Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was fo

13»

Comments

  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    @MyBurningEars
    For a dated discussion, see Salter, 'The Stamford Schism', EHR 37(146), 249-253.
    I should add the best starting point is Catto (ed.), The Early Oxford Schools in the magisterial multi-volume survey of the university's history.

    Fun fact #1

    England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.

    Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).

    Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.

    A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
    Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
    I first heard the story when investigating the background to some mediaval buildings I was excavating at Hawton near Newark. The local vicar had done a load of research and come up with the story. I had not thought much of it until I came across some more official references at Oxford regarding the Stamford college. I am still unsure about the Newark angle as information on that is more patchy and not helped by the fact that a number of families involved ended up on the wrong side of the Lambert Simnel rebellion in 1487.

    The Wiki page of Oxford Uni mentions the Stamford college attempt and I will see if I can dig out more details.

    I think the Charter was refused by Edward III after representations from Oxford and Cambridge.
    That's really interesting. Also thanks to the White Rabbit, and LiaMT.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,871
    edited July 2015
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    Goes back to the whole original theme of this thread, Clarke may have attracted floating voters but would have divided the Tories and risked sending voters to UKIP, Kendall has the same issues with losing voters to the Greens and turning off Scotland

    Burnham and Kendall both had positive net favourability ratings in the last public opinion poll overall, Cooper and Corbyn had negative ratings but the unity issue gives Burnham the edge
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,972
    justin124 said:

    The impression has been given that prior to World War 2 Oxbridge often acted as a Finishing School for the Brideshead Revisited set. Is the option no longer there for people from such backgrounds to simply turn up and have a good time for thee years whilst also being content to leave with a 3rd or 2.2?

    One of the girls on my corridor was doing History of Art, and while it no doubt did involve much work, the course as she described it didn't strike me as one requiring full-on research or complicated thinking. At a stretch you could also throw in PPE, I suppose

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,019
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    "No, the country comes first!" :)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,098
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    Goes back to the whole original theme of this thread, Clarke may have attracted floating voters but would have divided the Tories and risked sending voters to UKIP, Kendall has the same issues with losing voters to the Greens and turning off Scotland

    Burnham and Kendall both had positive net favourability ratings in the last public opinion poll overall, Cooper and Corbyn had negative ratings but the unity issue gives Burnham the edge
    I know AB is your man, but he ain't gonna win back Scotland, and the radicals of this world would best be dropped. Far more centrist floaters than determined lefties will be voting in marginals...
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    The bottom bottom end of the London Higher Ed market are the private colleges, mostly doing University of London external ("international") exams but sometimes taking franchised degrees from other unis (the University of Wales, when it existed, was a popular choice.)

    They're the "London College of Business and Computing Technology" you see above fast food restaurants. Entirely filled with students from Asia, Africa and to some extent South America, there for the visa and the right to work a few hours a week. Even East European students don't bother now they have their EU rights. Sunil will know the type I mean, he's surrounded by them in his corner of Redbridge. Quality of education there is very very very low.

    They also have the capacity to collapse suddenly leaving students in limbo, one of the biggest examples in recent years was was the London TASMAC School of Business.

    My favourite was "Empire College London", because it was such obvious attempt to look like my alma mater :)
    That's classic.

    With many of such institutions, it is the contrast between highfaluting title and run-down office premises above a fish'n'chip or kebab shop which I particularly enjoy. Their promotional materials often advertise boldly how you are entitled to a visa and how many hours you are entitled to work. It's a bit silly really, but these private colleges actually let in a serious amount of students into the London market. I imagine they are cheaper than ever to run, now that they don't need to shell out for computer rooms so much, given that students these days (even skint ones) can be expected to have a cheapo laptop.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,352

    HYUFD said:


    True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from

    That's not actually correct.

    Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.

    There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.

    And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.

