Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The new word that has entered the political vocabulary – UNCOALITIONABLE – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,181
edited June 2021 in General
imageThe new word that has entered the political vocabulary – UNCOALITIONABLE – politicalbetting.com

What has been quite remarkable is how in the space of a week the whole way we are looking at the next general election has been transformed. Last Tuesday morning nobody really doubted that the Tories would retain Evesham with a clear majority and few were ready to voice doubts about BoJo’s ability to lead his party to another majority at the next election.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • First?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,183
    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...
  • GnuddersGnudders Posts: 13
    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,931

    Mike, you are suggesting that the Lib Dems won’t support the Tories. That would require them to have principles. Where’s the evidence they have any?

    That's unfair. They have lots of principles. And if you don't like them....etc
  • Just had a chat with one of my mates on the allotment. His grandson has had to isolate with all his class because one of his classmates parents had been boasting on Facebook about being anti vaxxers and then on Saturday, went back on to say both parents and kids had Covid. Apparently the parents are ready to lynch them.
  • tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Nope. They will do whatever it takes to get their feet under the ministerial desks.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,678
    Everything in this article is true, but not new. C&A has not changed anything. SKS is second favourite to be next PM and has been for ages.

    The interesting thing is centre right and centre left strategy. Only two outcomes are possible - Tory or some sort of alliance government. An alliance which requires the SNP has its problems for Labour and opportunities for the Tories to exploit.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,183

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    So, what makes you so sure that Ed Davey wouldn't prop up the Tories? Until politicians are faced with such choices you can never be certain which way they'd jump.

    Do you think Ed Davey would actually rule out a deal with the Tories? Might not go down well with some voters in places like Guildford.
  • GnuddersGnudders Posts: 13
    edited June 2021
    algarkirk said:

    Everything in this article is true, but not new. C&A has not changed anything. SKS is second favourite to be next PM and has been for ages.

    The interesting thing is centre right and centre left strategy. Only two outcomes are possible - Tory or some sort of alliance government. An alliance which requires the SNP has its problems for Labour and opportunities for the Tories to exploit.

    If "neither of those two outcomes" was available at 1000/1?
    Cromwell's Rule.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,548

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    Well from the LD leadership election the candidates ruled out propping up,Johnson but not the Tories as a whole.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,548
    Evesham ?
  • GnuddersGnudders Posts: 13
    edited June 2021
    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    And that's a lesson NOT to drive a coalition again if the right circumstances arise? 🤔
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    I'm not sure the issues of 2017 and 2019 elections will transfer to 2023/4 without considerable remodeling, reshaping and refreshing with new burning issues that will twist the actions of voters into new tangled and confused positions.
    The region of clarity may be Scotland
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,678
    Gnudders said:

    algarkirk said:

    Everything in this article is true, but not new. C&A has not changed anything. SKS is second favourite to be next PM and has been for ages.

    The interesting thing is centre right and centre left strategy. Only two outcomes are possible - Tory or some sort of alliance government. An alliance which requires the SNP has its problems for Labour and opportunities for the Tories to exploit.

    If "neither of those two outcomes" was available at 1000/1?
    Cromwell's Rule.
    Yes. Barring a Black Swan only two outcomes are possible..... And yes, 1000/1 offer would be worth £1 on it.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2021
    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,819
    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,696

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646
    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    The Education Select Committee are a cross-party group of MPs, and their point is that social class and parental involvement are a larger factor than race in determining educational outcomes.

    The people playing the race card in Batley and Spen are the George Galloway supporters, with their homophobic and anti-Semitic attacks on the Labour candidate and party leader.

    The Tories are talking about levelling up the area, by investing in infrastructure and encouraging private job creation.

    Me, well I emigrated already ;)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,656
    The utter political incompetence of the LibDems since 2010 was matched by the utter political incompetence of the DUP since 2017.

    What was the worse decision - the LibDems betrayal of students or the DUP's betrayal of May ?
  • OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    For Labour to have a sniff at it they will need to build a pre-election coalition with all the costs that will involve. Stepping aside in seats (which I believe is against the party rules at present), commitment to some form PR, Scottish and possibly Welsh referenda, a green deal commitment.
    Whether this is doable is probably another matter.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited June 2021

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    Hmm... If the Tories are just short and there is an opportunity for power and influence as well as implementation of a few favourite things I wonder what politician will not want to compromise. In the national interest of course.

    To be fair the LibDems will struggle to have two stints as the “Tories’ little helpers” in a row.

    It just means the price will be higher
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    The LDs have made progress, but perhaps some are getting a tad carried away.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,845
    Mr. Gnudders, do you actually disagree with the findings of the report on white working class kids?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    The utter political incompetence of the LibDems since 2010 was matched by the utter political incompetence of the DUP since 2017.

    What was the worse decision - the LibDems betrayal of students or the DUP's betrayal of May ?

    Both have seen something like a 50% collapse in support; so perhaps both are equally incompetent?

    I would say the DUP outshines for sheer stupidity though.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,696
    Current mid-term score-card:

    - LibDems doing really well in places they did really well in 2019

    - Tories doing really well in places they did really well in 2019

    - Labour screwed
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    Ed Davey might like 5 years as Deputy PM, a forced move to the Sunshine State and a salary in the millions.

    Actually, I might quite like that option too!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The utter political incompetence of the LibDems since 2010 was matched by the utter political incompetence of the DUP since 2017.

    What was the worse decision - the LibDems betrayal of students or the DUP's betrayal of May ?

