» show previous quotes FFS read the post and calm down you angry little troll. I’m not saying there is discrimination, indeed down thread I say there isn’t, but there is a point to be answered beyond your usual hyperbolic “Little Englander” bullshit.
I’m throwing it out as a discussion point. “Bollox” is not an answer. Neither is “well, it can’t be discriminatory if YOU’RE doing it too.” In any event “we’re” not - the argument stems from the fact that English Unis charge the same wherever you reside on these islands. That the Scots don’t is probably justified a justified policy but there is an argument both ways that can’t be shut down by your direly repetitive, and frankly increasingly hysterical, insults.
Wah Wah Wah , you really are a big jessie, I am perfectly calm thank you very much , despite the rubbish I read on here about Scotland.. Bollox describes it perfectly. It is 100% fair, there can be NO argument whatsoever that it is in any way discriminatory.
Never seen so much point-missing. The victims of the Scottish policy aren't wannabe English students who have more than enough perfectly good English universities to go to. It's the Scots, who are discriminated against by quotas on free places. So if you're English your 9 grand gets you a place to read physics or history or modern languages, but if you're Scottish you had better be o.k. with basket-weaving and applied theology, or soap opera studies. A quite unbelievable policy of self inflicted apartheid.
You thick half wit, more bollox , I would not wipe your arse with the daily retard. When you have no clue what you are talking about best to keep it to yourself.
» show previous quotes FFS read the post and calm down you angry little troll. I’m not saying there is discrimination, indeed down thread I say there isn’t, but there is a point to be answered beyond your usual hyperbolic “Little Englander” bullshit.
I’m throwing it out as a discussion point. “Bollox” is not an answer. Neither is “well, it can’t be discriminatory if YOU’RE doing it too.” In any event “we’re” not - the argument stems from the fact that English Unis charge the same wherever you reside on these islands. That the Scots don’t is probably justified a justified policy but there is an argument both ways that can’t be shut down by your direly repetitive, and frankly increasingly hysterical, insults.
Wah Wah Wah , you really are a big jessie, I am perfectly calm thank you very much , despite the rubbish I read on here about Scotland.. Bollox describes it perfectly. It is 100% fair, there can be NO argument whatsoever that it is in any way discriminatory.
Never seen so much point-missing. The victims of the Scottish policy aren't wannabe English students who have more than enough perfectly good English universities to go to. It's the Scots, who are discriminated against by quotas on free places. So if you're English your 9 grand gets you a place to read physics or history or modern languages, but if you're Scottish you had better be o.k. with basket-weaving and applied theology, or soap opera studies. A quite unbelievable policy of self inflicted apartheid.
You thick half wit, more bollox , I would not wipe your arse with the daily retard. When you have no clue what you are talking about best to keep it to yourself.
» show previous quotes FFS read the post and calm down you angry little troll. I’m not saying there is discrimination, indeed down thread I say there isn’t, but there is a point to be answered beyond your usual hyperbolic “Little Englander” bullshit.
I’m throwing it out as a discussion point. “Bollox” is not an answer. Neither is “well, it can’t be discriminatory if YOU’RE doing it too.” In any event “we’re” not - the argument stems from the fact that English Unis charge the same wherever you reside on these islands. That the Scots don’t is probably justified a justified policy but there is an argument both ways that can’t be shut down by your direly repetitive, and frankly increasingly hysterical, insults.
Wah Wah Wah , you really are a big jessie, I am perfectly calm thank you very much , despite the rubbish I read on here about Scotland.. Bollox describes it perfectly. It is 100% fair, there can be NO argument whatsoever that it is in any way discriminatory.
Never seen so much point-missing. The victims of the Scottish policy aren't wannabe English students who have more than enough perfectly good English universities to go to. It's the Scots, who are discriminated against by quotas on free places. So if you're English your 9 grand gets you a place to read physics or history or modern languages, but if you're Scottish you had better be o.k. with basket-weaving and applied theology, or soap opera studies. A quite unbelievable policy of self inflicted apartheid.
You thick half wit, more bollox , I would not wipe your arse with the daily retard. When you have no clue what you are talking about best to keep it to yourself.
Good god every toilet paper manufacturer in Scotland and the State Propaganda unit.
Hello, Malc. Actually the BBC piece first on the list wasn't too bad, it did explore some of the pros and cons.
I do wonder how many on PB would consider it discriminatory per se to have a quota on university places - especially as the numbers of non-Scottish, non-EU students recruited have no impact on that quota anyway.
