So what next? Salmond really irritated people with his arrogance and excessive smugness. Putting Ed in his pocket was indeed devastating for Ed.
Nicola is a different kettle of fish (sorry it is just inevitable when talking about the SNP leadership). I really don't see many lefties in England having a major problem with her having a big say in the next Parliament. Indeed many might think that she was more than capable of bringing an element of sanity to current Labour thinking.
Labour in Scotland are in a terrible mess, a party without a purpose if ever there was one. Their raison d'etre for the best part of 40 years was to keep the Tories out. Well, they are no longer relevant to that.
They were the Scottish establishment and most Scottish bodies are still packed with their fellow travellers who have made their own accommodations with the SNP. They have no chance of power and the replacements in that establishment will owe nothing to them.
I think we can be very confident that in 2020 the number of Scottish Labour MPs will be under 5, possibly quite a bit less. So they need to make an accommodation with the SNP themselves at a UK level and make that less offensive to rUK than it was in 2015. I think, with Sturgeon, it could be done but it means accepting more hard medicine in Scotland than I think most of them could bear.
Labour will win in Scotland again when you are free, David. The Tories and the SNP will continue to work together to ensure that happens within the next ten years.
I am free Southam. I am British and that makes you about as about as free as you can be on this miserable earth.
But I disagree. Even if Scotland were to make such a catastrophic mistake Labour is dead. The parties in such a Scotland will be a left centre party based on most of the current SNP and a centre right party based around the Tories/Lib Dems and some tartan tories who don't see the need to vote SNP any longer.
I am NOT free, I am Scottish , ruled by a foreign country.
By this measure, only those who vote with the majority can be considered free.
You live in a country where you can vote freely and where they was a free vote on Independence which your side lost. You are free in any meaningful political sense.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Even more fascinating how Nationalists forget any responsibility on the part of Scotland in the Governance of the United Kingdom over the last 20 years.
I can tell you how I felt about the PM and Chancellor being Scottish - nothing. If they have the talent, good for them.
Thanks for letting me know how you feel. If I had the smarts to know what point you were trying to make, I'm sure it would be fascinating.
My second point was an answer to HYUFD. I'm an English person and I wanted to detach myself from the implied feeling.
Scottish Tories voted 90% plus for the union in indyref, had Scottish Labour got its voters to do the same No would have won a landslide
Scottish Labour lost most of its base because it supported No. I would imagine the vast majority of current Labour voters in Scotland support the union.
Yes but it was Labour's half hearted pro union campaign with a few honourable exceptions like Jim Murphy which failed to enthuse its voters unlike Ruth Davidson's positive pro Union campaign
I disagree. Labour's problem was that it campaigned on the same side as the Tories at a time when Westminster was (and is) held in contempt by most Scottish voters. Labour contributed greatly to that feeling of contempt by taking Scotland so much for granted, of course.
Referendums are cross party as EU ref will be
But it was perceived as a partnership with the Tories. Labour also must not make the same mistake in the EU referendum. By all means support staying IN but do not get on the same platform as Cameron / Osborne.
If any Tory election strategists are reading this, Surby has just given you a fantastic idea - call for he Labour leadership to join you in the 'in campaign' - if you win, fine, if you lose, Labour voters will flock to UKIP in droves in Northern seats.
Win win for a Continuity Cameron or Paterson led Tory party.
Incidentally, why is it only the Tory party that continually manages to survive split opinions within the party.....
Wrong on both counts. That would see some Tory Out voters go to UKIP if In and you forgot the splits after Peel
Hehe - a no vote results in someone like Paterson or Patel leading the party. We've already exceeded peak UKIP, it doesn't lead to Tories losing votes in marginals.
Labour are toast either way....
Fair point re Peel - but they regrouped, unlike any other political party ever....
From where you work you probably don't see a recession. Not coming, we are in it.
Manufacturing: Q1 -0.1% Q2 -0.5% Q3 -0.3%
Source: ONS
"However, output in the manufacturing sector declined by 0.3%.
"The slowdown is being led by the manufacturing sector, which is seeing a renewed recession as output has now fallen for three consecutive quarters, suffering a 0.3% decline in the three months to September," said Chris Williamson, chief economist at research firm Markit.
"Manufacturing output has so far fallen 0.9% this year. Producers are struggling as weak demand in many overseas markets, notably China and other emerging nations, is being exacerbated by the appreciation of sterling." "
These are facts. Not some output from a delusional character.
I work in manufacturing in Yorkshire so I have rather more contact with it than someone who lives in Margo Ledbetter's part of the world.
And if you look back to last Saturday's DH thread you'll see that I was pointing out that the UK was now in its THIRD manufacturing recession since Osborne proclaimed the 'March of the Makers'.
This government has been pretty crap for manufacturing but even so not as crap as Labour was.
But I've never heard you complain about the way Blair and Brown shat on the manufacturing sector from 2000 onwards.
Nor have you ever blamed EdM for the disasterous effect his energy policies have had on UK manufacturing.
Bollocks ! Manufacturing reached its peak under Labour. In the 5 years since the credit crunch ended the Tories have dismally failed to even reach that. WE are ,in fact, 5% below the previous peak.
Manufacturing is on its knees. Yesterday, Sterling shot up again ! Another few factories will probably be shut down.
Bollocks. Manufacturing reached its peak back in 2000 after Labour inherited a strongly growing sector.
Then Labour left it in close to ruin after a decade of tax rises, higher energy costs and regulation imposition.
And what did Labour chose to do in the recession - bail out the banks (and the bankers' bonuses) and cut VAT on imported consumer tat while leaving hundreds of factories to shut down.
That you don't condemn Blair and Brown and Miliband for that exposes you as a hypocrite.
Cutting vat before the election was all part of a blatantly rigged pre election boom.
Scottish Tories voted 90% plus for the union in indyref, had Scottish Labour got its voters to do the same No would have won a landslide
Scottish Labour lost most of its base because it supported No. I would imagine the vast majority of current Labour voters in Scotland support the union.
Yes but it was Labour's half hearted pro union campaign with a few honourable exceptions like Jim Murphy which failed to enthuse its voters unlike Ruth Davidson's positive pro Union campaign
I disagree. Labour's problem was that it campaigned on the same side as the Tories at a time when Westminster was (and is) held in contempt by most Scottish voters. Labour contributed greatly to that feeling of contempt by taking Scotland so much for granted, of course.
Referendums are cross party as EU ref will be
But it was perceived as a partnership with the Tories. Labour also must not make the same mistake in the EU referendum. By all means support staying IN but do not get on the same platform as Cameron / Osborne.
If any Tory election strategists are reading this, Surby has just given you a fantastic idea - call for he Labour leadership to join you in the 'in campaign' - if you win, fine, if you lose, Labour voters will flock to UKIP in droves in Northern seats.
Win win for a Continuity Cameron or Paterson led Tory party.
Incidentally, why is it only the Tory party that continually manages to survive split opinions within the party.....