    They're not even in the same league as each other.

    The Lib Dems betrayed their own voters they'd spent years courting and lost 86% of their seats at the next election.

    The DUP "betrayed" someone from another party they made an agreement with after the election and lost 20% of their seats at the next election.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    Current mid-term score-card:

    - LibDems doing really well in places they did really well in 2019

    - Tories doing really well in places they did really well in 2019

    - Labour screwed

    Don't disagree with your third, but I think C&A might require you to revisit the first two?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,481
    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    With the guarantee (as opposed to vague promises) of bringing in PR, it's not impossible. But as the likelihood of that being granted is slim to none, then I would be pretty sure about that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    Ed Davey might like 5 years as Deputy PM, a forced move to the Sunshine State and a salary in the millions.

    Actually, I might quite like that option too!
    Being Deputy PM for five years, and upsetting half your supporters by reneging on a key commitment, is a very straighforward job compared to keeping governments around the world happy with one of the scummiest companies on Earth, reporting to Beelzebub himself.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    The SNP has infinite capacity for mischief making in such a scenario, since it would hold the balance of power between the Tories and the Lib/Lab bloc. And there's zero obligation upon them to put the Tories back into bat: they could simply vote (or abstain) in such a fashion as to render the country ungovernable. And they've nothing to fear from another election under such circumstances.

    Most likely, in the event of a Hung Parliament, either Labour gives them what they want (and gambles everything on being able to win Indyref2) or it is hamstrung and has to go back to the country under disadvantageous circumstances.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755
    edited June 2021
    Sounds like what Mike is really saying, is either the Tories win a majority or we’ll have two elections in a year. Because it’s either unstable minority government by the Tories. Or unstable minority government by Labour (maybe with Lib Dems). Or unstable majority coalition government with the SNP with a quick referendum.

    Clegg went about the Coalition all wrong. He should have asked to be Education Secretary rather than Deputy PM and demanded complete autonomy and an upfront budgetary agreement for the department. And picked one other. Work and Pensions probably.

    Davey seems a smart lad. Surely he’ll learn this lesson, rather than prop up an unpopular minority Labour administration, possibly with the Nationalists!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646
    edited June 2021
    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    Well the black car, in a field of mostly white cars, has been F1 champion for six of the past seven years...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,845
    Mr. Charles, that's some alarming nonsense.

    I suppose an upside of not having kids is not having to undo bullshit like that.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    Yes, I see Labour is already coming out and saying that it is "divisive" and adding fuel to the culture war by mentioning white privilege. A bit rich coming from the side that pours petrol liberally onto the flames when it is anything to do with non-white people
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Eric getting carried away again:

    This is just an appalling abuse of data. Taking PHE evidence that shows the extraordinary success of vaccines, and spreading fear and alarm by misinterpreting those same numbers. Purely on a stats basis, you should probably ignore everything from this source.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1407244661513666561?s=20
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,239

    Mr. Gnudders, do you actually disagree with the findings of the report on white working class kids?

    Has he even read it
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464
    Jonathan said:

    The LDs have made progress, but perhaps some are getting a tad carried away.

    totally agree, we saw this at Richmond in 2016, 6 months later a kicking in the GE polls. Brecon & Radnor - 6 months later, another kicking in the GE.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
    I disagree with that and I think a lot has to do with the attitude of teachers. As @RochdalePioneers so helpfully demonstrated a few days back, there is a view on the left, especially amongst let's say the more educated parts including the teaching profession, that WWC kids are essentially thick, racist and therefore not worth saving, and the problems they have in their lives are the faults of them and their ghastly parents. Therefore, why bother trying to do anything with them. That then leads to teachers who view their place as going through the motions rather than trying to inspire or change.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,435

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    It's an interesting one. Where XMPs go - Sarah Teather, for example, is running the UK branch of a Refugee Organisation.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,678

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    For Labour to have a sniff at it they will need to build a pre-election coalition with all the costs that will involve. Stepping aside in seats (which I believe is against the party rules at present), commitment to some form PR, Scottish and possibly Welsh referenda, a green deal commitment.
    Whether this is doable is probably another matter.
    This is a real problem, and the more Labour have to muddy the purity of Labour the harder it gets. Dealing with other parties is always more difficult than it should be as common sense is not part of party politics. And engaging with nationalists defeated Gladstone let alone the current lot.

    It seems to me FWIW that the Tories remain odds on for a majority as long as they can do exactly this: seem to be on the side of the middling sort - their current spectrum of support from South Holland to Hartlepool AND ensure that the LDs are seen as centre left not centre right so that the centre right vote is not split, while of course continuing to marginalise the loony right and binding Labour to the loony left.

    The post-furlough period is going to be an interesting challenge.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,819
    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    That's so stupid. There is so much actual history relating to these issues that could be taught, why come up with some kind of lame allegory instead? Thankfully I have never come across anything this dumb at our kids' schools, which have a very varied intake across nationalities, races and social classes and I think teach these kind of issues very well. It sounds like your daughter's school is kind of uncomfortable about these issues and has tried to address them in a way that won't offend anyone, and ended up with a mess.
  • algarkirk said:

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    For Labour to have a sniff at it they will need to build a pre-election coalition with all the costs that will involve. Stepping aside in seats (which I believe is against the party rules at present), commitment to some form PR, Scottish and possibly Welsh referenda, a green deal commitment.
    Whether this is doable is probably another matter.
    This is a real problem, and the more Labour have to muddy the purity of Labour the harder it gets. Dealing with other parties is always more difficult than it should be as common sense is not part of party politics. And engaging with nationalists defeated Gladstone let alone the current lot.

