Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs. I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
But why create a problem internally and damage the party's image with such a blunder? Was it just Osborne wanting a headline?
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
Unlike Jeremy Hardy, I'm afraid it's not very politically correct (most people seem to like that, although I do have one 2* review from a lady who didn't).
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs. I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
But why create a problem internally and damage the party's image with such a blunder? Was it just Osborne wanting a headline?
I'm remain totally perplexed by it - complete own goal
He wasn't, but he wasn't really very good either. Simply going well are you going to U-Turn...No...Are you sure...No....well nobody wants this...Tough....Ok...sits down...
It didn't change anything either way. And this is on a stupid policy by the government.
But he has a bigger problem, to make a decision on Naz Shah, which it appears he has stuck his head in the sand and gone la la la, don't want to upset my mates at the Finsbury Park Mosque.
She was a moderate Muslim though, we were told this after she won that it was a big victory for a moderate Muslim woman to beat Galloway in a Muslim dominated area.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
I was joking actually. Can't even see why she's a cabinet minister when you look at others who aren't. Hunt should probably stay and see this through, although I wont be surprised if he doesn't.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
I'd be with you on both topics. The doctors who are claiming that the new contract is a health'n'safety thing (but we'll do it if you pay us more) need to be taken on. Governments have to have a right to make decisions and the BMA shouldn't be allowed to effectively block the change.
But it's silly to force schools to be acadamies when they don't want to, don't need to and are well-supported by their local authority. Apart from which, it's questionable as to whether there are enough quality academy chains to support that number of schools. Nothing wrong with the market approach and letting local councils act as academy providers.
Paul Waugh Still not a lot of Tory MPs behind Cameron shouting support during academy spat. Like last week
Ominous, but the academy spat is an own goal. Of course if Cameron judged Osborne and Morgan on their performance standards, both would have been fired a long time ago. Keeping one because he is a mate and the other as a form of tokenism and that she is a REMAIN supporter, just serves him right.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs. I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
But why create a problem internally and damage the party's image with such a blunder? Was it just Osborne wanting a headline?
Yes, stupid. Academies are good in areas where the local authority has a monopoly and is useless. Many educational authorities are very good but even thenif a school fails then they get control through an academy. This is moving from one monopoly to another. Morgan is a fool to accept it.
Interesting to look at PA, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1 million voters (4.2M vs. 3.1M – 50% to 37%) and the primary is closed. Your only chance to change party is to do so a minimum of one month before the election by sending in a new registration card (no same day changes). Nevertheless with 99% of the vote counted Trump ends up with about 26,000 fewer voters than Hillary, with almost as many as Republican votes as Democrat overall.
The results in key townships in Montgomery and Delaware Counties would lead to an election victory if it were a general election. Republicans are outvoting Democrats in Horsham, Upper Moreland, Lower Gwynedd, Montgomery, Whitpain, Upper Gwynedd, Lower Providence, Hatfield, Lower Pottsgrove Townships and Rockledge Borough in Montgomery County, all of which Obama won twice. The shift is about 5-10% vs. the 2012 general.
PA is won by Republicans regularly attracting Independents and crossover voting (and the indifference to voting of inner city blacks in Philadelphia). The primary reaffirms that Trump must find a way to broaden his appeal, presumably by acting more Presidential, with middle- and upper-middle class voters in counties like Montgomery and Chester. This was the only bright spot in the electorate for Romney in 2012, in terms of both share and turnout. Trump clearly has the blue collar whites in a way Romney never came close to doing. Also Trump will need to keep independents from going from Bernie to Clinton, presumably by hammering her on corruption and trade.
All in all PA looks very much in play for Trump, as does the Presidency.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
Hunt is surely playing with fire. Junior doctors and those aspiring to the profession are young, smart, mobile and eminently employable in other fields or countries. The danger is that many of them simply say "sod it" and pack their bags or leave the profession if Hunt pushes them too far. They may not look it, but they are a far more formidable opponent than the miners were, and they hold much better cards.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs. I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
But why create a problem internally and damage the party's image with such a blunder? Was it just Osborne wanting a headline?
