Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
Forget what Woodcock said. There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them.
I'm having fun on a Labour Facebook forum where the members who have denounced the Tristran Hunt type MPs for breathing and demanding their deselection are now denouncing them for quitting. Because its starting to sink in that Labour MP quits, and Labour loses the seat.
The short list in Copeland is entertaining, I do hope the Momentum pick gets the gig as she'll go down great on the doorstep.... In Stoke where 70% votes to leave and hardly anyone voted in the GE we will be going round with our new Brexit policy ("we're open to migration and open to controls but we're only considering it because of all these poor exploited Romanians"). And we'll get demolished there as well. Tories for Copeland, Kippers for Stoke.
Entertainingly these MP resignations are - from the people demanding their deselection - now being described as "Coup 3". Because for all the fingers in ears bluster they recognise what is clear - that the Labour Party under Corbyn is now firmly in the death spiral towards LibDem2015ery. Enjoy the ride.
UKIP must win this or they have no point existing any more. It's tailor made for them - Leader's NW patch, overwhelming Leave vote, start from 2nd, sub-10% swing required.
If they don't win this set-piece, they'll win nowt in 2020.
UKIP are not going anywhere while it looks May is going for hard Brexit. If May ends up going for softer Brexit with no points system for migrants and sone continued budget contributions to the EU then UKIP will go somewhere again but that will only be known in 2019, a by election in 2017 is irrelevant
Forget what Woodcock said. There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them.
I'm having fun on a Labour Facebook forum where the members who have denounced the Tristran Hunt type MPs for breathing and demanding their deselection are now denouncing them for quitting. Because its starting to sink in that Labour MP quits, and Labour loses the seat.
The short list in Copeland is entertaining, I do hope the Momentum pick gets the gig as she'll go down great on the doorstep.... In Stoke where 70% votes to leave and hardly anyone voted in the GE we will be going round with our new Brexit policy ("we're open to migration and open to controls but we're only considering it because of all these poor exploited Romanians"). And we'll get demolished there as well. Tories for Copeland, Kippers for Stoke.
Entertainingly these MP resignations are - from the people demanding their deselection - now being described as "Coup 3". Because for all the fingers in ears bluster they recognise what is clear - that the Labour Party under Corbyn is now firmly in the death spiral towards LibDem2015ery. Enjoy the ride.
"There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them." Surely, there can't be that many museums, charities or broadcasting companies based in London offering well paid jobs.
"There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them." Surely, there can't be that many museums, charities or broadcasting companies based in London offering well paid jobs.
Forget what Woodcock said. There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them.
I'm having fun on a Labour Facebook forum where the members who have denounced the Tristran Hunt type MPs for breathing and demanding their deselection are now denouncing them for quitting. Because its starting to sink in that Labour MP quits, and Labour loses the seat.
The short list in Copeland is entertaining, I do hope the Momentum pick gets the gig as she'll go down great on the doorstep.... In Stoke where 70% votes to leave and hardly anyone voted in the GE we will be going round with our new Brexit policy ("we're open to migration and open to controls but we're only considering it because of all these poor exploited Romanians"). And we'll get demolished there as well. Tories for Copeland, Kippers for Stoke.
Entertainingly these MP resignations are - from the people demanding their deselection - now being described as "Coup 3". Because for all the fingers in ears bluster they recognise what is clear - that the Labour Party under Corbyn is now firmly in the death spiral towards LibDem2015ery. Enjoy the ride.
Forget what Woodcock said. There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them.
I'm having fun on a Labour Facebook forum where the members who have denounced the Tristran Hunt type MPs for breathing and demanding their deselection are now denouncing them for quitting. Because its starting to sink in that Labour MP quits, and Labour loses the seat.
The short list in Copeland is entertaining, I do hope the Momentum pick gets the gig as she'll go down great on the doorstep.... In Stoke where 70% votes to leave and hardly anyone voted in the GE we will be going round with our new Brexit policy ("we're open to migration and open to controls but we're only considering it because of all these poor exploited Romanians"). And we'll get demolished there as well. Tories for Copeland, Kippers for Stoke.