    It seems to me FWIW that the Tories remain odds on for a majority as long as they can do exactly this: seem to be on the side of the middling sort - their current spectrum of support from South Holland to Hartlepool AND ensure that the LDs are seen as centre left not centre right so that the centre right vote is not split, while of course continuing to marginalise the loony right and binding Labour to the loony left.

    The post-furlough period is going to be an interesting challenge.

    It seems their best plan is to paint the LDs as more extreme left than labour and rely on labours internal factions to beat themselves.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,481
    edited June 2021

    Mike, you are suggesting that the Lib Dems won’t support the Tories. That would require them to have principles. Where’s the evidence they have any?

    An interesting line of attack for the current incarnation of the Tory party to adopt.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,656
    Did Sturgeon extend any travel restrictions to India in April ?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Incidentally on these numbers Sinn Fein and Speaker abstain so 640 MPs, 321 needed for a majority.

    Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Green = 321 so a working majority of 2, with the SNP demanding an independence referendum and abstaining on England only bills (so the Tories would have an England only majority).

    Con + LD = 328 so a working majority of 16

    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,877
    A government can only govern by consent and, in my judgment, that consent is about to be withdrawn. People see a vaccination programme which has been among the most successful in the world, and they see a daily death rate mostly in single figures. If the current restrictions are not lifted on July 5 or 19, Boris Johnson will live to regret it.

    iain dale
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,696

    Current mid-term score-card:

    - LibDems doing really well in places they did really well in 2019

    - Tories doing really well in places they did really well in 2019

    - Labour screwed

    Don't disagree with your third, but I think C&A might require you to revisit the first two?
    Nah. C&A was a pinnacle of NIMBYism in one of the handful of seats really impacted by HS2. Come the General, the new MP will have had zero impact on stopping HS2 for her constituents. It won't be a great report card...

    The LibDems will have had a great leap forward when they are taken seriously in the Midlands. Same for Labour when they start being competitive again in places like Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Con Maj EVS the best political bet in town
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,435
    Sandpit said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    The Education Select Committee are a cross-party group of MPs, and their point is that social class and parental involvement are a larger factor than race in determining educational outcomes.

    The people playing the race card in Batley and Spen are the George Galloway supporters, with their homophobic and anti-Semitic attacks on the Labour candidate and party leader.

    The Tories are talking about levelling up the area, by investing in infrastructure and encouraging private job creation.

    Me, well I emigrated already ;)
    Hmmm. A unanimous report, and the committee is 7 Tory, 4 Labour, who include 3 members of the Socialist Campaign Group and Fleur Anderson.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,678

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Labour will struggle to win those 50 or so seats, and the dilemma for the centre left is that if the LDs do better generally the Tories retain lots of seats by splitting the LD/Lab vote unless there is a deal.

    I think that though the LDs are a centre left party now, they won't be willing to say so by doing deals with Labour. And they have a preference for opposition since the debacle of 2015.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,931
    Highest rate in Scotland in Dundee. Second highest rate in Ayrshire, haunt of @malcolmg . Is there a PB factor here?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    algarkirk said:

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Labour will struggle to win those 50 or so seats, and the dilemma for the centre left is that if the LDs do better generally the Tories retain lots of seats by splitting the LD/Lab vote unless there is a deal.

    I think that though the LDs are a centre left party now, they won't be willing to say so by doing deals with Labour. And they have a preference for opposition since the debacle of 2015.

    On those numbers Labour needs a positive vote from everyone else to overtake the Tories essentially, including granting an independence referendum and the SNP abstaining on English matters means they won't even have a majority for English laws.

    On the other hand the Tories just need LD and DUP to abstain on confidence matters, they don't need an actual majority or coalition.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,536
    edited June 2021

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Incidentally on these numbers Sinn Fein and Speaker abstain so 640 MPs, 321 needed for a majority.

    Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Green = 321 so a working majority of 2, with the SNP demanding an independence referendum and abstaining on England only bills (so the Tories would have an England only majority).

    Con + LD = 328 so a working majority of 16

    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.
    I don't know, as I'm not in touch with many LD's nowadays, other than on here, but I would have thought that there was an element of 'once bitten' about a coalition with the Tories in LD-land.

    Edit. And the same would apply to the DUP. And they don't bear grudges, or have long memories. Oh no!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,696

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    Of course the SNP will vote them down. An ungovernable rUK will be their best shot at getting to break away. Everyone else delighted to see the back of the Scots - if they get a functioning Westminster back...
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited June 2021
    moonshine said:

    Sounds like what Mike is really saying, is either the Tories win a majority or we’ll have two elections in a year. Because it’s either unstable minority government by the Tories. Or unstable minority government by Labour (maybe with Lib Dems). Or unstable majority coalition government with the SNP with a quick referendum.

    Clegg went about the Coalition all wrong. He should have asked to be Education Secretary rather than Deputy PM and demanded complete autonomy and an upfront budgetary agreement for the department. And picked one other. Work and Pensions probably.

    Davey seems a smart lad. Surely he’ll learn this lesson, rather than prop up an unpopular minority Labour administration, possibly with the Nationalists!

    But, except in yellow dreams, the LibDems are not going to have many seats after the next election.