Yes, stupid. Academies are good in areas where the local authority has a monopoly and is useless. Many educational authorities are very good but even thenif a school fails then they get control through an academy. This is moving from one monopoly to another. Morgan is a fool to accept it.
Has anyone seen articles showing any real insight into who actually took the decision? The education ministers appear to be uncomfortable about it, yet seem in fear of Osborne. Morgan just confirms by her approach that she is unfit to be considered as a future Leader let alone fit to be in cabinet.
"Ten thousand children who will have disappeared into trafficking networks across Europe, forced into drug abuse, child labour, sexual exploitation. Independent medical assessments have found that nearly half of all unaccompanied minors carry a sexually transmitted disease, testament to the terrible dangers they face along the way to Europe."
But the Prime Minister thinks that we should just wash our hands of the problem.
Sometimes theory has to give way to practice. The government made a serious error of judgement not accepting Lord Dubs's amendment.
"Ten thousand children who will have disappeared into trafficking networks across Europe, forced into drug abuse, child labour, sexual exploitation. Independent medical assessments have found that nearly half of all unaccompanied minors carry a sexually transmitted disease, testament to the terrible dangers they face along the way to Europe."
But the Prime Minister thinks that we should just wash our hands of the problem.
Sometimes theory has to give way to practice. The government made a serious error of judgement not accepting Lord Dubs's amendment.
So why isn't our PM and the rest of Europe's leadership putting pressure on Italy to sort itself out and get its house in order?
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
I'd be with you on both topics. The doctors who are claiming that the new contract is a health'n'safety thing (but we'll do it if you pay us more) need to be taken on. Governments have to have a right to make decisions and the BMA shouldn't be allowed to effectively block the change.
But it's silly to force schools to be acadamies when they don't want to, don't need to and are well-supported by their local authority. Apart from which, it's questionable as to whether there are enough quality academy chains to support that number of schools. Nothing wrong with the market approach and letting local councils act as academy providers.
There's everything wrong with the market approach. Kids' eduction is not not a commodity to be monetised and competed over - it's far too precious for that.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
I'd be with you on both topics. The doctors who are claiming that the new contract is a health'n'safety thing (but we'll do it if you pay us more) need to be taken on. Governments have to have a right to make decisions and the BMA shouldn't be allowed to effectively block the change.
But it's silly to force schools to be acadamies when they don't want to, don't need to and are well-supported by their local authority. Apart from which, it's questionable as to whether there are enough quality academy chains to support that number of schools. Nothing wrong with the market approach and letting local councils act as academy providers.
There's everything wrong with the market approach. Kids' eduction is not not a commodity to be monetised and competed over - it's far too precious for that.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of strike action, why do you see the new terms as "necessary"? Is it that the existing contract makes it impossible to deploy doctors in the manner which is desired to go to a "7-day" model, or that paying them on that contract makes it undesirably expensive? I've seen a lot of doctor bashing, some of it probably justified, but nothing that actually makes it clear why Hunt thought it was a good idea to start the fight in the first place.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs. I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
But why create a problem internally and damage the party's image with such a blunder? Was it just Osborne wanting a headline?
Yes, stupid. Academies are good in areas where the local authority has a monopoly and is useless. Many educational authorities are very good but even thenif a school fails then they get control through an academy. This is moving from one monopoly to another. Morgan is a fool to accept it.
Has anyone seen articles showing any real insight into who actually took the decision? The education ministers appear to be uncomfortable about it, yet seem in fear of Osborne. Morgan just confirms by her approach that she is unfit to be considered as a future Leader let alone fit to be in cabinet.
Yes, a stronger education secretary would have told Osborne to fuck off or have the cojones to sack them. Having a Cabinet full of Osborne's acolytes and placemen is harming the party.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of strike action, why do you see the new terms as "necessary"? Is it that the existing contract makes it impossible to deploy doctors in the manner which is desired to go to a "7-day" model, or that paying them on that contract makes it undesirably expensive? I've seen a lot of doctor bashing, some of it probably justified, but nothing that actually makes it clear why Hunt thought it was a good idea to start the fight in the first place.
