politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Clegg thinks there are votes to be had in pursuing a fi

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Clegg thinks there are votes to be had in pursuing a fight with Gove on free schools

The paramount objective of the Lib Dems is to minimise seats losses at the general election and the argument with Gove on free schools helps in a number of ways.

Read the full story here

CarlottaVance

First!

Morris_Dancer

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

CarlottaVance

And since as many of 2010 LibDems say they will vote Labour (36%) as LibDem(38%) - today's YouGov, why should we be surprised they support Labour?

These are not Lib Dems who've defected to Labour - they're Labour supporters who've taken their vote back.

TGOHF

I guess when you are on single figures there is a wide range of voters to woo...

dr_spyn

LDs best for schools, as party of teachers, lecturers...

Scrapheap_as_was

politician takes position to try and win votes - it'll never catch on.

Ask Ed M re his energy doctrines... when needing to win votes and when not so much bothered.

MikeSmithson

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

MikeSmithson

CarlottaVance said:

And since as many of 2010 LibDems say they will vote Labour (36%) as LibDem(38%) - today's YouGov, why should we be surprised they support Labour?

These are not Lib Dems who've defected to Labour - they're Labour supporters who've taken their vote back.

But in the CON-LD marginals the Ashcroft polling found that many would do just that to keep the blues out.

One of the problems of being the least liked party is it encourages tactical voting

saddened

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

CarlottaVance

The Department for Education has just released a statement (below), which can be translated as saying:

Oi Clegg! Free schools: clue’s in the name. They don’t have to listen to what you or any other politician thinks about the curriculum and they’re as free as private schools to take on staff who have not gone through the QTS teacher training programme. So speculate as much as you like, Cleggy: the genie of school freedom is out of the bottle and won’t be put back in under this government.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/gove-and-laws-slap-down-clegg-over-free-schools/

MikeSmithson

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

A huge problem that Dave has got with any move on green taxes is that the environment was the key plank of his modernisation strategy for the party when he became leader in Dec 2005.

That picture of him with the huskies doesn't fit with doing fit with him reversing policy on green taxes. In technical terms it's a bit of a bugger.

CarlottaVance

I also like this dig at Clegg and the Hon Hunt's education:

"The successful independent school sector has always taken the opportunity to employ teaching staff who do not hold QTS."

TwistedFireStopper

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

Didn't Cameron want this to be "The Greenest Government Ever"?

SimonStClare

@CarlottaVance – “Oi Clegg! Free schools: clue’s in the name.”

BBC - The party leadership was overwhelmingly defeated in a series of votes on the development of free schools and the expansion of academies in England.

Although the votes are not binding on the party, they were embarrassing for leader Nick Clegg just hours before he delivered his main conference address in Liverpool.

In it, he acknowledged the issue provoked "strong passions" but said the party was united in its belief in the importance of fairness in education.

So a chance of Short term gain over principle? – So nothing new there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11370147

RichardNabavi

It's one of the deep oddities about the LibDems that, despite the party title, they are so wedded to the educational vested interests who want to deny parents any choice.

I suppose that would be understandable if the educational vested interests had been doing a brilliant job for the last 15 years, but since they are doing a job which varies from the mediocre to the disastrous - taking us to near bottom on the key measures recorded by the OECD - it's hard to see where this blind spot arises.

SouthamObserver

The slight problem with comparing independent schools to state funded schools of whatever kind is that the pupil profiles will be completely different. It is unlikely, for example, that a brilliant computer programmer at one of the country's top private schools will have to deal with a regularly disruptive class, identify and deal with kids that are serially abused at home, work with children whose first language is not English, and so on. If a Free School is, say, in inner city West London and has an intake profile which accurately reflects its local population the chances are that such scenarios will be regular occurrences. That's when you need training to fall back on.

SMukesh

Clegg wants to have his cake and eat it too.

His support has allowed the mushrooming of free schools and continues to do so but now he is trying to paint himself as a sceptic with the only intention of winning votes from employees in the education sector who used to be big supporters of the Lib Dems and who as a rule hate Michael Gove and his project.

Cameron probably supports it as he realises that Lib Dems will have to take votes of Labour for him to have a chance of regaining power.

Whether the teachers fall for it remains to be seen.

Next

CarlottaVance said:

The Department for Education has just released a statement (below), which can be translated as saying:

Oi Clegg! Free schools: clue’s in the name. They don’t have to listen to what you or any other politician thinks about the curriculum and they’re as free as private schools to take on staff who have not gone through the QTS teacher training programme. So speculate as much as you like, Cleggy: the genie of school freedom is out of the bottle and won’t be put back in under this government.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/gove-and-laws-slap-down-clegg-over-free-schools/

Clegg; taking "Liberal" & "Democrat" out of Liberal Democrat.

saddened

MikeSmithson said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

A huge problem that Dave has got with any move on green taxes is that the environment was the key plank of his modernisation strategy for the party when he became leader in Dec 2005.

