politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nearly 2 in 5 CON members would vote to leave EU even if Da

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nearly 2 in 5 CON members would vote to leave EU even if Dave renogiated and recomended deal

521 of the 852 sample in YouGov CON members poll were aged 60+

Read the full story here

Slackbladder

Gove, what a guy

TheScreamingEagles

So they under sampled 60+ age range ?

Interesting that Cameron is still so popular and persuasive amongst Tory members.

MyBurningEars

Not sure that much can be learned from comparing a poll of purely hypothetical voting intentions in a hypothetical referendum after a hypothetical renegotiation, to hypothetical voting intentions in a non-existent referendum.

If the conclusion is "Tory members somewhat eurosceptic" then blow me down - it's a good job my heart is healthy enough to withstand the shock.

Charles

MyBurningEars said:

Not sure that much can be learned from comparing a poll of purely hypothetical voting intentions in a hypothetical referendum after a hypothetical renegotiation, to hypothetical voting intentions in a non-existent referendum.

Shouldn't that be a hypothetically non-existent referendum?

Marches

TheScreamingEagles said:

So they under sampled 60+ age range ?

Interesting that Cameron is still so popular and persuasive amongst Tory members.

Interesting that the headline to this article takes a completly different view to your second line [I would have thought the surprise that it's not higher would be a more objective approach]

JamesKelly

*puts on Canadian accent*

It's another terrrrr-ible afternoon for the Conservatives.

ZenPagan

Caught out by the new thread

FPT in reply to ProfessorDavey

Sorry that is incorrect as you know full well, you quote a percentage of those that voted, as a percentage of those eligible to vote the drop has been greater by far

The turnout was about 65% in 2010 so the three main parties got 57.2% of total votes

picking 1979 for instance turnout was 76% total top 3 vote was 94.6%
Therefore top 3 vote share was 71.90% of total votes

That is a drop of 14% in support from the voting population over 30 years

However you keep telling yourself the drop is minimal but sooner or later those people who have stopped voting due to the general crapness of our political classes are going to get fed up and find a voice again and it won't be voting for your lib lab or con

[Deleted User]

So 3 in 5 Tory voters will believe what Dave says about how good his EU negotiations were. That is a spectacularly good result for Dave. Persoanlly I wouldn't trust him an inch on this.

MyBurningEars

Charles said:

Shouldn't that be a hypothetically non-existent referendum?

The only thing that's not hypothetical, is that the "EU Referendum Now" really *is* non-existent.

Random

From previous thread, but still on topic fortunately -

Charles said:

In 20 years time I suspect the opportunity to leave by democratic means will no longer be there - these opportunities only come around infrequently, so you need to seize them when you can.

Perhaps, if you genuinely believe that the best way of getting a referendum is voting for a Conservative government led by David Cameron. If you do not - if you believe that Cameron is carefully phrasing his promises now so that he can renege on the spirit of them while honouring the letter (like he did over Lisbon) - then voting Conservative would be a major mistake. All it will do is encourage the likes of Cameron to believe that "I support a referendum in principle, but now is not the right time/this is not the right issue" is a viable strategy. If you want an actual referendum, then (assuming a UKIP majority is impractical) then Cameron needs to be beaten, and more so he needs to be beaten in such a way that the Conservative party understands they will never win again until they give us a leader who gets it. Yes, this means that we won't get a referendum before the 2020 election, sadly. But if we enable Cameron and his "yes, but" style we will never get one because we will alternate between prime ministers who are opposed in principle to a referendum and prime ministers who believe that the right time for a referendum is always some years in the future.

Now it's possible I'm completely wrong on this and misjudging Cameron's character, but I would venture to suggest that his track record so far is a better fit for my position than it is for yours.

TheScreamingEagles

Marches said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So they under sampled 60+ age range ?

Interesting that Cameron is still so popular and persuasive amongst Tory members.

Interesting that the headline to this article takes a completly different view to your second line [I would have thought the surprise that it's not higher would be a more objective approach]

That's the great thing about interpreting numbers.