"The “Boogaloo Bois” expect, even hope, that the warmer weather will bring armed confrontations with law enforcement, and will build momentum towards a new civil war in the United States."
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
Behind closed doors, admittedly. How can you get anywhere near social distancing in Rugby?
Abolish the scrum and lineouts, which rarely result in a change of possession anyway. In the long term, this would mean rugby would be played by 15 sprinters a side, which might not be a good thing, but right now short term fixes are needed.
Betting shops not yet open though so our gambling resolution will still be tested.
To be honest, anyone betting on Monday is mad. The French resumption threw up some very odd results.
Monday might be a good day for in-running betting, since the on-course players won't be there with their customary five seconds advantage. (I shan't be risking it though!)
The Tories probably have a rock solid 40% in polling and will get at least that at the next election regardless of whatever happens with Cummings/Covid/economy due to the way voting is split across Brexit and generational lines.
Really difficult too see how Labour gets much more than 38% and ~250 seats like 2017 as a best case scenario.
HYUFD has been more accurate on a lot of things than other posters but it's hard to see how Labour can do well enough to cobble together a rainbow coalition let alone become largest party etc as long as Brexit is such a divisive/salient issue.
I agree Starmer is unlikely to win over Tory voters on anything like the scale Blair did in 1997.
However remember in 1964 Labour scraped in with barely any increase in its voteshare at all and in February 1974 got in despite losing votes as Tory voters went Liberal.
I think that is a possibility if we go to WTO terms Brexit and Tory Remainers go LD, I cannot see Labour getting over 40% with Starmer, agreed
The big potential group for Starmer are GE19 CON Remainers 41% of whom say they approve of him compared with 21% who don't - last Opinium poll
The Tories probably have a rock solid 40% in polling and will get at least that at the next election regardless of whatever happens with Cummings/Covid/economy due to the way voting is split across Brexit and generational lines.
Really difficult too see how Labour gets much more than 38% and ~250 seats like 2017 as a best case scenario.
HYUFD has been more accurate on a lot of things than other posters but it's hard to see how Labour can do well enough to cobble together a rainbow coalition let alone become largest party etc as long as Brexit is such a divisive/salient issue.
I agree Starmer is unlikely to win over Tory voters on anything like the scale Blair did in 1997.
However remember in 1964 Labour scraped in with barely any increase in its voteshare at all and in February 1974 got in despite losing votes as Tory voters went Liberal.
I think that is a possibility if we go to WTO terms Brexit and Tory Remainers go LD, I cannot see Labour getting over 40% with Starmer, agreed
The big potential group for Starmer are GE19 CON Remainers 41% of whom say they approve of him compared with 21% who don't - last Opinium poll
I agree, they are the key swing voters who mainly need to go Labour or LD next time for Starmer to become PM.
Despite falling in that group I will still be Tory regardless however
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me.
One of them committed a driving offence, lied about it and got caught.
How does the Hodge work that out? Mass social unrest is normally the thing politicians fear the most.
He's right. Swing voters in the suburbs of Minneapolis are likely to react to riots on the horizon by moving right in the polling booth.
And what politician is on offer who is going to do a single thing about widespread police murder of black people? There's no electoral fix for this, the only option is to take direct action to strike fear into the cowardly hearts of the police.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
The last time this happened in an election year, the LA Riots of May 1992, similarly triggered by police brutality on a black man, the Republican incumbent failed to be re-elected.
To be boring, evidence for large-scale riots hurting a candidate's chances seems mixed. Humphrey only lost by half a million votes to Nixon in 1968. Lincoln got reelected after the New York draft riots of 1864.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
Because there is no better way to honour the memory of someone who died as a result of state sanctioned violence than unleashing more state sanctioned violence.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
And therefore, it was misconduct.
Times change. When I was at school a teacher was having a relationship with a six-former. They publicly announced their engagement the moment she left.
The last time this happened in an election year, the LA Riots of May 1992, similarly triggered by police brutality on a black man, the Republican incumbent failed to be re-elected.
To be boring, evidence for large-scale riots hurting a candidate's chances seems mixed. Humphrey only lost by half a million votes to Nixon in 1968. Lincoln got reelected after the New York draft riots of 1864.
Yes. Frankly I am not sure it will matter one way or the other. While the suburbs of Minneapolis may go Trump equally this may bring out the black vote for Biden that Clinton failed to secure.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
And therefore, it was misconduct.
Times change. When I was at school a teacher was having a relationship with a six-former. They publicly announced their engagement the moment she left.