Wrong on both counts. That would see some Tory Out voters go to UKIP if In and you forgot the splits after Peel
Hehe - a no vote results in someone like Paterson or Patel leading the party. We've already exceeded peak UKIP, it doesn't lead to Tories losing votes in marginals.
Labour are toast either way....
Fair point re Peel - but they regrouped, unlike any other political party ever....
In indyref Labour voters were split Tories strongly No while on EU ref Tories are split Labour strongly Yes so it is the Tories now most at risk from a cross party campaign with UKIP posing a threat as the SNP did to Labour. I agree an Out vote could be good for the Tories as could a big In vote. The worst result for Tories is a narrow In unfortunately that looks most likely.
On Peel I believe some Peelites joined the Liberals like Gladstone
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
That's not actually correct, though, is it? The latest poll shows the parties tied before the new turnout adjustments. It may well be that the new adjustments are necessary to reflect differential turnout, but with 2010 methodology we'd be talking about a tie. Clearly there is no new leader honeymoon - not surprisingly given the media assault - but there hasn't been a Corbyn meltdown as some were predicting either. Would we have had a sustained bounce with, say, Cooper? Maybe, but alternate history is hard.
Malcolm G Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see that whinging nation of Scots get out of the way of the rest of the UK...Please make it soon..
Unfortunately, that disregards the settled will of the Scottish people.
And whipping up nasty hatred from the English is all part of the SNP playbook
Scots voted NO in the referendum..no one else ...just Scots
I would not expect you to know reality. I think you mean the people currently residing in Scotland and on the electoral register voted, some YES and some more NO.
And as I recall, the 'Yes' side were only too happy to include immigrants (including very recent ones) in its happy band of country splitters. Can hardly complain now when it didn't work.
You halfwitted moron, they used the electoral register. Given how stupid you appear to be THAT MEANS PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS. Seemingly not just stupid but racist with a chip about immigrants.
You were the one who brought up the distinction between Scots and those eligible to vote, not me.
In indyref abour voters were split Tories strongly No while on EU ref Tories are split Labour strongly Yes so it is the Tories now most at risk from a cross party campaign with UKIP posing a threat as the SNP did to Labour. I agree an Out vote could be good for the Tories as could a big In vote. The worst result for Tories is a narrow In unfortunately that looks most likely.
On Peel I believe some Peelites joined the Liberals like Gladstone
No Peelites ever rejoined the Conservatives under Derby or Disraeli. They merged into a loose union with the Whig coalition under Russell (Lord Aberdeen, the most senior Peelite after Peel's death in 1850, actually led it briefly, to keep the peace between several rival Whig candidates) and as they died off, they were not replaced. Eventually, in 1859 they became founders of the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals. The only ones I can think of to have careers that extended significantly beyond that point were Gladstone and Cardwell (who was Gladstone's Secretary of State for War 1868-74).
As a result of the Peelites leaving, the Conservatives were always the largest party in the House of Commons from 1846-68, but never able to command a majority and therefore only in power for brief periods of minority government.
Scots voted NO in the referendum..no one else ...just Scots
I would not expect you to know reality. I think you mean the people currently residing in Scotland and on the electoral register voted, some YES and some more NO.
And as I recall, the 'Yes' side were only too happy to include immigrants (including very recent ones) in its happy band of country splitters. Can hardly complain now when it didn't work.
You halfwitted moron, they used the electoral register. Given how stupid you appear to be THAT MEANS PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS. Seemingly not just stupid but racist with a chip about immigrants.
You were the one who brought up the distinction between Scots and those eligible to vote, not me.
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
That's not actually correct, though, is it? The latest poll shows the parties tied before the new turnout adjustments. It may well be that the new adjustments are necessary to reflect differential turnout, but with 2010 methodology we'd be talking about a tie. Clearly there is no new leader honeymoon - not surprisingly given the media assault - but there hasn't been a Corbyn meltdown as some were predicting either. Would we have had a sustained bounce with, say, Cooper? Maybe, but alternate history is hard.
I don't know whether it is fair to simply compare numbers. We know that the methodologies have changed enormously over the 35 years in the examples but it's also true that for most of the time, the methodology was valid at the time. Put another way, although the pollsters were wrong by 2015, that doesn't mean that they were wrong in 2010; it may simply be that the assumptions underlying the adjustments they were making then had become out of date by the end of the parliament.
(And I was using the first opposition lead, so a tie wouldn't count anyway ;-) ).
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
That's not actually correct, though, is it? The latest poll shows the parties tied before the new turnout adjustments. It may well be that the new adjustments are necessary to reflect differential turnout, but with 2010 methodology we'd be talking about a tie. Clearly there is no new leader honeymoon - not surprisingly given the media assault - but there hasn't been a Corbyn meltdown as some were predicting either. Would we have had a sustained bounce with, say, Cooper? Maybe, but alternate history is hard.
No poll has had the parties tied let alone Labour ahead and only a turnout weighted poll has anything approaching accuracy. There may have been no change since May on average but the Tories still have a clear lead
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS the first Labour poll lead should appear in 2017 i.e. a few months before he is deposed anyway. IDS had a handful of poll leads in 2003, although Labour led on average, before he was toppled in October after the Brent East by election
At this stage in the 1987 Parliament the Tories had a 12% lead - effectively unchanged from the election six months earlier.
BMG yesterday had a 6% lead so effectively unchanged from May
Yes - but the lead was much smaller from the outset!
So Corbyn has made no difference
I am not suggesting that he has. Rather more interesting to me is the fact that the 12% Tory leads of December 1987 were not a good guide to the outcome in April 1992.
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
Excellent advice. How would we apply it to malcomg?
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
What happens when pupils simply refuse to turn up for detention?
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Even more fascinating how Nationalists forget any responsibility on the part of Scotland in the Governance of the United Kingdom over the last 20 years.
I can tell you how I felt about the PM and Chancellor being Scottish - nothing. If they have the talent, good for them.
Thanks for letting me know how you feel. If I had the smarts to know what point you were trying to make, I'm sure it would be fascinating.
My second point was an answer to HYUFD. I'm an English person and I wanted to detach myself from the implied feeling.
You think because of the Scottish ethnicity of UK governing politicians that 'Nationalists' should accept responsibility for them? Okay.
In indyref abour voters were split Tories strongly No while on EU ref Tories are split Labour strongly Yes so it is the Tories now most at risk from a cross party campaign with UKIP posing a threat as the SNP did to Labour. I agree an Out vote could be good for the Tories as could a big In vote. The worst result for Tories is a narrow In unfortunately that looks most likely.
On Peel I believe some Peelites joined the Liberals like Gladstone
No Peelites ever rejoined the Conservatives under Derby or Disraeli. They merged into a loose union with the Whig coalition under Russell (Lord Aberdeen, the most senior Peelite after Peel's death in 1850, actually led it briefly, to keep the peace between several rival Whig candidates) and as they died off, they were not replaced. Eventually, in 1859 they became founders of the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals. The only ones I can think of to have careers that extended significantly beyond that point were Gladstone and Cardwell (who was Gladstone's Secretary of State for War 1868-74).