I remember when he was on 90% approval ratings

AndyJS

In the local elections Labour missed 5 seats in their top 68 targets (the ones they need for a majority) but picked up 6 seats beyond number 68, which would suggest they would have won a very small overall majority if the election had been held this year:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGRabkF6R2dtNkxqZnRHUHk0cE5fM0E

CarlottaVance

The Telegraph's take on the same data:

"Tory members trust David Cameron on the EU. Here's the poll that proves it
If David Cameron says he has renegotiated a good settlement for Britain, Tory members would vote to stay in the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10129906/Tory-members-trust-David-Cameron-on-the-EU.-Heres-the-poll-that-proves-it.html

The data:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kkgf9pwnqb/YouGov-Bale&Webb-Survey-Results-David-Cameron-EU.pdf

MyBurningEars

I would be interested to know what Tory members expect the hypothetically-Dave-endorsed renegotiated membership terms to be, though, particularly given so many of them are hypothetically supportive. The way the EU works, I think there can't be a lot of fundamental stuff up for grabs. Some expectations management may be in order shortly.

On a related note, I'm not sure why the Conservative leadership think increasing the headline time, and therefore one assumes the salience, of the EU membership issue is a good idea electorally. Quite aside from it exposing divisions within his party, never popular with voters, it looks like a tricky thing to deliver on, while the Tories are in direct competition with a party that absorbs electoral energy from the more-heat-than-light generated by in/out argument.

ZenPagan

I think all this tells us is that the 31% of tory voters who switch have a blind and uncritical belief that David Cameron will admit the terms (if any) he has negotiated are not up to scratch.

Quick PB straw poll

Select 1 or 2

1) Dave will admit he was crap at negotiating and recommend to leave the EU if he doesn't get what he wants

2) Dave will claim he negotiated brilliantly and secured all he wanted even if the net effect of negotiations is even more sovereignty to Brussels

If I may borrow a description

David Cameron just like plankton only taller

taffys

Is it possible Dave could come back with an offer he does not recommend??

Could he come back saying 'they are only offering us peanuts - I can't recommend this sh*t'....??

old_labour

That's half the fun of elections- unpredictable results.

AndyJS said:

In the local elections Labour missed 5 seats in their top 68 targets (the ones they need for a majority) but picked up 6 seats beyond number 68, which would suggest they would have won a very small overall majority if the election had been held this year:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGRabkF6R2dtNkxqZnRHUHk0cE5fM0E

Grandiose

Is this a good or bad thing for Dave? I mean, it could be seen as postiive: even people who aren't optimistic about renegotiation haven't jumped ship to UKIP.

AndyJS

SeanT on climate change:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/

TheScreamingEagles

Grandiose said:

Is this a good or bad thing for Dave? I mean, it could be seen as postiive: even people who aren't optimistic about renegotiation haven't jumped ship to UKIP.

Eurosceptics are never happy.

Give them a centimetre and they take a kilometre.

Even if Cameron oversaw our withdrawal from the EU they'd complain it was the wrong sort of exit.

Charles

Random said:

From previous thread, but still on topic fortunately -

Charles said:

In 20 years time I suspect the opportunity to leave by democratic means will no longer be there - these opportunities only come around infrequently, so you need to seize them when you can.

Perhaps, if you genuinely believe that the best way of getting a referendum is voting for a Conservative government led by David Cameron. If you do not - if you believe that Cameron is carefully phrasing his promises now so that he can renege on the spirit of them while honouring the letter (like he did over Lisbon) - then voting Conservative would be a major mistake. All it will do is encourage the likes of Cameron to believe that "I support a referendum in principle, but now is not the right time/this is not the right issue" is a viable strategy. If you want an actual referendum, then (assuming a UKIP majority is impractical) then Cameron needs to be beaten, and more so he needs to be beaten in such a way that the Conservative party understands they will never win again until they give us a leader who gets it. Yes, this means that we won't get a referendum before the 2020 election, sadly. But if we enable Cameron and his "yes, but" style we will never get one because we will alternate between prime ministers who are opposed in principle to a referendum and prime ministers who believe that the right time for a referendum is always some years in the future.

Now it's possible I'm completely wrong on this and misjudging Cameron's character, but I would venture to suggest that his track record so far is a better fit for my position than it is for yours.

I agree with your analysis. However my assessment is that to welch on a referendum would be a Career Limiting Manoeuvre by Cameron. Since his personal interests are aligned in this way, then I think he will keep his promise (but not for any higher or better reason).

