Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Cabinet exit betting is right male ministers have le
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Cabinet exit betting is right male ministers have less to fear in coming cabinet reshuffle than the women
The biggest oddity in the top 8 list must be Michael Gove. I just can’t see him being demoted. He’ll stay, surely, with education where he’s seen by his party if not the wider electorate, as doing a good job.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Good reading !
Villiers is weak but she is popular in some government quarters.
W hat can one say about Maria Miller? Anything?
So Ball's is going to follow Labour's NHS cuts in Wales,he's onto a winner there.
"The Tories have been telling us that cutting funding to services need not harm their quality. On health, they now say the opposite. The Conservatives might be the party of “tough decisions”, but the Labour party could become the party of “really tough decisions”!"
Do you think that will be the line that Labour will take in 2015? They'll need to run with it if they want it to work. Surely it would mean some further break with defending the past, which the party has been hesitant to do thusfar?
Other than that, I've just looked at the list of Con males in the Cabinet. It's tough to say that any of them *deserve* to be more likely to be kicked out than the women on the list above. [I think Hunt is doing fine] What this says to me is that there is a willingness by Cameron to promote women to Cabinet who either lack sufficient experience or who aren't up to scratch.
I look forward to the day when Cabinet positions are merit based (or at least faction based) rather than purely on someone's sex(uality), colour or religion.
@RobWilson_RDG
Ed Miliband's speech can be summarised very simply: 'Tough on sardines tough on and the causes of sardines.' #sameoldLabour #fishyonspending
I've backed Henry at 55-60 on Betfair.
Stuart Wilks-Heeg @StuartWilksHeeg
@philipjcowley Chamberlain Day, when the written agreement about towels on sun loungers turns out to be meaningless.
More here http://nottspolitics.org/2013/06/21/margaret-thatcher-day/
Having said that, only Maria Miller of the four women is affected by this factor, now that Teresa May has settled the Home Office cuts without fuss. Although Miller has also settled, she is claiming victory over the Treasury through "obstinacy": keeping the cuts imposed on the DCMS to a "reasonable 8%". Still this is more likely to be condoned personal PR to appease the luvvies rather than being indicative of a real split with Osborne. Both Villiers and Greening have the luxury of having additional, albeit small, amounts of money being thrown at them.
Bearing in mind that Villiers, Greening and Miller all have short incumbencies in their departments none look "most likely" candidates for reshuffling especially as they may all have topped out on prospects for promotion.
The same doesn't apply to May, but unless Hague is stepping down (unlikely) or Osborne wants to move (highly unlikely), then the only feasible office for her would be Party Chairman in charge at the time of the election. This would be a good and brave move by Cameron but there are many arguments against. Giving May control of the party could increase risk to the Cameron/Osborne leadership; May's success at the Home Office argues for the principle of "if it ain't broke don't mend it"; Shapps hasn't either failed or had a long enough run as Joint-Chairman; May has already been Chairman, albeit in opposition and not at the time of an election; there is no obvious better candidate for the Home Office.
So, absent of some unknown personality clash with the inner circle, I can't see any of the four women going or even justifying their exit odds.
The whole reshuffle story looks a bit dull at the moment. Perhaps the only way to liven it up would be talk of swapping some Lib Dem and Tory departments. Alexander deserves full control of a major department (Defence?); Cable would be a great evangelist for the economic upturn as Chief Secretary (the spending decisions affecting this term are done); Hammond could replace Cable; Energy needs a no-nonsense Tory and the Lib Dems could benefit from Local Government.
Much more fun talking of Lib Dem - Tory swaps than continuing with the false "the fops ignore women" meme.
Princess Olive
Princess Valerie
Princess Doroty
Princess Constance
Princess Edith
Any major reasons why these could be a no no?
Anecdotal evidence rules.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23014877
RIP Allan Simonsen.
I realise that he tends to be at the opera house on Saturday evenings but he seems to have been absent for nigh on a week.
I hope all is OK.
' but the Labour party could become the party of “really tough decisions”!"
Labour the party of really frequent u-turns?
