise you should be careful of accusing her of dishonesty - might get OGH in trouble."
Will you get into trouble for misrepresenting my words? Let's hope so.
I chose my words carefully. I said that she misled people. That is beyond credible dispute.
"The rules are clear: if you publish results from your private polling you must publish the full results. You cannot make some polling results public, but then claim it is private."
Bless. McDougall accusing others of a rookie mistake, when he's right in the middle of making a howler himself. The "rules" do not apply to non-BPC pollsters, and in any case they aren't what he appears to think they are. His own organisation withheld certain (presumably inconvenient) results from the last YouGov poll that they commissioned.
Better Together really ought to get a professional in and stop this daily embarrassment.
We both know the answer to that James, don't we?
You claimed she misled people.
You demonstrate she represents the Conservatives.
That is the real shocker of this poll.
Of current LDs, more prefer CON to LAB policy.
Who is this polling bad for again ?
Can we assume that is also an indirect call for Better Together to publish the missing data from their last YouGov poll? That would be an entirely reasonable presumption, yes?
We all know that your intellectual and moral consistency is beyond reproach, Carlotta, so I look forward to yet more inspirational confirmation of that.
Do you mean "if she isn't a Conservative candidate in that general election we aren't having at the moment"? Do you want to listen to yourself?
I'll be charitable and assume you didn't read the statement rather than you chose to ignore the bits you didn't like and hope that no one else would notice.
Whatever did they teach him at Radley?
It is simply unacceptable for a former England cricket captain to fail such an important sartorial test.
Are you one of my brethren, Carlotta? After all, we do still seem to be missing -
1) An apology for Lucinda Creighton
2) Tables from the last Better Together poll
How many weeks/months have you been 'overlooking' those?
Hmmm. So you didn't notice my post only a few minutes ago suggesting that if she has (commendably) come to her senses about the Tories, she could have come clean about her past association and then briefly explained why she had moved on.
Another thing you 'overlooked'?
http://spectator.org/people/peter-hitchens/all.xml
I hope if Strauss is ever asked to comment on Scottish Independence, he declares such a possibility, and is wearing a top hat at the time.
I guess the import is that at least at Radley they still teach them to wear top hats, but once you fall to that impoverished level of education, they don't teach them to wear top hats *well*. Or something.
Party A shouldn't really worry too much about people from party B switching to party C. Thats more party B's problem.
If you state it is party A's issue then party B has lost their identity and is truly f***ed.
The day may yet come when the only people who want to get married in Britain will be lesbian clergywomen.
Kippers for tea, Vicar?.
So 25% of us have at least a theoretical chance of becoming Prime Minister? I must admit that's not quite as bad as I thought.
And I bet he would know how to wear a top hat!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/3177185/Alex-Salmond-is-the-Nat-in-the-hat.html
Still Milton Abbey does have its own farm and golf course so its alumni would certainly know how to wear a tweed cap, Barbour and green Hunters or plus fours and Lyle cardies..
I have my suspicions that tim may be the only Old Miltonian on PB.
before you break my heart!