Out of curiosity, do you know if that relationship lasted?
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
And therefore, it was misconduct.
Times change. When I was at school a teacher was having a relationship with a six-former. They publicly announced their engagement the moment she left.
Back in the 1970s my mother was teaching in a school where the police arrived to investigate allegations that a 16-year-old girl was in a relationship with her English teacher. They were met by the girl’s father, who after hearing their concerns, said that both he and the girl’s mother were fully aware of the relationship and quite happy about it, so would the police now kindly go away? (Incidentally the two of them later married and remained married until he died a few years ago.)
The last time this happened in an election year, the LA Riots of May 1992, similarly triggered by police brutality on a black man, the Republican incumbent failed to be re-elected.
The Tories probably have a rock solid 40% in polling and will get at least that at the next election regardless of whatever happens with Cummings/Covid/economy due to the way voting is split across Brexit and generational lines.
Really difficult too see how Labour gets much more than 38% and ~250 seats like 2017 as a best case scenario.
HYUFD has been more accurate on a lot of things than other posters but it's hard to see how Labour can do well enough to cobble together a rainbow coalition let alone become largest party etc as long as Brexit is such a divisive/salient issue.
Why would you think the Tories have a rock solid 40%?
Between 1997 and 2015 they didn't even reach 37%, while they got 41.9% in the election before Blair's landslide.
Given how volatile politics has become over the last few years, and how we're in the middle of probably the biggest event of the last fifty years (and with Brexit still not fully played out), I'd be wary about predicting anything as rock solid.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
And therefore, it was misconduct.
Times change. When I was at school a teacher was having a relationship with a six-former. They publicly announced their engagement the moment she left.
Out of curiosity, do you know if that relationship lasted?
No idea, I'm afraid. I only dimly remember them, but was told about their relationship and subsequent marriage by another teacher a few years later. Presumably it had raised a few eyebrows in the staff room even back then.
The last time this happened in an election year, the LA Riots of May 1992, similarly triggered by police brutality on a black man, the Republican incumbent failed to be re-elected.
It's wishful thinking from Hodges.
The man that says the public are wrong about Dom is bound to have his finger on the pulse of voters 3000 miles away.
Behind closed doors, admittedly. How can you get anywhere near social distancing in Rugby?
Abolish the scrum and lineouts, which rarely result in a change of possession anyway. In the long term, this would mean rugby would be played by 15 sprinters a side, which might not be a good thing, but right now short term fixes are needed.
Behind closed doors, admittedly. How can you get anywhere near social distancing in Rugby?
Abolish the scrum and lineouts, which rarely result in a change of possession anyway. In the long term, this would mean rugby would be played by 15 sprinters a side, which might not be a good thing, but right now short term fixes are needed.
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
And therefore, it was misconduct.
Times change. When I was at school a teacher was having a relationship with a six-former. They publicly announced their engagement the moment she left.
Out of curiosity, do you know if that relationship lasted?
No idea, I'm afraid. I only dimly remember them, but was told about their relationship and subsequent marriage by another teacher a few years later. Presumably it had raised a few eyebrows in the staff room even back then.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it proved to be a fallacy.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
There was a huge swing in Mansfield at this election, well above the ordinary. If I remember correctly it was about 15 points.
But that’s in it’s own way rather curious as from all I hear Ben Bradley is not an impressive MP. So I hesitate to say it’s an incumbency bonus.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
I think the poll is going to be more or less evens within the MoE.
I agree.
The 3% who say Cummings should stay may just be because they happened to ring Lord Wakefield, Matt Hancock and Bluest Blue.
If I was asked whether he should go I would say "no", even though I'd have sacked him if I had been the PM.
OK, so any three of the above along with tlg86 and Square Root, plus presumably the ghost of Harry Flashman (if they have phone lines to wherever such spirits go).
Here's something I've been wondering about. Are Ferguson and the woman in Scotland now unemployed?
I would assume so. It depends on whether they held the positions on secondment from another place of work or were employed directly by the government.
If so, do you not think that is incredibly harsh? I know you think Cummings is as thick as mince, but I assume Ferguson and Calderwood are competent and good at what they do. It seems ridiculous that these indiscretions should end their professional careers.
If I had done what any of them had done, I would undoubtedly have been sacked and very probably banned from teaching for two years, for bringing the school and the profession into disrepute. There are clauses in my contract and in Teachers’ Standards that set this out.
