Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest from the Betfair exchange on the LAB leadership
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest from the Betfair exchange on the LAB leadership
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
Comments
The good thing is that it will fox the regulars in the arena, who are usually tempted to shout 'heave', but this time they may find no one returns the call 'ho'.
Anyway, Burnham and Watson nominated.
I was most surprised at Stella's poor showing.
As Jeremy Corbyn’s surge has plunged Labour into civil war, his leadership rival has trodden a cautious path. Now, angered by a sexist undertone to the campaign, she’s ready to make a stand."
Burnham’s ~14% lead over Ms Cooper may account for this little bit of girl on boy action.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/yvette-cooper-interview-labour-leadership-protest
I think it's going to be easier to make a list of PBers who are NOT voting in the Labour election.
Fraser Nelson has said one rich Tory donor has signed up as a Labour supporter 9 times under different names to maximise his Corbyn vote!!
A stupefyingly bland, middle class parachutist dropped into a relatively rough London area like Walthamstow.
I used to have a different view, but then I read this article: http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/
It's very rare a single piece changes my mind on something, but this did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k17JusTn8Bs
I've always found him very run-of-the-mill, though. I think I'll vote for Stella in the deputy contest - although she's a bit too right-wing, she does atleast seem to have some interesting thoughts in her head, unlike Kendall with her endless robotic chanting of Tory platitudes.
He worked with Yvette Cooper when she was young and he spoke very highly of her. Said she's clever and sensible.
Allan is the President of our rugby club.
Jeremy Corbyn has 99 CLP nominations, but Redditch ain't one
(NB: some rudimentary knowledge of Jay-Z is required to understand this tweet.)
If I select the top 1% of pupils, I'm going to get good results.
The question is: did that top 1% do better in the grammar schools than they would have done otherwise?
That's why I prefer setting: it allows lessons to be set at the appropriate level of academic rigour for individuals, while preserving a cohesive cohort in other matters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYdpOjletnc
Describing these ''''''''people'''''''' as batshit insane is actually being kind. These people must come from kind of Marxist perspective, holy moly. They need professional help, a counselor to help them see reality.
They actually think Laura K is a Tory.
Really.
Everything is a Tory conspiracy in their world.
You'd think those on the left would rather have selection on merit rather than selection based on ability to afford a house in a middle-class catchment area.
By the way, I think all the research saying grammar schools didn't improve social mobility are biased. They're written by people who'd already decided what their conclusions were going to be beforehand, even if only subconsciously.
http://t.co/hXlCO6Bq2a
You need to look at the grades achieved by people at every point on the parental income curve, and see if people do better. And the data from the FT article seems to suggest that people, even poor bright kids, do worse in grammar school counties.
And I'll take data over intuition every day of the week.
Didn't anyone bother to tell him that there is a leadership race in which Corbyn is way ahead and Labour activists have gone nuclear on their leadership over perceived rightwingness?
You don't tell things like those unless you want to fan the flames.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-dinner-goes-down-better-with-a35000-nick-clegg-speech-10411733.html
@Danny565 I googled her name + 'Conservative' and no stories relating that came up, and I can't recall hearing it. I did hear that Miliband wanted Nick Robinson to work within his team, though.
Yougov was the first pollster to catch the Trump wave.
Now they have him at new record highs, after the McCain comments he rose from 15 to 28%:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/07/24/trumps-support-remains-high-mccain-controversy/
Trump 28%
Bush 14%
Walker 13%
Carson 7%
Paul 5%
Cruz 4%
Rubio 4%
Huckabee 3%
Christie 3%
Fiorina 3%
Perry 2%
Graham 2%
Kasich 2%
Santorum 1%
Jindal 1%
Trump's stakes are rising:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw
Goodnight.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
I was convinced that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination, and would then flame out badly against almost any Republican candidate.
But I suspect that Hillary would destroy Trump.