    Clegg presided over a biblical disaster. Under his leadership the Lib Dems went from a party of 57 MPs to 8. It takes time to recover from that -- time for the public to forget the lies and betrayal, time to build up the councillors to make an assault on Parliamentary seats. And the students are never going to forget.

    There will be 3 big players after the next election: the Tories, Labour and the SNP. And if the Tories don't get a majority, I can't see anything very stable.

    I agree that Lab + LibDem could be reasonably stable, but the LibDems will most likely have < 15 seats.

    Elderly gentlemen of a centre left persuasion have always wanted to get Labour and the LibDems in bed together, but there is a reason why sex never happens.

    It is a very narrow bed.

    And it is good thing, too.

    It would be injury-inducing for the LibDems to be trying out an adventurous new position or playing with Labour's high-tech sex toys. At their age.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,901

    A government can only govern by consent and, in my judgment, that consent is about to be withdrawn. People see a vaccination programme which has been among the most successful in the world, and they see a daily death rate mostly in single figures. If the current restrictions are not lifted on July 5 or 19, Boris Johnson will live to regret it.

    iain dale

    Well yes.
    On the previous thread, Mike succinctly set out the case that it is going to disappoint millions if we can't travel even though we've been vaccinated. I would add that it will disappoint even more that we are still having to go through the ludicrous rigmarole of having to self-isolate if we have been in contact with someone who has tested positive even if we have been jabbed. Millions and millions of 10 day blocks of life being lost. Millions of plans unfulfilled. Millions and millions of pounds of economic activity not happening.
    And masks, too. Why are the jabbed still having to wear masks?

    The Euros are shining a light on the gulf between the UK, where we have been successful at vaccinating, and Europe, where they have not. And yet we are the ones still masked, restricted, locked away. It doesn't feel, any more, like we're winning.

    The number of posters on here who would previously be taking the position of a Conservative government who are angrily attacking them is notable.

    And yet, the Tories continue to dominate in the polls. Possibly because the main opposition parties do nothing but enthusiastically echo the government line on all this.

    (And yes, there are anti-lockdown parties, but who beyond a highly interested fringe like us has even heard of Reform?)

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,931
    DavidL said:

    Highest rate in Scotland in Dundee. Second highest rate in Ayrshire, haunt of @malcolmg . Is there a PB factor here?
    I wonder if there is a statistical correlation between the number of posts on PB and the number of infections? I think Warwick should get right on it.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,819
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    The Education Select Committee are a cross-party group of MPs, and their point is that social class and parental involvement are a larger factor than race in determining educational outcomes.

    The people playing the race card in Batley and Spen are the George Galloway supporters, with their homophobic and anti-Semitic attacks on the Labour candidate and party leader.

    The Tories are talking about levelling up the area, by investing in infrastructure and encouraging private job creation.

    Me, well I emigrated already ;)
    Hmmm. A unanimous report, and the committee is 7 Tory, 4 Labour, who include 3 members of the Socialist Campaign Group and Fleur Anderson.
    One of the Labour MPs on the committee explicitly rejected the culture war bit though. Kim Johnson said that the references to White Privilege were trying to "stoke the culture war" and said the report avoided talking about the "lack of investment" in education and local communities.
    It's just classic Tory divide and rule.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,281
    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    It's an interesting one. Where XMPs go - Sarah Teather, for example, is running the UK branch of a Refugee Organisation.
    Maybe she can help @Gnudders find somewhere to emigrate to?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Incidentally on these numbers Sinn Fein and Speaker abstain so 640 MPs, 321 needed for a majority.

    Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Green = 321 so a working majority of 2, with the SNP demanding an independence referendum and abstaining on England only bills (so the Tories would have an England only majority).

    Con + LD = 328 so a working majority of 16

    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.
    I don't know, as I'm not in touch with many LD's nowadays, other than on here, but I would have thought that there was an element of 'once bitten' about a coalition with the Tories in LD-land.

    Edit. And the same would apply to the DUP. And they don't bear grudges, or have long memories. Oh no!
    That once bitten will apply to a potential coalition with Labour too. Especially if the coalition requires the SNP so is unstable and unlikely to last long, plus LD seats are in the south and vulnerable to challenge by the Tories if the LDs get into bed with Labour.

    LDs being able to abstain from choosing the government, but then instead voting issue by issue, which means in that scenario of numbers a Tory government with LDs on the opposition benches still could be in their best interests.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,481

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
    Exactly this.
    The line that "schools are failing' this demographic is effectively government absolving itself from responsibility for addressing the root causes of underperformance.
    Primary schools with class sizes around 28, and with the levels of funding they have, are not going to be able to give children what their parents don't or can't. Really bright kids will probably do OK whatever their background, but the life chances of many are significantly determined in the pre-school years.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,435
    edited June 2021
    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    Yes, I see Labour is already coming out and saying that it is "divisive" and adding fuel to the culture war by mentioning white privilege. A bit rich coming from the side that pours petrol liberally onto the flames when it is anything to do with non-white people
    The Report identifies the term as potentially problematic, especially around white kids not having the same support infrastructure as other 'identity' groups. Challenging under the Equalities Act is quite robust.

