You say initiatives, plural, but what else do you have in mind?
My eyebrows have risen a little on each of:
- The appointments of DD and Liam Fox, apparently without any minders
- The gratuitous insult to the Chinese over Hinckley Point (the manner of it, not the substance of the decision)
- The gratuitous rudeness to Osborne
- Grammar schools, where the parliamentary arithmetic simply doesn't work
- The possible squandering of political capital whilst she still has lot of it; Heathrow being the obvious example where delay is just going to make any decision even harder.
Now, maybe these will all turn out OK, but they look like unnecessary hostages to fortune. Making unecessary enemies is rarely clever.
This. Well put. Yours are not the only eyebrows raising.
Not convinced by Ladbrokes installing James Mills as the favourite. He only became leader of WODC a couple of months ago when the Godfather of the local Conservative Association (Barry Norton) stepped down. Outside his own ward he doesn't have any name recognition that might otherwise favour a local candidate.
You say initiatives, plural, but what else do you have in mind?
My eyebrows have risen a little on each of:
- The appointments of DD and Liam Fox, apparently without any minders
- The gratuitous insult to the Chinese over Hinckley Point (the manner of it, not the substance of the decision)
- The gratuitous rudeness to Osborne
- Grammar schools, where the parliamentary arithmetic simply doesn't work
- The possible squandering of political capital whilst she still has lot of it; Heathrow being the obvious example where delay is just going to make any decision even harder.
Now, maybe these will all turn out OK, but they look like unnecessary hostages to fortune. Making unecessary enemies is rarely clever.
I think May takes a long time to make her mind up, and then once she decides the discussion is over. She doesn't feel bound by decisions made by her predecessor and, if unconvinced, will put them on hold until she is.
It tells me she likes very much to be in control and call the shots but, over the longer term, it will probably stoke up enemies.
A defeat in the Lords would be a good pretext for an early election. A defeat in the Commons as a result of a backbench rebellion would not.
If its won by English MPs and lost by the perfidious Scots it could be a case for an election and true English votes for English laws. One can hope ...
May should say if the bill passes the education budget goes up to fund the transition and therefore under Barnett the Scots get more money. Would kill their justification for voting against.
... He could, for instance, use his time to focus on some of the issues he touched on as PM e.g. his ideas re the Big Society or on how to attack the roots of Islamist extremism within our society. ...
Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to stay on and pursue those things that were apparently so close to his heart is that he was never interested in public service to begin with and never actually believed in those ideas.
If he now tries to make a fortune out of his time as PM, as did Blair, I shall know, beyond doubt or argument, that my opinion of Cameron was correct all along.
A pity, if so.
Experience is so hard won it seems a real shame when those who have it fail to share at least some of the lessons it teaches with others.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, we should hand on whatever role/job/profession we take on in at least as good and, preferably, better state than when we started and we should pass on our learning and knowledge and advice and help onto those who come after us.
To me, this is the essence of what it means to be a professional, whether you're in a profession or not.
As Hector, the teacher, says in The History Boys: "Pass it on, boys. Pass it on."
Remain vote was around 70% in Witney. Will be a big test for the Lib Dem's strategy of opposing Brexit given the good council results recently. If they can take second and reduce that majority a lot, that's a great result.
Witney is coterminous with West Oxon district, which was 53.7% remain
Thanks, should have checked what someone told me on Twitter :-). Still, would expect LDs to see progress if the strategy is working?
You say initiatives, plural, but what else do you have in mind?
My eyebrows have risen a little on each of:
- The appointments of DD and Liam Fox, apparently without any minders
- The gratuitous insult to the Chinese over Hinckley Point (the manner of it, not the substance of the decision)
- The gratuitous rudeness to Osborne
- Grammar schools, where the parliamentary arithmetic simply doesn't work
- The possible squandering of political capital whilst she still has lot of it; Heathrow being the obvious example where delay is just going to make any decision even harder.
Now, maybe these will all turn out OK, but they look like unnecessary hostages to fortune. Making unecessary enemies is rarely clever.
This. Well put. Yours are not the only eyebrows raising.
There is no prospect of any serious opposition in parliament for some time.
She fancies herself as the minder for DD, Fox et al.
She is right to be wary of Chinese communism, which represents a potentially more credible forward challenge to western democracy than does radical Islam
She needed to define herself against her predecessor and Osborne was an ideal target; indeed he has spent years drawing the target on his own back.
Like any Tory leader she needed something for the activists, but needed to exclude anything that played to their 'nasty party' past and anything that looked like a favour for the already rich and powerful. Draw that Venn diagram and you'll find that grammar schooling is more or less alone in the circle.
All the portents pointed towards an early decision on Heathrow, except for the views of her own constituents.
... He could, for instance, use his time to focus on some of the issues he touched on as PM e.g. his ideas re the Big Society or on how to attack the roots of Islamist extremism within our society. ...
Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to stay on and pursue those things that were apparently so close to his heart is that he was never interested in public service to begin with and never actually believed in those ideas.
