politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Stoke Central, where MP Tristram Hunt is resigning, could be a

PlatoSaid said:

Any IT bods want to add their 2p?

https://order-order.com/2017/01/13/guido-is-secure/

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

CD13 said:

Mr Enjineeya,

One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?

Which Marxist principle guided that?

It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.

Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?

Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.

In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.

As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.

AndyJS said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jason said:

Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.

I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.

The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.

Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?

I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?

Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.

Recidivist said:

AndyJS said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jason said:

Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.

I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.

The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.

Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?

I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?

Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.

That doesn't make any sense. If he believes in comprehensive education and only selective education is available, it makes no difference which of the selective schools he sends his kid to. They are all equally contrary to his opinion.

MTimT said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

old_labour said:

TOPPING said:

ShropshireLadd said:

Tristram Hunt: against elitism and grammar schools. So becomes director of the V&A? Nice one

What is elitist about the V&A?

If Tristram has his way it will be more elitist and less accessible.

https://twitter.com/old_labour/status/819851678442721280

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?

Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MarkSenior said:

justin124 said:

rottenborough said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm backing the Lib Dems at 50/1

And this seat is made for Ed Balls.

Problem for Balls is he would have to get selected first..

why bother, if the seat is to disappear under boundary changes?

Because the boundary changes may not happen.

Because the seat does not disappear under the initial proposed boundary changes . It is renamed Stoke South ,

Nevertheless, if Lab hold the seat the Stoke C and Stoke S MPs will be fighting it out for 1 seat (the new Stoke S) as the new Staffs W seat would be safely Con.

Pong said:

Pulpstar said:

Sam was doing PB Time when the Oldham election was on so I was his runner for @Pong:

Amusing convo here - @Pong look at what you could have won

Lab 20-25 33/1
25+ 33/1

Me: Pong wants some of the 33s.
Whats your limits

Sam: He had £15.15?

Me: No, he doesn't want any more because he's on at lower odds...
Which I find a bit odd !

Sam:He doesn't want anything??

Me:Am asking him ! No reply so far.

if isam had a gambling license, I'd have taken him to the cleaners.

tlg86 said:

Recidivist said:

AndyJS said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jason said:

Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.

I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.

The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.

Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?

I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?

Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.

That doesn't make any sense. If he believes in comprehensive education and only selective education is available, it makes no difference which of the selective schools he sends his kid to. They are all equally contrary to his opinion.

Agreed. I wonder what percentage of kids don't bother sitting the 11+ and just go to the comp?

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jason said:

Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.

I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.

The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.

Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?

I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?

williamglenn said:

MTimT said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

old_labour said:

TOPPING said:

ShropshireLadd said:

Tristram Hunt: against elitism and grammar schools. So becomes director of the V&A? Nice one

What is elitist about the V&A?

If Tristram has his way it will be more elitist and less accessible.

https://twitter.com/old_labour/status/819851678442721280

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?

Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.

"Do you wish you were allowed in for free, sir?"

David_Evershed said:

williamglenn said:

MTimT said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

old_labour said:

TOPPING said:

ShropshireLadd said:

Tristram Hunt: against elitism and grammar schools. So becomes director of the V&A? Nice one

What is elitist about the V&A?

If Tristram has his way it will be more elitist and less accessible.

https://twitter.com/old_labour/status/819851678442721280

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?

Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.

"Do you wish you were allowed in for free, sir?"

Interogative?

TOPPING said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

old_labour said:

TOPPING said:

ShropshireLadd said:

Tristram Hunt: against elitism and grammar schools. So becomes director of the V&A? Nice one

What is elitist about the V&A?

If Tristram has his way it will be more elitist and less accessible.

https://twitter.com/old_labour/status/819851678442721280

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

CD13 said:

Mr Enjineeya,

One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?

Which Marxist principle guided that?

It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.

Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?

But, at the same same, improving prospects for a greater number of people, hence doing a net good.

A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.