Entertainingly these MP resignations are - from the people demanding their deselection - now being described as "Coup 3". Because for all the fingers in ears bluster they recognise what is clear - that the Labour Party under Corbyn is now firmly in the death spiral towards LibDem2015ery. Enjoy the ride.
Refreshing honest, Mr Pioneers. With the centrist MPs choosing to leave Parliament for other jobs, rather than defect or split, are we seeing the beginning of the end of the 100 year old Labour Party?
Who is actually going to provide serious opposition to the government over the next few years, when so much will happen as regards the future of the UK and where it sits in the world?
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
Forget what Woodcock said. There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them.
I'm having fun on a Labour Facebook forum where the members who have denounced the Tristran Hunt type MPs for breathing and demanding their deselection are now denouncing them for quitting. Because its starting to sink in that Labour MP quits, and Labour loses the seat.
The short list in Copeland is entertaining, I do hope the Momentum pick gets the gig as she'll go down great on the doorstep.... In Stoke where 70% votes to leave and hardly anyone voted in the GE we will be going round with our new Brexit policy ("we're open to migration and open to controls but we're only considering it because of all these poor exploited Romanians"). And we'll get demolished there as well. Tories for Copeland, Kippers for Stoke.
Entertainingly these MP resignations are - from the people demanding their deselection - now being described as "Coup 3". Because for all the fingers in ears bluster they recognise what is clear - that the Labour Party under Corbyn is now firmly in the death spiral towards LibDem2015ery. Enjoy the ride.
You are too pessimistic.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.
But how would it be logical for me to do otherwise?
Edit: More generally, would you accuse anyone who campaigns for a different system (regardless of the field) of hypocrisy unless they are personally disadvantaged by the current system?
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
No, I don't think it is hypocritical. What would be hypocritical is spending money on coaching your children to pass the exam. Practicing for the exam is fair enough, you want to know the time constraints, for example. But one of the biggest arguments against grammar schools is that the rich parents can pay to coach their kids through the exam.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Rentoul thinks Stoke has all the makings of a UKIP sensation and notes:
"If anyone thinks that 24 per cent is the lowest Labour can go in the polls under Corbyn’s leadership they will soon be disabused of such sunny optimism."
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
In that case, you're as much of a hypocrite as Diane Abbott!
Others have asked for advice on here and found it helpful so i am trying the same.
I'm thinking if buying a flat for the first time jointly with a family member. I earn in $ which I think complicates things. What advice or experience do people have with mortgage brokers?
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
Because clearly you are the motivated, perhaps sharp-elbowed parent of a bright child. If all motivated, perhaps sharp-elbowed parents of bright children sent their offspring to their local bog-standard comprehensive, then standards at that bog-standard comprehensive would improve.
Surely Hitchens was just playing to his own particular gallery - those despairing and hateful of the modern age. Even by 1997 the internet was clearly more than a passing fad.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
As over 90% of the country is comprehensive and you could easily move there
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
"Stoke-on-Trent Central recorded one of the highest proportion of those who voted for Brexit in the referendum. A total of 81,563 people in his constituency voted 'Leave' and just 36,027 voted 'Remain.' "
Telegraph.
Can the LibDems get the Remainers to turn-out when the Leavers don't bother?
"Gideon means great pillock or similar in English."
I think you'll find that in English Gideon means, "we are not actually saying he is Jewish and there nothing necessarily wrong with it if he is but....you know... perhaps you would be better voting Labour".
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Surely Hitchens was just playing to his own particular gallery - those despairing and hateful of the modern age. Even by 1997 the internet was clearly more than a passing fad.
Hitchens doesn't even believe in police patrol cars.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I ?
I'm
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
Because clearly you are the motivated, perhaps sharp-elbowed parent of a bright child. If all motivated, perhaps sharp-elbowed parents of bright children sent their offspring to their local bog-standard comprehensive, then standards at that bog-standard comprehensive would improve.