So no, I do not think it is harsh. They broke their own rules for their own benefit. Are people so selfish and lacking in judgement fit to hold high public office?
I find that hard to believe. If you can provide an example of a teacher being sacked for similar offences, I'll retract that.
That would be difficult, as it’s a new offence. Some idea of how strict these people can be may be found here:
Page 14, which is the key part, talks about not undermining the rule of law. My contract also says I must not engage in any conduct that would bring the school into any form of disrepute (which this certainly would) or I am subject to summary dismissal.
So you may find it hard to believe, but I’m pretty confident it would happen.
They sound more serious to me. The second one did make me snigger:
2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”.
I used to have fantastic arguments with my RE teacher who was from Ghana. She was a big fan of Robert Mugabe and thought what he was doing in 2002-03 was fantastic. Now, I obviously wasn't a snowflake about it, but I'm guessing an education panel wouldn't have too much of a problem with her giving those opinions.
In 1985, my first year of secondary school, our music teacher told us none of us would have a very good sense of rhythm because none of us were black.
A friend's boys' school went co-ed and let girls in; this was back in the 70s or 80s. He was a bit miffed his favourite maths teacher left. Turns out said teacher had previously been sacked for shagging the sixth form girls in a previous job, and my friend's school did not want to risk the bromide not working. These days teachers would be looking at a couple of years in prison, not just being asked to move on.
A former colleague of mine (not in Staffordshire) was banned from teaching for two years for having an affair with a student, even though it began six years after they had both left the school.
Now that is harsh.
The reasoning was that as the two had been in continuous contact since they left, they had still been in a professional relationship.
And therefore, it was misconduct.
Times change. When I was at school a teacher was having a relationship with a six-former. They publicly announced their engagement the moment she left.
Back in the 1970s my mother was teaching in a school where the police arrived to investigate allegations that a 16-year-old girl was in a relationship with her English teacher. They were met by the girl’s father, who after hearing their concerns, said that both he and the girl’s mother were fully aware of the relationship and quite happy about it, so would the police now kindly go away? (Incidentally the two of them later married and remained married until he died a few years ago.)
THe punchline is:
The girl’s father was the Headmaster.
I have gone into the kitchen, to make a coffee to spill over my laptop.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
There was a huge swing in Mansfield at this election, well above the ordinary. If I remember correctly it was about 15 points.
But that’s in it’s own way rather curious as from all I hear Ben Bradley is not an impressive MP. So I hesitate to say it’s an incumbency bonus.
I think there's a difference between a benefit for the incumbent party and a personal vote for the MP.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
I may be incorrect but I feel sure there was a complete thread on the subject. its quite possible I have misremembered the thread and indeed its conclusion..
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
I wasn't campaigning there until 2010, but 2005 was a pretty awful election for the Tories in Dorset.
Poole - lowest Tory vote in universal suffrage Bournemouth West - lowest Tory vote since creation of the seat Mid Dorset - lowest Tory vote share since creation of the seat
Only election in Dorset where I've ever had a door slammed in my face (Mid Dorset).
Incidentally, anyone interested in why Lib Dems are now doing so badly would do well to look at their votes in places like the West Country, where they used to have strong showings and in some places decent majorities.
They were Eurosceptic and campaigned on local issues, their candidates opened every fete etc. They struck a lot of voters down here as decentralised and independent. Becoming stuck on European issues has really been their undoing down these parts...
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
Any runners around here? I've been running tonnes in lockdown, I'm up to 40K a week
I've been doing quite a lot myself, but I've done my right Achilles a mischief and am resting up at the moment. Reckon it's probably over-exercise - I was doing (at a guess) about 40K a week myself, but I may be getting a bit past it to be putting myself through those kinds of distances, alas.
Going to give myself another week of just walking and then try to build up again from scratch, but even if I don't break down again I doubt I'll be doing more than 5K at a time at a leisurely pace for a little while. It's very frustrating but such is life.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
Any runners around here? I've been running tonnes in lockdown, I'm up to 40K a week
A crap runner. Have switched to biking - 100k a week
I do run a bit and love watching it (at all levels from track to local cross country) . I think its because its probably the most basic and natural sport there is . You do not need any equipment bar trainers and a course can be made anywhere outdoors. i prefer to do and watch "pure " sports . swimming is another
Any runners around here? I've been running tonnes in lockdown, I'm up to 40K a week
A crap runner. Have switched to biking - 100k a week
I do run a bit and love watching it (at all levels from track to local cross country) . I think its because its probably the most basic and natural sport there is . You do not need any equipment bar trainers and a course can be made anywhere outdoors. i prefer to do and watch "pure " sports . swimming is another
With the fuss about performance enhancing swimwear I did hope that the governing body would ban swimsuits altogether.