    29. Schools should consider whether the promotion of politically controversial
    terminology, including White Privilege, is consistent with their duties under the
    Equality Act 2010. The Department should take steps to ensure that young people are
    not inadvertently being inducted into political movements when what is required is
    balanced, age-appropriate discussion and a curriculum that equips young people to
    thrive in diverse and multi-cultural communities throughout their lives and work. The
    Department should issue clear guidance for schools and other Department-affiliated
    organisations receiving grants from the Department on how to deliver teaching on these
    complex issues in a balanced, impartial and age-appropriate way


    https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6364/documents/69838/default/
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,543
    FWIW I've had an on balance positive report from a Labour source who I trust in Batley and Spen. I still think the Tories are favourites, but I wouldn't back them at less than 1.8.

    If Labour does hold it, I think it will change the media narrative somewhat.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,696

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Incidentally on these numbers Sinn Fein and Speaker abstain so 640 MPs, 321 needed for a majority.

    Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Green = 321 so a working majority of 2, with the SNP demanding an independence referendum and abstaining on England only bills (so the Tories would have an England only majority).

    Con + LD = 328 so a working majority of 16

    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.
    I don't know, as I'm not in touch with many LD's nowadays, other than on here, but I would have thought that there was an element of 'once bitten' about a coalition with the Tories in LD-land.

    Edit. And the same would apply to the DUP. And they don't bear grudges, or have long memories. Oh no!
    On the contrary, the DUP delivering many barrels of pork to NI is EXACTLY what they need to show they are a player - and deflect from their current woes.

    How many MPs they can actually deliver at the next GE is the intriguing bit, given the state they are in.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677



    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.

    Johnson's head would be part of the deal as Brexit payback but the tories wouldn't have a problem with that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,347
    MrEd said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
    I disagree with that and I think a lot has to do with the attitude of teachers. As @RochdalePioneers so helpfully demonstrated a few days back, there is a view on the left, especially amongst let's say the more educated parts including the teaching profession, that WWC kids are essentially thick, racist and therefore not worth saving, and the problems they have in their lives are the faults of them and their ghastly parents. Therefore, why bother trying to do anything with them. That then leads to teachers who view their place as going through the motions rather than trying to inspire or change.
    That is the Right's view of the view of the Left. The real one is that our education system is elitist and old fashioned and underfunded and warped by the propensity of the affluent to opt out and purchase advantage via the private sector.

    We demand better. We want a more egalitarian approach that will deliver a similar (and high) quality education to everyone regardless of parental bank balance. Increase participation in state schools, proper funding, a real prioritizing of disadvantaged areas.

    The biggest beneficiary of such an approach? Yep - white working class children.

    But oh no, too difficult. Too disruptive of the status quo that so many are secretly comfortable with. So let's produce this report instead. Let's avoid the hard choices about class and money and push some culture war buttons. Let's waffle on about the term "white privilege". Has sweet FA to do with the problem but let's pretend that it does. Let's stoke some grievance!

    I see you, Tories, and Middle England. I see you.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,056
    edited June 2021

    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    That's so stupid. There is so much actual history relating to these issues that could be taught, why come up with some kind of lame allegory instead? Thankfully I have never come across anything this dumb at our kids' schools, which have a very varied intake across nationalities, races and social classes and I think teach these kind of issues very well. It sounds like your daughter's school is kind of uncomfortable about these issues and has tried to address them in a way that won't offend anyone, and ended up with a mess.
    Hold on. That allegory of the black car not being allowed to race against white ones sounds American. It makes no sense here. Did @charles's daughter go to school in America or has some idiot imported American teaching materials (or South African, I suppose) and forgotten that Britain never went down the route of banning black cars?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
    I disagree with that and I think a lot has to do with the attitude of teachers. As @RochdalePioneers so helpfully demonstrated a few days back, there is a view on the left, especially amongst let's say the more educated parts including the teaching profession, that WWC kids are essentially thick, racist and therefore not worth saving, and the problems they have in their lives are the faults of them and their ghastly parents. Therefore, why bother trying to do anything with them. That then leads to teachers who view their place as going through the motions rather than trying to inspire or change.
    That is the Right's view of the view of the Left. The real one is that our education system is elitist and old fashioned and underfunded and warped by the propensity of the affluent to opt out and purchase advantage via the private sector.

    We demand better. We want a more egalitarian approach that will deliver a similar (and high) quality education to everyone regardless of parental bank balance. Increase participation in state schools, proper funding, a real prioritizing of disadvantaged areas.

    The biggest beneficiary of such an approach? Yep - white working class children.

    But oh no, too difficult. Too disruptive of the status quo that so many are secretly comfortable with. So let's produce this report instead. Let's avoid the hard choices about class and money and push some culture war buttons. Let's waffle on about the term "white privilege". Has sweet FA to do with the problem but let's pretend that it does. Let's stoke some grievance!

    I see you, Tories, and Middle England. I see you.
    So are you saying Tories invented the term "white privilege"?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,435
    edited June 2021
    Thanks for the piece Mike.

    I think you are perhaps overinterpreting the tealeaves here, in terms of the breadth of the impact of the earthquake.

    What percentage of "LD runner up to Tories in the South" seats is the highest the LDs have ever won?

    I guess that would be 1997?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,656

    FWIW I've had an on balance positive report from a Labour source who I trust in Batley and Spen. I still think the Tories are favourites, but I wouldn't back them at less than 1.8.

    If Labour does hold it, I think it will change the media narrative somewhat.

    Its a measure of the difficulties Labour are in that you think a positive report from Labour still leads to the Conservatives being favourites.
  • FWIW I've had an on balance positive report from a Labour source who I trust in Batley and Spen. I still think the Tories are favourites, but I wouldn't back them at less than 1.8.