In which case bringing in some of those perceived as more backbench friendly while jettisoning those who aren't crucial to the chumocracy would seem to be the way he and Osbrowne would go and the betting is reflecting that for the most part.
As for the lib dems, well Clegg's had a bit of a nightmare since Rennard (and not a "fleeting" one) so movement on a woman could well be on the cards. Moore? Possible. Looks far more likely than Vince or Clegg himself.
Clegg's on the list because of his recent self-inflicted problems and the lib dems still doing much the same as they have been. Clegg's unpopularity tends to feed in to that even if no obvious exit seems apparent yet. Farron isn't in the cabinet but that doesn't stop him being among the favourites to eventually replace Clegg as leader.
The deputy PM is a fairly odd job in the first place under the coalition. Should there be a lib dem distancing and decoupling before the next election then it's quite possible that Clegg or any new leader would find another title and role as they campaigned. That would make the bet on 'next cabinet exit' a longer term one so if you think there just won't be any more reshuffles or shorter term 'surprise' exits it could be worth considering.
I wonder if Roman Emperor days (or other classical chaps) would work as well...
The toast, which elicits the unofficial response: “May they never meet!”
The toast is now change to Our Families by order of Vice Admiral David Steel...
I'm surprised May's on the list. Considering the political graveyard that is the Home Office she's generally done well (that stupid cock-up over the dates with Qatada, which is probably due to legal advice rather than herself, aside).
I also think future Prime Minister Greening should have longer odds, but her clear disagreement with the ridiculous consensus on aid spending and being shunted to that post does suggest she's out of favour.
I haven't kept abreast of all the Government's wibbling on internet safety, but the seeming conflation of legal whacking material, vile images of children and the bizarre notion that somehow everything horrid can be get rid of and we should make the whole internet suitable for an inquisitive seven year old has not been the most intellectually coherent of policies.
You would think it a bit of a mistake to remind the lib dem grass roots of the things they might now have with a better negotiating team and leader. No doubt Clegg's PR team know best as they have been playing a blinder of late.
There was me opposing a future Labour-LibDem coalition, and now Clegg does my job for me, by insisting on PR for local government!"
Tom must be thinking of that time the Lib Dems' insistence on PR for local government scuppered a coalition deal with Labour at Holyrood in 2003.
Oh wait...
It also underlines just how little attention Clegg has been paying to the scotish lib dems since it's almost inconceivable they would not have raised that and the prospect of it for local government elsewhere. I say almost because we have to remember the scottish lib dems have had the likes of Willie Rennie doing Clegg's bidding for the past couple of years.
Clarke, Reid, Johnson and Smith all managed less, so I'd be surprised if she manages to the next election, which would make her the longest-serving home secretary since Butler in 1962 (*). That would be an achievement.
(*) I hope I'm right in saying that ...
Somehow tomorrow, between picking the cherries and the blackcurrants, I have to force myself to review 20 appraisal forms and make the various objectives compatible. That is going to be a struggle.
Perhaps DC will change some of the Cabinet posts. Put International Development under the FO. Put Wales, Scotland and NI under one ministry - give it to a LD. Make universities and FE as a separate ministry - away from business. Take food and fisheries out of Environment.
.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/06/22/ed-milibands-decision-on-osbornes-cuts-is-economic-nonsense-and-political-folly/
I thought Ed Miliband's speech was very good, but Labour need wholeheartedly to develop the theme of "socialism in a cold climate". This isn't something where Ed Miliband can make the occasional speech and then pretend he hadn't said anything.
The government, led by liberal Prime Minister Mark Rutte, set out its stance on EU powers in a letter to parliament.
The Netherlands wants to keep control over social security, working conditions and media regulation.
The initiative is similar to the UK government's current "balance of competences" review, aimed at assessing where EU powers may extend too far.
Mr Rutte formed a coalition with the centre-left Labour Party after narrowly winning an election last October.
The Dutch coalition is seen as generally pro-EU and pro-austerity. It is not preparing the ground for a referendum on EU membership, in contrast with Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives in the UK.
But the Dutch government website said the letter, presented by Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, would feed into broader discussions on EU powers in Europe.