That picture of him with the huskies doesn't fit with doing fit with him reversing policy on green taxes. In technical terms it's a bit of a bugger.

As much of a bugger as university fees? Cameron can take the hit. He would lose what little of the guardian vote he gained in exchange for getting kippers back on board.

Next

MikeSmithson said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

A huge problem that Dave has got with any move on green taxes is that the environment was the key plank of his modernisation strategy for the party when he became leader in Dec 2005.

That picture of him with the huskies doesn't fit with doing fit with him reversing policy on green taxes. In technical terms it's a bit of a bugger.

True. But Conservatives are (IMHO) far more pragmatic than other parties.

If Cameron (or more probably Osborne) has to say: "well we're all for Green policies, but they have to be affordable" and then removes some, then I think that (a) they will get away with it, and (b) it will go down well.

MarkSenior

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

MikeSmithson

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

A huge problem that Dave has got with any move on green taxes is that the environment was the key plank of his modernisation strategy for the party when he became leader in Dec 2005.

That picture of him with the huskies doesn't fit with doing fit with him reversing policy on green taxes. In technical terms it's a bit of a bugger.

As much of a bugger as university fees? Cameron can take the hit. He would lose what little of the guardian vote he gained in exchange for getting kippers back on board.

When you party is down by up to 11% in the polls and when you need a 10% margn for a majority any hit is a bad hit.

SMukesh

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

A huge problem that Dave has got with any move on green taxes is that the environment was the key plank of his modernisation strategy for the party when he became leader in Dec 2005.

That picture of him with the huskies doesn't fit with doing fit with him reversing policy on green taxes. In technical terms it's a bit of a bugger.

As much of a bugger as university fees? Cameron can take the hit. He would lose what little of the guardian vote he gained in exchange for getting kippers back on board.

There`s the small matter of trust,ie,saying one thing to get into power and doing exactly the opposite when in power.

But it seems the Tories have stopped bothering about such niceties since Crosby came aboard.

saddened

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Reducing the cost of energy to industry should boost output which will boost consumer taxes.

RichardNabavi

MarkSenior said:

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Not quite true, because you can also stop the (very wasteful) spending programmes that are part of the deal - remember all those ridiculous 'free' packages of horrible 'energy-saving' (i.e. fluorescent) bulbs which the electricity companies were doling out, most of which remain unused in drawers?

Charles

MikeSmithson said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

A huge problem that Dave has got with any move on green taxes is that the environment was the key plank of his modernisation strategy for the party when he became leader in Dec 2005.

That picture of him with the huskies doesn't fit with doing fit with him reversing policy on green taxes. In technical terms it's a bit of a bugger.

There's a very interesting article by Matt Ridley (who, unlike most who talk about climate change, actually has half an idea what he is talking about) in this week's Spectator.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

Argument is that global warming has had a positive effect on the economy over the last 100 years. Will continue to be positive annually until 2050, and aggregate effect doesn't turn negative until 2080.

Suggests that mitigation may be a better strategy since today's costs are so high to try and reverse a remote future impact

MarkSenior

RichardNabavi said:

MarkSenior said:

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Not quite true, because you can also stop the (very wasteful) spending programmes that are part of the deal - remember all those ridiculous 'free' packages of horrible 'energy-saving' (i.e. fluorescent) bulbs which the electricity companies were doling out, most of which remain unused in drawers?

And the actual sums on the effect on government income are ????

MarkSenior

saddened said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Reducing the cost of energy to industry should boost output which will boost consumer taxes.

Oh I see , you belong to the Gordon Brown school of economics . Should and will backed up by no concrete figures .

RichardNabavi

MarkSenior said:

And the actual sums on the effect on government income are ????

Well, it depends on the detail - anything from zero to a lot of money. I'm sure there are some modest measures which could be taken to ease the burden on consumers without costing very much in terms of the public finances.

Next

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Reducing the cost of energy to industry should boost output which will boost consumer taxes.

Oh I see , you belong to the Gordon Brown school of economics . Should and will backed up by no concrete figures .

Just because someone cannot produce the details to the nth decimal point, does not mean they are wrong.

In general, reducing costs to business, reduces costs to consumers. To consider the converse, the whole point of "green" taxes (e.g. APD) was to put people off flying.

The more that consumers are happy to buy, the more the economy grows, and the more taxes that are received.

RichardNabavi

@tim - If a policy is cost-ineffective, you can change the policy without changing objectives.

dr_spyn

Green policies screw the poor, for what gain, an almost imperceptible change in CO2 emissions. Add on all the levies, fee, charges, & duties thrown onto motorists, and industry as well.

As for Clegg and the LDs what do they propose to do with the Neets, & functionally illiterate school leavers? If they want to make a difference, offer policies which do something which has an impact on real people, and real lives instead of offering free school dancing courses on pinheads.

Plato

Everything is bad for the Tories...

CarlottaVance

Realistically, the only thing that can trump a "freeze" is a "cut".