Any runners around here? I've been running tonnes in lockdown, I'm up to 40K a week
A crap runner. Have switched to biking - 100k a week
I do run a bit and love watching it (at all levels from track to local cross country) . I think its because its probably the most basic and natural sport there is . You do not need any equipment bar trainers and a course can be made anywhere outdoors. i prefer to do and watch "pure " sports . swimming is another
With the fuss about performance enhancing swimwear I did hope that the governing body would ban swimsuits altogether.
yes so do I - The closer sport can be to the natural element of it the better .
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
As a counter, I offer you David Drew in Stroud. Lost in 2010, regained in 2017, lost again In 2019.
That looks to support my view. In 2015 the Tory vote went up and the Labour vote went down. What happened in 2017 and 2019 was driven by big swings to and then against Labour.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it proved to be a fallacy.
I'd have thought in more or less normal times it's an advantage, you can get stuff done for the area (even if it's hardly a lot in the great scheme of things) and mitigate or boost whatever the national picture is doing. However, in recent times we've seen such changes in party loyalty over national issues - Brexit and the Tories shift away from social liberalism, the Lib Dem collapse due to coalition, Scotland, etc., and who knows what with the pandemic and its political aftereffects will be (what, for example happens with Brexit, does it reduce its salience or kick it all off again by reducing the time to produce workable final exit plans), it would, I'd have thought, reduced the value being the tolerable local MP held in the old stick with us/change elections along party lines.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
As a counter, I offer you David Drew in Stroud. Lost in 2010, regained in 2017, lost again In 2019.
David Drew fought Neil Carmichael at five consecutive GEs, 2001-2017 winning 3 losing 2. He also was candidate in 92,97 And last year. Overall won 4 lost 4 over 27 years. Not sure about incumbency bonus for him.
Prediction for tonight's poll: Con 43%, Lab 40%, LD 5%. Labour continuing to squeeze the LDs who are rather invisible at the moment. (Tories only slightly down on the GE when they polled 44.7%).
So the 2017 GE result then.
One of the things I've been pondering the last couple days is first time incumbency bonus. I watched the 2001 GE yesterday and Labour actually gained Dorset South from the Tories:
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
An eminent person on here posted about the incumbency benefit and iirc it oroved to be a fallacy.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that incumbents get a benefit. Arguably it is more noticeable on the other side. Look what happened to Dr Richard Taylor's vote when he tried to win back Wyre Forest in 2015:
As a counter, I offer you David Drew in Stroud. Lost in 2010, regained in 2017, lost again In 2019.
That looks to support my view. In 2015 the Tory vote went up and the Labour vote went down. What happened in 2017 and 2019 was driven by big swings to and then against Labour.
Hmm. The Labour tally went down by exactly 433 votes in 2015. Even in losing in 2019, Drew got more votes than in winning in 1997. Although admittedly, the electorate was bigger.
That said, it’s only one example. I can’t point to others.
Cannock Chase occurs to me as a possible focus for research too, as Aidan Burley did not stand again in 2015 having won it on a higher than average swing in 2010 (before his issues with fancy dress). I confidently expected Janos Toth to win the seat as a result. But I think the swing to the Tories was above average in 2015 as well. And now, of course, it’s a very safe Tory seat.
Any runners around here? I've been running tonnes in lockdown, I'm up to 40K a week
A crap runner. Have switched to biking - 100k a week
I do run a bit and love watching it (at all levels from track to local cross country) . I think its because its probably the most basic and natural sport there is . You do not need any equipment bar trainers and a course can be made anywhere outdoors. i prefer to do and watch "pure " sports . swimming is another
With the fuss about performance enhancing swimwear I did hope that the governing body would ban swimsuits altogether.
IRC there is only one way up and down to the beach. I suppose that many people there would have preferred to keep their social distance when the 2 helicopters landed, but they may not have had the option to do so.
Another thing about running is that to win a race (or sometimes to even complete it) you are always at your edge of fitness and knackered ,from elite to beginner. Football /Rugby even tennis rely on skill most of the time wheras you can guarantee if you run you will be knackered at the end of it . To watch someone goign through that is inspiring to me - Just look up Jo Pavey winning the 10,000m at the Euro champs on Youtube at the age of 40 and I defy anyone not to admire that and perhaps have a tear in the eye. As Steve Cram commented - " The arms are going the teeth are gritted c/mon Jo !"
