Ed Balls lost this year because he refused to chicken-run away from a negative constituency redrawing in 2005-10, while his wife held the adjacent safe seat constructed in a small part from his old wards. His successor Andrea Jenkyns is probably facing a similar scenario, come the next redistribution, without the constraints of marital propriety on using one's leverage to find a safe seat.
Didn't Ed Balls go to great lengths to get Colin Challen to stand down so he could stand in a seat next to his wife's, after his own seat had been split about three ways?
It should also be noted that prior to the election Morley and Outwood was considered a safe Labour seat - it wasn't put on CCO's target list until the campaign itself, and Anthony Calvert had to do most of his own fundraising (which he did very successfully by offering to 'castrate Balls').
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I think that may well be the case.
But Cameron may yet be defined by what follows rather than what precedes.
This has been a pretty poor series to be honest. None of the test matches have been competitive, and it seems the coin toss has been decisive- except for the last test match when Clarke inexplicably decided to bat.
Granted there have been moments of real excitement- but test matches are supposed to last five days. In this series they have been reduced to little more than one sided one dayers.
Early Test Matches seem to have lasted very few days if the scores are anything to indicate - I'd have preferred 4-5 days, genuine challenge in each match, but I wouldn't call it 'pretty poor'. Uncompetitive, but exciting, where I'd class a pretty poor series as being uncompetitive and boring. The series has had merit at least, if not when it comes to challenge.
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I think that may well be the case.
But Cameron may yet be defined by what follows rather than what precedes.
Only if he loses EU ref and is succeeded by an arch eurosceptic, or the economy collapses and he is succeeded by Corbyn
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I can't imagine Davis pledging to match Brown's spending plans, or letting UKIP getting to 13% in the polls.
Mr. Doethur, Morley & Outwood as a notional 10,000 Labour majority in 2010, though Balls whittled that down to 1,000, and then about -450 in 2015.
Although in fairness to Balls, in 2010 Yvette Cooper had a much greater swing (twice as large) against her in Pontefract than he did in Morley. But that may be because Labour nicked all her constituency activists to try and hang on in some of the neighbouring marginals and she still had an 11,000 majority!
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I think that may well be the case.
But Cameron may yet be defined by what follows rather than what precedes.
Only if he loses EU ref and is succeeded by an arch eurosceptic, or the economy collapses and he is succeeded by Corbyn
I had in mind a different perspective. Not a reimagining of Cameron himself - which would require that sort of thing you mention - but rather if followed by Osborne and then another we might come to see him as part of that group rather than with Blair.
Having worked in further, higher and adult education, I'm torn on educational timing.
Frankly a lot of teens are too young for it and make poor decisions about what they will study that turn out to have very little relevance for their future. They rarely understand the jobs market or the importance of up-skilling: in fact vocational students often have a much clearer skills-based approach to their education and career than A-level students do.
Adult education students almost invariably have a better focus, vision and motivation than the kids and I think a lot of people would make better educational decisions if they waited til their late 20s. They're not going to college or uni for the life experience and to party, they're doing it to crack on with their path in life. But the flip side of that is that the investment in education pays off over time, for which reason it's better for people to study as early as possible. I had very motivated adult education students in their 40s who wanted to get into nursing or midwifery, for instance, but by the time they finished university and were out working, they might only have 15 years or so left before they retire: neither they nor the government was getting full value from that investment. Also adult ed is hard for people with young children: their motivation may be higher, but they also face severe constraints on their time and energy.
Having said that, there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
A very good post, Mr. Ears. I have long held that university was wasted on the young. All that time and freedom to learn and all those resources to help you do so and the youngsters spend it partying and learning to be an adult.
Perhaps we could get the youngsters doing national service (military of they want but otherwise community based) between the age of 18 and 20, vocational education (including articled clerkships for the professions) until about 25. Then for those that want it Uni from the age of, say, 45. With life expectancy for youngsters now the far side of 80 and retirement heading towards 70 there will be plenty of time to build a second career using one's degree.
And England go to within one good ball of victory...
Bit harsh on Stuart Broad if it goes to someone else. 8 in the first innings but not 10 in the match!
Sorry nothing to do with cricket, but I am just catching up on the morning's posts. So why wasn't Margaret Beaufort on your list of suspects for the Princes in the Tower?
