Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.
A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.
Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.
A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?
A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.
I wonder how many people donate to charities thinking/hoping that their donation will cause a significant change in policy? I suspect far fewer than those who donate to political parties.
Logically that makes it a still bigger problem for the Conservative party if donors are unhappy. Why would they pay for what they aren't getting?
I'd argue that a donor throwing their toys out of the pram for not getting their way looks much worse for the donor than the party.
Quite, and for every donor like yesterday's prat there will be an Anthony Bamford, someone whose business benefits from global trade deals, tariff reductions and a devaluation in Sterling.
Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.
A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.
Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.
A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?
A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.
It also needs voters and Tory voters want immigration controls
It depends where Macron's ceiling is. The more Fillon moves onto Le Pen's turf, the more ground he exposes on the centre.
Fillon has a terrible record on things like gay rights and could easily turn off voters who don't want the second round to be a race to the far right.
Fillon's record on matters like gay rights may seem terrible to you, but he seems to have moral principles, is a democrat and is unlikely to be particularly hostile to the UK. I hope he reaches the 2nd round. A Le Pen presidency would be ominous for Europe and a left-of-centre candidate facing her in the 2nd round would give her a real chance.
I'm not making a moral judgement on him; just giving a prediction. I don't think Le Pen wins in any scenario, for the record.
Hard to work out which is the best outcome for Brexiting Britain. Fillon has said some tough stuff about Brexit, but then, they have to be tough, all of them, they are competing to be French president, they can't say Oh we should compromise, they need to sound flinty.
Le Pen would lead to the meltdown of Europe which is ostensibly "desirable", but isn't really.
The lefties would be ineffectual yet hostile to a rightwing and departing UK.
Perhaps it's a wash.
Most likely Le Pen wins round 1 and Fillon round 2, though I could see Macron or Valls winning in 2022, the left has no chance this time
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
I think that the Tories will want to win. It would heap further misery on Labour, give them a morale boosting victory in what is liable to be a very testing year, increase their minuscule Parliamentary majority at a time when every seat counts, and it's unlikely to imperil Corbyn because the MPs attempt to unseat him has already been and gone, and failed spectacularly.
In fact, under current circumstances I reckon they'll be disappointed NOT to win - albeit that they can deploy a good excuse, of course, in the form of the lengthy historical precedent of Governments failing to capture Opposition-held seats in Parliamentary by-elections.
And with the outing of the head banging party loyalists, my work is done for the evening.
If you think any of the responses to your post resemble the output of "head banging party loyalists", you seriously need help. Whom specifically do you think you have outed? Your argument seems to be that charities get donations and political parties get donations, therefore charities and parties are the same thing. This is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But what the hell, I expect everyone involved is a leave-voting untermensch who needs nuking from orbit cos that's the only way to be sure.
Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.
A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.
It is a bit hyperbolic, but the situation in Worcester that provoked the comment sounds pretty dire.
Of course this is not visible from a wealthy gulf state, just to us poor bloody infantry. I am glad that my own Trust is not so stressed, though at times we get close.
There will always be problems in a stressed NHS over the busy winter months, and people like yourself do a bloody good job of mitigating the problems. If my parents were to be sick they'd probably end up at your place of work.
Surely, if the Red Cross wished to intervene where there are problems, a constructive way to do it might be to offer to assist with volunteers in an A&E unit, providing triage services, first aid and refreshments to those waiting, patient transport services etc.
In other words, actually helping on the ground, rather than bleating from the sidelines in an overtly political manner. Well done Guido for calling out their new "Director of Media", straight from the Guardian. On what salary, I wonder?
In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%
But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.
Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back
The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.
A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote
There is no reason to think that Opinium was a rogue poll at all - a month earlier it had Labour on 32%. Since May 2015 Opinium has consistently shown a smaller Tory lead than most pollsters - 12% being the highest Tory lead recorded in mid-November. What we appear to be seeing there is a 'house' effect - rather than a rogue poll in that its findings in mid-December fell very much within its normal range. Mori also has often given Labour ratings in the 30s - sometimes as high as 34/35% - though its last finding placed them on 29%.
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon
True. I was speculating too idly perhaps.
But Corbyn really IS the Tories' greatest asset. They really do not want him gone. At some point they will have to start maneuvering to keep him where he is. Give him a few fake but easy victories.
Maybe but it would probably take Labour losing Islington at the moment for party members to even consider electing someone else. Of course there is also the Leigh by-election not long after Copeland which Labour will likely hold even if they lose the latter seat given they got 54% in Leigh at the general election and 42% in Copeland
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Didnt need be a genius to smell a rat. This back to Wigan pier stuff will backfire though as it is a) deeply offensive to those in genuine crisis such as in Syria and b) people know all too well about genuine crisis areas from the constant news coverage.
Just like some of the silly bugger stunts from charities over cuts that got a cheap headline ultimately just damaged any sensible conversation over the issue.
Red Cross are going to start losing donations if they go in for playing domestic political games like this.
A "Humanitarian Crisis" is what happens in war zones and after natural disasters, not when people have to wait in a queue for government-provided free healthcare in a first world country. Idiots.