    That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
    Newcastle only came into being in 1963 until that it was part of Durham...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,871
    edited July 2015
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    Goes back to the whole original theme of this thread, Clarke may have attracted floating voters but would have divided the Tories and risked sending voters to UKIP, Kendall has the same issues with losing voters to the Greens and turning off Scotland

    Burnham and Kendall both had positive net favourability ratings in the last public opinion poll overall, Cooper and Corbyn had negative ratings but the unity issue gives Burnham the edge
    I know AB is your man, but he ain't gonna win back Scotland, and the radicals of this world would best be dropped. Far more centrist floaters than determined lefties will be voting in marginals...
    Indeed, but Burnham generally polls better in Scotland than Kendall in the yougov Labour leadership polls and even a few seats in Scotland recaptured from the SNP would help Labour win a majority.

    There is some evidence Burnham has even more appeal to floating voters than Kendall, an ORB poll last week of the public as a whole gave Burnham a net favourability of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper -6% and Corbyn -15%
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,098
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    Goes back to the whole original theme of this thread, Clarke may have attracted floating voters but would have divided the Tories and risked sending voters to UKIP, Kendall has the same issues with losing voters to the Greens and turning off Scotland

    Burnham and Kendall both had positive net favourability ratings in the last public opinion poll overall, Cooper and Corbyn had negative ratings but the unity issue gives Burnham the edge
    I know AB is your man, but he ain't gonna win back Scotland, and the radicals of this world would best be dropped. Far more centrist floaters than determined lefties will be voting in marginals...
    Indeed, but Burnham generally polls better in Scotland than Kendall in the yougov Labour leadership polls and even a few seats in Scotland recaptured from the SNP would help Labour win a majority.

    There is some evidence Burnham has even more appeal to floating voters than Kendall, an ORB poll last week of the public as a whole gave Burnham a net favourability of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper -6% and Corbyn -15%
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
    Have you heard of Jim Messina and voter targeting? Like EdM, AB will be popular with the voters in Labour constituencies, or the constituencies that Labour cannot win.

    Do your posts constitute part of an x million number of conversations AB's troops are having with the country?


  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,526
    HYUFD said:


    So just a 700 year delay for Northampton to get its university then!

    There was actually a Royal Decree banning the existence of a university in Northampton. It's a sad tale of what might have been.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Northampton_(13th_century)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,871
    edited July 2015
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    Goes back to the whole original theme of this thread, Clarke may have attracted floating voters but would have divided the Tories and risked sending voters to UKIP, Kendall has the same issues with losing voters to the Greens and turning off Scotland

    Burnham and Kendall both had positive net favourability ratings in the last public opinion poll overall, Cooper and Corbyn had negative ratings but the unity issue gives Burnham the edge
    I know AB is your man, but he ain't gonna win back Scotland, and the radicals of this world would best be dropped. Far more centrist floaters than determined lefties will be voting in marginals...
    Indeed, but Burnham generally polls better in Scotland than Kendall in the yougov Labour leadership polls and even a few seats in Scotland recaptured from the SNP would help Labour win a majority.

    There is some evidence Burnham has even more appeal to floating voters than Kendall, an ORB poll last week of the public as a whole gave Burnham a net favourability of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper -6% and Corbyn -15%
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
    Have you heard of Jim Messina and voter targeting? Like EdM, AB will be popular with the voters in Labour constituencies, or the constituencies that Labour cannot win.

    Do your posts constitute part of an x million number of conversations AB's troops are having with the country?


    This was a poll of the public as a whole, not just Labour voters ie it included voters in marginals and Tory seats as much as those in safe Labour areas. The fact Corbyn came last confirms that
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,871
    edited July 2015
    WG Indeed, it could have been a home for the Classics and philisophy and scientific advancement rather than Business Studies and Psychology!
    Apparently 'In order to gain university status it had to convince the Privy Council that a Royal Decree banning the establishment of a university in Northampton, signed by King Henry III in 1265 following the Battle of Lewes, should be repealed.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Northampton
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,098
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    valleyboy said:

    Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
    Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
    ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

    Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
    United in defeat?
    United in opposition?
    United against aspiration?