A very good post, Mr. Ears. I have long held that university was wasted on the young. All that time and freedom to learn and all those resources to help you do so and the youngsters spend it partying and learning to be an adult.
Perhaps we could get the youngsters doing national service (military of they want but otherwise community based) between the age of 18 and 20, vocational education (including articled clerkships for the professions) until about 25. Then for those that want it Uni from the age of, say, 45. With life expectancy for youngsters now the far side of 80 and retirement heading towards 70 there will be plenty of time to build a second career using one's degree.
Interesting thought HL - but how does it work for teachers, or academics themselves? 45 is a pretty late age to be changing to a gruelling career like teaching, or for a career that takes 8-10 years training to break into like lecturing. Most of the profession are looking to get out of it by that stage. I think some flexibility would be needed to ensure that could be worked round.
Just a thought, but every time we've sacked Peter Moores, we've won the next Ashes. Can we bring him back next summer for one series and then sack him again?
And England go to within one good ball of victory...
Bit harsh on Stuart Broad if it goes to someone else. 8 in the first innings but not 10 in the match!
Sorry nothing to do with cricket, but I am just catching up on the morning's posts. So why wasn't Margaret Beaufort on your list of suspects for the Princes in the Tower?
Should be in the original post. But to cut a long story short, she didn't have a motive to kill them or access to the Tower of London to have them killed (nor did her husband). Therefore, why and how fall down a bit. Gregory's reasoning didn't take that into account (and was in any case deeply flawed - more in the aforementioned original post). It was put forward in The Ricardian as an idea in 1994 and immediately shot to pieces by about fifteen professional historians.
I read a very interesting article just last week which considered all those named suspects in turn and the Duke of Norfolk, before concluding 'Conclusions regarding Richard's guilt is supported by the facts we have, while arguments in favour of his innocence rests upon unproven assertions about his character.' I only know of one professional historian, David Baldwin, who would dissent from that view now, but it's seldom so elegantly expressed (and no, I didn't write the article myself)!
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I can't imagine Davis pledging to match Brown's spending plans, or letting UKIP getting to 13% in the polls.
Or being PM for ten years!?
When will people finally accept that Cameron was good for the Tory Party I wonder?
STEM - horrid American acronym - can, and therefore should, pay for itself.
University faculties that help us understand HUMANS, but that aren't in heavy demand by the private sector, like sociology and art, should be subsidised by the government.
Apologies for my bleeding-heart arugula-chewing sneering-Islington dinner-party attitude, which I was convinced to adopt by the advocacy of Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom".
On topic, thank you Mr Herdson for a thought-provoking and alarming article. It should be emailed to every Labour member who is thinking of voting Corbyn so they can feel good about themselves for three years before getting someone who can win elections in.
What is really worrying is the stage we are at in the electoral cycle. At this point, having just been brutally hammered in an election by an unpopular government for being too left-wing, Labour should have worked out that moving further left would be pure self-indulgence and instead be looking to return to power in at least the medium term by electing somebody voters will listen to. Given that they have the recent example of Iain Duncan Smith to ponder, they have no excuse to be moving left, yet on these very threads we have seen people who are demonstrably sane and decent talking about doing just that.
The damage they are doing to Labour's political credibility is immense. Is there any sign of hope for Labour that anyone can see?
What was so left-wing about Labour's 2015 manifesto? There was nothing there about renationalising large swathes of British industry - or bringing back the National Enterprise Board. No commitment to bring in compulsory Planning Agreements either. There was a commitment to restore the Top Rate of Income Tax to 50% - but that is hardly left-wing given that Thatcher had a rate of 60% for 9 years of her Government. A more accurate statement is surely that Labour was less right-wing than the Tories - but that certainly did not make them left-wing. As for the scale of defeat, I think you rather exaggerate - it was surprising rather than brutal.An overall majority of 12 is very small and likely to be eroded in due course. Moreover, in terms of % vote share Labour trailed the Tories by just 6.6% - less than in 2010 and less too than any of Thatcher's victories or Major's 1992 win.Had Scotland not gone 'tits up' for Labour the Tory lead for GB as a whole would have been circa 5% - still decisive , but far from overwhelming. Looking at England alone , Labour did better than in 2010- 1992-1987-1983 and 1959.