If he now tries to make a fortune out of his time as PM, as did Blair, I shall know, beyond doubt or argument, that my opinion of Cameron was correct all along.
A pity, if so.
Experience is so hard won it seems a real shame when those who have it fail to share at least some of the lessons it teaches with others.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, we should hand on whatever role/job/profession we take on in at least as good and, preferably, better state than when we started and we should pass on our learning and knowledge and advice and help onto those who come after us.
To me, this is the essence of what it means to be a professional, whether you're in a profession or not.
As Hector, the teacher, says in The History Boys: "Pass it on, boys. Pass it on."
Except this is politics. When Thatcher tried to give her views it was seen as interfering in Major's government; the same with Blair and Brown. Whatever Cameron might say would be spun to be bad for May's government.
That's why so many people were looking forward to him speaking from the back benches again.
As much as anything else, he was about modernisation of the Conservative party to lead it back to power once more. Soon the world will have moved on (it perhaps has already) and the problems facing the party and the country will be very different.
Remain vote was around 70% in Witney. Will be a big test for the Lib Dem's strategy of opposing Brexit given the good council results recently. If they can take second and reduce that majority a lot, that's a great result.
Remain vote was around 70% in Witney. Will be a big test for the Lib Dem's strategy of opposing Brexit given the good council results recently. If they can take second and reduce that majority a lot, that's a great result.
Remain vote was around 70% in Witney. Will be a big test for the Lib Dem's strategy of opposing Brexit given the good council results recently. If they can take second and reduce that majority a lot, that's a great result.
... He could, for instance, use his time to focus on some of the issues he touched on as PM e.g. his ideas re the Big Society or on how to attack the roots of Islamist extremism within our society. ...
Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to stay on and pursue those things that were apparently so close to his heart is that he was never interested in public service to begin with and never actually believed in those ideas.
If he now tries to make a fortune out of his time as PM, as did Blair, I shall know, beyond doubt or argument, that my opinion of Cameron was correct all along.
Extremely cynical, Mr HL. Part of the poison that is political commentary.
They're going for the wrong test. The test IMO is whether comprehensive schools have improved social mobility since they were introduced. If they haven't, return to the previous system.
I think it will come back, with a few amendments, as the Theresa May Prison Reform Bill.
No where near red meat enough. The idea of reforming prisoners is an anathema to many. Prison is for punishment and re-offending rates just mean people should be in prison longer.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
Also - and I may be the only person who thinks like this - I don't think an education policy should be judged only on the basis of whether it increases social mobility. The curse of education in this country is precisely that it has been used to achieve ends other than educating our people.
The purpose of an education policy should be to educate all our young to the highest standards so that they have what they need to do the best they can in life, the best being defined as what they choose to do. Social mobility may be a consequence of this but it should not be the aim: education is a good in itself, regardless of whether it makes you earn more. A child from a poor background should have the skills and opportunity to become, say, a doctor if that's what they want or they could simply be a very well-educated sheep farmer, a la James Rebanks. But being well educated is about more than having a well-paid professional job.
The other issue I have with this is that if we are to take social mobility seriously then some groups are going to be mobile downwards. Are all those who are so keen on social mobility prepared to accept this? I'm not so sure......
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne We came into Parliament together, had a great partnership + I will miss him alongside me on the green benches over the coming years. Sad day
One of his better moments. And he could well have been Chancellor by now if he hadn't knifed Boris in the back. A bit flaky and needing careful supervision but far too talented to let go to waste.
Whilst I don't agree with the introduction of religion into the debate I do agree with his views on reform entirely.
Personally I believe Hove to be one of the finest MPs and Ministers of his generation and I think that history will let judge him far better than most of his contemporaries. I would suggest his self sacrifice in ensuring that the threat of a Boris premiership was averted is one of the most important but misunderstood moments of politics in the 21st century.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
I've just backed either Trump or Clinton to become POTUS @ 1/11 - with the intention of laying off within a week @ ~1/100.
A very low risk ~8% return hopefully.
The Biden/Sanders prices are just flat out wrong. Should be more like biden 100/1, sanders 200/1 IMO
Kaine is probably the (relative) value.
Clinton could theoretically direct her electors to vote for someone else - laws on faithless electors nothwithstanding (I don't know how they are all drafted in dealing with this eventuality). That might be Biden or Kaine, but surely not Sanders.
However NB that Betfair's rules are:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.
In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So any settlement might hinge on an interpretation of the word "projected". If Clinton were to stand aside in favour of e.g. Biden and pledge her electors to him, would he be the projected winner?
... He could, for instance, use his time to focus on some of the issues he touched on as PM e.g. his ideas re the Big Society or on how to attack the roots of Islamist extremism within our society. ...
Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to stay on and pursue those things that were apparently so close to his heart is that he was never interested in public service to begin with and never actually believed in those ideas.
If he now tries to make a fortune out of his time as PM, as did Blair, I shall know, beyond doubt or argument, that my opinion of Cameron was correct all along.