I've never understood this logic that pushy middle-class parents make all the difference to a school, but frustrated working-class parents do not.
It suggests working class parents are either too stupid, inarticulate or lazy to advocate for their kids, and the staff and leadership too snobbish to listen, which I think is a massive simplification. Or that any school is crap unless it has the right number of smart kids in it, else it is crap, because it's the kids that make the school not the other way round.
Devolving more governance and funding powers to the school, combined with a very good leader, yes. That does make a difference.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
Surely Hitchens was just playing to his own particular gallery - those despairing and hateful of the modern age. Even by 1997 the internet was clearly more than a passing fad.
Thinking back to the internet of those days - AOL on a dial-up connection - public libraries were a much better bet.
It's not the speed of tech progress but the speed of tech obsolescence which fascinates me: who could have foreseen that a music CD would in 2017 look as quaint as a 78rpm disk, or that one could be nostalgic about that pretendy dialup and handshake noise modems used to make.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
As over 90% of the country is comprehensive and you could easily move there
Yes, I could, but: 1) It'd do nothing to improve the lot of the kids at comprehensives in my current area. 2) My son would probably get a worse education. 3) It'd be hassle for me and my son to move house.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
Dunno. I thought they'd do well too. We are all wise after the event.
But, we tend to forget (false recall) how we were before.
BBC Archive #OnThisDay 1987: Newsnight reported on Gallup who conducted their first opinion poll in Britain 50 years previously. Contains poll dancing. https://t.co/ps22yJmJMZ
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Are rich people hypocritical if they say people like them should pay more taxes? Is it hypocritical of me (as a man) to oppose discrimination against women?
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
Dunno. I thought they'd do well too.
I laid 8/1 and should have cleaned up but was swayed by the non stop inflating of Ukip's chances. Ended up losing to @Pong on the winning margin and scratching the book
You can look at my comments at the time, I always said it was a no go for Ukip
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Absolute garbage! Free museums civilize us all and encourage people to come who otherwise wouldn't.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Harassed continually for donations? I thought it just tended to be a couple of big, perspex collection boxes which you could use or ignore as you wished. Things have changed since I was last in a London museum.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
IIRC, there was a really febrile political environment immediately following bataclan with lots of people convinced Jeremy Corbyn was toast. Also there wasn't a poll to calibrate expectations.
I'm not sure a resounding Labour hold in OW&R was *obvious* to anyone, though.
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Absolute garbage! Free museums civilize us all and encourage people to come who otherwise wouldn't.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
IIRC, there was a really febrile political environment immediately following bataclan with lots of people convinced Jeremy Corbyn was toast. Also there wasn't a poll to calibrate expectations.
I'm not sure a resounding Labour hold in OW&R was *obvious* to anyone, though.
Read our vanilla messages from when you were sending me your bank details...
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
As over 90% of the country is comprehensive and you could easily move there
Yes, I could, but: 1) It'd do nothing to improve the lot of the kids at comprehensives in my current area. 2) My son would probably get a worse education. 3) It'd be hassle for me and my son to move house.
So in 3 sentences you have given an argument as to why a selective system is better than a comprehensive one so it does not really look like you believe in the comprehensive system anyway
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Absolute garbage! Free museums civilize us all and encourage people to come who otherwise wouldn't.
No more garbage than your assertion!
Once we've left the EU we could always charge tourists....
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
But, at the same same, improving prospects for a greater number of people, hence doing a net good.
A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Absolute garbage! Free museums civilize us all and encourage people to come who otherwise wouldn't.
Nonsense.
I suppose you take the Dorothy Parker view: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Don't be silly. This isn't snobbery. It's about paying for admission. Plenty of very wealthy tourists in London get a free ride at our expense (the taxpayer) and it reduces the money the museum has to do its work.
You could charge 50p for concessions, as many other historic sites do.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
Dunno. I thought they'd do well too.