Interesting thought HL - but how does it work for teachers, or academics themselves? 45 is a pretty late age to be changing to a gruelling career like teaching, or for a career that takes 8-10 years training to break into like lecturing. Most of the profession are looking to get out of it by that stage. I think some flexibility would be needed to ensure that could be worked round.
Perhaps they are looking to get out because they are exhausted having done it for twenty-odd years. Leave teachers aside for a moment, I'll come back to them in a minute, if someone joins a profession as an articled clerk at 20 qualifies a few years later and is burnt out and looking to get out by the time he.she hits her mid-forties then under my scheme University and a new career as whatever they want beckons. Please bear in mind that retirement, especially early retirement, is just not going to be an option for today's youngsters.
As for academics, the only reason there is an 8 to 10 year break in period is they way the UNi's run a closed shop. It suits the present generation of academics. Godfrey Hardy, one of my heroes, was a fellow at Cambridge in his early 20s and he was not unique in fact such was the system in those days, only a little more than a century ago.
Now with teachers you have a stronger point. Dealing with children and teenagers in today's education system is a gruelling job. Some of that is undoubtedly due to HMG trying to make up for the failures of the profession by forcing them into standardised measureable work practices. Again there is no reason why this practice needs to continue and I have serious doubts that it actually adds anything to learning. I do not for one moment think that the bunch of WW2 vets, and a couple from WW1, who taught at my South London Grammar school ever spent their summer holidays designing Schemes of Work, writing lesson plans, worrying about learning outcomes and all the other dreary bureaucracy. Yet we learned and learned a lot, not only enough to pass exams. The other thing that makes teaching gruelling is classroom indiscipline, which is mainly I think caused by the attitude of parents,. To go into detail here would be excessive, but in short the problems that exist that make teaching gruelling are not inevitable.
So all in all I think my plan for moving Universities to the domain of the people that will best use the opportunities to learn may be sound.
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I can't imagine Davis pledging to match Brown's spending plans, or letting UKIP getting to 13% in the polls.
That does not change the fact it was a Blair-Cameron era
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
I think that may well be the case.
But Cameron may yet be defined by what follows rather than what precedes.
Only if he loses EU ref and is succeeded by an arch eurosceptic, or the economy collapses and he is succeeded by Corbyn
I had in mind a different perspective. Not a reimagining of Cameron himself - which would require that sort of thing you mention - but rather if followed by Osborne and then another we might come to see him as part of that group rather than with Blair.
Cameron is the Tories best asset, I doubt his successors will be as good
Labour's candidates and membership lean to the left at present following a second defeat, much as the Tories did after 2001. Corbyn will certainly come top on first preferences, if he does lose it will be narrowly on preferences to Burnham or Cooper.
One thing Labour do have going for them is Cameron will not be there in 2020, if he was, as Blair was in 2005 for the Tories, I think it would be a matter of limiting the damage. Yet without him at the helm they may still have a chance
With Labour, they are not just choosing Corbyn over a mild Blairite in Kendall, but over the party's Brownite middle in Burnham and Cooper. And doing so enthusiastically.
Not necessarily, IDS would probably have beaten Portillo too (and Portillo, while a social liberal, was still a Thatcherite on economics and a eurosceptic) and while Davis may have beaten IDS he was a fellow rightwinger anyway.
Portillo would have beaten IDS, and both him and Davis were (and still are!) In the sensible mainstream. Portillo's liberal social views and Davis' liberal civil rights views show they are thoughtful men and not ideologues.
This is interesting. In 2001, apparently Tory MPs voted tactically to prevent Portillo being on the ballot paper put to party members. It was nearly a Clarke vs Portillo contest, with IDS eliminated. "By a single vote Portillo was eliminated from the contest. It later transpired that he had been the victim of tactical voting.[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2001
IDS supporters voted tactically for Clarke not the other way round. It was almost an almighty f**k up, and came within a whisker of relegating IDS from the final 2.
For what it's worth, my take on that alternate history is here:
I'm tired of people, not just in the media, continually using left and right, it's lazy and most times means nothing. People "on the left" try to use it as a badge of honour, as if indicating a sense of caring and social responsibility, everyone else is a racist child eater. And those "on the right" like to see themselves as responsible and hardworking, and that all others are lazy and feckless.
You need only look at the Kids Co fiasco to demonstrate what a superficial society we've become, attention seekers dazzling politicians whilst purporting to care for "ve kids" and making good money from hard pressed taxpayers. Long serving civil servants have proven to be far wiser than naive politicians.