I think you are optimistic, though, on the next opportunity. If Cameron loses, the Tories will tear themselves apart - let's say it will be 2025 at the earliest before they can win an election. Next you need a causi belli to create the situation where a referendum is possible. Treaties only tend to come around every 10-15 years, so possibly there may be one in 2030?

Effectively you are saying: Charles, sorry mate, your generation doesn't get to have a say about whether you want most of your life to be spent in the EU or not.

Charles

ZenPagan said:

I think all this tells us is that the 31% of tory voters who switch have a blind and uncritical belief that David Cameron will admit the terms (if any) he has negotiated are not up to scratch.

Quick PB straw poll

Select 1 or 2

1) Dave will admit he was crap at negotiating and recommend to leave the EU if he doesn't get what he wants

2) Dave will claim he negotiated brilliantly and secured all he wanted even if the net effect of negotiations is even more sovereignty to Brussels

If I may borrow a description

David Cameron just like plankton only taller

You forgot option 3: Dave claims he negotiatied brialliantly, but those f***ing French meant that there was never a realistic option, so he reluctantly recommends to leave

ZenPagan

Charles said:

ZenPagan said:

I think all this tells us is that the 31% of tory voters who switch have a blind and uncritical belief that David Cameron will admit the terms (if any) he has negotiated are not up to scratch.

Quick PB straw poll

Select 1 or 2

1) Dave will admit he was crap at negotiating and recommend to leave the EU if he doesn't get what he wants

2) Dave will claim he negotiated brilliantly and secured all he wanted even if the net effect of negotiations is even more sovereignty to Brussels

If I may borrow a description

David Cameron just like plankton only taller

You forgot option 3: Dave claims he negotiatied brialliantly, but those f***ing French meant that there was never a realistic option, so he reluctantly recommends to leave

I am sorry Dave recommending to leave? Is this serious? You had the temerity to offer to sell me a unicorn then make a suggestion so bizarrely unlikely that it would require the lifetime of multiple universes to occur

Pulpstar

OGH banging on about Europe again ?

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

I feel it's important to declare that I am not a Mexican cat attempting to become mayor of Jalapa.

peterbuss

I think OGH is missing something here and that is that in spite of all we keep hearing that the Conservative base is virulently anti EU and just wants out "whatever" that is far far from the truth.There are a sizeable and very vocal minority who fit that description but they are not the majority by any means.Incidentally the PM is also far more popular with his Party than these selfsame critics assert. Asa mkember of the Party these findings do not suprise me and indeed also show just how very difficult it will be for the out campaign to win in any referendum.

peterbuss

Tim - an interesting point you make but even if DC gets an opt out of the Social Chapter that still leaves Parliament the ability to decide what it wants to put in its place - and that will vary according to who wins an election i.e the people will decide what they want in that respect.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

If option 3 happens. My hair will grow back from the shock

Charles said:

ZenPagan said:

I think all this tells us is that the 31% of tory voters who switch have a blind and uncritical belief that David Cameron will admit the terms (if any) he has negotiated are not up to scratch.

Quick PB straw poll

Select 1 or 2

1) Dave will admit he was crap at negotiating and recommend to leave the EU if he doesn't get what he wants

2) Dave will claim he negotiated brilliantly and secured all he wanted even if the net effect of negotiations is even more sovereignty to Brussels

If I may borrow a description

David Cameron just like plankton only taller

You forgot option 3: Dave claims he negotiatied brialliantly, but those f***ing French meant that there was never a realistic option, so he reluctantly recommends to leave

david_kendrick1

CarlottaVance said:

The Telegraph's take on the same data:

"Tory members trust David Cameron on the EU. Here's the poll that proves it
If David Cameron says he has renegotiated a good settlement for Britain, Tory members would vote to stay in the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10129906/Tory-members-trust-David-Cameron-on-the-EU.-Heres-the-poll-that-proves-it.html

The data:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kkgf9pwnqb/YouGov-Bale&Webb-Survey-Results-David-Cameron-EU.pdf

Tory members want to trust Cameron. No surprise there, even though by admitting in advance that that he's going to recommend staying in, he has fatally undermined his negotiating position.