As a result of the Peelites leaving, the Conservatives were always the largest party in the House of Commons from 1846-68, but never able to command a majority and therefore only in power for brief periods of minority government.
Yes the Peelites became a pivotal force in the foundation of the Liberals
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
What happens when pupils simply refuse to turn up for detention?
Additional detention (so instead of losing one lunchtime, they've lost two) and phone call to parents, or internal isolation for the afternoon followed by being put on tracking report for two weeks (which they absolutely hate).
That's comparatively rare in the school I teach in though.
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
Excellent advice. How would we apply it to malcomg?
Withold alcohol and he will be crawling up the walls in a matter of hours.
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
What happens when pupils simply refuse to turn up for detention?
Additional detention (so instead of losing one lunchtime, they've lost two) and phone call to parents, or internal isolation for the afternoon followed by being put on tracking report for two weeks (which they absolutely hate).
That's comparatively rare in the school I teach in though.
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
What happens when pupils simply refuse to turn up for detention?
Additional detention (so instead of losing one lunchtime, they've lost two) and phone call to parents, or internal isolation for the afternoon followed by being put on tracking report for two weeks (which they absolutely hate).
That's comparatively rare in the school I teach in though.
Greater love hath no man than this: that he listens to P3 on the radio instead of watching the rugby world cup final.
Plan is to listen, have a bite to eat whilst the markets get going (and possibly watch a little of the rugby), then put up the pre-qualifying ramble. P3 ends at 5pm, qualifying starts at 7pm.
Mr. 124, some people are rather into that sort of thing.
Two thirds of two parent families receiving tax credits have an adult in them who doesn't work.
Looking at those tax free numbers, it isn't hard to see why.
If the public knew this, I suspect that moods would rapidly alter.
The whole thing is an absolute outrage.
Rather than us constantly hearing about "people losing £1,300" why don't we instead hear that "people with 4 or more children will receive £18,400 instead of £19,700" etc etc.
I wonder if Portillo is reading PB - on This Week he made the precise point I have made several times on here - ie employers don't pay different levels of wages depending upon whether the employee has children or not.
One answer is make the benefit cap apply to everyone.
I'm sure most people think it does but it doesn't.
It's extraordinary that we have a benefit cap of £23k but it doesn't apply to people working. If someone is even only earning say £12k why should they be able to claim more than £23k in benefits ON TOP - to give them a total in their pocket of OVER £35k?
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
What happens when pupils simply refuse to turn up for detention?
Additional detention (so instead of losing one lunchtime, they've lost two) and phone call to parents, or internal isolation for the afternoon followed by being put on tracking report for two weeks (which they absolutely hate).
That's comparatively rare in the school I teach in though.
So need to return to corporal punishment?
Huh? Why?
No -I agree wholeheartedly! I have recently been reading the Facebook page of my old Boys Grammar School and some of the stories have quite horrified me. One guy relates how he was caned on 80 occasions between 1972 and 1977 and received in excess of 400 strokes.Quite often he was beaten so severely that he bled. I have explained to him that he was actually a victim of physical child abuse and should have taken himself to the local A&E Dept , obtained a medical report to confirm the excessive nature of the beating and then proceeded to a police station to get the Headmaster charged with ABH under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Apparently his mother used to get apoplectic whilst his father - ex-Army - told him he 'should not have got himself into trouble'!
No -I agree wholeheartedly! I have recently been reading the Facebook page of my old Boys Grammar School and some of the stories have quite horrified me. One guy relates how he was caned on 80 occasions between 1972 and 1977 and received in excess of 400 strokes.Quite often he was beaten so severely that he bled. I have explained to him that he was actually a victim of physical child abuse and should have taken himself to the local A&E Dept , obtained a medical report to confirm the excessive nature of the beating and then proceeded to a police station to get the Headmaster charged with ABH under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Apparently his mother used to get apoplectic whilst his father - ex-Army - told him he 'should not have got himself into trouble'!
I take it that a fairly significant 'no' was missing from your earlier post then?
There was a rumour in the 1990s that the deputy head at my school kept a cane behind the door to remind him of the good ol' days when he was dealing with miscreants. As I have become older and wiser - and got to know him quite well () - I realised that he was one of the gentlest souls breathing and had begun the rumour himself partly as a joke and partly to make the miscreants (ummm...) think that he was really scary!
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Even more fascinating how Nationalists forget any responsibility on the part of Scotland in the Governance of the United Kingdom over the last 20 years.
I can tell you how I felt about the PM and Chancellor being Scottish - nothing. If they have the talent, good for them.
Thanks for letting me know how you feel. If I had the smarts to know what point you were trying to make, I'm sure it would be fascinating.
My second point was an answer to HYUFD. I'm an English person and I wanted to detach myself from the implied feeling.
You think because of the Scottish ethnicity of UK governing politicians that 'Nationalists' should accept responsibility for them? Okay.
It does rather defeat the nationalists point Scotland is 'occupied' though
Is the credit rating of a country like that of a person as in; if you've never been in debt you have a worse rating than someone who has, but paid it back?
ydoether...at my school I was given six strokes of the cane on each hand every morning at assembly.. this went on from the age of 13 until I left at nearly 15..I had to do a paper round in the evening and never made it to compulsory church service after school..this was the punishment.. Sometimes it was impossible to hold a pen for the first two lessons..
No -I agree wholeheartedly! I have recently been reading the Facebook page of my old Boys Grammar School and some of the stories have quite horrified me. One guy relates how he was caned on 80 occasions between 1972 and 1977 and received in excess of 400 strokes.Quite often he was beaten so severely that he bled. I have explained to him that he was actually a victim of physical child abuse and should have taken himself to the local A&E Dept , obtained a medical report to confirm the excessive nature of the beating and then proceeded to a police station to get the Headmaster charged with ABH under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Apparently his mother used to get apoplectic whilst his father - ex-Army - told him he 'should not have got himself into trouble'!
I take it that a fairly significant 'no' was missing from your earlier post then?
There was a rumour in the 1990s that the deputy head at my school kept a cane behind the door to remind him of the good ol' days when he was dealing with miscreants. As I have become older and wiser - and got to know him quite well () - I realised that he was one of the gentlest souls breathing and had begun the rumour himself partly as a joke and partly to make the miscreants (ummm...) think that he was really scary!
Just spotted my omission ! Thanks for that. I am presently on the verge of putting together an account of these incidents in a letter to the local press. The Headmaster involved has been dead for 12 years, but I see no reason not to expose his criminal behaviour and am happy to help trash his reputation.
One answer is make the benefit cap apply to everyone.
I'm sure most people think it does but it doesn't.
It's extraordinary that we have a benefit cap of £23k but it doesn't apply to people working. If someone is even only earning say £12k why should they be able to claim more than £23k in benefits ON TOP - to give them a total in their pocket of OVER £35k?
NB. They will pay a tiny bit of tax and NI.