Interesting that tonight it is the organisation's problem that donors might be upset and yesterday evening it was the donors' problem.
A slight difference between a charity and a governing political party, don't you think?
A governing political party also needs funds. So no, not that big a difference, excepr in the minds of headbanging party loyalists.
I think the main point made last night was that donors had nowhere else to go. Whereas I would react to this twattery from the Red Cross by diverting my donations to Médecins Sans Frontières, part of whose schtick is absolute political impartiality. (The reason I cannot divert any funds is that I already donate to Médecins Sans Frontières and not to the Red Cross).
The nice thing about Médecins Sans Frontières is that they are a hard-core aid agency. You give them money, they spend it on medical clinics in parts of the world where just *getting there* requires a quasi-military logistical operation.
In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%
But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.
Since December 2015 the Tories have risen in the polls along with the LDs and Labour have fallen back. UKIP was also in second place in Oldham in 2015 and the Tories third, in Copeland it is the Tories who are second and UKIP third. Labour are below their May 2015 score in every poll at the moment, they will be doing well just to hold their voteshare, if the Tories squeeze the UKIP vote enough they could still win even if Labour don't fall back
The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.
A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote
There is no reason to think that Opinium was a rogue poll at all - a month earlier it had Labour on 32%. Since May 2015 Opinium has consistently shown a smaller Tory lead than most pollsters - 12% being the highest Tory lead recorded in mid-November. What we appear to be seeing there is a 'house' effect - rather than a rogue poll in that its findings in mid-December fell very much within its normal range. Mori also has often given Labour ratings in the 30s - sometimes as high as 34/35% - though its last finding placed them on 29%.
The Copeland by election reminds me of the Romsey contest in 1999. The opposition Conservatives made big gains (1300 if memory serves) in the local elections (though not eradicating the 2000 losses they had suffered in 1995 at the previous stage of the election cycle) but lost the by election.
For all Hague's posturings, the truth was the Conservatives were a long way from winning a General Election as 2001 would show.
Even if Labour do well at the local elections, IF the Conservatives do win in Copeland, the paucity of Labour's position will be apparent to all and sundry (except the Corbynites who, like the Mayflies on here, will die in the ditch for their leader).
The Romsey byelection took place with the 2000 local elections not the 1999.
Given that the Conservatives had a big win in those local elections and the tragic circumstances which caused the byelection I've never understood why the LibDems won.
I do have a theory that a certain sort of Conservative supporter will vote LibDem almost out of politeness.
I think that the 'politeness' theory needs some explaining.
Its much in the same way that people will make a charitable donation when asked.
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
They should bottle male orgasm without the sleepyness.
Didnt need be a genius to smell a rat. This back to Wigan pier stuff will backfire though as it is a) deeply offensive to those in genuine crisis such as in Syria and b) people know all too well about genuine crisis areas from the constant news coverage.
Just like some of the silly bugger stunts from charities over cuts that got a cheap headline ultimately just damaged any sensible conversation over the issue.
Compare and contrast the really nice messages underneath her tweet with that miserable bosseyed misogynist Guido's take. Urgh!
Didnt need be a genius to smell a rat. This back to Wigan pier stuff will backfire though as it is a) deeply offensive to those in genuine crisis such as in Syria and b) people know all too well about genuine crisis areas from the constant news coverage.
Just like some of the silly bugger stunts from charities over cuts that got a cheap headline ultimately just damaged any sensible conversation over the issue.
Compare and contrast the really nice messages underneath her tweet with that miserable bosseyed misogynist Guido's take. Urgh!
Says the man who made some lovely comments about members of the public on here, a mother of dead soldier is one that was particularly disgusting.
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
I'm looking forward to receiving a large dose of that next week!
The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.
A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote
There is no reason to think that Opinium was a rogue poll at all - a month earlier it had Labour on 32%. Since May 2015 Opinium has consistently shown a smaller Tory lead than most pollsters - 12% being the highest Tory lead recorded in mid-November. What we appear to be seeing there is a 'house' effect - rather than a rogue poll in that its findings in mid-December fell very much within its normal range. Mori also has often given Labour ratings in the 30s - sometimes as high as 34/35% - though its last finding placed them on 29%.
In May 2015 Opinium's final poll gave the Tories a 1% lead and was no more out of line than other pollsters. I am not sure it is correct to say that they have not carried out any adjustments , but they have not made the same adjustments as YouGov and ICM. The latter has also moved to online polling in the last year - and that may have knocked a point or two off the Labour share compared with its earlier surveys. To repeat a point made in an earlier comment , some commentators suspect that a number of pollsters have overcompensated for their May 2015 debacle and are now exaggerating the Tory lead a little. At the end of the day it is a matter of judgement - and time will tell! I am simply making the point than in terms of its chosen methodology there was unlikely to have been anything particularly rogueish about the last Opinium poll.
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon
True. I was speculating too idly perhaps.
But Corbyn really IS the Tories' greatest asset. They really do not want him gone. At some point they will have to start maneuvering to keep him where he is. Give him a few fake but easy victories.