It's also good politics for Con because they can say "once we are free of the Lib Dems we will cut Ed Milband's green taxes" (expect Ed's time in the last government to feature prominently in the 2015 GE)

I expect they will then fund greenery through "efficiency savings" - the coalition's answer to Labour's "bankers bonus tax" - rarely quantified but (re-) used frequently!

Gerry_Mander

Next said:

In general, reducing costs to business, reduces costs to consumers. To consider the converse, the whole point of "green" taxes (e.g. APD) was to put people off flying.

Does APD put people off flying?

Read post 70 on this http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5838970/

According to this, APD is higher for flights that originate in the UK, so a traveller finds it cheaper to fly Manchester to Amsterdam on KLM, then BA Amsterdam - Heathrow - Los Angeles. It is £600 cheaper to do this, largely as a result of APD.

If APD wasn't structured like this, the traveller would presumably go Manchester - Heathrow - Los Angeles.

MarkSenior

Next said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Reducing the cost of energy to industry should boost output which will boost consumer taxes.

Oh I see , you belong to the Gordon Brown school of economics . Should and will backed up by no concrete figures .

Just because someone cannot produce the details to the nth decimal point, does not mean they are wrong.

In general, reducing costs to business, reduces costs to consumers. To consider the converse, the whole point of "green" taxes (e.g. APD) was to put people off flying.

The more that consumers are happy to buy, the more the economy grows, and the more taxes that are received.

I will accept any figures to any or no decimal places but not simple wishful thinking backed up by no detailed costs . We had enough of that sort of economics under Brown .

Charles

RichardNabavi said:

It's one of the deep oddities about the LibDems that, despite the party title, they are so wedded to the educational vested interests who want to deny parents any choice.

I suppose that would be understandable if the educational vested interests had been doing a brilliant job for the last 15 years, but since they are doing a job which varies from the mediocre to the disastrous - taking us to near bottom on the key measures recorded by the OECD - it's hard to see where this blind spot arises.

To be fair, I don't think it's the educational vested interests.

The problem is that the LibDems (at least until they entered government) were an after-thought at Westminster. As a result the *local councilors* have much more influence in the Lib Dems than in any other party.

Gove's free school policy guts the LEAs - hence why councilors as a group are so opposed to it (e.g. see the Tories in Bromley, I believe). This impacts the Lib Dems much more than other parties

CarlottaVance

tim said:

MarkSenior said:

Next said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Reducing the cost of energy to industry should boost output which will boost consumer taxes.

Oh I see , you belong to the Gordon Brown school of economics . Should and will backed up by no concrete figures .

Just because someone cannot produce the details to the nth decimal point, does not mean they are wrong.

In general, reducing costs to business, reduces costs to consumers. To consider the converse, the whole point of "green" taxes (e.g. APD) was to put people off flying.

The more that consumers are happy to buy, the more the economy grows, and the more taxes that are received.

I will accept any figures to any or no decimal places but not simple wishful thinking backed up by no detailed costs . We had enough of that sort of economics under Brown .

Ballpark figures

Green taxes £112 per household
VAT increase £450 per household
Bedroom tax £550 per household.


And you wonder why the PB Tories don't want to talk figures?

Is that spare room subsidy figure for all households in the UK, or only the social sector tenants with spare rooms?

philiph

Yeah right Tim.

Numbers are your strong point.

Increase of VAT 2.5%

£450 increase equates in tax of 2.5% on a spend of £18,000

Vat not increased on fuel, power etc, not on rates, food kids clothing.

If you are spending 18K on items at the standard rate of tax, you will also be spending up to 12K on other items, home, food etc, so an after tax NI income of 30k.

To pay an extra 450 vat you are not on the breadline. You may not be well off, but not poor.

Next

tim said:

Interesting piece on Osborne grovelling in front of the Chinese Communist Party

@MarinaKim_: George Osborne in China – wide-eyed, innocent and deeply ignorant | Will Hutton http://t.co/KxgUJuXfxG via @guardian

If Hutton needs to use the word "Bambi" and "Thumper" to illustrate his story, then it isn't much of a story. Maybe he has some valid points? Who knows - he loses them with silliness.

dr_spyn

Is David Miliband a qualified teacher?

CarlottaVance

"Nick Clegg is right to reject free schools
Pushy parents who want to dictate how their child is educated should send them to private school, not set up a free one.

One of the few reasons I am sometimes glad I don't have children is that I shudder to think how I could afford to offer them the private education I enjoyed.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/20/nick-clegg-right-reject-free-schools

philiph

tim said:

philiph said:

Yeah right Tim.

Numbers are your strong point.

Increase of VAT 2.5%

£450 increase equates in tax of 2.5% on a spend of £18,000

Vat not increased on fuel, power etc, not on rates, food kids clothing.

If you are spending 18K on items at the standard rate of tax, you will also be spending up to 12K on other items, home, food etc, so an after tax NI income of 30k.