Personally, as someone who went through both a comprehensive and a grammar school education, I am a fan of comprehensives with setting for academic subjects and mixing for the rest. I do not see any solution to the postal code problem, except allowing a certain number of schools to operate on a selection not catchment area basis alongside the main system using the catchment system.
In the US, they call them magnet schools, and they tend to attract the truly talented and gifted, many of whom would have a hard time performing to their potential in a normal school. They recruit from the 'hoods as well as the 'burbs.
'It's very rare a single piece changes my mind on something, but this did.
Yet the only state schools which consistently challenge the top private schools in the league tables are grammar schools. I would not impose selection wholesale but I don't see why parents cannot open new grammars just as they can ballot to close them under present rules or open a free school. I would not just have selection at 11, but 6th form entry too where grammars are open
Because I'm not sure it is culturally healthy to segregate the perceived "intelligent" from the rest of their peers.
Well Eton does, Winchester does, St Paul's does, all having competitive entrance exams, I don't see why it is so wrong in the state sector. Though as I said I would leave most selection until 16 and preparation for university
As always, it is good for a minority, but not good for those left behind. And I don't think it is helpful having the intelligent as an "other" group in society.
That's why I prefer setting: it allows lessons to be set at the appropriate level of academic rigour for individuals, while preserving a cohesive cohort in other matters
Buckinghamshire has selection and well above average overall GCSE results so there is no real evidence selection harms the average pupil. We have universities too which all admit students with at least slightly above average intelligence allowed to enter them, does that create an 'other'? Setting is all well and good but it does not create the ethos of a school. As I said I would not impose selection but the choice should at least be there if sufficient demand, even if only at 15 or 16
Setting may not be THE ethos of a school, but it is almost a certainly a very important component of it. Competition to move up sets, or to be in the top set reflects an ethos that academic performance and excellence are desirable traits.
I am not anti setting but allowing schools to select should not preclude some grammar schools either
If my daughter passes the exam, she's going to be going to Henrietta Barnett, and I think any parent would feel the same...'
Well fair enough, life is competitive
Anyway, Trump is using the Romney path to the nomination, in a badly splintered party you only need 20-25% of the vote to win, and that is Trump's strategy. He's carving a solid block of fanatical supporters that is large enough to win him all early states and make him the inevitable nominee.
In other words, they strip out the effect of having wealthy successful parents (and all that comes with that). This is particularly important because in wealthy areas with no grammar schools, a lot more kids go to private schools.
The major selling point of grammar schools is that they help poor kids achieve. I don't think the data backs that up.
My daughter is 7. She's top of her class in a nice (if slightly odd) private school. When she's 10, she'll sit the 11+ for Henrietta Barnett. Hopefully she'll get in. But she will have a massive advantage over the average 10 year old sitting that test. She's in a class of 10 or 11 kids, with a huge amount of personal support. As she gets closer to 11 (and Common Entrance or the Henrietta Barnett exam) she'll have practice test after practice test all administered by the school. If my daughter was at the local state school, she wouldn't have that.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that very few poor kids make it into Henrietta Barnett. Cynically, all that school does is reduce the school fee bills of middle class parents. That's not social mobility, that's a tax break.
I think with the latest revelations that federal inspectors general want a criminal probe into Hillary's server is increasing the probability that she will not survive to the end of the nomination process though, and the chances that a Biden or other mainstream Dem candidate will enter the race to challenge her. Her trustworthiness numbers are already horrid, and if they get significantly worse, the bigwigs in the party must surely start the recruitment process for a new frontrunner.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/cartoons_of_the_week/
The whole debate is sterile IMO. What we need is GOOD schools, and lots of them. The tragedy of the destruction of the grammar schools was that at least we had some good schools in the state sector, and they were systematically destroyed for reasons of ideological vengeance.
Of course we can't go back to 1950 and just recreate them as though nothing had changed in the meantime. We need to start again.
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!
"A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"