Comments
Enjoy the bbq.
I do wonder how many on PB would consider it discriminatory per se to have a quota on university places - especially as the numbers of non-Scottish, non-EU students recruited have no impact on that quota anyway.
"The “Boogaloo Bois” expect, even hope, that the warmer weather will bring armed confrontations with law enforcement, and will build momentum towards a new civil war in the United States."
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/
To be honest, anyone betting on Monday is mad. The French resumption threw up some very odd results.
Despite falling in that group I will still be Tory regardless however
The other one, of course...
And therefore, it was misconduct.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1266781201362190341
THe punchline is:
The girl’s father was the Headmaster.
Alan Duncan also called newly elected female New Labour MPs 'unsophisticated'
Between 1997 and 2015 they didn't even reach 37%, while they got 41.9% in the election before Blair's landslide.
Given how volatile politics has become over the last few years, and how we're in the middle of probably the biggest event of the last fifty years (and with Brexit still not fully played out), I'd be wary about predicting anything as rock solid.
Hmm. Dunno about that.
Poll parity?
Apols if posted already, a view from inside our world-beating track and trace programme:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/boris-johnsons-test-and-tracing-system-britain-lockdown
Any runners around here? I've been running tonnes in lockdown, I'm up to 40K a week
I do some walking, more with the lockdown
Are you looking forward to tonight's poll?
So some of the DC damage might have been repaired . Anyway we’ll know soon .
Didn't he make you look like an amateur?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dorset_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2000s
They won it with a majority of 153 votes in 2001. On a uniform swing that should have been an easy gain for the Tories in 2005, but Jim Knight increased his majority to 1,812 in that election.
Obviously incumbency counts for very little when there's a tidal wave such as in 1997 or what the Lib Dems experienced in 2015. But I think it is worth a fair amount.
Well 606 is on now.
I have not missed that particular level of inanity.
But that’s in it’s own way rather curious as from all I hear Ben Bradley is not an impressive MP. So I hesitate to say it’s an incumbency bonus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyre_Forest_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
Loco parentis had its limits.
But I wonder if his age (76) plus the reduction in salience of the one issue he was fighting on were not factors too.
Poole - lowest Tory vote in universal suffrage
Bournemouth West - lowest Tory vote since creation of the seat
Mid Dorset - lowest Tory vote share since creation of the seat
Only election in Dorset where I've ever had a door slammed in my face (Mid Dorset).
Incidentally, anyone interested in why Lib Dems are now doing so badly would do well to look at their votes in places like the West Country, where they used to have strong showings and in some places decent majorities.
They were Eurosceptic and campaigned on local issues, their candidates opened every fete etc. They struck a lot of voters down here as decentralised and independent. Becoming stuck on European issues has really been their undoing down these parts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
Van Tam is The Man!
Going to give myself another week of just walking and then try to build up again from scratch, but even if I don't break down again I doubt I'll be doing more than 5K at a time at a leisurely pace for a little while. It's very frustrating but such is life.
Two helicopters land to take away casualties who had jumped off cliffs.
Photos like this shock my very belief system.
I have NEVER seen it that busy and I have been on bank holiday/summer weekends for decades....
Almost as bonkers as his brother.
https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1266782104186060800?s=20
If its a different part to where the cases were in March then its a delayed first wave rather than any second wave.
He also was candidate in 92,97 And last year. Overall won 4 lost 4 over 27 years.
Not sure about incumbency bonus for him.
Everyone will be an expert on the Posse Comitatus Act.
That said, it’s only one example. I can’t point to others.
Cannock Chase occurs to me as a possible focus for research too, as Aidan Burley did not stand again in 2015 having won it on a higher than average swing in 2010 (before his issues with fancy dress). I confidently expected Janos Toth to win the seat as a result. But I think the swing to the Tories was above average in 2015 as well. And now, of course, it’s a very safe Tory seat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZsnKGV8TE
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1266800598864867329
IRC there is only one way up and down to the beach. I suppose that many people there would have preferred to keep their social distance when the 2 helicopters landed, but they may not have had the option to do so.
https://twitter.com/cyptoon/status/1266802209506942976?s=20
This guy is madder than mad Jock McMad, winner of last year’s Mr Madman competition.
Come on Mr Pence, it’s time for the 25th.
(They scrubbed at T-16'on Wednesday)