Around £12-14bn in additional funding per year under the current contract terms for additional staff iirc. We don't have the money for a 7-day NHS and Hunt is trying to do it by imposing an effective pay cut to junior doctors which is going to massively hit graduate -> NHS retention rates.
Given the vast lack of scrutiny the BBC gave to the errors in the Treasury report, it is crazy to claim the BBC is biased in an anti-EU direction. Chris Patten's view is being vastly obscured by his raging Europhilia.
It's actually quite frightening - very reminiscent of the attacks we've seen recently on media balance (or the attempt to appear balanced) on climate change. The blob doesn't like to be contradicted, and it's continually pushing the boundaries to try and de-legitimise dissent.
Criticism of the BBC for attempting to create a false balance of views with regard to climate change is, in my opinion, perfectly justified. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus for anthropogenic climate change, there is no justification for giving a platform to those who deny it for political reasons. We don't expect to hear the views of creation scientists every time geology is discussed.
I'd accuse climate change sceptics of being politically motivated when you've investigated fully who benefits from the current climate change industry - you may not like what you find. Science depends on funding. Funding depends on big business and big Government. That's why 'overwhelming scientific consensus' cuts no ice with me. When science stops questioning, it ceases to become science and becomes a religion.
More importantly though, is the fact that this should be of concern to anyone who cares about balance in any area. Once you think it's acceptable for the 'polite' view of anything to be repeated without dissent, you are on a very slippery slope.
Seriously? You really think the world's scientists are engaging in some massive conspiracy to make up measurements to obtain funding? Acceptance of the results of scientific investigation has nothing to do with politeness; it is the basis of rational decision making.
Real, scientific, scepticism is, of course, to be encouraged, but the sort of idiotic, pig-headed denial that is rife on the internet and media shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
I think the word 'conspiracy' really needs to be put back in the toy box till the kids have learned to play with it nicely.
Any suggestion by anyone that any statement might bear further exploration is leaped on as a 'conspiracy' as if the very mention of the word and its connotations of Roswell and lizard people should shut down all argument. People are nuanced and their motivations aren't always black and white, and their public pronouncements aren't always a full reflection of the truth. This should hardly be news.
Forced academisation is one Conservative policy I really don't understand the purpose of - particularly with good schools run by decent LEAs.
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of strike action, why do you see the new terms as "necessary"? Is it that the existing contract makes it impossible to deploy doctors in the manner which is desired to go to a "7-day" model, or that paying them on that contract makes it undesirably expensive? I've seen a lot of doctor bashing, some of it probably justified, but nothing that actually makes it clear why Hunt thought it was a good idea to start the fight in the first place.
Around £12-14bn in additional funding per year under the current contract terms for additional staff iirc. We don't have the money for a 7-day NHS and Hunt is trying to do it by imposing an effective pay cut to junior doctors which is going to massively hit graduate -> NHS retention rates.
Well yeah, that's pretty much how I see it in effect too - I'm trying to understand why it is seen as "necessary" or even particularly desirable to address this perceived problem in such a confrontational way.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
I'd be with you on both topics. The doctors who are claiming that the new contract is a health'n'safety thing (but we'll do it if you pay us more) need to be taken on. Governments have to have a right to make decisions and the BMA shouldn't be allowed to effectively block the change.
But it's silly to force schools to be acadamies when they don't want to, don't need to and are well-supported by their local authority. Apart from which, it's questionable as to whether there are enough quality academy chains to support that number of schools. Nothing wrong with the market approach and letting local councils act as academy providers.
There's everything wrong with the market approach. Kids' educ[a]tion is not not a commodity to be monetised and competed over - it's far too precious for that.
Food provision is even more important but we let the market get on with that. It's not education which is far too precious; it's those who'd have their shortcomings exposed.