Maybe but it would probably take Labour losing Islington at the moment for party members to even consider electing someone else. Of course there is also the Leigh by-election not long after Copeland which Labour will likely hold even if they lose the latter seat given they got 54% in Leigh at the general election and 42% in Copeland
Hmm. I think Tories have to guard against complacency. The new Labour membership is young, volatile and unpredictable. The Lefty hive mind might suddenly have a fit of common sense, and in the face of a difficult Brexit Labour could do surprisingly well in 2020 under a vaguely sane leader. The sudden shock of seeing a non-nutter taking down Theresa in the Commons would concentrate voter minds.
The Tories, paradoxically, need the polls to improve for Labour, for a year or so.
Brexit is all at the moment, the Tories and the country need a strong mandate behind May to take to Brussels to show them we mean business. Labour members are now largely ideologues and Corbyn even increased his mandate last September, unless Labour fell behind UKIP or the LDs in the polls they will happily meander along in a mediocre second place as 'they have their party back'. Only once they have actually experienced the shock of a heavy election defeat will they consider an alternative and Corbyn might step down after a defeat anyway
I'm sorry if you found my comment offensive but I'm in the South of France and I've just arrived back from a dizzying walk along the seafront to be greeted by the sound of the Nobel prize winner for literature singing one of his finest love songs 'To Ramona' and then to be faced with that disgusting philistine Guido's thoughts on the Red Cross was more than I could bear.
The last Opinium poll had Labour on 31% - the same level as May 2015.
A rogue and most likely connected to Opinium's failure to make the adjustments other pollsters have after they overestimated Labour at the last election, Labour is currently on 26% with Yougov, 29% with Mori and 27% with ICM. Though of course the Tories can still win Copeland even if the Labour vote stays the same if they squeeze enough of the UKIP vote
There is no reason to think that Opinium was a rogue poll at all - a month earlier it had Labour on 32%. Since May 2015 Opinium has consistently shown a smaller Tory lead than most pollsters - 12% being the highest Tory lead recorded in mid-November. What we appear to be seeing there is a 'house' effect - rather than a rogue poll in that its findings in mid-December fell very much within its normal range. Mori also has often given Labour ratings in the 30s - sometimes as high as 34/35% - though its last finding placed them on 29%.
In May 2015 Opinium's final poll gave the Tories a 1% lead and was no more out of line than other pollsters. I am not sure it is correct to say that they have not carried out any adjustments , but they have not made the same adjustments as YouGov and ICM. The latter has also moved to online polling in the last year - and that may have knocked a point or two off the Labour share compared with its earlier surveys. To repeat a point made in an earlier comment , some commentators suspect that a number of pollsters have overcompensated for their May 2015 debacle and are now exaggerating the Tory lead a little. At the end of the day it is a matter of judgement - and time will tell! I am simply making the point than in terms of its chosen methodology there was unlikely to have been anything particularly rogueish about the last Opinium poll.
Indeed but it is the fact others have made more adjustments to rectify their error unlike Opinium which singles it out
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
I'm prolonging it with Pol Roger. 2006.
Good call Sean T. Pol Roger was our champagne tipple through Christmas and New Year. My wife developed a taste for it at the Grand Hotel in Gardone.
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
They should bottle male orgasm without the sleepyness.
Bottled male orgasm seems a bit yeuch, sleepy or not.
In May 2015 Opinium's final poll gave the Tories a 1% lead and was no more out of line than other pollsters. I am not sure it is correct to say that they have not carried out any adjustments , but they have not made the same adjustments as YouGov and ICM. The latter has also moved to online polling in the last year - and that may have knocked a point or two off the Labour share compared with its earlier surveys. To repeat a point made in an earlier comment , some commentators suspect that a number of pollsters have overcompensated for their May 2015 debacle and are now exaggerating the Tory lead a little. At the end of the day it is a matter of judgement - and time will tell! I am simply making the point than in terms of its chosen methodology there was unlikely to have been anything particularly rogueish about the last Opinium poll.
Indeed but it is the fact others have made more adjustments to rectify their error unlike Opinium which singles it out
But only time will reveal which pollster has most accurately judged the adjustments necessary. If turnout jumps back to being much closer to the 70% plus levels which were normal throughout the 20th century it is probable that the 'likelihood to vote ' adjustments will have flattered the Tories somewhat.
I'm sorry if you found my comment offensive but I'm in the South of France and I've just arrived back from a dizzying walk along the seafront to be greeted by the sound of the Nobel prize winner for literature singing one of his finest love songs 'To Ramona' and then to be faced with that disgusting philistine Guido's thoughts on the Red Cross was more than I could bear.
Good to hear that you are unlikely to be affected by the catastrophic humanitarian crisis here in Britain.
I'm sorry to be offensive but I'm in the South of France and I've just arrived back from a dizzying walk along the seafront to be greeted by the sound of the Nobel prize winner for literature singing one of his finest love songs 'To Ramona' and then to be faced with that disgusting philistine Guido's thoughts on the Red Cross was more than I could bear.
