politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now the Electoral Commission orders an investigation in LeaveE

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/labour-ruled-tories-real-extremists-slogan-amid-fears-could/

Labour abandoned the slogan 'The Tories are the real extremists' amid fears it would highlight Jeremy Corbyn's links to groups like Hamas and the IRA, sources have told The Telegraph.

Can't be true, surely?

Corbyn's greatest casualty: we will never see The Thick Of It again.....

I think the relative low key approach so far by the conservatives is good tactics as Corbyn declares all his goodies

justin124 said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

AndyJS said:

The Labour PPB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBt5wfJci18

"Miss, my dad says Jeremy Corbyn's a crazy old trot. What's a trot?"

Miss miss my dad says Jeremy Corbyn's supports the IRA...who are the IRA?

Miss , my dad says Theresa May is a lying bitch!

Just goes to show how childish saying that is.

Which part of the sentence do you not agree with ? Lying or bitch ? The word ugly wasn't even used !

At least you don't go around wishing she was dead. A small redeeming feature.

I was not aware that anyone had wished her dead.

It's all in the PB archive, Justin.

Well I would be interested to read that! The only person I have wished that on is Tony Blair .

They are all here, you looking forward to her becoming blind, losing limbs etc.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/19/no-one-knows-anything-what-to-do-ifwhen-mrs-may-wins-todays-vote/

But you said 'dead'!

Yeah, you mentioned something about a polonium pill?

williamglenn said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

AndyJS said:

The Labour PPB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBt5wfJci18

"Miss, my dad says Jeremy Corbyn's a crazy old trot. What's a trot?"

Miss miss my dad says Jeremy Corbyn's supports the IRA...who are the IRA?

Miss , my dad says Theresa May is a lying bitch!

Just goes to show how childish saying that is.

Which part of the sentence do you not agree with ? Lying or bitch ? The word ugly wasn't even used !

At least you don't go around wishing she was dead. A small redeeming feature.

I was not aware that anyone had wished her dead.

It's all in the PB archive, Justin.

Well I would be interested to read that! The only person I have wished that on is Tony Blair .

They are all here, you looking forward to her becoming blind, losing limbs etc.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/19/no-one-knows-anything-what-to-do-ifwhen-mrs-may-wins-todays-vote/

But you said 'dead'!

Didn't you refer to a polonium pill at one point? Hard to survive that...

What's the saying, PB Tories never forget? .. or was it something to do with learning...

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

The Labour PPB:

hts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBt5wfJci18

1) Using children in a PPB is usually a bad idea - its cringeworthy in so many ways.

2) "Under the next labour government no child will be in a class of over 30" is a really stupid thing to promise. I know smaller classes are generally a better idea, but even the Infant Class Size limit is far too rigid for the situation, and I doubt a Labour government could resolve the issues so fast to 'promise' that no child would be in a class of over 30.

In an ideal world no child would be in a clas of over 20. It makes a big difference.

However, his policies if enacted by wrecking the private sector and imposing vast additional unfunded costs on the state sector would more or less guarantee no child would be in a class of under 40.

I've taught. From experience I agree with you. Even 25 makes a big difference in terms of workload and how "on top of it" you feel in the classroom, how much attention you can direct at the kids etc. My long-retired mum was a teacher too, and frequently had class-sizes of 40, sometimes 50 (the year they extended the leaving age from 15 to 16 meant schools were seriously underresourced). She reckoned in some ways very big class sizes made you focus on whole-class teaching more effectively and less way-laid by focusing on the attention-hogs.

I taught a class of (highly politically/economically connected) sixth formers who came over from elite high schools in China. They had very big class sizes even there, 40 or so. Everyone paid attention to the teacher. The lesson pace was fast and very demanding. But a different culture of course, with different expectations. They found sixth form here utterly mystifying in terms of the way we taught.

Lots of econometric research seems to suggests class size doesn't make a difference to effectiveness, but highly-trained, well-educated and well-paid teachers do. It doesn't "feel" that way to me in the classroom, and maybe there's cultural confounding here (larger class sizes in countries with greater societal/parental pressure on education?), but this seems to be the direction the evidence points. Something I've always been curious about.