The lifeboat analogy is the same as the fixed lump of Labour fallacy. If some schools are better than others. Copy the good practice and weed out the bad practice. You don't make poor schools good by making the good schools less good. Full disclosure, I don't have any kids of my own to worry about their education.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fixed lump of labour fallacy. Rather, it is a hypothetical situation in which you have a choice between a scenario in which a few benefit substantially while most are severely disadvantaged or one in which all have a reasonable chance.

In your analogy of a lifeboat there is a fixed amount of food. Unless someone has some fishing kit with them.

TOPPING said:

CD13 said:

I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.

The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.

The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).

I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.

The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.

TOPPING said:

CD13 said:

I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.

The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.

The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).

I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.

The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.

PlatoSaid said:

Any IT bods want to add their 2p?

https://order-order.com/2017/01/13/guido-is-secure/

TOPPING said:

Roger said:

TOPPING said:

CD13 said:

I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.

The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.

The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).

I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.

The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.

It's because they're one offs generally not to be seen again. Also they are housed in a free galllery/museum so more often than not the one off exhibitions are cheaper than they should be because they're riding on the back of a permanent collection.

It still means standing in front of, say, a Barnett Newman. That is a big ask for not-particularly-specialists.

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?

Don't be silly. This isn't snobbery. It's about paying for admission. Plenty of very wealthy tourists in London get a free ride at our expense (the taxpayer) and it reduces the money the museum has to do its work.

You could charge 50p for concessions, as many other historic sites do.

But I think it's important all pay something.

You mentioned people who don't appreciate what they are seeing. Sounds like snobbery to me.

Plenty of those extra visitors are spending money in the cafe or the gift shop.

By some measures London is the most visited city on earth, or the 2nd after Bangkok. Why do people come here? It's certainly not the weather. Part of the reason is the incredible culture, and the fact that some of the very best of this culture is free.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35840394

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/most-visited-cities-2016-overseas-arrivals/

The money generated by 18 million foreign tourists is in the billions. Far outweighing the subsidies required to keep museums free.

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!

I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.

But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.

I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.

I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.

JosiasJessop said:

The V&A is a bit of a curate's egg. For instance, I hate the fabrics, but *love* the ironwork gallery:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/galleries/level-3/room-113-ironwork/

But perhaps that's just me.

At Christmas we dumped the little 'un on my family and went into Derby for the day. We went out for a meal (at the Silk Mill, some of the best pub grub we've had in ages) and then to Derby Museum and art gallery. I haven't been in there since I was a teenager, and it's been thoroughly modernised.

We ended up spending three hours inside when we should have been doing some retail therapy.

Yes, it's provincial. But Mrs J was amazed to find a painting she had known of since she was a child: Joseph Wright's 'The Orrery': a true masterpiece.

https://www.derbymuseums.org/locations/museum-art-gallery/joseph-wright-gallery

williamglenn said:

MTimT said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

old_labour said:

TOPPING said:

ShropshireLadd said:

Tristram Hunt: against elitism and grammar schools. So becomes director of the V&A? Nice one

What is elitist about the V&A?

If Tristram has his way it will be more elitist and less accessible.

https://twitter.com/old_labour/status/819851678442721280

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?

Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.

"Do you wish you were allowed in for free, sir?"

isam said:

MrsB said:

Those of you speculating about the Lib Dems and Leavers and Remainers might like to contemplate the following

Sunderland voted for Brexit 61% to 39%
Sunderland last night council by-election:

LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)

IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.

Relevant factors as I see it

- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters)
- Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness
- UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings
- Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas
- Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems

THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.

Edit: typo

Turnout last night vs turnout in the referendum would be useful. Do you have the numbers?

Edit

Referendum was 134,400
Last night 1,832

Equivalent of a sub sample

MrsB said:

isam said:

MrsB said:

Those of you speculating about the Lib Dems and Leavers and Remainers might like to contemplate the following

Sunderland voted for Brexit 61% to 39%
Sunderland last night council by-election:

LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)

IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.