Chapeau.
I just come out and boast about my life, but you manage to disguise your boasting (clumsily) inside a lament about the vulgar Right impacting on your exquisite liberal soul. It's a kind of meta-boasting. Cubed.
Sorry I didn't see your boast about your life. I'm sure it was as interesting as all the others.
I am wondering if the grammar school idea was thought through, especially given how early it came. Will be interesting to see how it fares in the Commons, given there is not insignificant opposition from the Tory benches.
Mr. F, that is a good point. In those terms, it's less expensive than might be expected.
It's one of the reasons Vikings went to Mikligard. The Varangian Guard was rather more loyal than native soldiers, and pretty handy with their weapons.
Up until the crisis of the 1070's, maintaining the value of the gold coinage was an important element of imperial diplomacy.
@justin124 - your quotes appear to have been buggered up quite spectacularly there! Maybe this is why we were prevented from using it over the Christmas break.. great power, great responsibility and all that.
I am wondering if the grammar school idea was thought through, especially given how early it came. Will be interesting to see how it fares in the Commons, given there is not insignificant opposition from the Tory benches.
I said at the time it was a sop to the Brexit right rather than as a considered policy proposal.
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
I'm looking forward to receiving a large dose of that next week!
I'm sorry to be offensive but I'm in the South of France and I've just arrived back from a dizzying walk along the seafront to be greeted by the sound of the Nobel prize winner for literature singing one of his finest love songs 'To Ramona' and then to be faced with that disgusting philistine Guido's thoughts on the Red Cross was more than I could bear.
Chapeau.
I just come out and boast about my life, but you manage to disguise your boasting (clumsily) inside a lament about the vulgar Right impacting on your exquisite liberal soul. It's a kind of meta-boasting. Cubed.
Surely a stroll along the beachfront then listening to a tune are some of the cheapest pleasures around? Simplest, purest and best too.
Didnt need be a genius to smell a rat. This back to Wigan pier stuff will backfire though as it is a) deeply offensive to those in genuine crisis such as in Syria and b) people know all too well about genuine crisis areas from the constant news coverage.
Just like some of the silly bugger stunts from charities over cuts that got a cheap headline ultimately just damaged any sensible conversation over the issue.
Compare and contrast the really nice messages underneath her tweet with that miserable bosseyed misogynist Guido's take. Urgh!
Says the man who made some lovely comments about members of the public on here, a mother of dead soldier is one that was particularly disgusting.
To be fair, she probably didn't know the difference between Margaux and Pauillac - and was thus deplorable to truly sensitive people.
I've just remembered...it was an article for the Telegraph about the EU. I actually laughed out loud. As it was 12 years ago you must worry your best years are behind you?
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
I'm prolonging it with Pol Roger. 2006.
Good call Sean T. Pol Roger was our champagne tipple through Christmas and New Year. My wife developed a taste for it at the Grand Hotel in Gardone.
It's basically my sole form of nutrition, these days. Though occasionally I nibble Beluga from a 16th century mother-of-pearl spoon, for the vitamins.
Vintage of course. But have I have not read somewhere that non vintage Krug is better than the vintage? The last time I had Krug was in Harry's Bar but I can't remember which due I think to the Barolo afterwards. Caviar I like, unusually for a son of Hull.
I am wondering if the grammar school idea was thought through, especially given how early it came. Will be interesting to see how it fares in the Commons, given there is not insignificant opposition from the Tory benches.
I said at the time it was a sop to the Brexit right rather than as a considered policy proposal.
I wonder if it'll be silently dropped, or significantly watered down.
Hmm. I think Tories have to guard against complacency. The new Labour membership is young, volatile and unpredictable. The Lefty hive mind might suddenly have a fit of common sense, and in the face of a difficult Brexit Labour could do surprisingly well in 2020 under a vaguely sane leader. The sudden shock of seeing a non-nutter taking down Theresa in the Commons would concentrate voter minds.
The Tories, paradoxically, need the polls to improve for Labour, for a year or so.
This is interesting from the New Statesman, last January:
Labour has attracted quite a lot of support from left-wing youth, to be sure, but this commentary suggests that the membership is growing more proportionately middle-class, wealthy and London-centric. Most young people, unless they are very rich, are not homeowners in London. I also seem to recall reading that membership growth since 2015 has also been much stronger in the Home Counties than in traditional heartland areas.
I submit that Labour's membership comes disproportionately from a middle-class radical background, about which it is important to understand two things. Firstly, they are largely fixated on social justice issues, both at home and abroad - they are particularly interested in human rights, racial and gender equality, and in foreign policy causes celebres like Palestine and the anti-war movement - and they feel (especially after the Brexit vote) that this country and most of its people are nasty, bigoted, narrow-minded and corrupt.
Bread and butter issues like health and education which really matter to the rest of the population are a secondary concern for a group of people who don't really like the rest of the population (except for groups like ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and transgendered people, whom they view as oppressed and thus worthy of sympathy.) They're mainly of use as ammunition against the Tories, although Southern Labour is at least as interested in campaigning on and/or shouting about whatever single issues happen to be fashionable at the time, such as Brexit or Islamophobia.
