Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

GarethoftheVale2 said:

RobD said:

Paristonda said:

Perhaps the trigger for Dave resigning is that Witney is also going to be abolished in the boundary shake-up?

Witney is above average, although perhaps the surrounding constituencies are not?

Oxfordshire keeps 6 seats, however, there will need to be some shuffling around as Banbury constituency is too large and so Banbury and Bicester will have to be split up.

That could make Banbury Cross.

(I'll get my coat)

Casino_Royale said:

PlatoSaid said:

Julia Hartley Brewer
Anyone else agree with me that @DanielJHannan should run for @David_Cameron 's safe Witney seat...? Need more like Dan in Westminster.

Yes, but no way will they select Dan.

If they had any sense they'd select Hannan.

Cameron news means no early GE any time soon, right? Otherwise he'd have waited for that.

Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, is just direeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The reason Dave has quit. He didn't want to vote regularly against Theresa May's government, he didn't want to become the incredible sulk.

Oh well, if I can't get a peerage, perhaps I'll get his seat.

How nailed-on are the Tories here? I'm still struggling to move out of the 1989-2014 mindset wherein the governing Conservatives always lost by-elections, no matter how safe. But it's hard to see any of the opposition parties making the enormous heave required here?

Hey, WItney has had several years of Labour representation.

Granted, that was due to crossing the floor.

Oooh, that's perfect for Twitter memes baiting the Corbynistas.

"Tony Blair held Witney in his first term - if Jeremy Corbyn is serious about becoming PM he needs to win this by-election"

And Happy Birthday TSE.

BigIan said:

Cameron news means no early GE any time soon, right? Otherwise he'd have waited for that.

Not neccesarily, Cameron would not have notice of an early GE. If May is going to play that card she'll be keeping it close to her chest with possibly only a few select members of the cabinet knowing about it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I wonder whether Esther McVey will have a go at Witney (assuming of course that JohnO remains immune to the blandishments of the Association)?

Angie Bray?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/775347130823213056

Labour @ 10-1 looks like the worst bet ever to me, 1-25 Tories about right; 20-1 Lib Dems probably the best bet of the outsiders.

LadyBucket said:

Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, is just direeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's great to see Labour defending selection by house price.

PlatoSaid said:

Chris Terry
Cameron says, unconvincingly, he wants to be remembered for holding the EU referendum.

The one that he lost and resigned over. That one.

Cameron will get his wish.

Tissue_Price said:

4% will interest @Pulpstar:
https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/775347130823213056

Hmm Not really, some small Lib Dem danger I think.

JohnO said:

peter_from_putney said:

JohnO said:

Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

The reason(s) being?

Shamelss demagoguery for a start, unlike most here, I was wholly immune to his vitriol against Gordon Brown and I've heard his nonsense twice at Tory meetings which left me ice cold.

I'm at a loss to understand your dislike of Dan Hannan, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

Pulpstar said:

peter_from_putney said:

Off Topic (Bored with discussing Corbyn ceaselessly)

If not Tim Kaine, then who else could replace Hillary ..... once fancied Paul Ryan for instance is currently available on Betfair at 700.

The Betfair settlement rules indicate to me it will be Clinton, Trump or if Clinton needs to step down for health reasons pre-GE, Kaine.

Tricky wording, isn't it?

This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.

It's *projected* Electoral College votes, so if you had a situation where Hillary Clinton stood aside in favour of some other candidate, like Joe Biden or Chelsea Clinton, you could make the argument that the projected votes would go to Biden/Chelsea despite nominally going for Hillary, but it doesn't quite seem clear-cut.

PlatoSaid said:

MaxPB said:

New conspiracy theories!

TBH, it's the ear thing that almost convinced me this may not be a joke.

They're unique enough to be used like fingerprints for identification.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/05/ears-the-new-fingerprints/

Also - the arse/stomach of the person who appeared waving in blue glasses wasn't the same shape as bell tent Hillary. That person is about a stone or more thinner.

It's probably all angles and stuff, but a bit weird.