A pity, if so.
Experience is so hard won it seems a real shame when those who have it fail to share at least some of the lessons it teaches with others.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, we should hand on whatever role/job/profession we take on in at least as good and, preferably, better state than when we started and we should pass on our learning and knowledge and advice and help onto those who come after us.
To me, this is the essence of what it means to be a professional, whether you're in a profession or not.
As Hector, the teacher, says in The History Boys: "Pass it on, boys. Pass it on."
Except this is politics. When Thatcher tried to give her views it was seen as interfering in Major's government; the same with Blair and Brown. Whatever Cameron might say would be spun to be bad for May's government.
That's why so many people were looking forward to him speaking from the back benches again.
As much as anything else, he was about modernisation of the Conservative party to lead it back to power once more. Soon the world will have moved on (it perhaps has already) and the problems facing the party and the country will be very different.
I think - perhaps I'm naïve - that he could still have contributed to the younger generation and/or on topics where the risks you outline do not exist to the same extent. The world does move on but it does not change as much as people assume. The long view is valuable.
And his constituents, other bodies in the public sphere could have benefited. There are many ways in which an ex-PM who is an MP could contribute. It would have been nice to have had an example other than (1) Heath's churlish sulk; (2) Thatcher's bitter interference; (3) Blair's greedy graspiness. Only Major has got the ex-PM role right. I rather hoped that Cameron would use his time as an MP until the next election to flesh out or act out some of his thoughts on public service.
Of course, we don't know what he is going to do so we may be surprised.
In spite of Alistair Meek's Ill informed comments about him, I would very much like to see Dan Hannan considered. There are few Tory politicians around at the moment who have such a comprehensive vision for how our political system and society can be reformed and improved. The idea that he is monomaniacal just shows the depths of Meek's ignorance.
Unless I have utterly misread WOCA activists and indeed Witney voters, Hannan would go down like the proverbial cup of cold sick round here.
Quite possibly although I would suggest that says more about the voters of Witney than it does about Hannan.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
Also - and I may be the only person who thinks like this - I don't think an education policy should be judged only on the basis of whether it increases social mobility. The curse of education in this country is precisely that it has been used to achieve ends other than educating our people.
The purpose of an education policy should be to educate all our young to the highest standards so that they have what they need to do the best they can in life, the best being defined as what they choose to do. Social mobility may be a consequence of this but it should not be the aim: education is a good in itself, regardless of whether it makes you earn more. A child from a poor background should have the skills and opportunity to become, say, a doctor if that's what they want or they could simply be a very well-educated sheep farmer, a la James Rebanks. But being well educated is about more than having a well-paid professional job.
The other issue I have with this is that if we are to take social mobility seriously then some groups are going to be mobile downwards. Are all those who are so keen on social mobility prepared to accept this? I'm not so sure......
A policy that allows everyone the chance to achieve to the maximum of their ability is, by definition, aiming for social mobility in a society where, increasingly, wealth and connections count for much more than they did forty years ago
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Whilst I don't agree with the introduction of religion into the debate I do agree with his views on reform entirely.
Personally I believe Hove to be one of the finest MPs and Ministers of his generation and I think that history will let judge him far better than most of his contemporaries. I would suggest his self sacrifice in ensuring that the threat of a Boris premiership was averted is one of the most important but misunderstood moments of politics in the 21st century.
Agreed, if I were convinced that he fully understood the sacrifice part at the time he took the decision.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
Maybe he did. In the case of stepping down as PM, that was so quick as to make it obvious he never meant to stay. I'm not bitter, and I certainly wish no ill upon Cameron, but it is worth pointing out the strong inverse relationship between what he said he'd do and what he actually did.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
It does seem to be a major problem of our current politics. Far too many big beasts out of the game too early. Look at Labour - one example, Alan Milburn was on TV the other day. You may not agree with him, but highly experienced minister, out of the commons at young age.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
It does seem to be a major problem of our current politics. Far too many big beasts out of the game too early. Look at Labour - one example, Alan Milburn was on TV the other day. You may not agree with him, but highly experienced minister, out of the commons at young age.
I find him (Milburn) interesting to listen to. And I miss Ed Balls. There are just not nearly enough talented and clever people willing to make the sacrifices that public life requires in all of the parties. It does not lead to smart government. For all our simple and simplistic nostrums on here government is bloody difficult and needs a discerning mind. They are thin on the ground and all the thinner for Dave's departure.
I've just backed either Trump or Clinton to become POTUS @ 1/11 - with the intention of laying off within a week @ ~1/100.
A very low risk ~8% return hopefully.
The Biden/Sanders prices are just flat out wrong. Should be more like biden 100/1, sanders 200/1 IMO
Kaine is probably the (relative) value.
Clinton could theoretically direct her electors to vote for someone else - laws on faithless electors nothwithstanding (I don't know how they are all drafted in dealing with this eventuality). That might be Biden or Kaine, but surely not Sanders.