I'm desperate for Corbyn to win for many reasons, first of all because it will jettison those ghastly identikit apparatchiks in the Labour Party and mostly because I want to see the govt show some humility when dealing with the opposition. I don't like Corbyn's politics but plenty clearly do, let's show some respect for each other.
It's time people grew up and became less tribal, I'm grateful for Corbyn, perhaps he's right after all.
Well said. It is worth remembering just how much of this battle between the left and right in the 80s was distorted and overblown by the media at the time. If you are using the official version as a guide to what happens next, do remember most of it was propaganda. Very few Labour MPs were deselected in total, and those that were usually had some other issues apart from not being left wing enough.
I suspect that there are plenty of Labour Party members whose preference for one wing or the other is mild compared to wanting to get behind somebody who can win. And frankly, the choice is between Gandalf, two members of the Borg and an apprentice Cruella Deville. Who do you expect them to pick?
Comments
It should also be noted that prior to the election Morley and Outwood was considered a safe Labour seat - it wasn't put on CCO's target list until the campaign itself, and Anthony Calvert had to do most of his own fundraising (which he did very successfully by offering to 'castrate Balls').
But Cameron may yet be defined by what follows rather than what precedes.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/606146754963062784
Perhaps we could get the youngsters doing national service (military of they want but otherwise community based) between the age of 18 and 20, vocational education (including articled clerkships for the professions) until about 25. Then for those that want it Uni from the age of, say, 45. With life expectancy for youngsters now the far side of 80 and retirement heading towards 70 there will be plenty of time to build a second career using one's degree.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/907759.html
I read a very interesting article just last week which considered all those named suspects in turn and the Duke of Norfolk, before concluding 'Conclusions regarding Richard's guilt is supported by the facts we have, while arguments in favour of his innocence rests upon unproven assertions about his character.' I only know of one professional historian, David Baldwin, who would dissent from that view now, but it's seldom so elegantly expressed (and no, I didn't write the article myself)!
New thread
When will people finally accept that Cameron was good for the Tory Party I wonder?
University faculties that help us understand HUMANS, but that aren't in heavy demand by the private sector, like sociology and art, should be subsidised by the government.
Apologies for my bleeding-heart arugula-chewing sneering-Islington dinner-party attitude, which I was convinced to adopt by the advocacy of Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom".
As for the scale of defeat, I think you rather exaggerate - it was surprising rather than brutal.An overall majority of 12 is very small and likely to be eroded in due course. Moreover, in terms of % vote share Labour trailed the Tories by just 6.6% - less than in 2010 and less too than any of Thatcher's victories or Major's 1992 win.Had Scotland not gone 'tits up' for Labour the Tory lead for GB as a whole would have been circa 5% - still decisive , but far from overwhelming. Looking at England alone , Labour did better than in 2010- 1992-1987-1983 and 1959.
As for academics, the only reason there is an 8 to 10 year break in period is they way the UNi's run a closed shop. It suits the present generation of academics. Godfrey Hardy, one of my heroes, was a fellow at Cambridge in his early 20s and he was not unique in fact such was the system in those days, only a little more than a century ago.
Now with teachers you have a stronger point. Dealing with children and teenagers in today's education system is a gruelling job. Some of that is undoubtedly due to HMG trying to make up for the failures of the profession by forcing them into standardised measureable work practices. Again there is no reason why this practice needs to continue and I have serious doubts that it actually adds anything to learning. I do not for one moment think that the bunch of WW2 vets, and a couple from WW1, who taught at my South London Grammar school ever spent their summer holidays designing Schemes of Work, writing lesson plans, worrying about learning outcomes and all the other dreary bureaucracy. Yet we learned and learned a lot, not only enough to pass exams. The other thing that makes teaching gruelling is classroom indiscipline, which is mainly I think caused by the attitude of parents,. To go into detail here would be excessive, but in short the problems that exist that make teaching gruelling are not inevitable.
So all in all I think my plan for moving Universities to the domain of the people that will best use the opportunities to learn may be sound.
I suspect that there are plenty of Labour Party members whose preference for one wing or the other is mild compared to wanting to get behind somebody who can win. And frankly, the choice is between Gandalf, two members of the Borg and an apprentice Cruella Deville. Who do you expect them to pick?