I laid 8/1 and should have cleaned up but was swayed by the non stop inflating of Ukip's chances. Ended up losing to @Pong on the winning margin and scratching the book
You can look at my comments at the time, I always said it was a no go for Ukip
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
IIRC, there was a really febrile political environment immediately following bataclan with lots of people convinced Jeremy Corbyn was toast. Also there wasn't a poll to calibrate expectations.
I'm not sure a resounding Labour hold in OW&R was *obvious* to anyone, though.
Read our vanilla messages from when you were sending me your bank details...
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Don't be silly. This isn't snobbery. It's about paying for admission. Plenty of very wealthy tourists in London get a free ride at our expense (the taxpayer) and it reduces the money the museum has to do its work.
You could charge 50p for concessions, as many other historic sites do.
But I think it's important all pay something.
You mentioned people who don't appreciate what they are seeing. Sounds like snobbery to me.
Plenty of those extra visitors are spending money in the cafe or the gift shop.
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
As over 90% of the country is comprehensive and you could easily move there
Yes, I could, but: 1) It'd do nothing to improve the lot of the kids at comprehensives in my current area. 2) My son would probably get a worse education. 3) It'd be hassle for me and my son to move house.
So in 3 sentences you have given an argument as to why a selective system is better than a comprehensive one so it does not really look like you believe in the comprehensive system anyway
No, you're missing the point. My opinion is as follows: In areas where grammar schools exist, the kids at grammar school will get substantially a better education that those at the local comprehensives. Where grammar schools don't exist, everyone gets an education that is much better than they would get at a comprehensive under the dual system, though, for some, not quite so good as they would have got at grammar school. That is the logic behind the sentences above (though you may, of course, disagree with my opinions).
I've checked - when Oldham West & Royton was initially announced most bettors here thought it'd be an easy win.
Then a whole bunch of dodgy pro-UKIP (In hindsight) info leaked out about how Labour was being turned away on the doorstep which made the PB collective consciouscness think it might be close.
@iSam offered a massive price on a big Labour win which @pong took advantage of.
I won on turnout and Lib Dem vote share (Both unders) at Ladbrokes. Lost on the Tories (Backed overs) Vaguely remember backing Labour at 1-6 or so but not certain on that.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
What a pity he's leaving. He was one of the few remaining Labour 'Good Guys'. Nonetheless a very good choice for Director of the V&A
He certainly seems the sort of guy far more at ease inside the V&A than inside a working men's club.
Ironically, Hunt would be quite a good future museum exhibit himself, where people could squint at the label "New Labour: 1997 - 2010" - and try and make some sense of it this weird faddish item...
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.
In most working class areas the comprehensives are effectively secondary moderns in all but name anyway
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Oldham is about as likely to elect a UKIP MP as Islington. Hardly a fair comparison to Stoke.
All the talk on here prior to Oldham was of how well UKIP would do, and how badly Corbyn would.
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
I think a lot of that was people who dislike Ukip talking them up so they could shout 'failure' when the obvious defeat came. That seat was never right for Ukip
IIRC, there was a really febrile political environment immediately following bataclan with lots of people convinced Jeremy Corbyn was toast. Also there wasn't a poll to calibrate expectations.
I'm not sure a resounding Labour hold in OW&R was *obvious* to anyone, though.
Read our vanilla messages from when you were sending me your bank details...
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
But, at the same same, improving prospects for a greater number of people, hence doing a net good.
A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.
The lifeboat analogy is the same as the fixed lump of Labour fallacy. If some schools are better than others. Copy the good practice and weed out the bad practice. You don't make poor schools good by making the good schools less good. Full disclosure, I don't have any kids of my own to worry about their education.
What a pity he's leaving. He was one of the few remaining Labour 'Good Guys'. Nonetheless a very good choice for Director of the V&A
He certainly seems the sort of guy far more at ease inside the V&A than inside a working men's club.
Ironically, Hunt would be quite a good future museum exhibit himself, where people could squint at the label "New Labour: 1997 - 2010" - and try and make some sense of it this weird faddish item...