"The Netherlands is convinced that the time of an 'ever closer union' in every possible policy area is behind us," the website said, reporting the letter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23005499
I always get forints and have never tried spending Euros, though I expect they're accepted. I just use cash machines.
I cannot see a big reshuffle on the cards, mostly cosmetic changes such as pensioning off Clarke, but there may be some scope to reshuffle lower ranks.
Another good thermal bath option is the Széchenyi baths. But for even the most casual tourist, a trip to at least one of the thermal baths is a must.
http://www.24h-lemans.com/live/en/
Still 16hrs 30 minutes to go. Toyota leading from Audi, then Lola. Lola is particularly remarkable as the company went into administration at the end of last year. I'd love them to get one last victory.
Amazing racing in the dark. All the drivers are absolutely incredible. IMHO 24-hour sports car racing is the pinnacle of motorsport, much more so than F1 in the prototype classes.
Some eating recommendations would be welcomed, he likes to try local foods, but nowhere too stuffy and formal. Any recommendations?
Most are a bit touristy but that I guess is what you want given the need to absorb local flavour in only two days.
I think Voros Postakocsi was the one I was most often taken to by my banking counterparts. antifrank no doubt be able to advise better options of similar type.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1253128
(1) how many will leave
(2) proportion of women in new cabinet
(3) proportion of Oxbridge graduates in new cabinet
The cafe in the Gresham Palace hotel is a good place for lunch and gives you the excuse to have a nose around an amazing hotel.
Most of the restaurants in the downtown Pest area are tourist traps but Duna Corso on the river, which looks as though it should be a tourist trap, is a longstanding restaurant frequented by locals.
Café Kör was voted one of the 100 best restaurants in the world, which is ridiculous, but like Café Bouchon it is a lively place to have good local food.
I would also recommend Mak, Tigris and Két Szerecsen.
On the Buda side, most of the restaurants are more expensive. If you have to eat in the Castle district, I'd recommend Speiz.
Do explain why you're trying to divert attention from the fact the deaths of mothers and babies occurred when Labour was in charge.
Labour's NHS. Labour's deaths.
As for you trying to blame Lansley for the CQC mess: an organisation set up by Labour, with Labour appointees in charge. The farcically incorrect report that gave the Morecombe trust an all-clear occurred at the changeover between the governments. Hardly Lansley's fault. (2) Section 2.6 of (3) gives a definitive timeline.
Also note: (3)
In other words, a report that was highly critical of the trust was available when the CQC gave the trust a clean bill of health despite the existence of a highly critical report that allegedly they did not get to see until the next year.
By all accounts, the inquiry into the CQC that was suppressed was an internal one. From Grant Thornton's report - section 1.17 of (3) : Whether Lansley knew, or should have known, about it, is an interesting question that we should get to the bottom of. Lansley will have questions with regards to (1).
However, these questions are minor compared to the ones Labour have to answer over what happened on their watch.
Grant Thornton's report is well worth a read. It depicts an utter shambles, of people not knowing what was going on even in terms of investigations, yet alone with regards to clinical matters.
(1): http://news.sky.com/story/1106964/lansley-was-warned-of-baby-deaths-in-2010 .
(2): http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-19/timeline-furness-hospital-scandal-and-cover-up/
(3): http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHD2tV9_ohI&
We are staying at this place:
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g274887-d1655445-Reviews-Continental_Hotel_Zara_Budapest-Budapest_Central_Hungary.html
It looked interesting, and not too far from the railway station. A good price on booking.com also.
We are arriving on the Krakow sleeper train so may need to have a nap and swim before sightseeing.
The Telegraph has more details on the CQC timeline
"Roger Davidson lost his job as head of media and public affairs for the Care Quality Commission just before the 2010 general election — after telling how a quarter of NHS trusts had failed to meet basic hygiene standards.
He was forced to sign a gagging order when he left and was told that the CQC was “railing against” his action to “highlight issues”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10137029/Speaking-out-cost-NHS-whistleblower-his-job.html
Labour's NHS. Labour's deaths.
As for you trying to blame Lansley for the CQC mess: an organisation set up by Labour, with Labour appointees in charge. The farcically incorrect report that gave the Morecombe trust an all-clear occurred at the changeover between the governments. Hardly Lansley's fault. (2) Section 2.6 of (3) gives a definitive timeline.