Relevant factors as I see it

- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters)
- Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness
- UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings
- Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas
- Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems

THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.

Edit: typo

Turnout last night vs turnout in the referendum would be useful. Do you have the numbers?

Edit

Referendum was 134,400
Last night 1,832

Equivalent of a sub sample

Council election turnout 28.6%. Referendum turnout 64.8%

Weirdly, had to go to BBC for referendum turnout as the official results on the Sunderland City Council website don't have turnout on them.

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

old_labour said:

TOPPING said:

ShropshireLadd said:

Tristram Hunt: against elitism and grammar schools. So becomes director of the V&A? Nice one

What is elitist about the V&A?

If Tristram has his way it will be more elitist and less accessible.

https://twitter.com/old_labour/status/819851678442721280

Charging for museum entry is quite reasonable.

Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.

I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.

Totally agree.

Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.

They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.

I .

Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!

I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.

But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.

I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.

I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.

The point is that British people see the galleries and museums as belonging to us. They have donation points where they sometimes specify 'for new works'. You're thinking too much like a Tory

SandyRentool said:

Breaking news: Residents of Jaywick worried that their homes will not be washed away.

malcolmg said:

SandyRentool said:

Breaking news: Residents of Jaywick worried that their homes will not be washed away.

LOL

MrsB said:

THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!

I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.

But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.

I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.

I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.

We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.

You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.

I'd actually go more often to the Natural History Museum, if I had to pay for it.

For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.

Nothing stopping you making a donation.

It's awesome that you can take four kids out to the world's best science/art/history/etc for nothing more than the cost of travel and a packed lunch. Anyone who goes to a private attraction will attest to how quickly it all adds up.

MrsB said:

label it a subsample if you like - it is one, in the same way that all individual elections are.
It's a real actual election where the Lib Dem vote went from < 5% to 45% and Labour headed downwards by 29%. There have been a number of repeats of that pattern up and down the country over the past 6 months. But please carry on assuming that contests in the north are all Labour v UKIP. Just don't complain if you lose money betting on it.

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!

I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.

But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.

I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.

I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.

We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.

You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.

I'd actually go more often to the Natural History Museum, if I had to pay for it.

For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.

Nothing stopping you making a donation.

It's awesome that you can take four kids out to the world's best science/art/history/etc for nothing more than the cost of travel and a packed lunch. Anyone who goes to a private attraction will attest to how quickly it all adds up.

YellowSubmarine said:

@isam Given your views I'm grateful you opt out of local decision making on multi million pound budgets and local social policy choices. However you hint at the Big Question. Will the small but crucial group of voters who found Leave's Big Red Lie bus the first thing worth voting for in 25 years return to type ? I genuinely don't know. However if they do the Referendum will have a radioactive half-life albeit a long one.

Decisions are made by those that show up.If these pivotal leave voters are an electoral Halley's Comet the Status Quo Ante will slowly reassert it's self.

felix said:

MrsB said:

Those of you speculating about the Lib Dems and Leavers and Remainers might like to contemplate the following

Sunderland voted for Brexit 61% to 39%
Sunderland last night council by-election:

LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)

IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.

Relevant factors as I see it

- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters)
- Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness
- UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings
- Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas
- Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems

THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.

Edit: typo

Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.

logical_song said:

felix said:

MrsB said:

Those of you speculating about the Lib Dems and Leavers and Remainers might like to contemplate the following

Sunderland voted for Brexit 61% to 39%
Sunderland last night council by-election:

LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)

IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.

Relevant factors as I see it

- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters)
- Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness
- UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings
- Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas
- Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems

THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.

Edit: typo

Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.

When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.

YellowSubmarine said:

@isam I agree with you on that. I'm just pointing out it's a form of self selection. Too many are lionising the ' I hadn't voted for 25 years ' crowd over the Leave victory. Not voting means you are ignored. So whether these Halley's Comet voters move into a much shorter orbit is a Big Question. Mrs B and others are right to ask it.