To pay an extra 450 vat you are not on the breadline. You may not be well off, but not poor.

And a person in a one bedroomed flat won't be paying £112 in green taxes, totally irrelevant hopeless point from you.

Or a bedroom tax.

So your point is worse than pointless, using numbers to scare with no relevance to real life.

foxinsoxuk

It works out at a little over £10 per week, so must relate only to social tenants with spare rooms who are unable to move or to swap.

The simple and obvious point is that about a quarter of government spending was deficit spending. To eliminate that defict there needs to be either increased taxes (either in rates or extension of tax base) or decreased spending. The "cost of living" is really the cost of living within our means.

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

MarkSenior said:

Next said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace .

Just because someone cannot produce the details to the nth decimal point, does not mean they
The more that consumers are happy to buy, the more the economy grows, and the more taxes that are received.

I will accept any figures to any or no decimal places but not simple wishful thinking backed up by no detailed costs . We had enough of that sort of economics under Brown .

Ballpark figures

Green taxes £112 per household
VAT increase £450 per household
Bedroom tax £550 per household.


And you wonder why the PB Tories don't want to talk figures?

Is that spare room subsidy figure for all households in the UK, or only the social sector tenants with spare rooms?

MikeSmithson

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

Gerry_Mander

philiph said:

Or a bedroom tax.

So your point is worse than pointless, using numbers to scare with no relevance to real life.

I wonder what tim thinks about the people who used to pay for the 'spare room subsidy'? IN principle they're better off now they don't have their own 'bedroom tax' to pay.

dr_spyn

Where were the howls of protest from Labour when David Miliband entered the classroom?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jan/11/david-miliband-teaching-haverstock-school

Did the school bother to run CRB checks?

philiph

tim said:

MikeSmithson said:

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

I can see Labour arranging an opposition day debate on this.

So can I.

Comfort zone of supporting the producers.

Stuart_Dickson

DavidL said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

... the Scottish referendum will be a game changer. If they choose to separate that would, I suggest, bolster the SNP and Conservatives and severely harm Labour.

I think that the Scottish Tories are going to do relatively well in 2015 irrespective of whether the referendum result is Yes or No...

The "low-lying fruit" are Argyll & Bute and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine...

I think Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is a better bet than any of them. The current polling of SLDs is so bad it is almost beyond belief. And Michael Moore was too dull even for the Lib Dems.

It will be interesting to see what happens in NE Fife post Ming. Under normal circumstances a comfortable Lib Dem hold but these are not normal times. With a strong candidate Dumfries & Galloway should really be in sight. My guess is post referendum the SNP will do fine, probably share in the Lib Dem carcass, but on a bad night Angus could be close too.

As usual nearly all of these will disappoint (Aberdeenshire has indeed disappointed for years) but what are going to be ex Lib Dem seats are the best chances for everyone in Scotland.

For Angus (or any other SNP-held seat) to come in to play it would require a massive shift in tactical voting from anti-Con to anti-SNP. I see zero sign of that scenario. Do you see any willingness from current SLab or SLD voters to lend their votes to the Tories in the SNP/Con battleground areas?

The problem, as ever, for the SCons is that their vote is just too evenly spread to win seats. They could pile on 10 points to climb to 27% and still fail to claim a single gain. Extra votes piled on in no-hope central belt seats ain't going to win the Tories any seats in the Borders, Aberdeenshire or Argyll.

Fife NE is now a huge opportunity for both the SNP and the Tories. It is perfectly feasible that the Lib Dems could plunge to 3rd spot next time, sans Ming. Gordon sans Malcolm Bruce ought to be fun too, but no announcement yet.

Your mentioning candidate quality (Dumfries&Galloway is not the only relevant example) is of course absolutely critical. THe Scottish Tories have an appalling track record in selecting absolute duds in key seats. Has Ruth Davidson finally turned that particular corner? Ah hae ma doots.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

MikeSmithson said:

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

I can see Labour arranging an opposition day debate on this.

Oh good! The Hon Tristram I've got a PhD from Cambridge you know Hunt arguing that the hoi poloi should not have the same sorts of teachers that he and Clegg enjoyed.....

Surely a poll among the parents of children in Free Schools, Academies and Public Schools would be more germane?

Theuniondivvie

Stuart_Dickson said:

Fife NE is now a huge opportunity for both the SNP and the Tories. It is perfectly feasible that the Lib Dems could plunge to 3rd spot next time, sans Ming. Gordon sans Malcolm Bruce ought to be fun too, but no announcement yet.

I think MB has announced his retirement, so fun is to be had.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

philiph said:

tim said:

MikeSmithson said:

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

I can see Labour arranging an opposition day debate on this.

So can I.

Comfort zone of supporting the producers.

Or representing the concerns of parents against the secretive centralising ideologically obsessive and unpopular Gove, take your pick.

Got a poll among Free school parents to back that up?

Roger

Smart move by Clegg though to be fair the Lib Dems have always taken education very seriously.