ThreeQuidder said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

AndyJS said:

The Labour PPB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBt5wfJci18

"Miss, my dad says Jeremy Corbyn's a crazy old trot. What's a trot?"

Miss miss my dad says Jeremy Corbyn's supports the IRA...who are the IRA?

Miss , my dad says Theresa May is a lying bitch!

Just goes to show how childish saying that is.

Which part of the sentence do you not agree with ? Lying or bitch ? The word ugly wasn't even used !

At least you don't go around wishing she was dead. A small redeeming feature.

I was not aware that anyone had wished her dead.

It's all in the PB archive, Justin.

Well I would be interested to read that! The only person I have wished that on is Tony Blair .

They are all here, you looking forward to her becoming blind, losing limbs etc.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/19/no-one-knows-anything-what-to-do-ifwhen-mrs-may-wins-todays-vote/

But you said 'dead'!

Justin, you said she deserved a polonium pill. When last I checked they are invariably fatal. Or do you think her stomach is lead lined?

Can I very strongly urge you to stop defending the indefensible? Saying you wished worse on Tony Blair isn't really a great answer - arguably it makes it worse. Move on from it. Please.

I don't regret saying that about Blair at all - and view him as pure evil given the deaths caused by his act of wilful unprovoked aggression.

I thought @PBModerator had given you a final warning?

Don't worry, he's being tried by the court of public opinion.

MyBurningEars said:

<
I've taught. From experience I agree with you. Even 25 makes a big difference in terms of workload and how "on top of it" you feel in the classroom, how much attention you can direct at the kids etc. My long-retired mum was a teacher too, and frequently had class-sizes of 40, sometimes 50 (the year they extended the leaving age from 15 to 16 meant schools were seriously underresourced). She reckoned in some ways very big class sizes made you focus on whole-class teaching more effectively and less way-laid by focusing on the attention-hogs.

I taught a class of (highly politically/economically connected) sixth formers who came over from elite high schools in China. They had very big class sizes even there, 40 or so. Everyone paid attention to the teacher. The lesson pace was fast and very demanding. But a different culture of course, with different expectations. They found sixth form here utterly mystifying in terms of the way we taught.

Lots of econometric research seems to suggests class size doesn't make a difference to effectiveness, but highly-trained, well-educated and well-paid teachers do. It doesn't "feel" that way to me in the classroom, and maybe there's cultural confounding here (larger class sizes in countries with greater societal/parental pressure on education?), but this seems to be the direction the evidence points. Something I've always been curious about.

It's because data exists to show small class sizes in the state sector do worse than large ones. Children in a class of 35 allegedly make at least as much progress as children in a class of 15.

Which only goes to show statisticians should be kept away from figures. Which one is the top set with the ones who can pass an Oxbridge exam at 15 and which one the one where you spend time explaining how eating the crayons isn't a great idea? Oh, yes... and yet which group gets the rawer deal?

My grandmother also taught classes of 50 in WWII and she said she managed OK. But even if I conceded on class sizes it's hard to see, all other considerations aside, how we fit classes of these sizes into the classrooms.

Edit - the other key issue linking to your first point is marking. Marking a set of 34 books for an exam class and doing it properly takes a whole day. Which leaves less time for good planning, less time to relax and recuperate, which means lesson quality is down and teachers are more stressed and snappish - which in turn gets the children down.

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

If the government get rid of the tax lock then I'll probably reconsider the donation I've been pondering. Not impressed by the government so far.

The tax lock is far too restrictive, it needs to be modified. It boxes the government in and they may need additional wiggle room.

It should be restrictive. I want the government to work within a straght jacket and have a very tight spending envelope. If they start to increase taxes to pay for day to day spending then when does the Tory party stop being the Tory party and start being the Labour party?

I think an overall tax burden lock is fine but not allowing yourself to shift the balance of tax is crackers. It was insane at the last election and would be even more insane to not take the opportunity to liberate the government from it.