The only way they could claim it to the full extent is they have children presumably and most parents can still claim child benefit
The chances of a balanced budget in 2019 are roughly equal to the chances of a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn winning a general election.
Only 'roughly' because there is a faint chance that random economic fluctuations could cause one of them. But there is no way that we will have a balanced budget...
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
You may despise the late Chris Woodhead I don't think anyone could call him lazy
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS the first Labour poll lead should appear in 2017 i.e. a few months before he is deposed anyway. IDS had a handful of poll leads in 2003, although Labour led on average, before he was toppled in October after the Brent East by election
At this stage in the 1987 Parliament the Tories had a 12% lead - effectively unchanged from the election six months earlier.
BMG yesterday had a 6% lead so effectively unchanged from May
Yes - but the lead was much smaller from the outset!
So Corbyn has made no difference
I am not suggesting that he has. Rather more interesting to me is the fact that the 12% Tory leads of December 1987 were not a good guide to the outcome in April 1992.
They were a guide to the Tory majority in 1992 though
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
You may despise the late Chris Woodhead I don't think anyone could call him lazy
No, it was only those people who worked with him called him that, like my mother, my history teacher, the Head of English at Newent, one of my current colleagues...
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS the first Labour poll lead should appear in 2017 i.e. a few months before he is deposed anyway. IDS had a handful of poll leads in 2003, although Labour led on average, before he was toppled in October after the Brent East by election
At this stage in the 1987 Parliament the Tories had a 12% lead - effectively unchanged from the election six months earlier.
BMG yesterday had a 6% lead so effectively unchanged from May
Yes - but the lead was much smaller from the outset!
So Corbyn has made no difference
I am not suggesting that he has. Rather more interesting to me is the fact that the 12% Tory leads of December 1987 were not a good guide to the outcome in April 1992.
They were a guide to the Tory majority in 1992 though
Indeed so - but they lost 40 seats and had Thatcher remained in place Tory losses would likely have been quite a bit higher.
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
You may despise the late Chris Woodhead I don't think anyone could call him lazy
No, it was only those people who worked with him called him that, like my mother, my history teacher, the Head of English at Newent, one of my current colleagues...
I expect ideological clashes came into it, as well as rock climbing, journalism, teaching and lecturing and being Head of OFSTED he also bravely battled motor neurone disease in his final years, he certainly was not lazy
The first poll after the 2010 election that didn't have a Con lead was published on 15/8/10 by ICM, reporting Con 37, Lab 37, LD 18. There were two other tied polls before the first that had a Labour lead, by YouGov on 27/9/10, reporting Lab 40, Con 39, LD 12. During October 2010, the margins varied between a 7-point Con lead and a 3-point one for Lab but most were in the range of Lab +1 to Con +3.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS th At this stage in the 1987 Parliament the Tories had a 12% lead - effectively unchanged from the election six months earlier.
BMG yesterday had a 6% lead so effectively unchanged from May
Yes - but the lead was much smaller from the outset!
So Corbyn has made no difference
I am not suggesting that he has. Rather more interesting to me is the fact that the 12% Tory leads of December 1987 were not a good guide to the outcome in April 1992.
They were a guide to the Tory majority in 1992 though
Indeed so - but they lost 40 seats and had Thatcher remained in place Tory losses would likely have been quite a bit higher.
Yes but the Tories still had an 8% lead in 1992 so 12% was not miles off
Ydoethur, you're a teacher... how do you deal with teenagers who constantly belittle their peers with language like "half-wit" and "moron", rather than engaging in honest argument?
1st offence, keep them back at the end of the lesson, explain why it is wrong, say how disappointed I am to have to talk to them about this and extract a promise it will not happen again.
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
Excellent advice. How would we apply it to malcomg?
Withold alcohol and he will be crawling up the walls in a matter of hours.
You moronic half witted cretin, what do you know about me. I can imagine you are a sad spotty loser with no mates. Go get a life.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
I expect ideological clashes came into it, as well as rock climbing, journalism, teaching and lecturing and being Head of OFSTED he also bravely battled motor neurone disease in his final years, he certainly was not lazy
I don't think it was that at all. I think you are being deceived by the fact that he gave the impression of always being very busy, while actually hiding the fact he was not doing very much. Of the four I have listed, one is a staunch Conservative traditionalist, one a staunch Socialist traditionalist, one a very modern theorist, and the other a lukewarm Liberal Democrat who never really cared about education theory. They are all very different (and my current colleague has never met the others) but they all remember Woodhead as somebody brimming with new ideas he would talk endlessly about, but never actually put into practice if that required effort. In particular, he was notorious for setting very little written work, because then he would have had to mark it and he didn't want to. It's no coincidence that he was attracted to teaching not because of his academic distinction (an unimpressive second from Bristol) his teaching talent (he was a pretty bad teacher) but by the long holidays (although as I have noted upthread, there is a certain irony in that)!
That's also pretty much what happened at OFSTED. He talked a lot about 'bad teachers,' but he never came up with a coherent idea of what that meant or how to identify them - or indeed what to do with them to remove them effectively from the profession. To put it simply, they need to be (1) identified (2) told to improve, and given help to improve and (3) if that does not work, be given strong incentives to leave (4) in the last resort, sacked.
However, none of that happened under Woodhead. Instead, he gave figures plucked from the air and made lots of speeches and lots of interviews saying how terrible it was. In the meanwhile, the OFSTED system ground to a juddering halt because badly-needed reforms to the bureaucratic inspection regime were not put through. I seem to recall that of the ten, fifteen or twenty thousand bad teachers Woodhead talked about (depending on audience and what figure came into his head) just fifteen were removed from the classroom on Woodhead's eight-year watch. That's not the mark of somebody with energy - indeed, it's a mark of institutional lethargy. His behaviour reminds me of nothing so much of the activities of Joseph McCarthy, so brilliantly parodied as Johnny Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
And I would point out that fighting MND does not require energy, although it does require courage. Most of the appointments he held by then were more or less sinecures, and he was appointed to them largely because of the prestige of his name. He didn't exactly 'work' towards the end of his life.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
The UK parliament also acts as the English parliament.
I taught for over 30 years in a range of types of state schools - after a really difficult first year I simply do not accept that a teacher needs to work much more than 30-35 hours a week to prepare, mark and teach effectively in the secondary sector. That was my norm throughout my career teaching History and always achieved examination results at least in line with expectations/predictions and normally some way above. unfortunately many teachers work inefficiently and like to play the martyr. Fair enough if that floats their boat but it simply is not necessary for the purposes of doing a good job. Remuneration is pretty good, holidays superb and the pension to die for.
Edit: Oh and of course the job is [mostly] very rewarding way beyond any financial benefits. I loved it.
I taught for over 30 years in a range of types of state schools - after a really difficult first year I simply do not accept that a teacher needs to work much more than 30-35 hours a week to prepare, mark and teach effectively in the secondary sector. That was my norm throughout my career teaching History and always achieved examination results at least in line with expectations/predictions and normally some way above. unfortunately many teachers work inefficiently and like to play the martyr. Fair enough if that floats their boat but it simply is not necessary for the purposes of doing a good job. Remuneration is pretty good, holidays superb and the pension to die for.