Don't be ridiculous, it's ruddy obviously her.

It never ceases to amaze me (and this isn't specifically aimed at you Plato) the people here who decry conspiracy theories in general, but leap on the most bizarre of them if they support their own notions.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmm, I think Gove might well rebel on grammars

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/775349581722873856

You hope he will.

Very true, I want what is the best for the children, as a whole, in this country, grammars don't achieve that.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I wonder whether Esther McVey will have a go at Witney (assuming of course that JohnO remains immune to the blandishments of the Association)?

Angie Bray?

I used to work with a Tory member who voted Labour in 2010 rather than vote for Bray.

I'm a Witney constituent.

At GE 2015, the Labour candidate in Witney (Duncan Enright) was extremely impressive. I'm presuming he'll get selected again. He's very vocally anti-Corbyn but then I've not seen any signs of Momentum in this area. (Labour has another very strong county councillor in Witney, Laura Price, who would make for an excellent candidate.)

Green (Stuart Macdonald) and LD (Andy Graham) were less impressive in 2015, even though there are some strong LD redoubts in the constituency. I would imagine the Greens will run the same candidate again though they may go for Larry Sanders (Bernie's brother, fought neighbouring Oxford West at GE2015). LDs do potentially have some good candidates, both based in the constituency and in Oxford, and would be smart to go for one of them.

I can't see any stand-out candidate in the local Conservative party. Ian Hudspeth (leader of Oxfordshire County Council) is clearly Top Tory round here and I think would be good at it, but he publicly fell out with Cameron and that has seriously blotted his copybook. There's a few ambitious youngsters in the constituency but I'd be very surprised if they make it past the inevitably strong external competition. So my guess is that the Tory candidate will be from outside.

This isn't UKIP territory at all and I think it would be a mistake for Farage (or another big hitter) to stand, but who knows.

Not that the result is in any doubt!

Perhaps the Conservatives will encourage Nigel Farage to switch parties, in order to apply for Witney.

AndyJS said:

LadyBucket said:

Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, is just direeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's great to see Labour defending selection by house price.

It'll be good to see the evidence for this selection by house price shtick. I wonder how much of it there actually is.

Wow re: Cameron. What a mess he is walking away from.

My understanding of West Oxfordshire Lib Dems is that they are better organised than most non-held seats in the Coalition years, and can put up a good fight in a by-election. But I wouldn't touch the 20-1, I think a good 2nd for the yellows, matching the Henley by-election or thereabouts, would be the target.

Dan Hannan is not the smartest cookie:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/772440212282675200
If olive oil is made from olives
If corn oil is made from corn
What is baby oil made from?

JohnO said:

peter_from_putney said:

JohnO said:

Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

The reason(s) being?

Shamelss demagoguery for a start, unlike most here, I was wholly immune to his vitriol against Gordon Brown and I've heard his nonsense twice at Tory meetings which left me ice cold.

Hannan is a lightweight charlatan - a Farage for people who think of themselves as above all that. He serves a role as a legislator but is not someone you'd want having any responsibility. To his credit, he doesn't seem to want any responsibility either.

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

JohnO said:

peter_from_putney said:

JohnO said:

Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

The reason(s) being?

Shamelss demagoguery for a start, unlike most here, I was wholly immune to his vitriol against Gordon Brown and I've heard his nonsense twice at Tory meetings which left me ice cold.

I'm at a loss to understand your dislike of Dan Hannan, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

I may expand if you buy the first round of drinks....

We need to arrange that.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar private schools. They only help a few, not all.

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar private schools. They only help a few, not all.

But if the few they help are those most likely to make a positive contribution to society, perhaps it's worth it overall.

Tissue_Price said:

Cryptically intriguing:
https://twitter.com/MikeGapes/status/775350426476609536

Crossing the floor?

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

JohnO said:

peter_from_putney said:

JohnO said:

Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

The reason(s) being?

Shamelss demagoguery for a start, unlike most here, I was wholly immune to his vitriol against Gordon Brown and I've heard his nonsense twice at Tory meetings which left me ice cold.