Also note: (3)
In other words, a report that was highly critical of the trust was available when the CQC gave the trust a clean bill of health despite the existence of a highly critical report that allegedly they did not get to see until the next year.
By all accounts, the inquiry into the CQC that was suppressed was an internal one. From Grant Thornton's report - section 1.17 of (3) : Whether Lansley knew, or should have known, about it, is an interesting question that we should get to the bottom of. Lansley will have questions with regards to (1).
However, these questions are minor compared to the ones Labour have to answer over what happened on their watch.
Grant Thornton's report is well worth a read. It depicts an utter shambles, of people not knowing what was going on even in terms of investigations, yet alone with regards to clinical matters.
(1): http://news.sky.com/story/1106964/lansley-was-warned-of-baby-deaths-in-2010 .
(2): http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-19/timeline-furness-hospital-scandal-and-cover-up/
(3): http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf
Just to be clear here: do you blame all governments for all preventable deaths that occur in the NHS during the time they are in government?
If so, you will agree that Shipman was the Tories' fault; as were the thousands who died as a result of the blood contamination scandal; as are all those who Jeremy Hunt has told us died last year unnecessarily.
The CQC does seem to have helped cover up the deaths in Morcombe. It is hard to see how it can recover from such an incident.
I am sceptical about all these regulators. Not many function well it seems, just jobs for the boys (and girls) of the quango state. (2) Section 2.6 of (3) gives a definitive timeline.
Also note: (3)
In other words, a report that was highly critical of the trust was available when the CQC gave the trust a clean bill of health despite the existence of a highly critical report that allegedly they did not get to see until the next year.
By all accounts, the inquiry into the CQC that was suppressed was an internal one. From Grant Thornton's report - section 1.17 of (3) : Whether Lansley knew, or should have known, about it, is an interesting question that we should get to the bottom of. Lansley will have questions with regards to (1).
However, these questions are minor compared to the ones Labour have to answer over what happened on their watch.
Grant Thornton's report is well worth a read. It depicts an utter shambles, of people not knowing what was going on even in terms of investigations, yet alone with regards to clinical matters.
(1): http://news.sky.com/story/1106964/lansley-was-warned-of-baby-deaths-in-2010 .
(2): http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-19/timeline-furness-hospital-scandal-and-cover-up/
(3): http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf
Just to be clear here: do you blame all governments for all preventable deaths that occur in the NHS during the time they are in government?
If so, you will agree that Shipman was the Tories' fault; as were the thousands who died as a result of the blood contamination scandal; as are all those who Jeremy Hunt has told us died last year unnecessarily.
Take a look at Café New York, which is not too far away. The coffee is mediocre, but the building is amazing.
Eat in one of the Jewish pastry shops in the area. Dohany is the high street of the Jewish district.
In other words, a report that was highly critical of the trust was available when the CQC gave the trust a clean bill of health despite the existence of a highly critical report that allegedly they did not get to see until the next year.
By all accounts, the inquiry into the CQC that was suppressed was an internal one. From Grant Thornton's report - section 1.17 of (3) : Whether Lansley knew, or should have known, about it, is an interesting question that we should get to the bottom of. Lansley will have questions with regards to (1).
However, these questions are minor compared to the ones Labour have to answer over what happened on their watch.
Grant Thornton's report is well worth a read. It depicts an utter shambles, of people not knowing what was going on even in terms of investigations, yet alone with regards to clinical matters.
(1): http://news.sky.com/story/1106964/lansley-was-warned-of-baby-deaths-in-2010 .
(2): http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-19/timeline-furness-hospital-scandal-and-cover-up/
(3): http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf
Just to be clear here: do you blame all governments for all preventable deaths that occur in the NHS during the time they are in government?
If so, you will agree that Shipman was the Tories' fault; as were the thousands who died as a result of the blood contamination scandal; as are all those who Jeremy Hunt has told us died last year unnecessarily.
Josias seems to be very clear: unnecessary deaths occurred during Labour's time in government, therefore they are Labour's fault.