However NB that Betfair's rules are:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.
In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So any settlement might hinge on an interpretation of the word "projected". If Clinton were to stand aside in favour of e.g. Biden and pledge her electors to him, would he be the projected winner?
If I were betfair, I'd void the market, give everyone a £5 free bet and start from scratch.
That market looks like it's going up to >£200m by the close of play.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
I'm just going to re-emphasise that the allocation of funds for new Grammar schools is miniscule at £50m.
The new requirements on Independents and the universities are far more interesting. I'm in two minds about Faith schools, though I have to be very wary of my own bias in this area (I'm an atheist).
@Pong The wording of that market's rules is unfortunate. I very much doubt Betfair would want to void the market - that would be excruciatingly embarrassing.
I wonder whether they might get out of it by taking a flexible interpretation of the word "candidate" in the first sentence. Even if not formally named on the ballot paper, a substitute might nevertheless be deemed to be the candidate? Then the Twelfth Amendment will get Betfair back on the straight and narrow.
... He could, for instance, use his time to focus on some of the issues he touched on as PM e.g. his ideas re the Big Society or on how to attack the roots of Islamist extremism within our society. ...
Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to stay on and pursue those things that were apparently so close to his heart is that he was never interested in public service to begin with and never actually believed in those ideas.
If he now tries to make a fortune out of his time as PM, as did Blair, I shall know, beyond doubt or argument, that my opinion of Cameron was correct all along.
A pity, if so.
Experience is so hard won it seems a real shame when those who have it fail to share at least some of the lessons it teaches with others.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, we should hand on whatever role/job/profession we take on in at least as good and, preferably, better state than when we started and we should pass on our learning and knowledge and advice and help onto those who come after us.
To me, this is the essence of what it means to be a professional, whether you're in a profession or not.
As Hector, the teacher, says in The History Boys: "Pass it on, boys. Pass it on."
It was always difficult to pin David Cameron down on what he does believe in. So I wouldn't expect him to stay around to fight his causes. That's not to say he doesn't have any beliefs - they are just a bit vague. Based on his valedictory speech they seem to be:
- Competent management, particularly of the economy. - Social liberalism - Citizenship and voluntary service
In spite of Alistair Meek's Ill informed comments about him, I would very much like to see Dan Hannan considered. There are few Tory politicians around at the moment who have such a comprehensive vision for how our political system and society can be reformed and improved. The idea that he is monomaniacal just shows the depths of Meek's ignorance.
Unless I have utterly misread WOCA activists and indeed Witney voters, Hannan would go down like the proverbial cup of cold sick round here.
Quite possibly although I would suggest that says more about the voters of Witney than it does about Hannan.
Now now - don't fall into the Hilary trap - the voters are never wrong!
In spite of Alistair Meek's Ill informed comments about him, I would very much like to see Dan Hannan considered. There are few Tory politicians around at the moment who have such a comprehensive vision for how our political system and society can be reformed and improved. The idea that he is monomaniacal just shows the depths of Meek's ignorance.
As much as I respect his thinking (and rhetorical skills), I struggle to see Hannan in a cabinet. Perhaps he will prove me wrong. Is there a mayoralty that would suit?
I don't see him necessarily as a Minister either. But he would bring some much needed reform minded backbone to the Tory party and to Parliament.
I've just backed either Trump or Clinton to become POTUS @ 1/11 - with the intention of laying off within a week @ ~1/100.
A very low risk ~8% return hopefully.
The Biden/Sanders prices are just flat out wrong. Should be more like biden 100/1, sanders 200/1 IMO
Kaine is probably the (relative) value.
Clinton could theoretically direct her electors to vote for someone else - laws on faithless electors nothwithstanding (I don't know how they are all drafted in dealing with this eventuality). That might be Biden or Kaine, but surely not Sanders.
However NB that Betfair's rules are:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.
In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So any settlement might hinge on an interpretation of the word "projected". If Clinton were to stand aside in favour of e.g. Biden and pledge her electors to him, would he be the projected winner?
There's way too much ambiguity in that Betfair wording. It would be useful for them to answer the hypothetical scenario of a candidate being replaced after nominations close and ballot papers are printed.
I can't see how they can settle it for someone not nominated, unless they void the market completely and open a new one on who will actually be the next president.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
It was always difficult to pin David Cameron down on what he does believe in. So I wouldn't expect him to stay around to fight his causes. That's not to say he doesn't have any beliefs - they are just a bit vague. Based on his valedictory speech they seem to be:
- Competent management, particularly of the economy. - Social liberalism - Citizenship and voluntary service
Funnily enough, if I match those themes against Theresa May, I think it's on the first that she will be most different. Not that Mrs May wants to be incompetent on the economy. It is not the driver for her. She will take the economic hit on Brexit, immigration etc if those are objectives for her.
@Pong The wording of that market's rules is unfortunate. I very much doubt Betfair would want to void the market - that would be excruciatingly embarrassing.