What do you have against monetising something anyway? If it's done properly - and that's a big 'if, I'll grant you - then it means that resources will be properly allocated where they're needed, driving up standards. The same with competition. In fact, of course, there is and always has been competition. Parents choose schools on the basis of quality and often go to quite considerable lengths to get their kids into good ones. But those good ones have to remain good to continue to attract applications. That's how the market works.
Of course there will be failures but the fallacy in that way of thinking is to pretend that sweeping failures behind the curtain means they don't exist. When I was growing up, everyone knew which the bad schools were and those who cared did all they could to avoid them - the fact that the LEA wouldn't admit the problem neither meant it didn't exist nor that people weren't aware. Transparency, flexibility and fairness in funding is all that's needed. But that's what's wrong with this policy: it reduces flexibility.
According to locals here... refugees and children are treated exceedingly well..Perhaps Corbyn and Cooper should take it up with the Government in Italy.. where the children are..
"Ten thousand children who will have disappeared into trafficking networks across Europe, forced into drug abuse, child labour, sexual exploitation. Independent medical assessments have found that nearly half of all unaccompanied minors carry a sexually transmitted disease, testament to the terrible dangers they face along the way to Europe."
But the Prime Minister thinks that we should just wash our hands of the problem.
Sometimes theory has to give way to practice. The government made a serious error of judgement not accepting Lord Dubs's amendment.
"Ten thousand children who will have disappeared into trafficking networks across Europe, forced into drug abuse, child labour, sexual exploitation. Independent medical assessments have found that nearly half of all unaccompanied minors carry a sexually transmitted disease, testament to the terrible dangers they face along the way to Europe."
But the Prime Minister thinks that we should just wash our hands of the problem.
Sometimes theory has to give way to practice. The government made a serious error of judgement not accepting Lord Dubs's amendment.
We are not washing our hands of the problem. We are taking 3,000 from the camps, who will be more desperate than those in Europe. If we are to take 3,000 more, it should be another 3,000 from the camps.
Mr. Enjineeya, the report included some short-term temperature predictions. Which were completely wrong.
Miss Plato, thanks, hope you like it
No, it didn't include any such predictions. Looks like you've been taken in by the denialists.
Oh God, 'denialists' too. Looks like someone swallowed the internet smear glossary whole. I'm expecting 'I bet you think Jews caused 9-11' in 3, 2, 1...
@theobertram: Corbyn now in position that if he withdraws the whip, it will appear he was forced to by Lisa Nandy & PM. If he doesn't, looks even worse.
According to locals here... refugees and children are treated exceedingly well..Perhaps Corbyn and Cooper should take it up with the Government in Italy.. where the children are..
That would seem eminently more appropriate, as with the child refugees in France.
@theobertram: Corbyn now in position that if he withdraws the whip, it will appear he was forced to by Lisa Nandy & PM. If he doesn't, looks even worse.
She should have been sacked already. Disgusting (and telling) that under Corbyn Labour are holding on to people with such views.
Ominous, have Cameron and Osborne strengthened Labour to the detriment of their own party?
Michael Crick Deal on £1.7m union funding of Labour in Europe campaign was struck in meetings between union leaders and ministers
Michael Crick Union leaders told ministers they hadn't time or resources to fight for Remain campaign as had to devote efforts & money to fight TU Bill
Never mind the Tory score, look at the SNP list one. 53% in the constituencies (vs just 19 next) would still come close to a clean sweep but 45% would produce very few top-ups. Also, the Lib Dems on 7% might well qualify in most regions. On these figures, Sturgeon might find herself having to sign the Greens up.
In other words, Morgan has made a right mess and No.10 policy people are trying to find a way out of it. She's gone in reshuffle. How about sending her to sort out the doctors?
No, I think Hunt is doing an excellent job in health, not shirking from the fight to impose the neccessary new terms on Doctors.
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
I'd be with you on both topics. The doctors who are claiming that the new contract is a health'n'safety thing (but we'll do it if you pay us more) need to be taken on. Governments have to have a right to make decisions and the BMA shouldn't be allowed to effectively block the change.