Edit: Oh and of course the job is [mostly] very rewarding way beyond any financial benefits. I loved it.
Felix, out of interest when did you retire? Genuine question.
EDIT - also, did you ever get promotion or did you stay a classroom teacher?
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
The UK parliament also acts as the English parliament.
That's also pretty much what happened at OFSTED. He talked a lot about 'bad teachers,' but he never came up with a coherent idea of what that meant or how to identify them - or indeed what to do with them to remove them effectively from the profession. To put it simply, they need to be (1) identified (2) told to improve, and given help to improve and (3) if that does not work, be given strong incentives to leave (4) in the last resort, sacked.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
The UK parliament also acts as the English parliament.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS th At this stage in the 1987 Parliament the Tories had a 12% lead - effectively unchanged from the election six months earlier.
BMG yesterday had a 6% lead so effectively unchanged from May
Yes - but the lead was much smaller from the outset!
So Corbyn has made no difference
I am not suggesting that he has. Rather more interesting to me is the fact that the 12% Tory leads of December 1987 were not a good guide to the outcome in April 1992.
They were a guide to the Tory majority in 1992 though
Indeed so - but they lost 40 seats and had Thatcher remained in place Tory losses would likely have been quite a bit higher.
Yes but the Tories still had an 8% lead in 1992 so 12% was not miles off
It was actually 7.6% in 1992. The polls currently seem to give the Tories a lead of circa 5% so a similar falling off by 2020 would imply a neck and neck outcome in terms of vote share.
That's also pretty much what happened at OFSTED. He talked a lot about 'bad teachers,' but he never came up with a coherent idea of what that meant or how to identify them - or indeed what to do with them to remove them effectively from the profession. To put it simply, they need to be (1) identified (2) told to improve, and given help to improve and (3) if that does not work, be given strong incentives to leave (4) in the last resort, sacked.
Don't let the teaching unions hear you say that.
No - the teaching unions can be a bit precious about such things . However, it's true. Bad teachers should be, when the last comes to the last, removed if they cannot improve. And it shouldn't be dragged out for five years either. 12-18 months would be more like it. This is for the simple reason that children's education is important, and it's very difficult to put right if it's been mucked up (not impossible, but difficult).
I may not be the world's greatest teacher, but I work very hard to be the best I can and I believe - hope! - I am better than the average (I've got a strong value-added score in exams and I've increased numbers on the GCSE course by 50% this year - two signs I hope that I am doing something right). And that's because I owe it to the children I am teaching not to let them down if I can possibly avoid it.
I expect ideological clashes came into it, as well as rock climbing, journalism, teaching and lecturing and being Head of OFSTED he also bravely battled motor neurone disease in his final years, he certainly was not lazy
I don't think it was that at all. I think you are being deceived by the fact that he gave the impression of always being very busy, while actually hiding the fact he was not doing very much. Of the four I have listed, one is a staunch Conservative traditionalist, one a staunch Socialist traditionalist, one a very modern theorist, and the other a lukewarm Liberal Democrat who never really cared about education theory. They are all very different (and my current colleague has never met the others) bu That's also pretty much what happened at OFSTED. He talked a lot about 'bad teachers,' but he never came up with a coherent idea of what that meant or how to identify them - or indeed what to do with them to remove them effectively from the profession. To put it simply, they need to be (1) identified (2) told to improve, and given help to improve and (3) if that does not work, be given strong incentives to leave (4) in the last resort, sacked.
However, none of that happened under Woodhead. Instead, he gave figures plucked from the air and made lots of speeches and lots of interviews saying how terrible it was. In the meanwhile, the OFSTED system ground to a juddering halt because badly-needed reforms to the bureaucratic inspection regime were not put through. I seem to recall that of the ten, fifteen or twenty thousand bad teachers Woodhead talked about (depending on audience and what figure came into his head) just fifteen were removed from the classroom on Woodhead's eight-year watch. That's not the mark of somebody with energy - indeed, it's a mark of institutional lethargy. His behaviour reminds me of nothing so much of the activities of Joseph McCarthy, so brilliantly parodied as Johnny Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
And I would point out that fighting MND does not require energy, although it does require courage. Most of the appointments he held by then were more or less sinecures, and he was appointed to them largely because of the prestige of his name. He didn't exactly 'work' towards the end of his life.
I am sure it was part of it, I expect they mainly believed the orthodoxy of the educational establishment. A second from Bristol is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Woodhead first identified many of the deficiencies in education which Gove began to tackle, another man despised by the teaching profession and he also later founded a chain of private schools, Cognita.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
I am sure it was part of it, I expect they mainly believed the orthodoxy of the educational establishment. A second from Bristol is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Woodhead first identified many of the deficiencies in education which Gove began to tackle, another man despised by the teaching profession and he also later founded a chain of private schools, Cognita.
Woodhead believed in the orthodoxy of the educational establishment, when it suited him. None of the other four do (and with respect, I know them and you do not). And may I point out - again - that identifying problems is no good if you do not also have some idea of what to do about them? That is OFSTED's greatest weakness today - it never suggests how schools it thinks are not good enough could get better.
Moreover, Woodhead's radar was a bit hit-and-miss. This notorious remark springs to mind.
PS - the English department at Bristol was not particularly good in the 1960s, indeed the whole university was going through a rough patch. I can say that safely as my father was there at the time. Now, I agree, a very fine university and I was very pleased to get several students into it last year.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
You as stupid as you make out. She bought houses cheap from people who were desperate to sell, Brown and Darling flipped and had everything paid by the taxpayer, made themselves millionaires and not a penny of their own money used.
PS you do know that she did that long before she was ever in the SNP. By that pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
That's also pretty much what happened at OFSTED. He talked a lot about 'bad teachers,' but he never came up with a coherent idea of what that meant or how to identify them - or indeed what to do with them to remove them effectively from the profession. To put it simply, they need to be (1) identified (2) told to improve, and given help to improve and (3) if that does not work, be given strong incentives to leave (4) in the last resort, sacked.
Don't let the teaching unions hear you say that.
In theory, the teaching unions agree. In practice, it's a different matter when it's their member.
I taught for over 30 years in a range of types of state schools - after a really difficult first year I simply do not accept that a teacher needs to work much more than 30-35 hours a week to prepare, mark and teach effectively in the secondary sector. That was my norm throughout my career teaching History and always achieved examination results at least in line with expectations/predictions and normally some way above. unfortunately many teachers work inefficiently and like to play the martyr. Fair enough if that floats their boat but it simply is not necessary for the purposes of doing a good job. Remuneration is pretty good, holidays superb and the pension to die for.
Edit: Oh and of course the job is [mostly] very rewarding way beyond any financial benefits. I loved it.
Felix, out of interest when did you retire? Genuine question.