So what do we, as a party, stand for if we start raising taxes to fund government spending? No thanks. Bring back the posh boys, all is forgiven.

George Osborne raised taxes a plenty. VAT for instance. I've never been the type of Tory that doesn't accept that occasionally raising tax is essential. I think reconfirming the tax lock as it stands would be crackers especially if the economy stutters.

Then take the axe to spending. The economy is out of intensive care, we don't need to raise taxes to balance the books, the chancellor just needs the balls to cut in working benefits and housing benefit paid to working people.

Next up for Jeremy - abolish University fees at a cost of 10 billion

That's surely a given he is going to announce that.

Followed by Nationalisation of Railways

Just the railways? As a true socialist, surely will do BT, leccy and water as well.

Successive ToryGovernments felt it was very much in the national interest to have the Railways, Gas , Electricity and Water in the Public Secor. Were they all deluded Marxists too?

Yes,

Hayek dedicated his book 'The Road To Serfdom' to the Socialists in ALL parties for a reason, Marxist/socialist/authoritarian tendency's exist everywhere, not just in the Labour Party.

Bloody hell, Donald Trump is honouring another of one Barack Obama's promises

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/855518447668776960

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bloody hell, Donald Trump is honouring another of one Barack Obama's promises

@CarlottaVance - Biding your time pays dividends after all.

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

If the government get rid of the tax lock then I'll probably reconsider the donation I've been pondering. Not impressed by the government so far.

The tax lock is far too restrictive, it needs to be modified. It boxes the government in and they may need additional wiggle room.

It should be restrictive. I want the government to work within a straght jacket and have a very tight spending envelope. If they start to increase taxes to pay for day to day spending then when does the Tory party stop being the Tory party and start being the Labour party?

I think an overall tax burden lock is fine but not allowing yourself to shift the balance of tax is crackers. It was insane at the last election and would be even more insane to not take the opportunity to liberate the government from it.

So what do we, as a party, stand for if we start raising taxes to fund government spending? No thanks. Bring back the posh boys, all is forgiven.

George Osborne raised taxes a plenty. VAT for instance. I've never been the type of Tory that doesn't accept that occasionally raising tax is essential. I think reconfirming the tax lock as it stands would be crackers especially if the economy stutters.

Then take the axe to spending. The economy is out of intensive care, we don't need to raise taxes to balance the books, the chancellor just needs the balls to cut in working benefits and housing benefit paid to working people.

Let's deal in the realm of political reality. We are at the limits of politically acceptable spending retrenchment. We shouldn't need to raise taxes but it's insane to hem yourself in on that score unnecessarily.

surbiton said:

Alistair said:

I know I'm banging on about this but Ladbrokes is letting you cover 0-49 LD seat @ 1.10

Can someone formulate the scenario over the next 7 weeks were they get 50+ seats because my imagination isn't strong enough.

Just go through the seats they lost in 2015, discard 10 and then add 10. You end up with 58.

The error made in estimating LD seats in 2015 revolved around the belief that the 8% or so national poll rating might translate into 30 - 40 seats because LDs were so very good at campaigning and targeting and that their vote distribution was quite efficient. These advantages they do have, but they do not confer the ability to defy gravity. On present national poll ratings it is inconceivable that the LDs will win 58 seats. 20 - 25 is where it's at IMO.

IanB2 said:

Far too many people here seem absolutely convinced that no unlikely thing can ever happen when, if the last year has taught us nothing else, we ought to know by now that unlikely s**t happens all the time.

Indeed - back in 2015 I seem to recall many people on here saying No Overall Majority was free money at about 1.05.

Well now, in the 2017 GE, Con Most Seats is 1.07.

So, per Betfair, Con Most Seats in this GE is LESS likely than No Overall Majority was in 2015.

Who knows what happens? Maybe the week before the GE the CPS announces they are prosecuting a stack of Con MPs, all of whom are standing in 2017? What happens then?

I would also be wary of all hell breaking loose on the subject of the pensions triple lock or on the subject of tax.

Of course Con are hot favourites but anything could happen.