But it's silly to force schools to be acadamies when they don't want to, don't need to and are well-supported by their local authority. Apart from which, it's questionable as to whether there are enough quality academy chains to support that number of schools. Nothing wrong with the market approach and letting local councils act as academy providers.
There's everything wrong with the market approach. Kids' educ[a]tion is not not a commodity to be monetised and competed over - it's far too precious for that.
Food provision is even more important but we let the market get on with that. It's not education which is far too precious; it's those who'd have their shortcomings exposed.
What do you have against monetising something anyway? If it's done properly - and that's a big 'if, I'll grant you - then it means that resources will be properly allocated where they're needed, driving up standards. The same with competition. In fact, of course, there is and always has been competition. Parents choose schools on the basis of quality and often go to quite considerable lengths to get their kids into good ones. But those good ones have to remain good to continue to attract applications. That's how the market works.
Of course there will be failures but the fallacy in that way of thinking is to pretend that sweeping failures behind the curtain means they don't exist. When I was growing up, everyone knew which the bad schools were and those who cared did all they could to avoid them - the fact that the LEA wouldn't admit the problem neither meant it didn't exist nor that people weren't aware. Transparency, flexibility and fairness in funding is all that's needed. But that's what's wrong with this policy: it reduces flexibility.
Never mind the Tory score, look at the SNP list one. 53% in the constituencies (vs just 19 next) would still come close to a clean sweep but 45% would produce very few top-ups. Also, the Lib Dems on 7% might well qualify in most regions. On these figures, Sturgeon might find herself having to sign the Greens up.
@rowenamason: Corbyn spokesman says he will not suspend whip from Naz Shah because she's showing with words&actions she did not mean antiSemitic comments
When will Liverpool ever accept the fact that it was Liverpool fans who crushed other Liverpool fans to death...no one else
Not once in the coverage of the past 48 hours have I seen any reference to the trauma the Forest fans suffered that day. The Forest fans who managed to get into Hillsborough in a calm, sensible way that the Liverpool fans somehow didn't...
Ominous, have Cameron and Osborne strengthened Labour to the detriment of their own party?
Michael Crick Deal on £1.7m union funding of Labour in Europe campaign was struck in meetings between union leaders and ministers
Michael Crick Union leaders told ministers they hadn't time or resources to fight for Remain campaign as had to devote efforts & money to fight TU Bill
Ominous, have Cameron and Osborne strengthened Labour to the detriment of their own party?
Michael Crick Deal on £1.7m union funding of Labour in Europe campaign was struck in meetings between union leaders and ministers
Michael Crick Union leaders told ministers they hadn't time or resources to fight for Remain campaign as had to devote efforts & money to fight TU Bill
When will Liverpool ever accept the fact that it was Liverpool fans who crushed other Liverpool fans to death...no one else
Not once in the coverage of the past 48 hours have I seen any reference to the trauma the Forest fans suffered that day. The Forest fans who managed to get into Hillsborough in a calm, sensible way that the Liverpool fans somehow didn't...
Labour is now a party so hideously bound up with needing the support of the Muslim vote that it is prepared to abandon the Jews to suffer anti-semitism from within its own ranks.
Labour is now a party so hideously bound up with needing the support of the Muslim vote that it is prepared to abandon the Jews to suffer anti-semitism from within its own ranks.
Labour is now a party so hideously bound up with needing the support of the Muslim vote that it is prepared to abandon the Jews to suffer anti-semitism from within its own ranks.
What would Ed Miliband's dad say?
A thread on the Labour Party's demise over the last twenty years would be fascinating - the fall-out from Blair's era - devolution, immigration, Gordon... it's crushing them everywhere. And Mandy et al thought they were so clever at the time. Well they did nicely for themselves, and failed their Party.
@rowenamason: Corbyn spokesman says he will not suspend whip from Naz Shah because she's showing with words&actions she did not mean antiSemitic comments
If more is uncovered, then he'll have to do quite a reversal.