EDIT - also, did you ever get promotion or did you stay a classroom teacher?
I retired in 2009 as deputy head and taught in inner london comps for 20 years and then a Kent grammar for the last 12 years.
Now, we can be sceptical of the methodology of the time, and of pollsters long since departed (that Lab +3 was from Angus Reid), and we can note that far fewer polls are being published than was the case five years ago, but the fact remains that nearly six months into the parliament, not only has no pollster produced one showing level-pegging, never mind with a Labour lead, but that the smallest Con lead is +4 and that ComRes is still pumping out scores with Con topside of 40 and double-digits ahead of Labour.
It might be an interesting market on when the first Lab lead will appear.
For reference, the first opposition-ahead polls in previous parliaments were:
1979-83: 18/06/79 - 6 weeks (the first poll of the parliament!) 1983-87: 13/02/84 - 8 months 1987-92: 18/04/88 - 10 months 1992-97: 28/07/92 - 4½ months 1997-2001: 15/09/00 - 3 years, 4 months 2001-05: 26/06/03 - 2 years 2005-10: 08/12/05 - 7 months 2010-15: 27/09/10 - 5 months
So historically, although there's nothing too significant about an opposition party going this long without a lead, it's perhaps notable that we are into the period of 5-10 months when the first crossover usually appears.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS th At this stage in the 1987 Parliament the Tories had a 12% lead - effectively unchanged from the election six months earlier.
BMG yesterday had a 6% lead so effectively unchanged from May
Yes - but the lead was much smaller from the outset!
So Corbyn has made no difference
I am not suggesting that he has. Rather more interesting to me is the fact that the 12% Tory leads of December 1987 were not a good guide to the outcome in April 1992.
They were a guide to the Tory majority in 1992 though
Indeed so - but they lost 40 seats and had Thatcher remained in place Tory losses would likely have been quite a bit higher.
Yes but the Tories still had an 8% lead in 1992 so 12% was not miles off
It was actually 7.6% in 1992. The polls currently seem to give the Tories a lead of circa 5% so a similar falling off by 2020 would imply a neck and neck outcome in terms of vote share.
7.6% is approximately 8%. Even a 4% fall in the Tory lead would still see them ahead by 1% and of course some polls like Comres online have the Tories 13% ahead
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
I am sure it was part of it, I expect they mainly believed the orthodoxy of the educational establishment. A second from Bristol is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Woodhead first identified many of the deficiencies in education which Gove began to tackle, another man despised by the teaching profession and he also later founded a chain of private schools, Cognita.
Woodhead believed in the orthodoxy of the educational establishment, when it suited him. None of the other four do (and with respect, I know them and you do not). And may I point out - again - that identifying problems is no good if you do not also have some idea of what to do about them? That is OFSTED's greatest weakness today - it never suggests how schools it thinks are not good enough could get better.
Moreover, Woodhead's radar was a bit hit-and-miss. This notorious remark springs to mind.
PS - the English department at Bristol was not particularly good in the 1960s, indeed the whole university was going through a rough patch. I can say that safely as my father was there at the time. Now, I agree, a very fine university and I was very pleased to get several students into it last year.
Woodhead was actually a progressive in his earlier years before believing he had made a mistake. Woodhead set the way for a return to more traditional teaching methods and traditional subjects which Gove championed.
Departments go up and down but regardless Bristol is and was one of our top ten universities
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt, they had their worst ever result under Davidson in last election. That will be repeated at Holyrood next year. It will be a fight of the donkeys between her and Dugdale to see who is the crappiest.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Even more fascinating how Nationalists forget any responsibility on the part of Scotland in the Governance of the United Kingdom over the last 20 years.
I can tell you how I felt about the PM and Chancellor being Scottish - nothing. If they have the talent, good for them.
Thanks for letting me know how you feel. If I had the smarts to know what point you were trying to make, I'm sure it would be fascinating.
My second point was an answer to HYUFD. I'm an English person and I wanted to detach myself from the implied feeling.
You think because of the Scottish ethnicity of UK governing politicians that 'Nationalists' should accept responsibility for them? Okay.
Not at all, I just find it rather ridiculous to speak of a country being ruled over by a 'foreign power' when the 11 years the rot really set in and the money was all pissed away was presided over by a Labour Party that was bolstered by Scottish seats. The 'Scottish ethnicity' so many of the leading figures is just the sprinkling on the cake.
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I taught for over 30 years in a range of types of state schools - after a really difficult first year I simply do not accept that a teacher needs to work much more than 30-35 hours a week to prepare, mark and teach effectively in the secondary sector. That was my norm throughout my career teaching History and always achieved examination results at least in line with expectations/predictions and normally some way above. unfortunately many teachers work inefficiently and like to play the martyr. Fair enough if that floats their boat but it simply is not necessary for the purposes of doing a good job. Remuneration is pretty good, holidays superb and the pension to die for.
Edit: Oh and of course the job is [mostly] very rewarding way beyond any financial benefits. I loved it.
Felix, out of interest when did you retire? Genuine question.
EDIT - also, did you ever get promotion or did you stay a classroom teacher?
I retired in 2009 as deputy head and taught in inner london comps for 20 years and then a Kent grammar for the last 12 years.
Thank you. I have to admit I'm not sure how you could cram everything that would be needed into a 35 hour week at that level, although I admire you greatly for it. I flatter myself I can work very efficiently - I completed a PhD including a vast amount of archival research in various locations in three years while holding down no fewer than five part-time jobs to pay for it, while everyone with funding (and therefore no jobs) took at least four years. But I can't quite see how I would get all the work I have to do, done, without working the hours I am at the moment.
That being said, a lot of the stuff I am doing is hopefully one-off. So, I am having to rewrite pretty much all schemes of work because of the changes to exams: A-level History and GCSE RE this year, GCSE History next year (I've also been changing the KS3 curriculum to match, which is extra work but hopefully this year only and then we should have a really good KS3 curriculum for both subjects). I am also having to prepare new resources to match and support them. I am further being more and more heavily involved by the SMT in quality monitoring across several subjects. In a way that's quite flattering, although it isn't that I am being singled out - several of us are doing it - but it does mean a lot more work.
So if your story is a sign it gets easier, that is good news. Because I must admit I have been wondering whether I can bear to feel this exhausted all the time, much though I enjoy large parts of the job, and have been pondering other options.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
You as stupid as you make out. She bought houses cheap from people who were desperate to sell, Brown and Darling flipped and had everything paid by the taxpayer, made themselves millionaires and not a penny of their own money used.
PS you do know that she did that long before she was ever in the SNP. By that pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
So she exploited people who desperately needed a profitable sale, nothing Brown and Darling did is remotely comparable. Most of the sales occurred as recently as 2010-11
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
You as stupid as you make out. She bought houses cheap from people who were desperate to sell, Brown and Darling flipped and had everything paid by the taxpayer, made themselves millionaires and not a penny of their own money used.