PeterC said:

surbiton said:

Alistair said:

I know I'm banging on about this but Ladbrokes is letting you cover 0-49 LD seat @ 1.10

Can someone formulate the scenario over the next 7 weeks were they get 50+ seats because my imagination isn't strong enough.

Just go through the seats they lost in 2015, discard 10 and then add 10. You end up with 58.

The error made in estimating LD seats in 2015 revolved around the belief that the 8% or so national poll rating might translate into 30 - 40 seats because LDs were so very good a campaigning and targeting and that their vote distribution was quite efficient. These advantages they do have but they do not confer the ability to defy gravity. On present national poll ratings it is inconceivable that the LDs will win 58 seats. 20 - 25 is where its at IMO.

If the poll ratings are right, but it is not inconceivable that they are wrong, in which case it is not inconceivable that they will win 58 seats.

Last time the pollsters were struggling to find enough Lib Dem past voters so were weighting differently. This time the pollsters are finding too many Lib Dem past voters so are weighting the opposite way. If the pollsters ratings are wrong, the party share could be wrong - as the Tory share was last time.

In 2015 a Tory majority seemed inconceivable based on the polls. In 2017 >50 LD seats seems inconceivable based on the polls. Its unlikely but not impossible.

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

Far too many people here seem absolutely convinced that no unlikely thing can ever happen when, if the last year at has taught us nothing else, we ought to know that unlikely s**t happens all the time.

The Tories getting 50% in the election is quite unlikely...

Why do you say that?

Don't make me all excited now....

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

If the government get rid of the tax lock then I'll probably reconsider the donation I've been pondering. Not impressed by the government so far.

The tax lock is far too restrictive, it needs to be modified. It boxes the government in and they may need additional wiggle room.

It should be restrictive. I want the government to work within a straght jacket and have a very tight spending envelope. If they start to increase taxes to pay for day to day spending then when does the Tory party stop being the Tory party and start being the Labour party?

I think an overall tax burden lock is fine but not allowing yourself to shift the balance of tax is crackers. It was insane at the last election and would be even more insane to not take the opportunity to liberate the government from it.

So what do we, as a party, stand for if we start raising taxes to fund government spending? No thanks. Bring back the posh boys, all is forgiven.

George Osborne raised taxes a plenty. VAT for instance. I've never been the type of Tory that doesn't accept that occasionally raising tax is essential. I think reconfirming the tax lock as it stands would be crackers especially if the economy stutters.

Then take the axe to spending. The economy is out of intensive care, we don't need to raise taxes to balance the books, the chancellor just needs the balls to cut in working benefits and housing benefit paid to working people.

Let's deal in the realm of political reality. We are at the limits of politically acceptable spending retrenchment. We shouldn't need to raise taxes but it's insane to hem yourself in on that score unnecessarily.

You may think that we are at the 'limits of politically acceptable speeding retrenchment' I disagree, I think there are Billions being spent inefficiently, or on things for which where are not priorities or for which there is no real need. There may be a political squeal at the point that the cuts/privatisations are made. as the government employees face the loss of there jobs, but 2 years latter they will have new jobs and very few will notice the difference, depending on the area of spending, some may even prefer whatever privet company or charity emerges to replace it.

Who (apart from the employees) would really miss the 320 million a year spent of the UK space agency? how many of us are cheering on Elon Musk as SpaceX heads to mars?

IanB2 said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

If the government get rid of the tax lock then I'll probably reconsider the donation I've been pondering. Not impressed by the government so far.

The tax lock is far too restrictive, it needs to be modified. It boxes the government in and they may need additional wiggle room.

It should be restrictive. I want the government to work within a straght jacket and have a very tight spending envelope. If they start to increase taxes to pay for day to day spending then when does the Tory party stop being the Tory party and start being the Labour party?

I think an overall tax burden lock is fine but not allowing yourself to shift the balance of tax is crackers. It was insane at the last election and would be even more insane to not take the opportunity to liberate the government from it.

So what do we, as a party, stand for if we start raising taxes to fund government spending? No thanks. Bring back the posh boys, all is forgiven.