I wonder whether they might get out of it by taking a flexible interpretation of the word "candidate" in the first sentence. Even if not formally named on the ballot paper, a substitute might nevertheless be deemed to be the candidate? Then the Twelfth Amendment will get Betfair back on the straight and narrow.
There's a bit more to the rules:
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Slightly odd wording, but they do seem to have left themselves some wriggle-room if it's unclear. I imagine that, in that case, they'd wait to see who actually becomes president.
In other words, my expectation is that either they settle when the election results are announced, if these are unambiguous (and ignoring the possibility of 'faithless electors' subsequently changing the result), or if it is ambiguous, they suspend and wait to see who ends up president.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
I feared it and it made me closer to voting remain than anything else. In the end I decided it was too big a price to pay for a leader that was leaving before the end of the Parliament anyway but I still regretted his departure. And Osborne's but I am odd like that!
I've just backed either Trump or Clinton to become POTUS @ 1/11 - with the intention of laying off within a week @ ~1/100.
A very low risk ~8% return hopefully.
The Biden/Sanders prices are just flat out wrong. Should be more like biden 100/1, sanders 200/1 IMO
Kaine is probably the (relative) value.
Clinton could theoretically direct her electors to vote for someone else - laws on faithless electors nothwithstanding (I don't know how they are all drafted in dealing with this eventuality). That might be Biden or Kaine, but surely not Sanders.
However NB that Betfair's rules are:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.
In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So any settlement might hinge on an interpretation of the word "projected". If Clinton were to stand aside in favour of e.g. Biden and pledge her electors to him, would he be the projected winner?
If I were betfair, I'd void the market, give everyone a £5 free bet and start from scratch.
That market looks like it's going up to >£200m by the close of play.
I'm not betfair, though!
I think it would take a great deal more than a miserable £5 free bet to keep everyone sweet!
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
An unfortunate consequence. If only the EU were more flexible.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
Ineluctably ? blimey, you is far two edumacated to be an MP...
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
Some things are more important than listening to the leadership. They were on the wrong side of the argument.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Quite so. People would be as ill advised to believe a word of what Cameron says about his intentions as Chamberlain was to listen to Hitler at Munich.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
Ineluctably ? blimey, you is far two edumacated to be an MP...
Cameron was really a LD, I read it on the internet, so the LDs should be in with a shout in Witney when the Tories pick a cro-magnon Mayite.
As an LD, I met Cameron at no.10 back in 2011, and he certainly made us feel he was one of us. But it is of course possible that he was simply demonstrating the skills he inherited from Blair in making each of his audiences feel special....
Edit/ except that, of course, he was a little too comfortable with privilege and a little too reluctant to embrace radical change, for our liking....
So Dave goes off to make some money while his value is still high. Given the seat was held by Douglas Hurd too at one time it is an ideal constituency for a future big hitter
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
It does seem to be a major problem of our current politics. Far too many big beasts out of the game too early. Look at Labour - one example, Alan Milburn was on TV the other day. You may not agree with him, but highly experienced minister, out of the commons at young age.
I find him (Milburn) interesting to listen to. And I miss Ed Balls. There are just not nearly enough talented and clever people willing to make the sacrifices that public life requires in all of the parties. It does not lead to smart government. For all our simple and simplistic nostrums on here government is bloody difficult and needs a discerning mind. They are thin on the ground and all the thinner for Dave's departure.
@Pong The wording of that market's rules is unfortunate. I very much doubt Betfair would want to void the market - that would be excruciatingly embarrassing.
I wonder whether they might get out of it by taking a flexible interpretation of the word "candidate" in the first sentence. Even if not formally named on the ballot paper, a substitute might nevertheless be deemed to be the candidate? Then the Twelfth Amendment will get Betfair back on the straight and narrow.
There's a bit more to the rules:
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Slightly odd wording, but they do seem to have left themselves some wriggle-room if it's unclear. I imagine that, in that case, they'd wait to see who actually becomes president.
In other words, my expectation is that either they settle when the election results are announced, if these are unambiguous (and ignoring the possibility of 'faithless electors' subsequently changing the result), or if it is ambiguous, they suspend and wait to see who ends up president.
Yes but Betfair must be fair to layers as well as backers of each candidate. That's the problem. Ladbrokes can pay out on both Hillary and Kaine (say) but Betfair cannot because it is unfair to the layers of at least one of them.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
True. But every time we hear yet another laboured (no pun intended) put down by the incumbent I am going to miss him.
You must have realized that voting No would inevitably and ineluctably to Cameron's early and undignified political demise and a more than sub-optimal succession.
Some things are more important than listening to the leadership. They were on the wrong side of the argument.
We'll see about that, won't we. Anyway, can't see anything other than a hard Brexit so at least the judgement will be pretty clear.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
A rhetorical question I guess.
Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.
Whereas the Comprehensive system helps no one as it works on the principle of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. .
The state education is of no concern to them, Richard. They have parents with the means to send them to fee paying schools. It's only the plebs who have to worry about the quality of state education.