Secondly, it is not in their interest to see the Tories removed from power. Opposition is, of course, much the best place from which to protest, and to avoid having to make any difficult decisions about anything. Also, Conservative policies of moderate taxation for the wealthy and steadily increasing property prices are vastly preferable to socialism in terms of their personal enrichment.
So, you see, the "Lefty hive mind" has demonstrated common sense already. If you're interested in indulging in angry, virtue-signalling, self-satisfied protest against a background of benign economic conditions, then Corbyn is your custom-built leader. He gives you the former, and his presence allows the Tories to continue to provide the latter. QED.
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
They should bottle male orgasm without the sleepyness.
Bottled male orgasm seems a bit yeuch, sleepy or not.
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
They should bottle male orgasm without the sleepyness.
Bottled male orgasm seems a bit yeuch, sleepy or not.
Bit like that knock off perfume I saw in Egypt many years ago. It was called 'eau de sna'tch'
Only someone who has plotted a commercial thriller, and had the blood squirting from behind their eyes, will understand what that means. The intensity of the relief.
Relief is such a wonderful feeling and so very short-lived. It's a pity it can't be bottled or made into pills. It would surely give illegal drugs a run for their money.
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
I'm looking forward to receiving a large dose of that next week!
*Trigger warning as I know this is a topic some PBers get all upset over and prefer to ignore the facts*
Is it because TSE was too thick to pass his 11+?
Fact: Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
Dude, I passed all my entrance exams to get into the big school.
Grammar schools might be free at the point of use, but they screw the poor and don't help them.
But did you pass your 11+?
And how does paying to go to Public Thicko School help the poor?
To be fair the main way public schools help the poor, through bursaries and scholarships, is by following exactly the same principles as set out by grammar schools
I am wondering if the grammar school idea was thought through, especially given how early it came. Will be interesting to see how it fares in the Commons, given there is not insignificant opposition from the Tory benches.
I said at the time it was a sop to the Brexit right rather than as a considered policy proposal.
I wonder if it'll be silently dropped, or significantly watered down.
It'll be dropped unless Mrs May can come up with an idea with what happens to the kids that don't get into grammar schools.
Support for grammar schools drops when people realise it means more secondary moderns.
*Trigger warning as I know this is a topic some PBers get all upset over and prefer to ignore the facts*
Is it because TSE was too thick to pass his 11+?
Fact: Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
Dude, I passed all my entrance exams to get into the big school.
Grammar schools might be free at the point of use, but they screw the poor and don't help them.
Would it not be valuable to see what proportion of grammar school pupils come from skilled working class or lower middle class backgrounds, before determining their impact on social mobility?
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon
True. I was speculating too idly perhaps.
But Corbyn really IS the Tories' greatest asset. They really do not want him gone. At some point they will have to start maneuvering to keep him where he is. Give him a few fake but easy victories.
Maybe but it would probably take Labour losing Islington at the moment for party members to even consider electing someone else. Of course there is also the Leigh by-election not long after Copeland which Labour will likely hold even if they lose the latter seat given they got 54% in Leigh at the general election and 42% in Copeland
Hmm. I think Tories have to guard against complacency. The new Labour membership is young, volatile and unpredictable. The Lefty hive mind might suddenly have a fit of common sense, and in the face of a difficult Brexit Labour could do surprisingly well in 2020 under a vaguely sane leader. The sudden shock of seeing a non-nutter taking down Theresa in the Commons would concentrate voter minds.
The Tories, paradoxically, need the polls to improve for Labour, for a year or so.
Starmer will wipe the wooden smile off Theresa's face.
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
In the heyday of Grammar Schools they enabled some social mobility (aka getting into university) for the striving lower middle class and the very upper part of the working class.
It is interesting to note that since Comprehensives came in, the ex-Grammar schools continued (very largely) to be good schools, and the secondary moderns (strangely) became bad comprehensives, in the main.
The drive to bring back grammar schools comes from the incredible escalation in costs for private schools.
Surely we will not know whose corrections to the polling methodology are correct for some time, and who is fighting the last war.?
We know that Opinium had 34% at the last election when Labour got 31% so adjusting for the 31% it currently gives Labour, Labour is on 28% ie in line with other pollsters
TSE's dislike for the PM really knows no bounds. Now he's quoting analysis by Lucy Powell as his evidence that her Grammar Schools policy is flawed. Really?
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
Former Labour Education spokesperson.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
I've just remembered...it was an article for the Telegraph about the EU. I actually laughed out loud. As it was 12 years ago you must worry your best years are behind you?
Ah. My article on the EU Constitution.
No, I don't worry about peaking, given that my annual income right now is roughly twenty times what it was then, and indeed is, of this week, higher than it has ever been (perhaps you missed my vulgar boasting last night).
I WILL peak, at some point, maybe soon..... but not yet. Not yet.
Surely we will not know whose corrections to the polling methodology are correct for some time, and who is fighting the last war.?