George Osborne raised taxes a plenty. VAT for instance. I've never been the type of Tory that doesn't accept that occasionally raising tax is essential. I think reconfirming the tax lock as it stands would be crackers especially if the economy stutters.

Then take the axe to spending. The economy is out of intensive care, we don't need to raise taxes to balance the books, the chancellor just needs the balls to cut in working benefits and housing benefit paid to working people.

Let's deal in the realm of political reality. We are at the limits of politically acceptable spending retrenchment. We shouldn't need to raise taxes but it's insane to hem yourself in on that score unnecessarily.

Tax reliefs will be the first to go. Any higher rate taxpayers wanting to make additional pension contributions would be advised to do so before this autumn.

Higher rate pension tax relief is the likely target

So the French and the Germans are going to benefit from all those chlorine-washed chickens ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

If the government get rid of the tax lock then I'll probably reconsider the donation I've been pondering. Not impressed by the government so far.

The tax lock is far too restrictive, it needs to be modified. It boxes the government in and they may need additional wiggle room.

It should be restrictive. I want the government to work within a straght jacket and have a very tight spending envelope. If they start to increase taxes to pay for day to day spending then when does the Tory party stop being the Tory party and start being the Labour party?

I think an overall tax burden lock is fine but not allowing yourself to shift the balance of tax is crackers. It was insane at the last election and would be even more insane to not take the opportunity to liberate the government from it.

So what do we, as a party, stand for if we start raising taxes to fund government spending? No thanks. Bring back the posh boys, all is forgiven.

George Osborne raised taxes a plenty. VAT for instance. I've never been the type of Tory that doesn't accept that occasionally raising tax is essential. I think reconfirming the tax lock as it stands would be crackers especially if the economy stutters.

Then take the axe to spending. The economy is out of intensive care, we don't need to raise taxes to balance the books, the chancellor just needs the balls to cut in working benefits and housing benefit paid to working people.

Let's deal in the realm of political reality. We are at the limits of politically acceptable spending retrenchment. We shouldn't need to raise taxes but it's insane to hem yourself in on that score unnecessarily.

Tax reliefs will be the first to go. Any higher rate taxpayers wanting to make additional pension contributions would be advised to do so before this autumn.

Higher rate pension tax relief is the likely target

...thus causing even more doctors, senor police officers and head teachers to take early retirement......

AndyJS said:

The Labour PPB:

Is the apostrophe in "children's" in the wrong place?

SeanT said:

But I suspect a small bunch of the editorial team have been seized by Remoaner madness.

Or they are right, and you just haven't figured it out yet.

SeanT said:

To get a decent objective view of Brexit one is forced to read the more boring, business pages of the FT. Incredibly.

The quality of the editorial content of the FT on Brexit has been going downhill. They recently suggested that May could win goodwill by proposing an EFTA style court to oversee any transition deal, ignoring the fact that Tusk had already said the transition would need to be under current ECJ processes, so goodwill would be the last thing that would achieve.

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

But I suspect a small bunch of the editorial team have been seized by Remoaner madness.

Or they are right, and you just haven't figured it out yet.

Paul Ryan said only yesterday that the US is ready to do a deal with the UK as soon as it is in a position to do so. That won't be for at least 23 months.

The EU is an position to do so now.

https://twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/855528273643806720

Momentum have just emailed me to say "Let's make June the end of May", which I thought was a rather good pun.

They're trying to drum their membership up into taking to the campaign trail or making a donation (suggested amounts £10, £20, or £50). They've got the fighting talk. I remain sceptical this will result in feet pounding streets.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/855528273643806720

These gags are endless....It could be like those Cameron posters.

chestnut said:

SeanT said:

More importantly, The Sun is not happy with TMay. That WILL worry her

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/855524532182036482

The Sun is quite right. FFS exclude students from the migration stats, forget the tens of thousands shit, concentrate on what is right for the UK, not an abstract figure. And give up the 0.7% aid crap.

Hammond is a disaster.

I continually fail to understand this attitude - May surely signs off on anything her Chancellor proposes, if you think he is a disaster, you think she is a disaster.