Certainties:

1 The stronger UKIP is, the more likely there will be a referendum.

2 Cameron is the wrong man to organise a Brexit.

3 Cameron is an enemy of BOO.

Alanbrooke

david_kendrick1 said:

CarlottaVance said:

The Telegraph's take on the same data:

"Tory members trust David Cameron on the EU. Here's the poll that proves it
If David Cameron says he has renegotiated a good settlement for Britain, Tory members would vote to stay in the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10129906/Tory-members-trust-David-Cameron-on-the-EU.-Heres-the-poll-that-proves-it.html

The data:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kkgf9pwnqb/YouGov-Bale&Webb-Survey-Results-David-Cameron-EU.pdf

Tory members want to trust Cameron. No surprise there, even though by admitting in advance that that he's going to recommend staying in, he has fatally undermined his negotiating position.

Certainties:

1 The stronger UKIP is, the more likely there will be a referendum.

2 Cameron is the wrong man to organise a Brexit.

3 Cameron is an enemy of BOO.

I'd nave thought the more concerning thing for you would be this says you'll lose a referendum. UKIP are in no shape to win it if we got one.

CarlottaVance

david_kendrick1 said:

CarlottaVance said:

The Telegraph's take on the same data:

"Tory members trust David Cameron on the EU. Here's the poll that proves it
If David Cameron says he has renegotiated a good settlement for Britain, Tory members would vote to stay in the EU"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10129906/Tory-members-trust-David-Cameron-on-the-EU.-Heres-the-poll-that-proves-it.html

The data:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kkgf9pwnqb/YouGov-Bale&Webb-Survey-Results-David-Cameron-EU.pdf

even though by admitting in advance that that he's going to recommend staying in

Got a quote to back that up.....?

AndyJS

"Duchess of Cambridge expected to give birth at London's St Mary's Hospital where Princess Diana had her sons

It is understood the duchess and Prince William have not been told the baby's sex as they want it to be a surprise.":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22976895

old_labour

I think immigration/free movement of labour is the key issue for the Faragistes.

peterbuss said:

Tim - an interesting point you make but even if DC gets an opt out of the Social Chapter that still leaves Parliament the ability to decide what it wants to put in its place - and that will vary according to who wins an election i.e the people will decide what they want in that respect.

AndyJS

If the over 55s were excluded from voting we'd have a completely different election on our hands with the Tories and UKIP both being reduced to minor players.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JS, there are some fun little snippets in that piece:
"The practice of the Home Secretary being present at a royal birth ended in 1936. "

Scrapheap_as_was

Just how crap is Ed?

Bobajob

AndyJS said:

If the over 55s were excluded from voting we'd have a completely different election on our hands with the Tories and UKIP both being reduced to minor players.

Indeed. No surprises that the over 60s want to leave the EU - they have the luxury of tub thumping given most of them are retirees not concerned about the damage it would cause to business and commerce.

CarlottaVance

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

Charles

ZenPagan said:

Charles said:

ZenPagan said:

I think all this tells us is that the 31% of tory voters who switch have a blind and uncritical belief that David Cameron will admit the terms (if any) he has negotiated are not up to scratch.

Quick PB straw poll

Select 1 or 2

1) Dave will admit he was crap at negotiating and recommend to leave the EU if he doesn't get what he wants

2) Dave will claim he negotiated brilliantly and secured all he wanted even if the net effect of negotiations is even more sovereignty to Brussels

If I may borrow a description

David Cameron just like plankton only taller

You forgot option 3: Dave claims he negotiatied brialliantly, but those f***ing French meant that there was never a realistic option, so he reluctantly recommends to leave

I am sorry Dave recommending to leave? Is this serious? You had the temerity to offer to sell me a unicorn then make a suggestion so bizarrely unlikely that it would require the lifetime of multiple universes to occur

Dave would happily recommend to leave the EU if it was in his own interests. So, to get that happening, you need to get someone to club together and offer him a board position that will pay more than a Senior Adviser role at JP Morgan...

old_labour

Has DC said what he wants to renegotiate?

JackW

May I say how much I enjoy James Kelly's new "Yes" to the Union avatar.