    If Labour does hold it, I think it will change the media narrative somewhat.

    Thanks Mr. Palmer.

    I am still in the mood to have one of my increasingly rare political bets on Labour for this. I just think Labours GOTV will be stronger than the Cons.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,613
    I think it is doubtful that the Lib Dems would join a formal coalition at Westminster if there is a hung Parliament. I would think that confidence and supply would be preferable, or even simply promising to abstain on confidence votes, "unless a fundamental issue of national interest is at stake."

    The SNP are likely to be the same.

    Consequently I could see a Conservative minority government surviving for a period (though I doubt the Tories will lose seats at the next general election).
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,901
    On Labour, and Andy Burnham from Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph:
    "Burnham’s star is rising because he is doing what we expect elected representatives to do – he stands up and fights for his people in a language and determination that everyone can understand."
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/06/22/labour-party-cannot-remake-can-ever-remake-country/

    It does feel vaguely surprising to hear a politician who appears to be on my side. I've historically been emotionally on the right because - being white, male, straight, able-bodied, northern - for as long as I can remember it's felt like the left have been actively furious with me. The right haven't exactly been on my side, but they haven't been on anyone's side - Boris is famously on Boris Johnson's side - but this feels refreshingly supportive compared to what Labour have offered.
    And then at several points over the past year, Burnham says something which suggests he not only doesn't want me to fail, but is possibly even on my side. Nice one Burnham.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1407253725874372610

    Day 3. On Sunday we reported how Keir Starmer, his family and Labour's candidate in Batley & Spen were being subjected to anti-Semitic and homophobic abuse. As yet there has been no condemnation of the abuse from the Labour Party.

    Back to the 50's!!!!!!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755
    MaxPB said:

    Walked past a vaccine centre on the way to a meeting just now, I was very early so I decided to chance it and asked if they'd give me a second dose. They said yes as long as I had my vaccine card with me! Just got my second Pfizer done!

    My wife is going to be so jealous.

    Nicely done. Doesn’t scream “supply constrained” does it?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Dura_Ace said:

    Ken Clarke on BBC R4 Today absolutely destroying de Pfeffel.

    My god, Ken’s good. Royal Yacht = populist nonsense.

    The timeline for the Carrie Celeste looks absolutely mad on the face of it. It's a one off design of a type of ship that hasn't been built in the UK for 50+ years. The is no fucking way they are going to cut steel on it in 2022. It's one of those schemes that's so ill considered you can't help but assume The Fireplace Salesman was involved somewhere.
    As Ken Clarke pointed out, the cost of the royal yacht itself is not going to break the bank, but it is an indication of a profound lack of judgement at No.10.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,536

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Incidentally on these numbers Sinn Fein and Speaker abstain so 640 MPs, 321 needed for a majority.

    Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Green = 321 so a working majority of 2, with the SNP demanding an independence referendum and abstaining on England only bills (so the Tories would have an England only majority).

    Con + LD = 328 so a working majority of 16

    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.
    I don't know, as I'm not in touch with many LD's nowadays, other than on here, but I would have thought that there was an element of 'once bitten' about a coalition with the Tories in LD-land.

    Edit. And the same would apply to the DUP. And they don't bear grudges, or have long memories. Oh no!
    On the contrary, the DUP delivering many barrels of pork to NI is EXACTLY what they need to show they are a player - and deflect from their current woes.

    How many MPs they can actually deliver at the next GE is the intriguing bit, given the state they are in.
    As far as the DUP are concerned I'm a bit inclined to sit back and see how Donaldson develops as Leader, and, too the point about how many DUP MP's there will be is fair.

    I still think there'll be a long spoon for them when dealing with the Tories though.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,901
    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1407253725874372610

    Day 3. On Sunday we reported how Keir Starmer, his family and Labour's candidate in Batley & Spen were being subjected to anti-Semitic and homophobic abuse. As yet there has been no condemnation of the abuse from the Labour Party.

    Back to the 50's!!!!!!

    Kier Starmer was subjected to homophobic abuse?
    If I was going to abuse Keir Starmer I wouldn't be calling him gay or Jewish. Because - quite aside from whether or not this should be construed as offensive - he isn't. Or doesn't appear to be.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646

    Dura_Ace said:

    Ken Clarke on BBC R4 Today absolutely destroying de Pfeffel.

    My god, Ken’s good. Royal Yacht = populist nonsense.

    The timeline for the Carrie Celeste looks absolutely mad on the face of it. It's a one off design of a type of ship that hasn't been built in the UK for 50+ years. The is no fucking way they are going to cut steel on it in 2022. It's one of those schemes that's so ill considered you can't help but assume The Fireplace Salesman was involved somewhere.
    As Ken Clarke pointed out, the cost of the royal yacht itself is not going to break the bank, but it is an indication of a profound lack of judgement at No.10.
    That she, like Britannia before her, will generate a massive amount of trade and goodwill from countries and companies around the world, far in excess of the cost of building her.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,481
    MattW said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    Yes, I see Labour is already coming out and saying that it is "divisive" and adding fuel to the culture war by mentioning white privilege. A bit rich coming from the side that pours petrol liberally onto the flames when it is anything to do with non-white people
    The Report identifies the term as potentially problematic, especially around white kids not having the same support infrastructure as other 'identity' groups. Challenging under the Equalities Act is quite robust.