I'm at a loss to understand your dislike of Dan Hannan, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

I like him, and find him persuasive if a bit big-headed, but I must say I was very disappointed by his post-referendum denial that he had used immigration as an argument; as outright lies go, that one was a zinger - he was on the board of Vote Leave, FFS!

To be fair, Dan never used the inmigration argument once and was consistent in arguing against it as the reason to leave the EU, even in private.

I don't think he was in the majority of those who took the decision at the Vote Leave board.

I'm sorry, that won't wash. You can't be a leading member of a campaign, and on the board making policy decisions (which he was), and then wash your hands of the most prominent, controversial, divisive and successful argument used by the campaign. Not if you have integrity, in my book.

I see (from Guido) that Stewart Jackson is PPS to David Davis. Weeping is too good for either of 'em.

wasd said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

LadyBucket said:

Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, is just direeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's great to see Labour defending selection by house price.

It'll be good to see the evidence for this selection by house price shtick. I wonder how much of it there actually is.

"In fact, a link between better schools and higher house prices has emerged as one of the most stable empirical regularities, with studies worldwide reporting effects of a similar order of magnitude."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/school-house-prices-gibbons/

Yep, I knew it was true for primary schools (at least back in 2006), but what evidence is there for secondary's? Presumably, this will be produced. In somewhere like London, all house prices are beyond most non-high earners so that in itself will distort the picture. Most non-high earners live in rented accommodation.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Bit like public schools, but hey..selection by largest wallet is just fine and dandy.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Bit like public schools, but hey..selection by largest wallet is just fine and dandy.

Bit of a difference, though - grammar (and comprehensive) schools are paid for by the taxpayer, whereas public schools are paid for by the parents (who have also contributed to the costs of other children's schools). So the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of public schools is none of the business of government.

AlastairMeeks said:

I can't for the life of me see why Parliament would be enhanced at this moment by the introduction of yet another Eurosceptic monomaniac. It seems fully stocked on that front already.

If the last few months have taught us anything on this score, it is surely that parliament is rather less Eurosceptic than the population at large.

But maybe not in Witney (I presume this was Remainier than most, given the demographics?)

Of course, Dan Hannan is far from the only soon-to-be-unemployed Conservative MEPs. Are there any others who might reasonably be considered for this seat?

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

JohnO said:

peter_from_putney said:

JohnO said:

Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

The reason(s) being?

Shamelss demagoguery for a start, unlike most here, I was wholly immune to his vitriol against Gordon Brown and I've heard his nonsense twice at Tory meetings which left me ice cold.

I'm at a loss to understand your dislike of Dan Hannan, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

I may expand if you buy the first round of drinks....

We need to arrange that.

We do indeed...shall we exchange PMs?

Yes let's do that.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Bit like public schools, but hey..selection by largest wallet is just fine and dandy.

Bit of a difference, though - grammar (and comprehensive) schools are paid for by the taxpayer, whereas public schools are paid for by the parents (who have also contributed to the costs of other children's schools). So the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of public schools is none of the business of government.

Except for the tax relief. And the teachers we train for them.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Comprehensive schools would work just fine if

* All grammar schools abolished.
* All private public and fee paying schools abolished.
* Homeschooling illegal.
* Private tutoring illegal.
* No choice as to school, you can just express an interest All pupils told which school they are going to with selection by lottery of all pupils who have selected an interest.

Do that or shut up about grammar schols.

No they wouldn't. There would be absolutely no incentive for improvement.

SouthamObserver said:

wasd said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

LadyBucket said:

Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, is just direeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's great to see Labour defending selection by house price.

It'll be good to see the evidence for this selection by house price shtick. I wonder how much of it there actually is.

"In fact, a link between better schools and higher house prices has emerged as one of the most stable empirical regularities, with studies worldwide reporting effects of a similar order of magnitude."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/school-house-prices-gibbons/

Yep, I knew it was true for primary schools (at least back in 2006), but what evidence is there for secondary's? Presumably, this will be produced. In somewhere like London, all house prices are beyond most non-high earners so that in itself will distort the picture. Most non-high earners live in rented accommodation.