We know that Opinium had 34% at the last election when Labour got 31% so adjusting for the 31% it currently gives Labour, Labour is on 28% ie in line with other pollsters
But I believe that Opinium have made some adjustment to their polls - albeit not to the same degree.
Surely we will not know whose corrections to the polling methodology are correct for some time, and who is fighting the last war.?
We know that Opinium had 34% at the last election when Labour got 31% so adjusting for the 31% it currently gives Labour, Labour is on 28% ie in line with other pollsters
The point I was trying to make was that adjustments to methodology (or not) can only be vindicated at a further test point, an election. Until then we do not know if the other pollsters have overcorrected or Opinium under done it.
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
and the fabled £350 million per week will feature heavily.
Seems to me that the most insightful comments posted here in 2017 are by those (however they voted) who have come to terms with the result of last June.
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
Seems to me that the most insightful comments posted here in 2017 are by those (however they voted) who have come to terms with the result of last June.
You mean you like peoples posts who agree with you? how profound!
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon
True. I was speculating too idly perhaps.
But Corbyn really IS the Tories' greatest asset. They really do not want him gone. At some point they will have to start maneuvering to keep him where he is. Give him a few fake but easy victories.
Maybe but it would probably take Labour losing Islington at the moment for party members to even consider electing someone else. Of course there is also the Leigh by-election not long after Copeland which Labour will likely hold even if they lose the latter seat given they got 54% in Leigh at the general election and 42% in Copeland
Hmm. I think Tories have to guard against complacency. The new Labour membership is young, volatile and unpredictable. The Lefty hive mind might suddenly have a fit of common sense, and in the face of a difficult Brexit Labour could do surprisingly well in 2020 under a vaguely sane leader. The sudden shock of seeing a non-nutter taking down Theresa in the Commons would concentrate voter minds.
The Tories, paradoxically, need the polls to improve for Labour, for a year or so.
Starmer will wipe the wooden smile off Theresa's face.
Starmer is far too rightwing for current Labour members
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
Former Labour Education spokesperson.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
Exactly as I pointed out, the reason grammars do less for social mobility than they used to is that Labour scrapped most of them leaving the few remaining in leafy Tory areas. Singapore selects at 13 and tops the latest PISA
In Oldham West and Royton Labour was on 55% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 40% and Cameron was polling lower than May is now. In Copeland by contrast Labour was on 42% in May 2015 and the Tories and UKIP combined on 52%
But that isn't why Labour held, the Tory vote fell a lot more than the UKIP vote rose. Labour won because the right-wing vote didn't consolidate that well and, most importantly, Labour retained their vote well. If Labour build on 42% in Copeland they aren't losing.
The permutations of vote churn in such a byelection as this are difficult to interpret, but there must be very few byelections where a candidate gets 42% of the vote and comes second. The LDs, Kippers and fringe parties will pick up more than 16% between them.
What would be interesting in such a constituency would be an emerging tacit co-operation where the LDs campaign in the rural, mostly Tory wards leaving the Urban Labour voting wards untouched, thereby targeting Tory Remainers.
Given Copeland voted 62% Leave I doubt there are that many Tory Remainers to target, all the polling evidence shows that the main gains the LDs have made since the election have come from Labour
I suspect there are a fair number, weren't we assured that it was the WWC who were pro Leave?
Plus the lower middle class and a clear majority of Tories voted Leave, the majority of Tories in Copeland are likely wwc and lower middle class, there are not many upper middle class Tories there as there were in Richmond. Anyway, I am doing my first phonebank session at CCHQ in Copeland on Thursday so will let you know if I hear any thing dramatic. I had a work colleague who did similar calls in Richmond for the LDs and could pick up the trend soon enough
I'll be doing phone calls in Copeland for the LibDems but I need to practice my accent first.
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
No it won't, all the other by-elections, Witney, Richmond Park and Sleaford have been dominated by Brexit
Seems to me that the most insightful comments posted here in 2017 are by those (however they voted) who have come to terms with the result of last June.
You mean you like peoples posts who agree with you? how profound!
Nah. I mean I respect the opinions of those who respect the opinions of others.
I'd love to see some opinion polling on the lines of 'Do you accept the result of the referendum on Brexit?'.
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
Former Labour Education spokesperson.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
Exactly as I pointed out, the reason grammars do less for social mobility than they used to is that Labour scrapped most of them leaving the few remaining in leafy Tory areas. Singapore selects at 13 and tops the latest PISA
I believe it was Mrs Thatcher who scrapped/merged the most number of grammar schools.
'Twas one of her finest achievements, alongside the Single European Act.
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
I thought we had an NHS crisis every winter? If you google "nhs crisis 20xx" starting from 2016 and working backwards, there is one every year at least until you get bored with the exercise and lose interest. It is also fully priced in that the blame lies 100% with the tories.
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon
True. I was speculating too idly perhaps.
But Corbyn really IS the Tories' greatest asset. They really do not want him gone. At some point they will have to start maneuvering to keep him where he is. Give him a few fake but easy victories.