    29. Schools should consider whether the promotion of politically controversial
    terminology, including White Privilege, is consistent with their duties under the
    Equality Act 2010. The Department should take steps to ensure that young people are
    not inadvertently being inducted into political movements when what is required is
    balanced, age-appropriate discussion and a curriculum that equips young people to
    thrive in diverse and multi-cultural communities throughout their lives and work. The
    Department should issue clear guidance for schools and other Department-affiliated
    organisations receiving grants from the Department on how to deliver teaching on these
    complex issues in a balanced, impartial and age-appropriate way


    https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6364/documents/69838/default/
    My wife teaches in a primary school with a large percentage of the intake on FSM.
    I can assure you that this guidance is pretty well irrelevant to current or future student outcomes.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,819

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
    I disagree with that and I think a lot has to do with the attitude of teachers. As @RochdalePioneers so helpfully demonstrated a few days back, there is a view on the left, especially amongst let's say the more educated parts including the teaching profession, that WWC kids are essentially thick, racist and therefore not worth saving, and the problems they have in their lives are the faults of them and their ghastly parents. Therefore, why bother trying to do anything with them. That then leads to teachers who view their place as going through the motions rather than trying to inspire or change.
    That is the Right's view of the view of the Left. The real one is that our education system is elitist and old fashioned and underfunded and warped by the propensity of the affluent to opt out and purchase advantage via the private sector.

    We demand better. We want a more egalitarian approach that will deliver a similar (and high) quality education to everyone regardless of parental bank balance. Increase participation in state schools, proper funding, a real prioritizing of disadvantaged areas.

    The biggest beneficiary of such an approach? Yep - white working class children.

    But oh no, too difficult. Too disruptive of the status quo that so many are secretly comfortable with. So let's produce this report instead. Let's avoid the hard choices about class and money and push some culture war buttons. Let's waffle on about the term "white privilege". Has sweet FA to do with the problem but let's pretend that it does. Let's stoke some grievance!

    I see you, Tories, and Middle England. I see you.
    So are you saying Tories invented the term "white privilege"?
    The Tories have latched onto it because they have figured out that it is a way of stoking resentment and dividing working class people. White Privilege is a term that is used to describe the advantages in many situations that white people enjoy on account of being the majority group. I'm sorry, but it describes something real, something that I personally have observed, and so I am not going to be bullied into not using it in that specific context. Of course, many white people don't feel very privileged, and so the term grates with them. But I doubt they have ever not had their CV looked at on account of their name, or been racially profiled by the police. White Privilege does not mean that all white people are more privileged than all non-White people.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,696

    OGH is right.

    There are only two options:
    1. A Con majority
    2. Lab/Lib and hangers on.

    A vote for the SNP is ironically a vote for the Tories given this duality (Lab will not coalesce or even deal with SNP).

    I put the current odds at 90:10 but before C&A they were 95:5.

    2. would require the twice in a generation referendum on the break-up of the UK as the price of the SNP playing along. If it even lasted long enough to get that legislation through.

    Be a hoot though....
    See my subsequent para.
    Labour (nor the Tories) will agree with this.

    If Lab (perhaps with the Libs) get more seats then they form a minority govt and challenge the SNP to bring them down.

    A vote in Scotland for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.
    What if they babe fewer but more if the SNP vote with them?

    Con 310
    Lab 250
    SNP 50
    LD 18
    PC 2
    Greens 1
    Speaker 1
    DUP 9
    Sinn Fein 9

    Who forms the government? With what supply agreements if any?
    Incidentally on these numbers Sinn Fein and Speaker abstain so 640 MPs, 321 needed for a majority.

    Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Green = 321 so a working majority of 2, with the SNP demanding an independence referendum and abstaining on England only bills (so the Tories would have an England only majority).

    Con + LD = 328 so a working majority of 16

    The LDs far more than the SNP are more likely to reach an agreement to support a Tory government in the right circumstances.
    I don't know, as I'm not in touch with many LD's nowadays, other than on here, but I would have thought that there was an element of 'once bitten' about a coalition with the Tories in LD-land.

    Edit. And the same would apply to the DUP. And they don't bear grudges, or have long memories. Oh no!
    On the contrary, the DUP delivering many barrels of pork to NI is EXACTLY what they need to show they are a player - and deflect from their current woes.

    How many MPs they can actually deliver at the next GE is the intriguing bit, given the state they are in.
    As far as the DUP are concerned I'm a bit inclined to sit back and see how Donaldson develops as Leader, and, too the point about how many DUP MP's there will be is fair.

    I still think there'll be a long spoon for them when dealing with the Tories though.
    It'll be a golden spoon. With some gemstones set in it....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,481

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    I just don't understand what their race has to do with this. They're not getting treated badly at school because they're white. In fact I doubt they're getting treated badly at school at all, except to the extent that all state school kids in this country are let down by a lack of money and focus from the government and the establishment, who mostly go private and so have very little skin in the game. Their problems come from a lack of engagement in education, often rooted in their parents' experiences of school, sometimes compounded by other issues that their parents have. Plus poverty, which makes everything harder.
    (BTW before anyone accuses me of being an out of touch elitist, I went to a comprehensive school that was almost entirely white so the so-called white working class is not some kind of unknown exotic species to me).
    I disagree with that and I think a lot has to do with the attitude of teachers. As @RochdalePioneers so helpfully demonstrated a few days back, there is a view on the left, especially amongst let's say the more educated parts including the teaching profession, that WWC kids are essentially thick, racist and therefore not worth saving, and the problems they have in their lives are the faults of them and their ghastly parents. Therefore, why bother trying to do anything with them. That then leads to teachers who view their place as going through the motions rather than trying to inspire or change.
    That is the Right's view of the view of the Left. The real one is that our education system is elitist and old fashioned and underfunded and warped by the propensity of the affluent to opt out and purchase advantage via the private sector.