Fine fellow, well done.

david_kendrick1

"I'd have thought the more concerning thing for you would be this says you'll lose a referendum. UKIP are in no shape to win it if we got one."




This is probably right---the referendum is more likely to be lost than won, though I would have thought it would be close.

To be sure of winning one, we'd need a tory leader in favour of leaving the EU.

The tory line---'you have to vote tory to get a referendum'---thus carries no weight.

Alanbrooke

Bobajob said:

AndyJS said:

If the over 55s were excluded from voting we'd have a completely different election on our hands with the Tories and UKIP both being reduced to minor players.

Indeed. No surprises that the over 60s want to leave the EU - they have the luxury of tub thumping given most of them are retirees not concerned about the damage it would cause to business and commerce.

What damage ? Odds are it would be mildly positive, but nowhere near as great as the BOOers claim.

ZenPagan

Charles said:

Dave would happily recommend to leave the EU if it was in his own interests. So, to get that happening, you need to get someone to club together and offer him a board position that will pay more than a Senior Adviser role at JP Morgan...

There you have in a nutshell what is wrong with the political class of the country, it will only happen if its good for them and if it is not they are prepared to crap on the rest of us

richardDodd

Why is it assumed by many posters on PB that when a person reaches the age of 55/65 they suddenly become brain dead.

Monty

Can't for the life of me work out how the Conservatives can possibly win the next election. No way they can win more seats than last time. Hung Parliament all day long with Labour the largest party. Minority government with another election after six months. That Labour win.

Pulpstar

Obviously the facts of the case are plain for all to see and there is probably only one correct verdict in this case, but I'd be sorely tempted to find the other way if I was a juror on this case with the desperate conflagration of muddying completely different issues with one another in the way the prosecution are doing in this case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22969869

JackW

old_labour said:

Has DC said what he wants to renegotiate?

Any attempt by the Labour party to replace Ed ?!?

JosiasJessop

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

david_kendrick1

Bobajob said:

AndyJS said:

If the over 55s were excluded from voting we'd have a completely different election on our hands with the Tories and UKIP both being reduced to minor players.

Indeed. No surprises that the over 60s want to leave the EU - they have the luxury of tub thumping given most of them are retirees not concerned about the damage it would cause to business and commerce.

Bizarre. Most of us over 60s will still eat even if Britain stays in the EU.

I'm working to promote BOO for my grandchildren, and their issue after them.

richardDodd

Epic fail by Mr Twigg.

Anorak

richardDodd said:

Epic fail by Mr Twigg.

Indeed. Very petulant. Gove must be laughing his socks off.

Scrapheap_as_was

Good to see Twigg comments on Gove wasting his time writing to him, I presume someone counting to 1,300 was quite an excitement in Twigg's own day? Perhaps that took up most of the time since he received Gove's letter?

TGOHF

On thread - 2017's issues discussed today - does that mean that OGH is saying Cam as PM in 2017 is a given ?

old_labour

Nope.

JackW said:

old_labour said:

Has DC said what he wants to renegotiate?

Any attempt by the Labour party to replace Ed ?!?

Scott_P

Anorak said:

richardDodd said:

Epic fail by Mr Twigg.

Indeed. Very petulant. Gove must be laughing his socks off.

Of the questions asked by Gove, Twigg appears to have answered none.

That should warrant an F, or A* under Labours' grade inflation

TGOHF

Also in terms of numbers : Con voters >>>>>>> Con members - which Cam seems to have grasped.

Anorak

Scott_P said:

Anorak said:

richardDodd said:

Epic fail by Mr Twigg.

Indeed. Very petulant. Gove must be laughing his socks off.

Of the questions asked by Gove, Twigg appears to have answered none.

That should warrant an F, or A* under Labours' grade inflation

Plus a special badge for the clever little soldier. Nobody loses under Labour! 'Course, not may winners in that case, either...

JackW

old_labour said:

Nope.

JackW said:

old_labour said:

Has DC said what he wants to renegotiate?

Any attempt by the Labour party to replace Ed ?!?

Just a thought ....

Now in your secret dream wishlist who'd you rather lead Labour into the 2015 GE if OGH successfully pushed Ed under a bus in an attempt tp promote betting opportunities ??