Free' schools are the gift that will keep on giving. Not only are they daily being exposed as a home for every whacko and loony who wants their name on the door but they're being run by the most unpopular Minister since Norman Tebbit.

I just hope Tristram Hunt get's his act together quickly enough and together with Clegg manages to articulate why this reactionary education is a serious danger not only to the few thousand students who attend them but the many millions who don't

CarlottaVance

Theuniondivvie said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Fife NE is now a huge opportunity for both the SNP and the Tories. It is perfectly feasible that the Lib Dems could plunge to 3rd spot next time, sans Ming. Gordon sans Malcolm Bruce ought to be fun too, but no announcement yet.

I think MB has announced his retirement, so fun is to be had.

Indeed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23928975

philiph

tim said:

philiph said:

tim said:

MikeSmithson said:

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

I can see Labour arranging an opposition day debate on this.

So can I.

Comfort zone of supporting the producers.

Or representing the concerns of parents against the secretive centralising ideologically obsessive and unpopular Gove, take your pick.

Diversity in teachers (and the background, experience and training of them) is a good aim, and will benefit pupils more than the production of one dimensional teachers produced through standardised training courses.

TGOHF

Who said Maggie never did anything for Scotland.

Here she is in 1990 doing the Scottish Cup Semi final draw at the home of the SPL Champions.

Yes that's Terry Butcher the England captain in the front row.

Enjoy..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVpgBaCEAADaSw.jpg

Jonathan

Looking forward to when Clegg signs a pledge on free schools.

perdix

Next said:

tim said:

Interesting piece on Osborne grovelling in front of the Chinese Communist Party

@MarinaKim_: George Osborne in China – wide-eyed, innocent and deeply ignorant | Will Hutton http://t.co/KxgUJuXfxG via @guardian

If Hutton needs to use the word "Bambi" and "Thumper" to illustrate his story, then it isn't much of a story. Maybe he has some valid points? Who knows - he loses them with silliness.

Haven't read The Guardian article but suspect Hutton upset because he forecast the collapse of the UK economy under the coalition. Same sarcasm as Blanchflower, got it wrong and can now only insult.

Stuart_Dickson

Theuniondivvie said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Fife NE is now a huge opportunity for both the SNP and the Tories. It is perfectly feasible that the Lib Dems could plunge to 3rd spot next time, sans Ming. Gordon sans Malcolm Bruce ought to be fun too, but no announcement yet.

I think MB has announced his retirement, so fun is to be had.

Great! I missed that one last month:

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/3376676

Result in Gordon last time:

LD (Malcolm Bruce) 17,575
SNP 10,827
Lab 9,811
Con 9,111
Grn 752
BNP 699

Stuart_Dickson

Scottish MPs who have announced their retirements so far:

Malcolm Bruce, LD, Gordon
Menzies Cambell, LD, Fife NE
Frank Doran, Lab, Aberdeen N
Eric Joyce, Ind (Lab), Falkirk

Theuniondivvie

TGOHF said:

Who said Maggie never did anything for Scotland.

Here she is in 1990 doing the Scottish Cup Semi final draw at the home of the SPL Champions.

Yes that's Terry Butcher the England captain in the front row.

Enjoy..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHVpgBaCEAADaSw.jpg

Why aren't they all abasing themselves before her?

A little more civilised than her previous Scottish footie encounter at the '88 cup final, thousands of fans waving red cards and chanting 'Maggie, Maggie get tae ****, Maggie get tae ****'. Fair play, I'm sure she relished it.

Sean_F

As antifrank likes to say it's a case of "you grunt, I'll groan.". Lib Dems want to win back left wing supporters. Tories want to win back right wing supporters. Hence, they manufacture these rows.

Sean_F

TwistedFireStopper said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

Didn't Cameron want this to be "The Greenest Government Ever"?

That wasn't a very good idea of his.

Carola

tim said:

Where is Gove?
He's been missing all week while this whole mess has been exposed

He's been in the US - Boston I think - telling everyone he's given 'the power' back to teachers *snort*

Roger

@Carlotta

"The Department for Education has just released a statement (below), which can be translated as saying:"

The article says Gove and Laws are as one. On the news earlier it said Laws was at one with Clegg over this. In fact it said he was '100% behind Clegg on this'. I know Laws has identity problems but not exactly someone you'd want to share a trench with

CarlottaVance

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

philiph said:

tim said:

MikeSmithson said:

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

I can see Labour arranging an opposition day debate on this.

So can I.

Comfort zone of supporting the producers.

Or representing the concerns of parents against the secretive centralising ideologically obsessive and unpopular Gove, take your pick.

Got a poll among Free school parents to back that up?

Tiny subsample statistically irrelevant.
And will they be consulted before Gove closes the Derby Madrassa down, of course not, this is all centralised in his office.

So that's a "no" then.

I loved the comment from one of the parents outside the Derby school - "all the schools around here are rubbish anyway, so this one can hardly be worse....."