Never mind the Tory score, look at the SNP list one. 53% in the constituencies (vs just 19 next) would still come close to a clean sweep but 45% would produce very few top-ups. Also, the Lib Dems on 7% might well qualify in most regions. On these figures, Sturgeon might find herself having to sign the Greens up.
Sleazy broken SNP on the slide ?
Well, maybe not quite yet but it does look to me as if the Greens have made a major boo-boo not running in the constituencies. I suspect that that decision explains most of the SNPs difference between the constit and list shares. Lop 10% off the constituency numbers and the SNP would probably be needing the Greens' support to form a coalition.
Still, Greens mess up the practicalities of politics is hardly a new story.
However, we should take it as a possible indicator of where things might go when the SNP do lose support (as all governments do).
Labour is now a party so hideously bound up with needing the support of the Muslim vote that it is prepared to abandon the Jews to suffer anti-semitism from within its own ranks.
What would Ed Miliband's dad say?
A thread on the Labour Party's demise over the last twenty years would be fascinating - the fall-out from Blair's era - devolution, immigration, Gordon... it's crushing them everywhere. And Mandy et al thought they were so clever at the time. Well they did nicely for themselves, and failed their Party.
Cameron is sailing the same path today.
I wonder if a Welsh meltdown is in the offing for labour next.
Are labour stalling on Shah for fear of upsetting certain people who may be voting in the London Mayoral?
It certainly does look like it. Zac has a chance to hit Khan hard with this and force him to condemn her and call for the suspension of her whip, if Khan doesn't he confirms all of mud slinging might have something to it.
Labour is now a party so hideously bound up with needing the support of the Muslim vote that it is prepared to abandon the Jews to suffer anti-semitism from within its own ranks.
What would Ed Miliband's dad say?
A thread on the Labour Party's demise over the last twenty years would be fascinating - the fall-out from Blair's era - devolution, immigration, Gordon... it's crushing them everywhere. And Mandy et al thought they were so clever at the time. Well they did nicely for themselves, and failed their Party.
Cameron is sailing the same path today.
I wonder if a Welsh meltdown is in the offing for labour next.
How are UKIP's prospects? Labour losing to them is just delicious.
Comments
I think the Gov't has realised this and so is allowing LEAs themselves to become providers of services through the academy structure rather than the old one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/spectator/status/725271839254142976
So I agree with the Gov't on health, and disagree with them on forced academisation. I'm guessing that's a small venn diagram - but my opinions are my own and its why I'm not in any party despite being more politically interested than most.
@iainmartin1: Superb by @YvetteCooperMP on child refugees. Proper question well-delivered. What a contrast with Corbyn.
Miss Plato, thanks, hope you like it
But it's silly to force schools to be acadamies when they don't want to, don't need to and are well-supported by their local authority. Apart from which, it's questionable as to whether there are enough quality academy chains to support that number of schools. Nothing wrong with the market approach and letting local councils act as academy providers.
The results in key townships in Montgomery and Delaware Counties would lead to an election victory if it were a general election. Republicans are outvoting Democrats in Horsham, Upper Moreland, Lower Gwynedd, Montgomery, Whitpain, Upper Gwynedd, Lower Providence, Hatfield, Lower Pottsgrove Townships and Rockledge Borough in Montgomery County, all of which Obama won twice. The shift is about 5-10% vs. the 2012 general.
PA is won by Republicans regularly attracting Independents and crossover voting (and the indifference to voting of inner city blacks in Philadelphia). The primary reaffirms that Trump must find a way to broaden his appeal, presumably by acting more Presidential, with middle- and upper-middle class voters in counties like Montgomery and Chester. This was the only bright spot in the electorate for Romney in 2012, in terms of both share and turnout. Trump clearly has the blue collar whites in a way Romney never came close to doing. Also Trump will need to keep independents from going from Bernie to Clinton, presumably by hammering her on corruption and trade.