Pulpstar

Not sure which is worse, Gove's final sentence or Twigg's reply.

Fs all round.

Scott_P

Twigg's reply not only petulant, but illiterate

@WikiGuido
Er @StephenTwigg, I think you mean "carrier pigeon", not "pigeon carrier". Stay after class.

He probably wishes he hadn't bothered now

CarlottaVance

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

I thought that Gove, peace be upon him, wrote more than the foreword to the Bible.
Or is that just another PB Tory anecdote?

Neither:

""I have to confess that I didn't know they were going to say 'presented by the secretary for education' until I actually saw the first Bible," he said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/25/michael-gove-bibles-schools-plan

david_herdson

taffys said:

Is it possible Dave could come back with an offer he does not recommend??

Could he come back saying 'they are only offering us peanuts - I can't recommend this sh*t'....??

It is possible but it's unlikely, partly because no-one wants to come back from negotiations and say that they failed and partly because the EU does actually want the UK as a member (and its sizable net contribution), and others - including Merkel - agree with many of the criticisms Cameron has made so there should be scope to come back with more than scraps.

That said, the decision is not ultimately Cameron's. This issue does matter to Tory members, Tory MPs and Tory cabinet ministers and Cameron cannot credibly lead a campaign (or party or government) if the majority of his MPs are taking the opposite view of what he and his government have negotiated. If the deal isn't acceptable, though the poll suggests there's plenty of goodwill to draw on so it probably will be, but if it's not, Cameron will have to choose between losing his premiership or advocating Out.

RedRag1

I assume the PB Conservatives are still a bit sore with Mr Twigg for defeating the one time darling of the right Mr Portillo in 1997?

Anorak

RedRag1 said:

I assume the PB Conservatives are still a bit sore with Mr Twigg for defeating the one time darling of the right Mr Portillo in 1997?

You're correct. That is the only reason we are now laughing at Stephen Twigg. Memories like elephants, PB Tories, and we hold a grudge longer than a Sicilian.

Next up, that b*stard Don Foster.

TGOHF

Most unsurprising observation of the day is how unfunny Twigg's reply is.

Haven't laughed so much since Dave Prentice's Kate Middleton "joke".

Labour conference must be a right laugh.

old_labour

Cruddas would be interesting. I'm sure brother, David can relate his first hand experience of being thrown under a bus.

JackW said:

old_labour said:

Nope.

JackW said:

old_labour said:

Has DC said what he wants to renegotiate?

Any attempt by the Labour party to replace Ed ?!?

Just a thought ....

Now in your secret dream wishlist who'd you rather lead Labour into the 2015 GE if OGH successfully pushed Ed under a bus in an attempt tp promote betting opportunities ??

JackW

RedRag1 said:

I assume the PB Conservatives are still a bit sore with Mr Twigg for defeating the one time darling of the right Mr Portillo in 1997?

As opposed to Mr Twigg's arse being sore from the cane that's just been administered to him in the Commons.

Bend over Twigg .... Thwack !!

Charles

Anorak said:

RedRag1 said:

I assume the PB Conservatives are still a bit sore with Mr Twigg for defeating the one time darling of the right Mr Portillo in 1997?

You're correct. That is the only reason we are now laughing at Stephen Twigg. Memories like elephants, PB Tories, and we hold a grudge longer than a Sicilian.

The average length of a Sicilian is only 168cm, so that's quite a lot of grudges ;-)

richardDodd

Twigg should have been clever and seriously answered all of Goves quite reasonable questions, it would have taken the wind out of Gove's sails somewhat, but maybe he really does not have any answers

Neil

richardDodd said:

Why is it assumed by many posters on PB that when a person reaches the age of 55/65 they suddenly become brain dead.

Indeed - JackW has surely shown that the precise age that happens is 112

(SOrry JackW, please dont make me eat your pies!)

Pulpstar

Grammar pedant point:
Stephen Twigg is inconsistent with his serial commas.

JackW

@old_labour

Cruddas certainly would be interesting .... as in fatal !!

Anorak

Charles said:

Anorak said:

RedRag1 said:

I assume the PB Conservatives are still a bit sore with Mr Twigg for defeating the one time darling of the right Mr Portillo in 1997?