The papers will not be happy unless we pay no taxes at all while seeing no reduction in any service or investment, sooner or later a prime minister has to suck it up and either cut spending drastically, or tell their own supporters to deal with the rises already if they want to keep their own godsdamned spending, which you bet they do, since they moan like absolute babies whenever anything other than the foreign aid is proposed to be cut, and if any tax is proposed.

I'm part convinced the 0.7% is only kept as a sort of lightning rod. That its some kind of conjuring trick, as people are so angry about it they don't notice other things to be angry about.

Regardless, whinging about the 0.7% has become the right's version of 'NHS, NHS, NHS' to me - I can concede issues about it that may well need addressing, but I am just so sick and tired of the moaning.

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Theresa May is calculating that large numbers of voters (and the press) have nowhere else to go, so is seeking as free a hand as possible. She is prepared to sacrifice some seats to give herself the power to do more without having made inconvenient commitments.

Good strategy.

Making pledges (or not) on the hoof like this over the next 7 weeks risks a war of voter attrition.

Sounds a bit like a rolling manifesto.

augustus_carp said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

MaxPB said:

If the government get rid of the tax lock then I'll probably reconsider the donation I've been pondering. Not impressed by the government so far.

The tax lock is far too restrictive, it needs to be modified. It boxes the government in and they may need additional wiggle room.

It should be restrictive. I want the government to work within a straght jacket and have a very tight spending envelope. If they start to increase taxes to pay for day to day spending then when does the Tory party stop being the Tory party and start being the Labour party?

I think an overall tax burden lock is fine but not allowing yourself to shift the balance of tax is crackers. It was insane at the last election and would be even more insane to not take the opportunity to liberate the government from it.

So what do we, as a party, stand for if we start raising taxes to fund government spending? No thanks. Bring back the posh boys, all is forgiven.

George Osborne raised taxes a plenty. VAT for instance. I've never been the type of Tory that doesn't accept that occasionally raising tax is essential. I think reconfirming the tax lock as it stands would be crackers especially if the economy stutters.

Then take the axe to spending. The economy is out of intensive care, we don't need to raise taxes to balance the books, the chancellor just needs the balls to cut in working benefits and housing benefit paid to working people.

Let's deal in the realm of political reality. We are at the limits of politically acceptable spending retrenchment. We shouldn't need to raise taxes but it's insane to hem yourself in on that score unnecessarily.

Tax reliefs will be the first to go. Any higher rate taxpayers wanting to make additional pension contributions would be advised to do so before this autumn.

Higher rate pension tax relief is the likely target

...thus causing even more doctors, senor police officers and head teachers to take early retirement......

That's the lifetime allowance doing that...

MyBurningEars said:

Overall, I don't think the international weight of evidence on the issue comes down to a "lies, damned lies and statistics" thing where statisticians have cocked up abysmally (as in your example). This is one of those issues where the evidence points strongly one way, common sense and anecdotal experience another. I've always found such intersections fascinating - but also infuriating, in that I really don't know what the "right" answer is, and whether my head or heart is right.

Yes, marking is a huge point. And there is evidence that high quality assessment is important. Although there is a trade-off here at a national policy level: a country that maintains high class size can, ceteris paribus, afford to give teachers substantially more planning & preparation time, as well as more continuing professional development. This is apparently one of the strengths of the Chinese system, and often overlooked by people who focus on what's going on in the classroom (and in students' homes) without looking at what teachers are doing out of the classroom. To be fair, this isn't a trade-off we're unlikely to see explored in the UK - large classes are generally a cost-cutting measure here, and our infrastructure isn't designed to support such large classes anyway. But it's interesting how things can cut both ways.

There is little reason why information transfer needs to happen in a classroom at all these days. The best method, particularly for High School onwards, is to use class-time for discussion, engagement and selection of interesting problems to address, and let the kids research the information on their own (individually or in study groups) outside. Presentations of their work can then be used to assess the quality of their information sources, if that is a worry, but still with more emphasis on critiquing and improving their ability to manipulate data and present it in useful ways, rather than simply proof of data acquisition.