I am not sure how else you can read "Labour's NHS, Labour's deaths".
Which is the greater liability?
@politicshome
Tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph front page: Speaking out cost NHS whistleblower his job polho.me/16pZmxN
@politicshome
Tomorrow's Mail on Sunday front page: NHS chief 'offered bribe to hush up death of my baby' polho.me/1c8FZdK
And all because poor Andy tried to be a hard man...
"A vicious feud has broken out over a Labour-appointed peer who unexpectedly quit as head of an NHS watchdog at the centre of controversy over shocking hospital death rates.
But her allies say she is the victim of a dirty-tricks campaign after a series of clashes with Health Secretary Andy Burnham.
Mr Burnham is said to have repeatedly rejected her calls to improve the much-criticised system, which gave Basildon a 'good' rating just weeks before an unannounced inspection uncovered filthy wards and a high death rate.
The furious rows are out of character for the normally mild-mannered Mr Burnham, who has recently been tipped as a contender to take over the Labour leadership from Gordon Brown. Some friends have advised him to 'toughen up' his image in preparation for a run at the job."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233532/NHS-feud-hothead-Labour-baroness-accused-sending-colleagues-abusive-emails.html
I trust no party with the NHS because of bitter experience.
I suggested that here months ago. The f*ckwits should have managed to extract it as the price of coalition in 2010, however...
IF YOU were to mention to the average politically-interested Scot that there was a worrying new revelation about how Scottish pensions might be affected by constitutional change, chances are they would make the not-unreasonable assumption you were talking about independence.
In fact, this weekend, that assumption would be wrong. As we reveal on our front page today, the new worry about pensions is linked to a constitutional change already agreed by Westminster to extend the powers of the Holyrood parliament, within the UK.
The loophole we report today will – we are assured by the tax authorities – be closed before the new tartan tax powers pass formally to Holyrood. But it remains unclear what administrative changes may be necessary, both by HMRC and by private pension funds. It is also unclear how costly these changes may turn out to be, both for the government – and therefore the taxpayer – and for the private pension funds themselves. The irony of all this will not be lost to those who support a Yes vote in the independence referendum – it seems that staying in the Union causes uncertainty over pensions and could prove costly.
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/leaders-a-warning-to-no-campaign-taking-a-stand-1-2973865
"Looking for cash: chancellor George Osborne. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters
Recent political history is full of stories of ministers falling out over public spending. David Blunkett recalled in his memoirs how he "threatened violence" against the chief secretary to the Treasury in 2001 in a battle over cash. "I got hold of Paul Boateng's lapels on the way out of Gordon Brown's office … my fuse blew," he wrote.
Almost every year Brown, when chancellor, refused to tell Tony Blair what was in his budget until it was too late for No 10 to object. One year Blair became so angry that he called in John Prescott, who told Brown: "He's the fucking prime minister – you've got to tell him what is in the budget."
When future memoirs record the runup to Wednesday's spending review, more tales of blown fuses will no doubt be added to the list. This weekend the business secretary, Vince Cable, is involved in what are being described as "epic rows" over how much will be cut, and what will be left for capital spending, in his Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Osborne is looking for £11.5bn of cuts for 2015-16 from all of government as he tries to balance the books by 2018.
Cable is digging in, demanding enough capital spending to be able to justify saying that growth is his priority, while most others in cabinet were said to be close to reaching – or to have reached – agreement on Saturday night. Along the way, arguments have raged between Tories and Liberal Democrats over priorities. While Whitehall has kept the lid on leaks this time, following the "omnishambles" last year, behind closed doors things have been more problematic and some say even more tense than is normal, for two reasons."
Substantiate or it will be deleted.
'This can only be good news for Andy Burnham.'
He'll just go back into hiding.
However, these questions are minor compared to the ones Labour have to answer over what happened on their watch.
Grant Thornton's report is well worth a read. It depicts an utter shambles, of people not knowing what was going on even in terms of investigations, yet alone with regards to clinical matters.
(1): http://news.sky.com/story/1106964/lansley-was-warned-of-baby-deaths-in-2010 .