GeoffM

MarkSenior said:

saddened said:

MikeSmithson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Did Clegg vote for them?

It's certainly an interesting break with Coalition unity. The Conservatives should respond with a clear indication they'll cut the green levy on fuel bills after the next election.

But they can only do with a majority - something the looks very unlikely.

It shouldn't stop them giving people the option. It's then down to the voter to decide if it's important enough to them to win their vote.

It is only a true option if you are also stating what other taxes will have to go up to replace the government income from the green levy and that is something on which those who want an end to the levy are totally silent .

Simple. Introduce a bedroom tax.

There isn't one at the moment but everyone thinks one exists.The govt have already taken a big political hit so why not introduce one for real and make some actual cash?

Scott_P

@iainmartin1: Look at shocking results produced by unqualified teachers... Nick Clegg taught by unqualified teachers at, er, Westminster school.

DavidL

Stuart_Dickson said:

Scottish MPs who have announced their retirements so far:

Malcolm Bruce, LD, Gordon
Menzies Cambell, LD, Fife NE
Frank Doran, Lab, Aberdeen N
Eric Joyce, Ind (Lab), Falkirk

Stuart, in reply to your earlier comment I agree there is little evidence of Lib Dem supporters, for example, being willing to vote tory to eject an SNP candidate at the moment. It is possible that the referendum campaign (surely there is going to be a campaign instead of this pointless name calling at some point) might change peoples' attitudes and make the Unionist parties realise they have more in common than they think. Wouldn't bet the mortgage on it though.

I agree that NE Fife will be interesting. the SNP won through for the Scottish Parliament of course but I think they might find it more difficult for Westminster. Gordon is another seat that really should fall into the SNP's lap but we shall see.

As for Falkirk who knows what the benighted burghers of that poor town think of the party that foisted Eric Joyce on them? Really ought to be an SNP gain although they have a long way to come.

CarlottaVance

Carola said:

tim said:

Where is Gove?
He's been missing all week while this whole mess has been exposed

He's been in the US - Boston I think - telling everyone he's given 'the power' back to teachers *snort*

"Gove's first stop was a meeting with the state's Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, a political ally of President Barack Obama. Gove's detailed questioning about Massachusetts schools – which Patrick passed on to his officials – left the suspicion that the British minister was better informed on the details of Massachusetts education reform than the state's governor."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/michael-gove-boston-visit-education

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Smithson, a vote on this [green levy to be axed] could suit the Coalition.

Conservatives get to show they're not so green and care about living costs, Lib Dems get to show they'll stand up to the blues. Labour get a terrible choice. They can vote to abolish a Militax they instigated (maximum hypocrisy) or vote for the green levy, damaging or destroying their energy price line.

Carola

Schools use unqualified teachers already. Just for info. There are 3 at my school (to my knowledge, possibly more).

I don't think the private school teachers transform tough state schools experiment has gone well so far - Wellington partnership, for example.

And as I've said to death, the idea that teachers have much of a say in schools - or have ever, certainly judging by my 20 years of teaching - is laughable.

CarlottaVance

Scott_P said:

@iainmartin1: Look at shocking results produced by unqualified teachers... Nick Clegg taught by unqualified teachers at, er, Westminster school.

And then there's Tristram Hunt at University College School......actually, maybe Clegg has a point.....

Charles

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

philiph said:

tim said:

MikeSmithson said:

See chart from Opinium Observer poll re free schools and unqualified teachers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/19/1382218759525/OpiniumObserver-poll-grap-001.jpg

I can see Labour arranging an opposition day debate on this.

So can I.

Comfort zone of supporting the producers.

Or representing the concerns of parents against the secretive centralising ideologically obsessive and unpopular Gove, take your pick.

Got a poll among Free school parents to back that up?

Tiny subsample statistically irrelevant.
And will they be consulted before Gove closes the Derby Madrassa down, of course not, this is all centralised in his office.

So that's a "no" then.

I loved the comment from one of the parents outside the Derby school - "all the schools around here are rubbish anyway, so this one can hardly be worse....."

Parents can say what they like, the decisions are all Goves, setting the school up, appointing the governors, agreeing the secret funding, removing the governors, withdrawing the secret funding and closing the school.
All decided in Goves office.

Let's try a thought experiment.

*If* (and I am not saying you do) you believe that LEA's stifle innovation in schools and contribute to poor educational outcomes, how would you structure the system to provide some form of oversight?

Gove's approach of central authority, which is lightly used, is not unreasonable. I would like to see elected school boards, but I am not sure we are ready for that!

Charles

tim said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Smithson, a vote on this [green levy to be axed] could suit the Coalition.

Conservatives get to show they're not so green and care about living costs, Lib Dems get to show they'll stand up to the blues. Labour get a terrible choice. They can vote to abolish a Militax they instigated (maximum hypocrisy) or vote for the green levy, damaging or destroying their energy price line.