All in all PA looks very much in play for Trump, as does the Presidency.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/24/refugee-children-vote-lords
"Ten thousand children who will have disappeared into trafficking networks across Europe, forced into drug abuse, child labour, sexual exploitation. Independent medical assessments have found that nearly half of all unaccompanied minors carry a sexually transmitted disease, testament to the terrible dangers they face along the way to Europe."
But the Prime Minister thinks that we should just wash our hands of the problem.
Sometimes theory has to give way to practice. The government made a serious error of judgement not accepting Lord Dubs's amendment.
We're not talking about pretending genocide didn't happen. We're discussing a scientific theory.
It's a few years ago, but the reporting was on the BBC, which is not noted for its sceptical attitude towards global warming.
Any suggestion by anyone that any statement might bear further exploration is leaped on as a 'conspiracy' as if the very mention of the word and its connotations of Roswell and lizard people should shut down all argument. People are nuanced and their motivations aren't always black and white, and their public pronouncements aren't always a full reflection of the truth. This should hardly be news.
@JournoStephen: Scottish Labour to finish third behind Tories, poll finds https://t.co/oJ1gCH5AW0 https://t.co/3d8MAJ8G2Z
What do you have against monetising something anyway? If it's done properly - and that's a big 'if, I'll grant you - then it means that resources will be properly allocated where they're needed, driving up standards. The same with competition. In fact, of course, there is and always has been competition. Parents choose schools on the basis of quality and often go to quite considerable lengths to get their kids into good ones. But those good ones have to remain good to continue to attract applications. That's how the market works.
Of course there will be failures but the fallacy in that way of thinking is to pretend that sweeping failures behind the curtain means they don't exist. When I was growing up, everyone knew which the bad schools were and those who cared did all they could to avoid them - the fact that the LEA wouldn't admit the problem neither meant it didn't exist nor that people weren't aware. Transparency, flexibility and fairness in funding is all that's needed. But that's what's wrong with this policy: it reduces flexibility.
Has she decided yet?
But where’s a virtue signalling in doing that?
They should ALL be out of the party.
Scottish Parliament voting intention (const.):
SNP: 53% (-2)
LAB: 19% (-1)
CON: 18% (+2)
LDEM: 6% (-)
(via Ipsos Mori)
Scottish Parliament voting intention (list):
SNP: 45% (-4)
CON: 19% (+4)
LAB: 17% (-2)
GRN: 10% (+4)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
(via Ipsos Mori)
Not a clue...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
Please point out the short-term predictions that you claim turned out to be incorrect. Just one will do.
Michael Crick
Deal on £1.7m union funding of Labour in Europe campaign was struck in meetings between union leaders and ministers
Michael Crick
Union leaders told ministers they hadn't time or resources to fight for Remain campaign as had to devote efforts & money to fight TU Bill
LOL....Sounds like classic Chairman
MaoMilne...Which party has the best policies for Scotland?
SNP 46%
Tories 17%
Lab 13%
Green 4%
LibDems 3%
https://t.co/oJ1gCH5AW0
Excellent post.
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spokesman "she said she shocked herself" with those remarks and "doesn't agree" with those remarks.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KateHoeyMP/status/724933249718472704/photo/1
- "Hey Dave, I'm sorry I made your EU poll numbers slide. Can I try again?"
- "Get to the back of the queue."
https://mobile.twitter.com/DancerGuard/status/725075818628653057
Which party looks after your interests?
SNP 45
Con 18
Lab 16
Lib Dem 3
Green 3
https://t.co/oJ1gCH5AW0
Scottish Tories ahead of Labour...
SNP 71
Con 23
Lab 20
Grn 9
LD 6
It'd be the constituency figure keeping them in a majority - hardly any top-ups.
What would Ed Miliband's dad say?
Cameron is sailing the same path today.
Still, Greens mess up the practicalities of politics is hardly a new story.
However, we should take it as a possible indicator of where things might go when the SNP do lose support (as all governments do).
There's no point debating with you as your mind is closed to rational discussion.