Actually yougov showed a majority of the privately educated backed new grammars, only by a slightly smaller margin than those educated at grammar schools. Even a narrow plurality of those educated at comprehensives and secondary moderns supported new ones being created
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
Politics is a brutal game, and he's been bowled out unexpectedly early. I can see why he thinks it's time to retire gracefully. The track record of former PMs hanging around Westminster is not very positive.
Callaghan stayed around for 8 years - Churchill for 9 - Home for 10 - and Wilson for 7 years after ceasing to be PM.
I wish Cameron well. By delivering on the 0.7% Aid pledge he will save millions of lives. It's an extraordinary thing to say but politics is an extraordinary thing. Because of David Cameron millions of people who would otherwise have had early and painful deaths will now survive. One of them may be the next Hitler. One of them may cure Cancer. One of them might set foot on Mars. Politics changes the world. As politicians go Cameron's legacy on Aid will be extraordinary. No matter what else now happens he'll always know he saved millions of lives. Who'll have millions f children themselves and then....
Strange things happen in by elections , but for the Tories to lose Winey would be of epic proportions
We would learn more if there were to be a by-election in a seat taken from the LDs in 2015, but even then I don't think a by-election win would necessarily indicate a meaningful revival of fortunes. Just a bit of routine, mid-term Government-bashing.
Despite some good council results, there's no meaningful sign of revival for a party which has been blasted backwards by half-a-century in Parliamentary terms, and is now a minor force that struggles to get a hearing. If the next election occurs on schedule, and post-boundary reform, it seems highly likely that their representation in the Commons will shrink to an even more negligible number.
The old Lib Dem voter coalition is gone and they're down to bedrock support, and have been for the past six years. The conditions for a change of circumstances do not, at present, appear to exist.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Quite so. People would be as ill advised to believe a word of what Cameron says about his intentions as Chamberlain was to listen to Hitler at Munich.
I fear another arbeit macht frei moment will soon be upon us.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Quite so. People would be as ill advised to believe a word of what Cameron says about his intentions as Chamberlain was to listen to Hitler at Munich.
I fear another arbeit macht frei moment will soon be upon us.
What hyperbolic nonsense. 'I intend to stay on until 2020/after I'm defeated' etc are the sort of statements no one really expects to be treated as though they are carved into stone.
Good rule of thumb is to treat warily pronouncements about people supposedly trashing their reputation with banal or truly minor political realignments
Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?
They are not, yougov has shown most privately educated support grammar schools
Yes - those of them who care what the townies do support the existence of grammar schools but they still have contempt for them. They support their existence because they uphold the principle of social hierarchy and exclusion, which is massively more evident in Britain than in most other countries. They look down their noses at them because they consider themselves to have been born with superior merit. Why else does one get the contempt for people who "try hard"?
That said,
* there are exceptions * sometimes people are watching, and hypocrisy is the ransom that vice pays to virtue * not all beliefs are conscious * some who socially climb are accepted (David Frost married the Duke of Norfolk's daughter), usually from among those who take care to change their accents and manners to match those of the people who are already there; but the vast majority of those who were privately educated consider the kind of school that a person attended to be an extremely important feature of who that person is.
I preferred May to Leadsom. Her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street was interesting.
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:- (1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and (2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
I think it's probably too early to conclude that May will end up micro-managing herself into the ground like Gordon Brown did. Besides anything else, she is 60 this year and a type 1 diabetic. She's physically incapable of staying up night after night agonising over details. If she does display Brownian tendencies then she'll be forced to learn to master them, or else she'll find herself in hospital before very long.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
Churchill was 64 in 1940 and micro managed like crazy, and I don't know any evidence that type 1 diabetes, properly managed, prevents one from staying up all night.
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Or he was telling the truth when he said he didn't want to be a distraction. Or he just couldn't be arsed to keep plodding on. Who can say?
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Quite so. People would be as ill advised to believe a word of what Cameron says about his intentions as Chamberlain was to listen to Hitler at Munich.
I fear another arbeit macht frei moment will soon be upon us.
Death camps?
I believe Justin124 has posted that odious phrase on at least two occasions in relation to some Tory policy or other. I will apologise unreservedly if this is not the case.
"I'll stay as PM whatever the outcome of the referendum and trigger Article 50 if Leave wins." Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins. "I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020." Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
Or he changed his mind.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
Not this one. I very much doubt that I will see a better PM whose approach to policy I felt so intuitively in tune with. Leaving the HoC before his 50th birthday? What a waste.
It does seem to be a major problem of our current politics. Far too many big beasts out of the game too early. Look at Labour - one example, Alan Milburn was on TV the other day. You may not agree with him, but highly experienced minister, out of the commons at young age.
I find him (Milburn) interesting to listen to. And I miss Ed Balls. There are just not nearly enough talented and clever people willing to make the sacrifices that public life requires in all of the parties. It does not lead to smart government. For all our simple and simplistic nostrums on here government is bloody difficult and needs a discerning mind. They are thin on the ground and all the thinner for Dave's departure.