You're correct. That is the only reason we are now laughing at Stephen Twigg. Memories like elephants, PB Tories, and we hold a grudge longer than a Sicilian.

The average length of a Sicilian is only 168cm, so that's quite a lot of grudges ;-)

Jokes like that need a *bum-tish*

You can find one here: http://instantrimshot.com

RedRag1

This is more like it :http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gove_picket.jpg

JackW

Neil said:

richardDodd said:

Why is it assumed by many posters on PB that when a person reaches the age of 55/65 they suddenly become brain dead.

Indeed - JackW has surely shown that the precise age that happens is 112

(SOrry JackW, please dont make me eat your pies!)

My dear Neil I wouldn't make you eat my pies but perhaps contribute in a rather different and "inclusive" fashion !!

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

MikeK

OGH is in love with YouGov. For days it's been YouGov this, YouGove that. So ICM no longer the wonder pollster?. When YouGov start plugging UKIP in tandem with the other three main parties, thats the day I'll pay attention.

Anorak

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

I was taught by an 'unqualified' chemistry teacher. He got a PhD and then worked in industry for 30 years as a research chemist. Started teaching one day a week as a PR exercise between his employer and the school, and eventually ended up on the staff.

Everyone remembers their best teachers, and he was one of mine. Here endeth the anecdote.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

MikeK said:

OGH is in love with YouGov. For days it's been YouGov this, YouGove that. So ICM no longer the wonder pollster?. When YouGov start plugging UKIP in tandem with the other three main parties, thats the day I'll pay attention.

MikeK said:

OGH is in love with YouGov. For days it's been YouGov this, YouGove that. So ICM no longer the wonder pollster?. When YouGov start plugging UKIP in tandem with the other three main parties, thats the day I'll pay attention.

Although European directive 456 on the obligatory use of YouGov might be worth investigating

That's 476 - 456 covers the seizure and rationing of tin foil....

RedRag1

Can anyone guess how long the new darling of the right was actually out on strike for? http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gove_picket.jpg

CarlottaVance

Brilliant - if possibly somewhat misleading headline:

"Eastleigh Lib dem Jailed Again"

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/06/another-eastleigh-liberal-democrat-goes-to-jail-naked-rambler-stephen-gough/

RedRag1

Gove was “an active striker, willingly taking his turn on picket duty and going on a small delegation to Strasbourg to press the union’s case”. Red Mick?

ProfessorDavey

ZenPagan said:

ProfessorDavey said:

ZenPagan said:

The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.

Sure you are correct that vote share for the big three parties has dropped over the past few elections but the shift has hardly been seismic - so the combined vote share for the tories, labour and libdems for the past 4 elections (1997 first) has been 90.7%, 90.7%, 89.6%, 88.1%. So a shift of just 2.6% to smaller parties.

No neither you nor I know what will happen in 2015 - perhaps that will be the seismic shift, but remember how everyone was talking about loss of trust in all major parties before the 2010 election due in part to expenses scandal etc, yet their combined vote share only dropped from 89.6% in 2005 to 88.1% in 2010.

So, until or unless there is evidence to the contrary it does appear the vast majority of those that vote continue to meekly line up and vote for one of the big three.

Sorry that is incorrect as you know full well, you quote a percentage of those that voted, as a percentage of those eligible to vote the drop has been greater by far

FPT - ZenPagan

Actually if you factor in turnout the proportion of the total electorate voting for the big three parties has actually risen over the past three general elections as turnout rose from 2001 to 2005, and then again to 2010. And the rise in turnout more than balances the fall in vote share for the big three parties of those that actually voted.

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.

Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.

So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?

And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?

Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

Or is indoctrination your aim?

CarlottaVance

RedRag1 said:

Gove was “an active striker, willingly taking his turn on picket duty and going on a small delegation to Strasbourg to press the union’s case”. Red Mick?

And the relevance of a story that is nearly a quarter of a century old is?

You must be really embarrassed by Stephen Twigg's letter!

Here's a story from 8 years ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4526154.stm

Andy_JS

UKIP haven't dropped below 12% in the polls since the local elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Charles

CarlottaVance said:

Brilliant - if possibly somewhat misleading headline:

"Eastleigh Lib dem Jailed Again"

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/06/another-eastleigh-liberal-democrat-goes-to-jail-naked-rambler-stephen-gough/

Great thing about that photo is the PCs are both studiously looking anywhere but in his direction...