Maybe but it would probably take Labour losing Islington at the moment for party members to even consider electing someone else. Of course there is also the Leigh by-election not long after Copeland which Labour will likely hold even if they lose the latter seat given they got 54% in Leigh at the general election and 42% in Copeland
Hmm. I think Tories have to guard against complacency. The new Labour membership is young, volatile and unpredictable. The Lefty hive mind might suddenly have a fit of common sense, and in the face of a difficult Brexit Labour could do surprisingly well in 2020 under a vaguely sane leader. The sudden shock of seeing a non-nutter taking down Theresa in the Commons would concentrate voter minds.
The Tories, paradoxically, need the polls to improve for Labour, for a year or so.
Starmer will wipe the wooden smile off Theresa's face.
Starmer is far too rightwing for current Labour members
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
I love the fact that a bloke whose family had enough money to send him to private school wants to take opportunities away from other less fortunate kids.
Yes, I had the benefit of going to a grammar school and it certainly helped me get on in life.
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
Former Labour Education spokesperson.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
Exactly as I pointed out, the reason grammars do less for social mobility than they used to is that Labour scrapped most of them leaving the few remaining in leafy Tory areas. Singapore selects at 13 and tops the latest PISA
Bucks has 10% of all pupils entitled to free school meals, while in Lincs and Kent 18% are, yet the percentages cited in Powell's article are around 1/5 of these numbers.
The evidence does not fit your assertion. The percentage of poor children is much lower in grammar schools than in other schools in counties practicing selective schooling.
In all seriousness, do the Tories REALLY want to win this? If it endangers Corbyn that is BAD for them. Is it worth gaining one more MP in the Commons, to lose their greatest electoral asset, the Labour leader himself?
I'd say it's a pretty close call, and the Tories will be oddly satisfied with a very close second.
Of course they do as it will give a mandate for Article 50 and a mandate for May for Brexit and shutup all the Remoaners who are still crowing about Richmond Park, given Corbyn has comfortably been re-elected by Labour members he is not going anywhere soon
True. I was speculating too idly perhaps.
But Corbyn really IS the Tories' greatest asset. They really do not want him gone. At some point they will have to start maneuvering to keep him where he is. Give him a few fake but easy victories.
Maybe but it would probably take Labour losing Islington at the moment for party members to even consider electing someone else. Of course there is also the Leigh by-election not long after Copeland which Labour will likely hold even if they lose the latter seat given they got 54% in Leigh at the general election and 42% in Copeland
Hmm. I think Tories have to guard against complacency. The new Labour membership is young, volatile and unpredictable. The Lefty hive mind might suddenly have a fit of common sense, and in the face of a difficult Brexit Labour could do surprisingly well in 2020 under a vaguely sane leader. The sudden shock of seeing a non-nutter taking down Theresa in the Commons would concentrate voter minds.
The Tories, paradoxically, need the polls to improve for Labour, for a year or so.
Starmer will wipe the wooden smile off Theresa's face.
Starmer is far too rightwing for current Labour members
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
No it won't, all the other by-elections, Witney, Richmond Park and Sleaford have been dominated by Brexit
A bit of a non sequitur there. Let us wait and see!
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
I love the fact that a bloke whose family had enough money to send him to private school wants to take opportunities away from other less fortunate kids.
Yes, I had the benefit of going to a grammar school and it certainly helped me get on in life.
I had the benefit of a Comprehensive education and done pretty well for myself too, as indeed have my sibs.
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
Former Labour Education spokesperson.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
Exactly as I pointed out, the reason grammars do less for social mobility than they used to is that Labour scrapped most of them leaving the few remaining in leafy Tory areas. Singapore selects at 13 and tops the latest PISA
Quite - in fact we have moved to Grammar-school-by-house-price in most areas. Another effect is that the lower orders feel "not welcome" .... there is "too much homework".... the rules on holidays enforced "aggressively"... so they don't contaminate the posh "comprehensives".
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
I thought we had an NHS crisis every winter? If you google "nhs crisis 20xx" starting from 2016 and working backwards, there is one every year at least until you get bored with the exercise and lose interest. It is also fully priced in that the blame lies 100% with the tories.
We do. We also have them in the summer too now. You're aware of the growing waiting lists? The perpetually missed A&E target?
Since Rogers has not been given a payoff other than the usual one, is he bound by any restrictive clause about what and when he can speak ?
Cammo's fightback has started. We need to know if TSE is involved ? This will upset Sunil even more.
More like Osborne and TSE's fightback, Cammo is about to move to Manhattan with SamCam. Meanwhile the remaining 95% of the Tory Party are fully behind May
The news re-the NHS reinforces my sense that -whenever we do have an election – such issues will override views relating to Brexit. We may begin to see some evidence of that in the Copeland by election.
I thought we had an NHS crisis every winter? If you google "nhs crisis 20xx" starting from 2016 and working backwards, there is one every year at least until you get bored with the exercise and lose interest. It is also fully priced in that the blame lies 100% with the tories.
Personally I do not recall claims of a humanitarian crisis in the NHS in earlier winters.