Camern and Osborne support green levies, voted for the Climate Change Act and urged Labour to go further.
Indeed the Tory Manifesto promised more green taxes.

So why would they arrange a vote against?

Because they are a nice to have, not a must have.

Using some money that would otherwise be used for tax cuts to reduce a highly visible cost of living would be politically advantageous.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Smithson, a vote on this [green levy to be axed] could suit the Coalition.

Conservatives get to show they're not so green and care about living costs, Lib Dems get to show they'll stand up to the blues. Labour get a terrible choice. They can vote to abolish a Militax they instigated (maximum hypocrisy) or vote for the green levy, damaging or destroying their energy price line.

So why would they arrange a vote against?

Politician Changes Mind for Electoral Advantage Shocker!

Never seen that before.....

Carola

The bigger issue is teachers teaching subjects that they're not qualified in. Indeed, have little knowledge of or interest in.

Roger

"Look at shocking results produced by unqualified teachers... Nick Clegg taught by unqualified teachers at, er, Westminster school."

At my school we used to have several unqualified teachers. The headmaster used to employ famous sports people to take various sports and to keep them occupied during the day he used to give them a class.

My English teacher was a professional golfer who knew nothing of English but who was a fan of Bob Dylan. So every lesson he'd get the record player out and that was it. All we lacked was dope and something to nibble

(If it wasn't for spell check I'd be clinically illiterate!)

Carola

But the biggest issue is the growth of management in schools, much of which is incompetent.

There are crap teachers, sure - but the ratio/impact of poor managers puts that well into the shade.

GeoffM

CarlottaVance said:

Carola said:

tim said:

Where is Gove?
He's been missing all week while this whole mess has been exposed

He's been in the US - Boston I think - telling everyone he's given 'the power' back to teachers *snort*

"Gove's first stop was a meeting with the state's Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, a political ally of President Barack Obama. Gove's detailed questioning about Massachusetts schools – which Patrick passed on to his officials – left the suspicion that the British minister was better informed on the details of Massachusetts education reform than the state's governor."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/michael-gove-boston-visit-education

Deval Patrick is quite a talented politician. Months ago I put a few groats on him getting the Dem nomination as part of my US book. Very unlikely to happen but the odds nicely reflect that.

CarlottaVance

Carola said:

But the biggest issue is the growth of management in schools, much of which is incompetent.

There are crap teachers, sure - but the ratio/impact of poor managers puts that well into the shade.

What caused the growth in management?

GeoffM

Carola said:

The bigger issue is teachers teaching subjects that they're not qualified in. Indeed, have little knowledge of or interest in.

People working in specific areas of their profession that they aren't very good at is common. IT and the building trade just to give two hideous examples which erupted last week in the office.

In this respect as as well as many others, teachers are neither unique nor a special case.

MikeSmithson

Roger said:

"Look at shocking results produced by unqualified teachers... Nick Clegg taught by unqualified teachers at, er, Westminster school."

At my school we used to have several unqualified teachers. The headmaster used to employ famous sports people to take various sports and to keep them occupied during the day he used to give them a class.

My English teacher was a professional golfer who knew nothing of English but who was a fan of Bob Dylan. So every lesson he'd get the record player out and that was it. All we lacked was dope and something to nibble

(If it wasn't for spell check I'd be clinically illiterate!)

Talking about your school days I still chuckle over your little story about Liz Taylor's son. Perhaps you can repeat it for our Sunday afternoon delight.

CarlottaVance

Alastair Darling tweets : I am glad that @AlexSalmond has backed down and will now debate with me before #indyref. Let's get on and make it happen.

Roger

I remember a few stories about the unfortunate Michael Wilding. Was it the one about the headmaster demanding both his parents turn up to discuss disciplinary problems?

Carola

CarlottaVance said:

Carola said:

But the biggest issue is the growth of management in schools, much of which is incompetent.

There are crap teachers, sure - but the ratio/impact of poor managers puts that well into the shade.

What caused the growth in management?

There's a longer answer, but... more data, more admin, a myriad different targets, appraisal/PRP (we've had 7 meetings about PRP already this term - each one confusing us more than the last. No one knows wtf's going on), anticipating ofsted, pleasing ofted, hoodwinking ofsted, being responsible for stuff that used to be down to parents (eg attendance), crap kneejerk reactions to every change/announcement, pet projects, coaching, teacher training, bandwagons. Jeez. The list goes on.

Also - when threshold came in the idea was to incentivise good teachers to stay in the classroom. Now, to justify/keep it you have to take whole school responsibility for something - with no extra time to do it. Way back you'd have got a responsibility point for it - a bit of extra cash but also, crucially, time. So essentially you become a manager - usually of something relating to a whole school policy that you think is a pile of guff.

Carola

GeoffM said:

Carola said:

The bigger issue is teachers teaching subjects that they're not qualified in. Indeed, have little knowledge of or interest in.

People working in specific areas of their profession that they aren't very good at is common. IT and the building trade just to give two hideous examples which erupted last week in the office.