The joke I heard was surprise that he was going to the V&A rather than the Natural History Museum given he had clearly had experience of fossils and dinosaurs at the top of the Labour party...
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Harassed continually for donations? I thought it just tended to be a couple of big, perspex collection boxes which you could use or ignore as you wished. Things have changed since I was last in a London museum.
Andy lives in Staffordshire, the museum's there must be desperate.
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Assuming that you're not a politician elected on a platform of being against grammar or private schools, then of course you accept the system as is, and do the best you can for your kids.
I don't actually see that it'd make a difference if I were a politician arguing the case against grammar schools. Why would it be wrong to argue for what you feel would be a fairer system but still make the best of the system as it is?
As over 90% of the country is comprehensive and you could easily move there
Yes, I could, but: 1) It'd do nothing to improve the lot of the kids at comprehensives in my current area. 2) My son would probably get a worse education. 3) It'd be hassle for me and my son to move house.
So in 3 sentences you have given an argument as to why a selective system is better than a comprehensive one so it does not really look like you believe in the comprehensive system anyway
No, you're missing the point. My opinion is as follows: In areas where grammar schools exist, the kids at grammar school will get substantially a better education that those at the local comprehensives. Where grammar schools don't exist, everyone gets an education that is much better than they would get at a comprehensive under the dual system, though, for some, not quite so good as they would have got at grammar school. That is the logic behind the sentences above (though you may, of course, disagree with my opinions).
I do disagree, see my point below but if you do support comprehensives so much you could easily move into a comprehensive, non-selective local authority area given they comprise most of the country
"Stoke-on-Trent Central recorded one of the highest proportion of those who voted for Brexit in the referendum. A total of 81,563 people in his constituency voted 'Leave' and just 36,027 voted 'Remain.' "
Telegraph.
Can the LibDems get the Remainers to turn-out when the Leavers don't bother?
That is for the whole council surely. Telegraph is crap now.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.
Precisely.
So you're not in favour of grammar schools but send your children there because why should they be sacrificed on the altar of some ridiculous socialist principle such as a good education for all.
Comments
Trump tweets are to the media, what those little laser pointers are to kittens.
He belongs in a museum.
I'm having fun on a Labour Facebook forum where the members who have denounced the Tristran Hunt type MPs for breathing and demanding their deselection are now denouncing them for quitting. Because its starting to sink in that Labour MP quits, and Labour loses the seat.
The short list in Copeland is entertaining, I do hope the Momentum pick gets the gig as she'll go down great on the doorstep.... In Stoke where 70% votes to leave and hardly anyone voted in the GE we will be going round with our new Brexit policy ("we're open to migration and open to controls but we're only considering it because of all these poor exploited Romanians"). And we'll get demolished there as well. Tories for Copeland, Kippers for Stoke.
Entertainingly these MP resignations are - from the people demanding their deselection - now being described as "Coup 3". Because for all the fingers in ears bluster they recognise what is clear - that the Labour Party under Corbyn is now firmly in the death spiral towards LibDem2015ery. Enjoy the ride.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/01/12/senate-approves-waiver-gen-mattis-serve-def-sec/
Surely, there can't be that many museums, charities or broadcasting companies based in London offering well paid jobs.
https://twitter.com/wikiguido/status/819889438373322752
https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/794531956860059648
Who is actually going to provide serious opposition to the government over the next few years, when so much will happen as regards the future of the UK and where it sits in the world?
Oldham West and Ogmore showed the Labour vote in its core areas was still solid, and not that vulnerable to UKIP. And that's when Farage was leader, although admittedly all pre-Brexit. Batley and Spen was very different, but, still, over 17,000 voters turned out for Labour.
UKIP have never won a parliamentary by-election they weren't defending through a defection.
Labour would be vulnerable in these seats under GE conditions because they will be picking a Government and Prime Minister, and Corbyn's record and words will be eviscerated. Most people at the moment just think he's shit. But they aren't necessarily thinking of him in a by-election, even if we naturally would, because we think 2/3/4 steps ahead as punters.