Says a report by Lucy Powell, Labour education spokesperson, so very objective I assume. If we had a few more grammars in poorer areas which is at the heart of May's policy rather than mainly in wealthier areas as now they would be doing rather more for social mobility
Former Labour Education spokesperson.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
Exactly as I pointed out, the reason grammars do less for social mobility than they used to is that Labour scrapped most of them leaving the few remaining in leafy Tory areas. Singapore selects at 13 and tops the latest PISA
I believe it was Mrs Thatcher who scrapped/merged the most number of grammar schools.
'Twas one of her finest achievements, alongside the Single European Act.
And also wearing that jacket during the 1975 referendum. Also, she was the mastermind behind the joining of the East European countries into the EU.
Comments
In fact, under current circumstances I reckon they'll be disappointed NOT to win - albeit that they can deploy a good excuse, of course, in the form of the lengthy historical precedent of Governments failing to capture Opposition-held seats in Parliamentary by-elections.
Surely, if the Red Cross wished to intervene where there are problems, a constructive way to do it might be to offer to assist with volunteers in an A&E unit, providing triage services, first aid and refreshments to those waiting, patient transport services etc.
In other words, actually helping on the ground, rather than bleating from the sidelines in an overtly political manner. Well done Guido for calling out their new "Director of Media", straight from the Guardian. On what salary, I wonder?
Edited to add: good evening, everyone.
Just like some of the silly bugger stunts from charities over cuts that got a cheap headline ultimately just damaged any sensible conversation over the issue.
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/final-poll-from-opinium-before-election.html
I'm sorry if you found my comment offensive but I'm in the South of France and I've just arrived back from a dizzying walk along the seafront to be greeted by the sound of the Nobel prize winner for literature singing one of his finest love songs 'To Ramona' and then to be faced with that disgusting philistine Guido's thoughts on the Red Cross was more than I could bear.
Grammar schools offer ‘pitifully few’ places to poorer children
Selection is no driver of social mobility, according to analysis of 2016 data
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jan/07/poor-pupils-miss-grammar-school-places
Surely we will not know whose corrections to the polling methodology are correct for some time, and who is fighting the last war.?
Fact: Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
Grammar schools might be free at the point of use, but they screw the poor and don't help them.
PS. I read a very entertaining post of yours last night.
I can't remember what it was about but I'll look for it.
And how does paying to go to Public Thicko School help the poor?
I've just remembered...it was an article for the Telegraph about the EU. I actually laughed out loud. As it was 12 years ago you must worry your best years are behind you?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/01/how-middle-class-are-labour-s-new-members
Labour has attracted quite a lot of support from left-wing youth, to be sure, but this commentary suggests that the membership is growing more proportionately middle-class, wealthy and London-centric. Most young people, unless they are very rich, are not homeowners in London. I also seem to recall reading that membership growth since 2015 has also been much stronger in the Home Counties than in traditional heartland areas.
I submit that Labour's membership comes disproportionately from a middle-class radical background, about which it is important to understand two things. Firstly, they are largely fixated on social justice issues, both at home and abroad - they are particularly interested in human rights, racial and gender equality, and in foreign policy causes celebres like Palestine and the anti-war movement - and they feel (especially after the Brexit vote) that this country and most of its people are nasty, bigoted, narrow-minded and corrupt.
Bread and butter issues like health and education which really matter to the rest of the population are a secondary concern for a group of people who don't really like the rest of the population (except for groups like ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and transgendered people, whom they view as oppressed and thus worthy of sympathy.) They're mainly of use as ammunition against the Tories, although Southern Labour is at least as interested in campaigning on and/or shouting about whatever single issues happen to be fashionable at the time, such as Brexit or Islamophobia.
Secondly, it is not in their interest to see the Tories removed from power. Opposition is, of course, much the best place from which to protest, and to avoid having to make any difficult decisions about anything. Also, Conservative policies of moderate taxation for the wealthy and steadily increasing property prices are vastly preferable to socialism in terms of their personal enrichment.
So, you see, the "Lefty hive mind" has demonstrated common sense already. If you're interested in indulging in angry, virtue-signalling, self-satisfied protest against a background of benign economic conditions, then Corbyn is your custom-built leader. He gives you the former, and his presence allows the Tories to continue to provide the latter. QED.
Support for grammar schools drops when people realise it means more secondary moderns.
It is interesting to note that since Comprehensives came in, the ex-Grammar schools continued (very largely) to be good schools, and the secondary moderns (strangely) became bad comprehensives, in the main.
The drive to bring back grammar schools comes from the incredible escalation in costs for private schools.
More importantly, what is wrong with her analysis?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817846970345816069
On the flip side, it has nothing to do with Brexit.
I'd love to see some opinion polling on the lines of 'Do you accept the result of the referendum on Brexit?'.
'Twas one of her finest achievements, alongside the Single European Act.
Yes, I had the benefit of going to a grammar school and it certainly helped me get on in life.
The evidence does not fit your assertion. The percentage of poor children is much lower in grammar schools than in other schools in counties practicing selective schooling.
Cammo's fightback has started. We need to know if TSE is involved ? This will upset Sunil even more.
Hahaha
Car crash Brexit...