In this respect as as well as many others, teachers are neither unique nor a special case.

What, they were teaching others how to be crap at building and IT?

CarlottaVance

@Carola - thanks! Did this start/accelerate under New Labour?

I take it things have got worse under the coalition?

Carola

CarlottaVance said:

@Carola - thanks! Did this start/accelerate under New Labour?

I take it things have got worse under the coalition?

It's just got worse and worse whoever's been in to be honest. It's a fecking joke.

FrankBooth

perdix said:

Next said:

tim said:

Interesting piece on Osborne grovelling in front of the Chinese Communist Party

@MarinaKim_: George Osborne in China – wide-eyed, innocent and deeply ignorant | Will Hutton http://t.co/KxgUJuXfxG via @guardian

If Hutton needs to use the word "Bambi" and "Thumper" to illustrate his story, then it isn't much of a story. Maybe he has some valid points? Who knows - he loses them with silliness.

Haven't read The Guardian article but suspect Hutton upset because he forecast the collapse of the UK economy under the coalition. Same sarcasm as Blanchflower, got it wrong and can now only insult.

You should read the article it's a very good one written by a journalist who knows China well.

Oh and he and Blanchflower and all the other Keynesians haven't been proved wrong on the economy. The economy is only now picking up since the deficit reduction programme has stalled and the government decided to intervene in the housing market, which pretty much proves their point.

foxinsoxuk

Sounds like the Health Service over the last couple of decades...

Also Police, Armed forces, Diplomatic corps, civil service etc etc.

Carola said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carola said:

But the biggest issue is the growth of management in schools, much of which is incompetent.

There are crap teachers, sure - but the ratio/impact of poor managers puts that well into the shade.

What caused the growth in management?

There's a longer answer, but... more data, more admin, a myriad different targets, appraisal/PRP (we've had 7 meetings about PRP already this term - each one confusing us more than the last. No one knows wtf's going on), anticipating ofsted, pleasing ofted, hoodwinking ofsted, being responsible for stuff that used to be down to parents (eg attendance), crap kneejerk reactions to every change/announcement, pet projects, coaching, teacher training, bandwagons. Jeez. The list goes on.

Also - when threshold came in the idea was to incentivise good teachers to stay in the classroom. Now, to justify/keep it you have to take whole school responsibility for something - with no extra time to do it. Way back you'd have got a responsibility point for it - a bit of extra cash but also, crucially, time. So essentially you become a manager - usually of something relating to a whole school policy that you think is a pile of guff.

HYUFD

A Bill Bailey quip from his show last week: "There won't be anything left of the Lib Dems at the next election but a bunch of flowers sellotaped to a railing!"

FrankBooth

HYUFD said:

A Bill Bailey quip from his show last week: "There won't be anything left of the Lib Dems at the next election but a bunch of flowers sellotaped to a railing!"

Sadly that's unlikely to be true. If only we had PR then the Lib Dems could be exterminated.

HYUFD

Despite the tragedy of the Forest Fires last week in NSW, some good news for the Australian Labor Party in that it won its first by-election in the state since the general election defeat with a big swing
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/10/19/miranda-by-election-live/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Stuart_Dickson

HYUFD said:

A Bill Bailey quip from his show last week: "There won't be anything left of the Lib Dems at the next election but a bunch of flowers sellotaped to a railing!"

Would be lovely if it happened, but I suspect that they'll hang on to 30 to 40 MPs, which Mark Senior will duly declare as the greatest victory in the entire history of western civilisation.

HYUFD

Pictures of the huge re-enactment of the Battle of Leipzig this weekend, on its 200th anniversary! 2 years until Waterloo!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24601870

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

Pictures of the huge re-enactment of the Battle of Leipzig this weekend, on its 200th anniversary! 2 years until Waterloo!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24601870

There's a 'Scottish Northern Highlander' in there! Obviously if you went to the trouble of getting a uniform of the period, you're allowed to play, regardless of historical accuracy.

HYUFD

Stuart/FrankBooth - In 1979 the Liberals got 13% and won 11 seats, a poll in today's Sunday Times for yougov had them on 10%. There may a few survivors, but on present trends the apocalypse is looming!!

HYUFD

TUD True, although it looks like he did not actually participate in the battle itself, and of course Britain was in the Allied Coalition if not actually contributing troops to this particular battle

MrJones

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Pictures of the huge re-enactment of the Battle of Leipzig this weekend, on its 200th anniversary! 2 years until Waterloo!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24601870

There's a 'Scottish Northern Highlander' in there! Obviously if you went to the trouble of getting a uniform of the period, you're allowed to play, regardless of historical accuracy.

You did get prisoners agreeing to fight for their captors against other nations than their own just to get out of the pow camp. I think i read about a load of Brit prisoners fighting for Napoleon in Russia for example.

(That's irrelevant to your point as they wouldn't have had their old uniforms any more but interesting anyway.)