(2): http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-19/timeline-furness-hospital-scandal-and-cover-up/
(3): http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf
Just to be clear here: do you blame all governments for all preventable deaths that occur in the NHS during the time they are in government?
If so, you will agree that Shipman was the Tories' fault; as were the thousands who died as a result of the blood contamination scandal; as are all those who Jeremy Hunt has told us died last year unnecessarily.
Josias seems to be very clear: unnecessary deaths occurred during Labour's time in government, therefore they are Labour's fault.
I am not sure how else you can read "Labour's NHS, Labour's deaths".
You cannot read it differently if you use the sentence out of context. You can read it differently if you read it in the context of what happened at Stafford, Furness and the CQC, as was happening in my post. Especially when I was replying to Tim, who seemed to want to put this on Lansley and whitewash out any involvement that Labour may have had. That whitewashing also involves ignoring the deaths of mothers and children, which is how the mess occurred in the first place.
So I will explain it to you simply.
In Stafford, and at Furness, we had people dying unnecessarily. I know some on here are desperately trying to say 'possibly one' died at Stafford, but I think they can safely be ignored as nutjobs.
I have also repeatedly said that similar deaths will almost certainly occur under this government. Mistakes happen in any organisation, and that is certainly true in one as large as the NHS, which deals with a system as complex and poorly understood as the human body. If only half of one percent of nurses, doctors and surgeons are incompetent, then there will be thousands of such incompetents within the NHS. (There will also be thousands of brilliant staff as well at the other end of the scale.)
What matters is how such incidents are responded to. What should happen is that procedures are put in place to detect the problems, preferably early, and when they are spotted they should be investigated. If the investigation shows wrongdoing, then the person doing the wrong should be either sacked or retrained. Ideally there will be warning signs that can be detected before anyone come to harm.
However, in those two cases some interesting things happened. When it became clear that there were problems, the first reaction (at Stafford and CQC) was to try to cover up and pretend everything was fine. In the case of Furness, a separate cover-up went as far as the regulator.
In the meantime, people remained at risk. In both cases, deaths continued to occur. The reputation of the CQC and the hospitals was safe, but patients were not. There was a cover-up culture.
As Labour had been running the NHS for some years and were repeatedly telling us that it was brilliant, it is safe to assume that either this culture developed under Labour, or was certainly not prevented. Certainly no-one has been able to say why the pay-offs to whistleblowers by the NHS was in the best interests of patients.
Add in the way people who have tried to whistleblow have allegedly been sacked, and the way relatives have been branded 'loudmouths' for trying to get to the truth, and you can see a culture within Labour that cares more for the NHS than it does for the patients within.
So no, I am not talking about all unnecessary deaths. But the culture that allowed Stafford, Furness and the CQC scandals to occur means that those deaths can, in my opinion, be laid firmly at Labour's door.
Or do you blame the Tories for them?
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/m4pxoy7gza/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-210613.pdf
Leaders on Well/Badly
Cameron: -18 (+7)
Miliband: -33(+2)
Clegg: -52 (0)
Coalition -33(+2)
How do you think the financial situation of your
household will change over the next 12 months?
Better: 14 (+2)
Worse: 44 (-3)
To what extent, if at all, do you trust the NHS to
be open and honest about its services and
standards of care?
Trust: 32(-9)
Do Not Trust: 58 (+7)
Thinking about recent stories of NHS trusts and
regulators covering up poor performance, how
confident are you that rules will be put in place
to prevent cover-ups in the future?
Confident: 26
Not Confident: 65
If NHS or regulator staff are found to have
covered up errors in hospital performance do
you think they should...
Be sacked from their jobs?
Should: 88
Should not; 4
Be Stripped of Pension Rights:
Should: 54
Should Not: 27
Face Criminal Prosecution
Should: 71
Should Not 11
Thinking about grammar schools and schools
that select pupils by ability, which of the
following best reflects your views?
The government should encourage more schools to
select by academic ability and build more grammar
schools: 43
The government should retain the existing grammar
schools, but should not allow more selective
schools or new grammar schools to be built: 19
The government should stop schools selecting by
academic ability and the existing grammar schools
should be opened to children of all abilities: 20
Not sure: 18