When people kept reporting the rise in 'London Education Standards' I rather suspected it was because the cost of living was squeezing out the low earners and gentrification was occurring in the school system year by year.

AndyJS said:

Austrian presidential election delayed until 4th December due to glue problems:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37336947

Austrian presidential election delayed until 4th December due to poll problems:

Fixed it for you.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

JohnO said:

peter_from_putney said:

JohnO said:

Probably a minority of one, but I cannot stand Dan Hannan (notwithstanding his legendary courtesy).

The reason(s) being?

Shamelss demagoguery for a start, unlike most here, I was wholly immune to his vitriol against Gordon Brown and I've heard his nonsense twice at Tory meetings which left me ice cold.

I'm at a loss to understand your dislike of Dan Hannan, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

I like him, and find him persuasive if a bit big-headed, but I must say I was very disappointed by his post-referendum denial that he had used immigration as an argument; as outright lies go, that one was a zinger - he was on the board of Vote Leave, FFS!

To be fair, Dan never used the inmigration argument once and was consistent in arguing against it as the reason to leave the EU, even in private.

I don't think he was in the majority of those who took the decision at the Vote Leave board.

I'm sorry, that won't wash. You can't be a leading member of a campaign, and on the board making policy decisions (which he was), and then wash your hands of the most prominent, controversial, divisive and successful argument used by the campaign. Not if you have integrity, in my book.

Steady. There's no reason to impinge upon Dan's integrity.

Look at his videos and arguments he used during the campaign. Not once did he use migration and, in fact, he suggested EFTA and conceded free movement would continue in the weeks leading up to the vote. The biggest criticism you could make of him was that he was off message. That's why he featured so little in the debates.

I suppose you could argue he should have resigned from the Vote Leave board. But I suspect that wouldn't have been very helpful to Leave.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar private schools. They only help a few, not all.

Evidence please, not anecdotes.

All grammar school advocates seem to have is 'I went to school, that makes me an expert'

Having read the 'debate' on grammar schools, here and elsewhere, and I've decided I'm against May's new policy.

Why?

It's all utterly disjointed. There'll be faith schools, academies, grammar schools, all competing to get the best state pupils and sod the kids who really need help. Despite her words, she's moved the debate onto the people who need help the least.

It's not a policy for education: it's a policy for the party.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Except for the tax relief. And the teachers we train for them.

What tax relief? OK, they are charities, but that doesn't make a big difference - certainly nothing like the amount of money that they save the state.

There is no tax relief on private healthcare

John_M said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Slackbladder said:

So, which tory who isn't an MP at the moment wants the safest of safe seats for the Tories?

TSE

What a terrible birthday present.

I shall wear black for the rest of the day.

Happy Birthday!

Now - with all due respect to you, your Tory-ness and your shoes - I think that we need an eloquent, experienced lady for the Witney seat. Someone tough-minded, someone who can spot bullshit and bullshitters at a thousand paces, someone used to dealing with egomaniacs with more puff than substance, someone with a sense of history and knowledge of other countries and, crucial this, someone who went to neither Eton nor a grammar school, etc. Being a Tory is a mere detail and really quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

A sense of impudence too......

But could you handle the pay cut Ms Cyclefree?

So long as I can still indulge my love of gardening and books, I'm sure I can.

Imagine what fun I could have telling a load of self-important men with scarcely an ounce of common-sense between them what to do..... It will scarcely be any different from work!

Afternoon all. Catching up, it appears we have a by-election!
A lovely safe seat for someone, who do the Tories want to get into Parliament who isn't there already?

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Why are grammar schools so unpopular with the privately educated?

A rhetorical question I guess.

Because we look at the evidence, and the evidence stacks up against grammar schools. They only help a few, not all.

Whereas the Comprehensive system helps no one as it works on the principle of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. .