PS you do know that she did that long before she was ever in the SNP. By that pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
So she exploited people who desperately needed a profitable sale, nothing Brown and Darling did is remotely comparable. Most of the sales occurred as recently as 2010-11
Hard to say , if someone wants to sell and they accept the price offered, hard to say if it is right or wrong. Do you go into shops and demand to pay full price when there is a sale on. I think not , willing seller and willing buyer is not a crime. I think what Brown and Darling did was criminal , only they made the rules and ones that normal people could never use. Sanctimonious claptrap.
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
The Tories at least held their Scottish seat last May and on present polling are at their highest level in Scotland since 1992
Somewhat unrelated, but didn't Alan Duncan once get splashed across the press for a property deal that was alleged to be a bit dodgy? The owner had sold at slightly below market price, and it was about MPs putting pressure on their elderly neighbours to swindle them out of their rights - until the former owner ran up from the Bahamas to say he had sold at below market price because he wanted a quick sale to get to the sunshine in a hurry.
Alan Duncan was asked if he was immoral for not paying market price. His reply was the immortal phrase: 'No, it was not immoral. There are lots of ways I could be immoral, if I wanted, and at least if I'd been f***ing someone I'd have been having some fun.'
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
England does not have a parliament , I think you are referring to the UK one. Though I understand your confusion , as most think it is the English parliament.
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
You as stupid as you make out. She bought houses cheap from people who were desperate to sell, Brown and Darling flipped and had everything paid by the taxpayer, made themselves millionaires and not a penny of their own money used.
PS you do know that she did that long before she was ever in the SNP. By that pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
So she exploited people who desperately needed a profitable sale, nothing Brown and Darling did is remotely comparable. Most of the sales occurred as recently as 2010-11
Hard to say , if someone wants to sell and they accept the price offered, hard to say if it is right or wrong. Do you go into shops and demand to pay full price when there is a sale on. I think not , willing seller and willing buyer is not a crime. I think what Brown and Darling did was criminal , only they made the rules and ones that normal people could never use. Sanctimonious claptrap.
Obtaining properties at knockdown prices from families in financial difficulties is exploitation described as possible mortgage fraud is not a simple matter of buyer and seller
F1: I'll be putting the piece up relatively shortly, but there won't be a tip. Closest temptation was Rosberg to get pole, but 2.34 isn't enough to tempt.
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
The Tories at least held their Scottish seat last May and on present polling are at their highest level in Scotland since 1992
I believe they came closer to a second seat than either Labour or the LDs, did they not?
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
The Tories at least held their Scottish seat last May and on present polling are at their highest level in Scotland since 1992
Last May they had their worst ever result in Scotland and hung on to one seat by the skin of their teeth. Hardly progress.
I believe they came closer to a second seat than either Labour or the LDs, did they not?
Yes, then it's the LibDems in Dunbartonshire East, then LibDem again in Edinburgh West, and only then Labour who require a 3% swing to take Renfrewshire East (which is fairly substantial although there is a big Tory vote to squeeze for the right candidate - under the Jezziah, however, will there be such a candidate)?
EDIT - intriguingly, of that list, five of the top ten have Liberal Democrats in second, and Labour have just three. I didn't realise how much better the Liberal Democrat vote appears to have held up than its Labour equivalent. Glasgow North East, formerly Labour's safest seat and now down at no. 36 requiring a 12.18% swing, is the reddening one for the Reds.
PS - Falkirk at no. 54 is very funny too after all the trouble it caused!
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
2010-11
Hard to say , if someone wants to sell and they accept the price offered, hard to say if it is right or wrong. Do you go into shops and demand to pay full price when there is a sale on. I think not , willing seller and willing buyer is not a crime. I think what Brown and Darling did was criminal , only they made the rules and ones that normal people could never use. Sanctimonious claptrap.
Obtaining properties at knockdown prices from families in financial difficulties is exploitation described as possible mortgage fraud is not a simple matter of buyer and seller
You don't know anything about it , just like me. If you have a willing seller and a willing buyer it is not exploitation. The only mention of mortgage fraud was against a lawyer not her. You are obviously not very au fait with business transactions. Do you have someone do all your purchasing for you, your Mum perhaps.
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
The Tories at least held their Scottish seat last May and on present polling are at their highest level in Scotland since 1992
I believe they came closer to a second seat than either Labour or the LDs, did they not?
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
The Tories at least held their Scottish seat last May and on present polling are at their highest level in Scotland since 1992
I believe they came closer to a second seat than either Labour or the LDs, did they not?
"Won the election,lost the Union".. Lefties just love slogans..the more meaningless..the more they love them..
Sadly not meaningless.
As David points out, Tory strategy has been to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It suits their party goals, but comes with a huge price tag.
Nothing to be proud about.
David does not say that though does he.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Indeed, over 90% plus of Scottish Tories voted for the Union, Ruth Davidson was and is the best campaigner for the Union of any of the Unionist parties
She has fled Glasgow and bumped someone out in Edinburgh to try and get a consolation list seat. Does not sound much like a winner to me , she is as garbage as the rest of the Tory pygmies in Scotland.
Most polls this month have had the Tories over 20% in Scotland, which would be their highest total for two decades. The SNP were on 45% and 35% in two polls yesterday, Labour in Scotland have at best been treading water since their trouncing. Davidson is clearly making an impact
Based on about 10 people no doubt
I doubt if you would have been so dismissive if the Tories had fallen back
I don't need to worry , The Tories have been going nowhere for 20 years, that has not changed an iota. It never will whilst they are London sock puppets peddling anti Scottish policies.
The Tories at least held their Scottish seat last May and on present polling are at their highest level in Scotland since 1992
Last May they had their worst ever result in Scotland and hung on to one seat by the skin of their teeth. Hardly progress.
During a nationalist tsumami even standing still was some achievement
How do you think the English felt then when the PM was Brown and the Chancellor Darling, both Scots!
Fascinating how quickly Unionists discard the concept of Britishness when it suits them.
Well it was MalcG who raised the ridiculous point of occupation, I was just pointing out it works both ways
Well at least I was right that we are ruled from London, whereas you were just being a unionist , Britain = England.
Gordon Brown represented Kirkcaldy, Darling Edinburgh South West, last time I checked neither were in London. Scotland has its own Parliament in Holyrood with no English Representation, England's only Parliament has Scottish MPs
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
Exactly, England does not have a Parliament, Scotland does, the UK does, so Scotland has two Parliament's to England's one. As for house flipping Darling and Brown have nothing on the SNP's Michelle Thompson
pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
2010-11
Hard to say , if someone wants to sell and they accept the price offered, hard to say if it is right or wrong. Do you go into shops and demand to pay full price when there is a sale on. I think not , willing seller and willing buyer is not a crime. I think what Brown and Darling did was criminal , only they made the rules and ones that normal people could never use. Sanctimonious claptrap.