    The party is the most important thing, after all.
    Goes back to the whole original theme of this thread, Clarke may have attracted floating voters but would have divided the Tories and risked sending voters to UKIP, Kendall has the same issues with losing voters to the Greens and turning off Scotland

    Burnham and Kendall both had positive net favourability ratings in the last public opinion poll overall, Cooper and Corbyn had negative ratings but the unity issue gives Burnham the edge
    I know AB is your man, but he ain't gonna win back Scotland, and the radicals of this world would best be dropped. Far more centrist floaters than determined lefties will be voting in marginals...
    Indeed, but Burnham generally polls better in Scotland than Kendall in the yougov Labour leadership polls and even a few seats in Scotland recaptured from the SNP would help Labour win a majority.

    There is some evidence Burnham has even more appeal to floating voters than Kendall, an ORB poll last week of the public as a whole gave Burnham a net favourability of +14%, Kendall +6%, Cooper -6% and Corbyn -15%
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
    Have you heard of Jim Messina and voter targeting? Like EdM, AB will be popular with the voters in Labour constituencies, or the constituencies that Labour cannot win.

    Do your posts constitute part of an x million number of conversations AB's troops are having with the country?


    This was a poll of the public as a whole, not just Labour voters ie it included voters in marginals and Tory seats as much as those in safe Labour areas. The fact Corbyn came last confirms that
    Ok: you can take comfort in your snapshot polls, I'll take comfort in the poor judgement of Labour party members and he good judgement of the public at large in the only poll that matters. The 2020 general election.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,871




    This was a poll of the public as a whole, not just Labour voters ie it included voters in marginals and Tory seats as much as those in safe Labour areas. The fact Corbyn came last confirms that

    Ok: you can take comfort in your snapshot polls, I'll take comfort in the poor judgement of Labour party members and he good judgement of the public at large in the only poll that matters. The 2020 general election.



    Indeed, but it would be sensible for Labour to at least pick a reasonably credible leader to begin with, as they failed to do in 2010 despite polling evidence showing David much preferred by the public to Ed

  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 185
    In the 'other' world England have just beaten Germany in the World Cup. I never thought I would live long enough to post that.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ally_B said:

    In the 'other' world England have just beaten Germany in the World Cup. I never thought I would live long enough to post that.

    With a penalty too!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,019

    Ally_B said:

    In the 'other' world England have just beaten Germany in the World Cup. I never thought I would live long enough to post that.

    With a penalty too!
    Huzzah!
  • CuthbertBedeCuthbertBede Posts: 19
    edited July 2015





    A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge

    Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
    I first heard the story when investigating the background to some mediaval buildings I was excavating at Hawton near Newark. The local vicar had done a load of research and come up with the story. I had not thought much of it until I came across some more official references at Oxford regarding the Stamford college. I am still unsure about the Newark angle as information on that is more patchy and not helped by the fact that a number of families involved ended up on the wrong side of the Lambert Simnel rebellion in 1487.

    The Wiki page of Oxford Uni mentions the Stamford college attempt and I will see if I can dig out more details.

    I think the Charter was refused by Edward III after representations from Oxford and Cambridge.
    That's really interesting. Also thanks to the White Rabbit, and LiaMT.
    For that matter, there were also attempts under both Henry VIII and the Commonwealth to establish a third English university, at Durham (https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/shaped/dates/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_College_(17th_century); https://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/history/university/college; http://www.british-history.ac.uk/burton-diaries/vol2/pp531-543.

    The present Durham University's Grey College was at one point planned to be called Cromwell College in recognition of this attempt, but sadly the university got cold feet about it.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I went off Ken Clarke when, as Home Secretary, he refused to refer to the Court of Appeal the case of the four men wrongly convicted of killing Carl Bridgwater, even though by then there was already substantial evidence of their innocence. For that reason, I had a grudge against him for many years, which has only recently faded in its intensity in my mind.
This discussion has been closed.