Well said. I never thought I'd miss Ed Balls.
I was glancing through his book in Waterstones on Saturday. The paragraph that caught my eye said that in 1979 the Civil Service had focussed very closely on the personalities of the new government but completely underestimated the radicalism of their policies. He said in 97 they had the opposite problem. They had done a huge amount of work preparing the policies but were completely unprepared for Gordon's personality.
You gotta love someone who can make a comment like that with an apparently straight face.
On the politics Cameron is right to go. He's disgraced. If he goes to the Lords he should take the title Lord North as penance. I actually regret the loss of experience and institutional memory from the Commons. Seeing things out till 2020 as he promised would have been good. But politically he's disgraced. He accidentally weakened the United Kingdom, weakened the European Union and weakened the Transatlantic Union. He reversed 500 years of British Foriegn Policy by acvident. He promised a referendum because he thought he couldn't win a General Election. He kept his promise on a referendum because he thought he couldn't lose it. He was wrong on both. God alone knows the consequences longer term but he must be a broken man. Disgraced and in the historical company of Lord North. If he just can't face it anymore I entirely understand and wish him the best.
Comments
It tells me she likes very much to be in control and call the shots but, over the longer term, it will probably stoke up enemies.
May should say if the bill passes the education budget goes up to fund the transition and therefore under Barnett the Scots get more money. Would kill their justification for voting against.
Received no evidence social mobility improves as a result of opening new grammar schools.I look forward to discussing at Downing St tomorrow
Sorry - don't know how to do the copy and paste tweet thing.
Experience is so hard won it seems a real shame when those who have it fail to share at least some of the lessons it teaches with others.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, we should hand on whatever role/job/profession we take on in at least as good and, preferably, better state than when we started and we should pass on our learning and knowledge and advice and help onto those who come after us.
To me, this is the essence of what it means to be a professional, whether you're in a profession or not.
As Hector, the teacher, says in The History Boys: "Pass it on, boys. Pass it on."
And quite a year it has been too.
She fancies herself as the minder for DD, Fox et al.
She is right to be wary of Chinese communism, which represents a potentially more credible forward challenge to western democracy than does radical Islam
She needed to define herself against her predecessor and Osborne was an ideal target; indeed he has spent years drawing the target on his own back.
Like any Tory leader she needed something for the activists, but needed to exclude anything that played to their 'nasty party' past and anything that looked like a favour for the already rich and powerful. Draw that Venn diagram and you'll find that grammar schooling is more or less alone in the circle.
All the portents pointed towards an early decision on Heathrow, except for the views of her own constituents.
That's why so many people were looking forward to him speaking from the back benches again.
As much as anything else, he was about modernisation of the Conservative party to lead it back to power once more. Soon the world will have moved on (it perhaps has already) and the problems facing the party and the country will be very different.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/09c78e3f-2e76-4039-b1d2-eccaa6c3f2f2
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/12/hms-terror-wreck-found-arctic-nearly-170-years-northwest-passage-attempt?CMP=share_btn_tw
A very low risk ~8% return hopefully.
The Biden/Sanders prices are just flat out wrong. Should be more like biden 100/1, sanders 200/1 IMO
Kaine is probably the (relative) value.
"Cameron on Chuka Umunna on his Wikipedia entry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJvdK_WRa28
But am becoming less impressed, TBH.
When you are leader of a government, wanting to be in control of every little thing - if that is the case - is going to lead to disaster. Important to be in charge. Important not to be blind-sided by not being on top of issues. Important to make sure there is follow-through. But the more senior you are the more important it is to understand how to delegate effectively and not micro-manage.
Also, I do not understand the grammar school policy. I'm with @DavidL on this: it seems to be:-
(1) a distraction from Brexit which is where her and her government's focus needs to be; and
(2) yet another education reorganization which must make those at the receiving end despair.
Also - and I may be the only person who thinks like this - I don't think an education policy should be judged only on the basis of whether it increases social mobility. The curse of education in this country is precisely that it has been used to achieve ends other than educating our people.
The purpose of an education policy should be to educate all our young to the highest standards so that they have what they need to do the best they can in life, the best being defined as what they choose to do. Social mobility may be a consequence of this but it should not be the aim: education is a good in itself, regardless of whether it makes you earn more. A child from a poor background should have the skills and opportunity to become, say, a doctor if that's what they want or they could simply be a very well-educated sheep farmer, a la James Rebanks. But being well educated is about more than having a well-paid professional job.
The other issue I have with this is that if we are to take social mobility seriously then some groups are going to be mobile downwards. Are all those who are so keen on social mobility prepared to accept this? I'm not so sure......
Resigns without triggering Article 50 when Leave wins.
"I'll stay on as MP for Witney until 2020."
Stands down after a few weeks.
A lying piece of work until the very end, good riddance.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne
We came into Parliament together, had a great partnership + I will miss him alongside me on the green benches over the coming years. Sad day
Whilst I don't agree with the introduction of religion into the debate I do agree with his views on reform entirely.