Obtaining properties at knockdown prices from families in financial difficulties is exploitation described as possible mortgage fraud is not a simple matter of buyer and seller
You don't know anything about it , just like me. If you have a willing seller and a willing buyer it is not exploitation. The only mention of mortgage fraud was against a lawyer not her. You are obviously not very au fait with business transactions. Do you have someone do all your purchasing for you, your Mum perhaps.
Comments
You live in a country where you can vote freely and where they was a free vote on Independence which your side lost. You are free in any meaningful political sense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/politics/paul-singer-influential-billionaire-throws-support-to-marco-rubio-for-president.html?_r=0
Labour are toast either way....
Fair point re Peel - but they regrouped, unlike any other political party ever....
On Peel I believe some Peelites joined the Liberals like Gladstone
As a result of the Peelites leaving, the Conservatives were always the largest party in the House of Commons from 1846-68, but never able to command a majority and therefore only in power for brief periods of minority government.
ISIS appear to have claimed responsibility for the Russian aeroplane crash.
(And I was using the first opposition lead, so a tie wouldn't count anyway ;-) ).
2nd offence, proper tongue-lashing and detention.
3rd offence, as it is now becoming a bullying incident, escalation to SMT.
But fortunately, such things are now comparatively rare in my lessons. They were alarmingly common when I took over, because I took over from the laziest idiot* in the history of pedagogy and I had to be forceful to restore order, which didn't make me popular. After 18 months of trying, they mostly appear to have got the message!
*Well, laziest equal. Chris Woodhead was always going to hard to beat.
Okay.
That's comparatively rare in the school I teach in though.
Greater love hath no man than this: that he listens to P3 on the radio instead of watching the rugby world cup final.
Plan is to listen, have a bite to eat whilst the markets get going (and possibly watch a little of the rugby), then put up the pre-qualifying ramble. P3 ends at 5pm, qualifying starts at 7pm.
Mr. 124, some people are rather into that sort of thing.
Rather than us constantly hearing about "people losing £1,300" why don't we instead hear that "people with 4 or more children will receive £18,400 instead of £19,700" etc etc.
I wonder if Portillo is reading PB - on This Week he made the precise point I have made several times on here - ie employers don't pay different levels of wages depending upon whether the employee has children or not.
I'm sure most people think it does but it doesn't.
It's extraordinary that we have a benefit cap of £23k but it doesn't apply to people working. If someone is even only earning say £12k why should they be able to claim more than £23k in benefits ON TOP - to give them a total in their pocket of OVER £35k?
NB. They will pay a tiny bit of tax and NI.
There was a rumour in the 1990s that the deputy head at my school kept a cane behind the door to remind him of the good ol' days when he was dealing with miscreants. As I have become older and wiser - and got to know him quite well (
I am presently on the verge of putting together an account of these incidents in a letter to the local press. The Headmaster involved has been dead for 12 years, but I see no reason not to expose his criminal behaviour and am happy to help trash his reputation.
Only 'roughly' because there is a faint chance that random economic fluctuations could cause one of them. But there is no way that we will have a balanced budget...
Booth, Lowdon and Bell (bosses and technical chap) all leaving Manor. May bode ill.
It might be easier to list teams that aren't in trouble than one that are...
PS Neither Brown nor Darling ever did anything for their constituents, they were too busy flipping houses and filling up their bank accounts.
That's also pretty much what happened at OFSTED. He talked a lot about 'bad teachers,' but he never came up with a coherent idea of what that meant or how to identify them - or indeed what to do with them to remove them effectively from the profession. To put it simply, they need to be (1) identified (2) told to improve, and given help to improve and (3) if that does not work, be given strong incentives to leave (4) in the last resort, sacked.
However, none of that happened under Woodhead. Instead, he gave figures plucked from the air and made lots of speeches and lots of interviews saying how terrible it was. In the meanwhile, the OFSTED system ground to a juddering halt because badly-needed reforms to the bureaucratic inspection regime were not put through. I seem to recall that of the ten, fifteen or twenty thousand bad teachers Woodhead talked about (depending on audience and what figure came into his head) just fifteen were removed from the classroom on Woodhead's eight-year watch. That's not the mark of somebody with energy - indeed, it's a mark of institutional lethargy. His behaviour reminds me of nothing so much of the activities of Joseph McCarthy, so brilliantly parodied as Johnny Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
And I would point out that fighting MND does not require energy, although it does require courage. Most of the appointments he held by then were more or less sinecures, and he was appointed to them largely because of the prestige of his name. He didn't exactly 'work' towards the end of his life.
Edit: Oh and of course the job is [mostly] very rewarding way beyond any financial benefits. I loved it.
EDIT - also, did you ever get promotion or did you stay a classroom teacher?
I may not be the world's greatest teacher, but I work very hard to be the best I can and I believe - hope! - I am better than the average (I've got a strong value-added score in exams and I've increased numbers on the GCSE course by 50% this year - two signs I hope that I am doing something right). And that's because I owe it to the children I am teaching not to let them down if I can possibly avoid it.
If we are looking at identity politics you might want to start by looking closer to home.
Oh, You do realise Labour have a lot to answer for if the Union ends too, right?
Moreover, Woodhead's radar was a bit hit-and-miss. This notorious remark springs to mind.
PS - the English department at Bristol was not particularly good in the 1960s, indeed the whole university was going through a rough patch. I can say that safely as my father was there at the time. Now, I agree, a very fine university and I was very pleased to get several students into it last year.
PS you do know that she did that long before she was ever in the SNP. By that pathetic remark you show your true bigotry.
Departments go up and down but regardless Bristol is and was one of our top ten universities
How old was she when she was buying houses on the cheap?
That being said, a lot of the stuff I am doing is hopefully one-off. So, I am having to rewrite pretty much all schemes of work because of the changes to exams: A-level History and GCSE RE this year, GCSE History next year (I've also been changing the KS3 curriculum to match, which is extra work but hopefully this year only and then we should have a really good KS3 curriculum for both subjects). I am also having to prepare new resources to match and support them. I am further being more and more heavily involved by the SMT in quality monitoring across several subjects. In a way that's quite flattering, although it isn't that I am being singled out - several of us are doing it - but it does mean a lot more work.
So if your story is a sign it gets easier, that is good news. Because I must admit I have been wondering whether I can bear to feel this exhausted all the time, much though I enjoy large parts of the job, and have been pondering other options.
Alan Duncan was asked if he was immoral for not paying market price. His reply was the immortal phrase: 'No, it was not immoral. There are lots of ways I could be immoral, if I wanted, and at least if I'd been f***ing someone I'd have been having some fun.'
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mexico-pre-qualifying.html
Whilst qualifying should be interesting, developments off-track are also worth noting.
Fuller list here:
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/scotland/defence/snp
EDIT - intriguingly, of that list, five of the top ten have Liberal Democrats in second, and Labour have just three. I didn't realise how much better the Liberal Democrat vote appears to have held up than its Labour equivalent. Glasgow North East, formerly Labour's safest seat and now down at no. 36 requiring a 12.18% swing, is the reddening one for the Reds.
PS - Falkirk at no. 54 is very funny too after all the trouble it caused!