    We demand better. We want a more egalitarian approach that will deliver a similar (and high) quality education to everyone regardless of parental bank balance. Increase participation in state schools, proper funding, a real prioritizing of disadvantaged areas.

    The biggest beneficiary of such an approach? Yep - white working class children.

    But oh no, too difficult. Too disruptive of the status quo that so many are secretly comfortable with. So let's produce this report instead. Let's avoid the hard choices about class and money and push some culture war buttons. Let's waffle on about the term "white privilege". Has sweet FA to do with the problem but let's pretend that it does. Let's stoke some grievance!

    I see you, Tories, and Middle England. I see you.
    So are you saying Tories invented the term "white privilege"?
    No, he's saying that as a factor affecting educational outcomes in deprived areas, it rates exceedingly low on the list. And pretending otherwise is misdirection.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,435
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I've never heard/seen this word used - not even on here.

    Clearly the LDs won’t prop up a Tory government

    I wouldn't be so sure about that...

    Well I would. The man who drove the coalition is now in California earning millions running PR and political relations for Facebook.
    So, what makes you so sure that Ed Davey wouldn't prop up the Tories? Until politicians are faced with such choices you can never be certain which way they'd jump.

    Do you think Ed Davey would actually rule out a deal with the Tories? Might not go down well with some voters in places like Guildford.
    I think he might have a problem with some factions in the LD party, were he to try without a cast-iron commitment on Electoral Reform, or perhaps another COVID style national emergency.

    On the former, the Tories would hold another Election imo.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,536
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    Yes, I see Labour is already coming out and saying that it is "divisive" and adding fuel to the culture war by mentioning white privilege. A bit rich coming from the side that pours petrol liberally onto the flames when it is anything to do with non-white people
    The Report identifies the term as potentially problematic, especially around white kids not having the same support infrastructure as other 'identity' groups. Challenging under the Equalities Act is quite robust.

    29. Schools should consider whether the promotion of politically controversial
    terminology, including White Privilege, is consistent with their duties under the
    Equality Act 2010. The Department should take steps to ensure that young people are
    not inadvertently being inducted into political movements when what is required is
    balanced, age-appropriate discussion and a curriculum that equips young people to
    thrive in diverse and multi-cultural communities throughout their lives and work. The
    Department should issue clear guidance for schools and other Department-affiliated
    organisations receiving grants from the Department on how to deliver teaching on these
    complex issues in a balanced, impartial and age-appropriate way


    https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6364/documents/69838/default/
    My wife teaches in a primary school with a large percentage of the intake on FSM.
    I can assure you that this guidance is pretty well irrelevant to current or future student outcomes.
    Eldest Grandson teaches in a similar establishment. I haven't discussed this with him yet, but I would be astounded, from the way he talks, if that 'guidance' were applicable to the school where he works.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,239
    MaxPB said:

    Walked past a vaccine centre on the way to a meeting just now, I was very early so I decided to chance it and asked if they'd give me a second dose. They said yes as long as I had my vaccine card with me! Just got my second Pfizer done!

    My wife is going to be so jealous.

    Fab, what was your "gap" in the end ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646

    Charles said:

    Gnudders said:

    Taz said:

    Gnudders said:

    After reading the thread here I bet on Labour holding Batley and Spen, but I pulled out of the market after I woke up this morning to the headline news that the Education Select Committee believes schools have long neglected white children. This is how the Tories win - by playing the race card. The race card is a trump card. (See what I did there.) Most likely the Tories will gain Batley and Spen and they are value at 1.45. Thumping away with this kind of story - what is essentially a call for "white rights" - could increase the Tories' Commons majority at the next GE too.

    Time to emigrate?

    What rubbish. There is clearly an issue with underachievement in this demographic, and there has been for a while, and addressing it is exactly what is needed to stop people playing the race card.

    Or would you prefer this sector of society was allowed to keep falling behind as long as your comfy worldview wasn’t challenged ?
    If this story isn't playing the race card, what is? No "issue with underachievement" would make it into something else.

    "Playing the race card" means appealing to people to vote because of feelings they have that are based on their "racial" identity (here, whiteness) and on what they believe is a common experience among those who share that "racial" identity. That's how I use the term anyway. How do you use it?
    My daughter was taught in school about a black car that wasn’t allowed to race with the white cars because the “race committee” (consisting of old, male, white cars) was worried he might win.

    Is that helpful?
    That's so stupid. There is so much actual history relating to these issues that could be taught, why come up with some kind of lame allegory instead? Thankfully I have never come across anything this dumb at our kids' schools, which have a very varied intake across nationalities, races and social classes and I think teach these kind of issues very well. It sounds like your daughter's school is kind of uncomfortable about these issues and has tried to address them in a way that won't offend anyone, and ended up with a mess.
    Hold on. That allegory of the black car not being allowed to race against white ones sounds American. It makes no sense here. Did @charles's daughter go to school in America or has some idiot imported American teaching materials (or South African, I suppose) and forgotten that Britain never went down the route of banning black cars?
    Alternatively, they can stop all the divisive crap, and emphasise some positive role models of different ethnicities and backgrounds.

This discussion has been closed.