RedRag1

Surely somone must know how long Red Mick was out on strike? It must have been a while. Travelling over to Strasbourg and pleading on behalf of his union, standing up for the brothers.

Andy_JS

Naked Rambler gets 11 months for walking around without any clothes on compared to 15 months for Hall's crimes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/19/naked-rambler-stephen-gough-jailed-asbo

Andy_JS

"The leader of the Scottish Conservatives was refused alcohol at a Bruce Springsteen concert - because the barman did not believe she was over 18."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22972020

JosiasJessop

CarlottaVance said:

Brilliant - if possibly somewhat misleading headline:

"Eastleigh Lib dem Jailed Again"

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/06/another-eastleigh-liberal-democrat-goes-to-jail-naked-rambler-stephen-gough/

Anecdote alert: when I was on my walk ten years ago, I was in Dingwall at the same time as Gough was appearing in court there. Drivers were stopping on the A9 and asking me if I was the naked rambler.

Despite the fact I was fully clothed in the glorious weather.

Later, someone sent me an email threatening to 'crash my servers' after having the temerity to criticise the 'freedom fighter' Gough on my website. Needless to say, nothing happened.

Besides, I'm better looking naked than him... :-)

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.

Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.

So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?

And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?

Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

Or is indoctrination your aim?

I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

An exceedingly heart-warming story from Afghanistan:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22943454

I particularly like this response by a five-year old girl. It could teach Gove brevity:

Malalai, do you enjoy flying in a helicopter?
Yes. I feel as if I am hugging the stars.

CarlottaVance

Gove replies to Twigg's reply:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/michael-gove-kindly-warns-stephen-twigg-people-think-youre-weak/

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.

Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.

So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?

And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?

Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

Or is indoctrination your aim?

I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.

Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?

So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.

Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.

AlastairMeeks

@JosiasJessop I have always assumed that, given the rest of his physical appearance, the Naked Rambler is advertising his best feature.

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.

Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.

So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?

And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?

Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

Or is indoctrination your aim?

I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.

Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?

So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.

Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.

Rubbish.

I am saying it is fine for interesting people to give talks to students or to teach specific (ie, one-off or specifically defined) classes in areas related to their primary expertise, though I would expect qualified teachers to be there too in case pupils got unruly, there was some kind of disruption or other incident which the unqulaified guest is not trained to deal with. I am saying it is not fine for unqualified individuals to be paid to teach regular curriculum-based classes. And I am saying it is downright dangerous for non-qualified individuals to teach at primary level. If you do not understand the difference or if you disagree, then there is not much I can do about that.

CarlottaVance

“Haggis is an English dish that the Scots decided they would take on when they decided they needed a national identity."

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/71322/haggis-not-scottish-claims-burns-night-dish-was-invented-by

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twigg's reply to Gove:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148763979/St-Letter

Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?

This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?

Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.

It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.

He'd get an F in any school for that reply.

It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.

If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.

Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.

Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.

So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?

And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?

Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

Or is indoctrination your aim?

I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.

Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?

So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.

Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.

Rubbish.

I am saying it is fine for interesting people to give talks to students or to teach specific (ie, one-off or specifically defined) classes in areas related to their primary expertise, though I would expect qualified teachers to be there too in case pupils got unruly, there was some kind of disruption or other incident which the unqulaified guest is not trained to deal with. I am saying it is not fine for unqualified individuals to be paid to teach regular curriculum-based classes. And I am saying it is downright dangerous for non-qualified individuals to teach at primary level. If you do not understand the difference or if you disagree, then there is not much I can do about that.

I agree with you: it is perfectly fine for people with expertise to go into schools and give occasional talks, with a teacher present to give context. That is not 'teaching'.

What has Tristiam Hunt been doing? If the above, that is fine. If he has been unsupervised, then it is not, and Gove is in the wrong to suggest otherwise.

But if you are talking about downright dangerous, what are your views on the latest wonderful (ahem) news from the NHS under Labour?

Labour has shown that they were right: the NHS was safe in their hands. Sadly, the patients were not. Labour prefer the NHS as an organisation to the patients.