I wonder if the International Aid commitment had as much to do with the Union and Ruth Davidson, as international soft power.

May will prioritise British soft power and the integrity of the Union over a few extra squids, I think.

chestnut said:

kle4 said:

I continually fail to understand this attitude - May surely signs off on anything her Chancellor proposes, if you think he is a disaster, you think she is a disaster.

I think he has the wrong kind of demeanour. Funereal.

That has, of course, been part of his appeal to date. Serious, grim even, for serious and grim times.

I'm on the fence about him, but the 'gaffes' he has made so far are policy announcements which surely don't take May by surprise, so the worst thing that would be said of him is that he persuaded her they were good ideas when they weren't, which doesn't really excuse her.

TMay is a serious woman, I am sure she would agree the buck stops with her.

Every one on here agrees with me. Looks like the reader of children's books will be pm!!!!!

TheScreamingEagles said:

*SMUG BASTARD MODE*

htt://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/855528862712832000

Maybe George will start following you now he has more time on his hands?

Ave_it said:

Every one on here agrees with me. Looks like the reader of children's books will be pm!!!!!

The photo was one of his most charming moments to date.

Pulpstar said:

Does anyone have the following figures, or know where I can get them

Leave/Remain by major party 2015 Results
Leave/Remain current poll average.

Cheers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

peter_from_putney said:

The spread-betting seat markets for the three main parties are currently as follows ;

Sporting:

Tories ........ 372 - 378

Labour ....... 168 - 174

LibDems ...... 28 - 31

Spreadex:

Tories ........ 372 - 378

Labour ....... 170 - 176

LibDems ...... 28 - 31

It's encouraging to note that both firms are quoting on the basis of a 6 seat spread. In the 2015 GE, IIRC both firms had a 10 seat spread in operation.

It will be interesting to hear what OGH makes of these seat spreads!

I'd expect Labour to be 15-20 higher, and LDs 15-20 less, personally.

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

This is where we are. Because we won the referendum. And you lost.

We prevail. Bye bye.

You're gonna go down swinging.

Fair enough.

Who says we're going down?

SeanT said:

GIN1138 said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bloody hell, Donald Trump is honouring another of one Barack Obama's promises

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/855518447668776960

Preposterous bollocks (just like the Daily Express stories that claim the opposite). Trump is a narcissist with the attention span of his handbag designing daughter. The USA will pursue free trade agreements with whoever it can, and whoever it benefits, as and when.

The Times is morphing, rather sadly, into the contrary, broadsheet version of the Daily Mail, in its anti-Brexit positioning.

To get a decent objective view of Brexit one is forced to read the more boring, business pages of the FT. Incredibly.

Isn't The Times "your" paper? You'll be going the same way as Kelvin Mackenzie if you aren't careful!

Please don't quote me (really). I love my paper and honour my employer, Mr Rupert Murdoch (PBUH). And I absolutely love saying I WRITE FOR THE TIMES. Yes. THE TIMES OF LONDON. All over the world, this opens doors and eyes. Fab.

But I suspect a small bunch of the editorial team have been seized by Remoaner madness.

Hopefully they will revert to sanity soon.

Times increasing its cover price by 20p from tomorrow

Does anyone know if we are getting tracker polls? Or are pollsters still licking their wounds?

May surely cannot go into a GE with Labour promising to keep the pensions triple lock and not raise taxes (up to a certain level of income) and yet the Conservatives not making the same commitments.

If she does, she'll be attacked relentlessly.

Anything could happen.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Theresa May is calculating that large numbers of voters (and the press) have nowhere else to go, so is seeking as free a hand as possible. She is prepared to sacrifice some seats to give herself the power to do more without having made inconvenient commitments.

Good strategy.

Dave went for that strategy in 2010.

Should we start bracing ourselves for Tim Farron as Deputy PM?

Sky just reported on UKIP in Dagenham and UKIP voters are going conservative. Indeed over the last few days Sky and BBC live reports from across the Country show a huge move to Theresa May - the last time I witnessed anything like this was Tony Blair in 1997