Personally I believe Hove to be one of the finest MPs and Ministers of his generation and I think that history will let judge him far better than most of his contemporaries. I would suggest his self sacrifice in ensuring that the threat of a Boris premiership was averted is one of the most important but misunderstood moments of politics in the 21st century.
But another fine example example of my observation that Leavers are bitter, despite having won. Odd.
However NB that Betfair's rules are:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.
In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So any settlement might hinge on an interpretation of the word "projected". If Clinton were to stand aside in favour of e.g. Biden and pledge her electors to him, would he be the projected winner?
And his constituents, other bodies in the public sphere could have benefited. There are many ways in which an ex-PM who is an MP could contribute. It would have been nice to have had an example other than (1) Heath's churlish sulk; (2) Thatcher's bitter interference; (3) Blair's greedy graspiness. Only Major has got the ex-PM role right. I rather hoped that Cameron would use his time as an MP until the next election to flesh out or act out some of his thoughts on public service.
Of course, we don't know what he is going to do so we may be surprised.
I think she has chosen to reinstate the grammars for the following reasons: 1. She believes in the policy. 2. She is serious about wanting to achieve reform in the domestic sphere, and not have her entire Ministry absorbed by Brexit. 3. It's politically advantageous, for several reasons (popular with the Tory Party; more supported than opposed by electors, but especially her working class target audience; to spike Ukip's guns; and as a stick with which to beat Labour, and one which will only become more valuable if this ends with the teaching unions getting stroppy and the opposition using the Lords to veto the Commons.)
That market looks like it's going up to >£200m by the close of play.
I'm not betfair, though!
The new requirements on Independents and the universities are far more interesting. I'm in two minds about Faith schools, though I have to be very wary of my own bias in this area (I'm an atheist).
I wonder whether they might get out of it by taking a flexible interpretation of the word "candidate" in the first sentence. Even if not formally named on the ballot paper, a substitute might nevertheless be deemed to be the candidate? Then the Twelfth Amendment will get Betfair back on the straight and narrow.
- Competent management, particularly of the economy.
- Social liberalism
- Citizenship and voluntary service
I took the opportunity to trade out of my previous bet (Trump lay @ 3.6)
For reference, my book is currently;
Clinton/Trump +18.4
Biden/Sanders -2.5
Warren/Bloomberg/Gore +-0
Everyone else >+18
https://consult.education.gov.uk/school-frameworks/schools-that-work-for-everyone/supporting_documents/SCHOOLS THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE FINAL.pdf
I can't see how they can settle it for someone not nominated, unless they void the market completely and open a new one on who will actually be the next president.
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Slightly odd wording, but they do seem to have left themselves some wriggle-room if it's unclear. I imagine that, in that case, they'd wait to see who actually becomes president.
In other words, my expectation is that either they settle when the election results are announced, if these are unambiguous (and ignoring the possibility of 'faithless electors' subsequently changing the result), or if it is ambiguous, they suspend and wait to see who ends up president.
Edit/ except that, of course, he was a little too comfortable with privilege and a little too reluctant to embrace radical change, for our liking....
Current series of Great British Bake Off will be the last seen on the BBC, Love Productions tells the corporation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37344292?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
I don't buy Cameron's reasons for standing down - if he thought as a general principle that PMs should not stick around on the back benches he could have stood down immediately. More likely he has given it time to assess May's premiership and doesn't like what he sees.
Fraser Nelson ✔ @FraserNelson
Cameron resigns, again. Breaks his word, again. Trashes his reputation, again. My blog: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/cameron-resigns-breaks-word-trashes-reputation/ …
Despite some good council results, there's no meaningful sign of revival for a party which has been blasted backwards by half-a-century in Parliamentary terms, and is now a minor force that struggles to get a hearing. If the next election occurs on schedule, and post-boundary reform, it seems highly likely that their representation in the Commons will shrink to an even more negligible number.
The old Lib Dem voter coalition is gone and they're down to bedrock support, and have been for the past six years. The conditions for a change of circumstances do not, at present, appear to exist.
Labour MP leaving PLP meeting on boundary changes: "All women shortlist in Islington, that's what we want!"
But these numbers are not adding up. 30 Labour + 17 Tories + 4 Lib Dems =51 and there has to be some SNP seats and some NI ones as well.
Good rule of thumb is to treat warily pronouncements about people supposedly trashing their reputation with banal or truly minor political realignments
That said,
* there are exceptions
* sometimes people are watching, and hypocrisy is the ransom that vice pays to virtue
* not all beliefs are conscious
* some who socially climb are accepted (David Frost married the Duke of Norfolk's daughter), usually from among those who take care to change their accents and manners to match those of the people who are already there; but the vast majority of those who were privately educated consider the kind of school that a person attended to be an extremely important feature of who that person is.
You gotta love someone who can make a comment like that with an apparently straight face.