Basically, we're still pissing in the wind to try and find a reverse Richmond because we assume the EU referendum results must affect parliamentary voting.
They might not. Or, at least, only might in some places under special circumstances. Generally to the benefit of opposition to Brexit expressed through the LDs.
Edit: More generally, would you accuse anyone who campaigns for a different system (regardless of the field) of hypocrisy unless they are personally disadvantaged by the current system?
Professor Anthony King.....gone RIP
Tristram Hunt.....gone to the museum to hide from Corbyn
JackW....returns in glory
The Crystal Maze.....returns
2 in 2 out?
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
"If anyone thinks that 24 per cent is the lowest Labour can go in the polls under Corbyn’s leadership they will soon be disabused of such sunny optimism."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tristram-hunt-resign-resignation-labour-jeremy-corbyn-mps-v-and-a-museum-sign-of-things-to-come-a7525316.html
I'm thinking if buying a flat for the first time jointly with a family member.
I earn in $ which I think complicates things. What advice or experience do people have with mortgage brokers?
The solid Labour hold was a shock result, and surprised many.
Telegraph.
Can the LibDems get the Remainers to turn-out when the Leavers don't bother?
I think you'll find that in English Gideon means, "we are not actually saying he is Jewish and there nothing necessarily wrong with it if he is but....you know... perhaps you would be better voting Labour".
Ukip is dormant because Brexit is coming. Its whole existence depends on Brexit being stalled or stopped.
I've no real problem with Tim's manoeuvres. He's harnessing the Remainers for a last hurrah and hopes some will stick. Some may well do.
It's not the speed of tech progress but the speed of tech obsolescence which fascinates me: who could have foreseen that a music CD would in 2017 look as quaint as a 78rpm disk, or that one could be nostalgic about that pretendy dialup and handshake noise modems used to make.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
1) It'd do nothing to improve the lot of the kids at comprehensives in my current area.
2) My son would probably get a worse education.
3) It'd be hassle for me and my son to move house.
But, we tend to forget (false recall) how we were before.
#OnThisDay 1987: Newsnight reported on Gallup who conducted their first opinion poll in Britain 50 years previously. Contains poll dancing. https://t.co/ps22yJmJMZ
Is it hypocritical of me (as a man) to oppose discrimination against women?
You can look at my comments at the time, I always said it was a no go for Ukip
I'm not sure a resounding Labour hold in OW&R was *obvious* to anyone, though.
Once we've left the EU we could always charge tourists....
A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.
Jezza upsets the paddies
http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/01/13/corbyn-against-uklabours-sleeping-base-in-northern-ireland-playing-an-official-part-in-ae17/
best keep the politics sectarian
You could charge 50p for concessions, as many other historic sites do.
But I think it's important all pay something.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
33/1
Plenty of those extra visitors are spending money in the cafe or the gift shop.
https://order-order.com/2017/01/13/guido-is-secure/
Then a whole bunch of dodgy pro-UKIP (In hindsight) info leaked out about how Labour was being turned away on the doorstep which made the PB collective consciouscness think it might be close.
@iSam offered a massive price on a big Labour win which @pong took advantage of.
I won on turnout and Lib Dem vote share (Both unders) at Ladbrokes.
Lost on the Tories (Backed overs)
Vaguely remember backing Labour at 1-6 or so but not certain on that.
Only just realised Lib Dems are first to have our candidate in place in Copeland. Well done us.
Even better done us on the council by-elections yesterday. Huge swings from both Tories and Labour.
Ironically, Hunt would be quite a good future museum exhibit himself, where people could squint at the label "New Labour: 1997 - 2010" - and try and make some sense of it this weird faddish item...
8/13 Labour
11/4 UKIP
8/1 "Democrats"
11/1 Conservatives
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/stoke-on-trent-central-by-election/winning-party
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.129131205?loginStatus=SUCCESS&ott=Vf5CDXkMbgHHmjhD+8QKiANnMk1RBE+fQ5JiHWg84+AFYkfy5ChBTtAnmU1bfJXN
Is that it?