politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s a strong chance that there could be a Tory leadersh

Hugh said:

Obviously Gove is pure voter repellent - the arrogance, the ignorance, the sneering Rightwing contempt - so a good target for "differentiating" Lib Dems.

Personally I despise Gove for more than the way he comes across. It's the way he's treating our education system as a personal ideological experiment. Pretty disgraceful really.

But the electorate as a whole will merely get a whiff of Tory cronyism from all this, which is probably "priced in" across the board.

Pulpstar said:

taffys said:

In line with Yougov latest, could be 50p bounce for Labour showing.

Maybe they should have set it at 60p....

60p would be too high, 50p just sets it back to where it was.

Pulpstar said:

The polling shows that the politics of envy and 'making the rich take some pain' is alive and well ...

antifrank said:

Labelling Islington as the home of millionaires is extremely misleading when talking about educational attainment. It has the second worst level of child poverty in the country:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16483257

MarkSenior said:

Populus data looks ( more than ) a bit weird . Labour ahead of Con in South East and everywhere else in England/Wales but Con ahead of Labour in Scotland .

Socrates said:

On topic, why on Earth is Theresa May rated so highly by Tories? She's appalling on civil liberties...

antifrank said:

@Socrates A couple of generations ago Islington was one of the roughest areas of London. It is the same borough, but now with quite a lot of wealthy pockets. Blaming Islington's poverty on immigration is bizarre.

Socrates said:

antifrank said:

Labelling Islington as the home of millionaires is extremely misleading when talking about educational attainment. It has the second worst level of child poverty in the country:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16483257

I was talking more about the fiscal base to provide a decent educational system. But that's a nice example of how London's "success" from immigration has actually caused widespread poverty even in the nicer bits. Also, don't something like 40% of London kids get private tutoring?

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.

However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.

And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.

Ok, so give them a C in Maths and an F in RE. It's still a shocking poor measure. I'm happy to admit that Inner London schools have improved to above the nation's poor average, but still, going from the Conference South to League 2 doesn't hold a whole lot of lessons for Premiership quality football.

On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.

However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.

And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.

Ok, so give them a C in Maths and an F in RE. It's still a shocking poor measure. I'm happy to admit that Inner London schools have improved to above the nation's poor average, but still, going from the Conference South to League 2 doesn't hold a whole lot of lessons for Premiership quality football.

On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.

OFSTED rates 100% of Islington's state schools as either good or outstanding. Compare and contrast WITH 1999:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/islington-schools-attacked-by-ofsted-1094290.html

Getting good OFSTED ratings largely depend on showing OFSTED that you're abiding by their latest fad. Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs? I've seen schools with "good" ratings I wouldn't consider sending my kids to. A friend of mine worked at one school where she expressed concern to the head teacher that they weren't doing enough for the bright kids. The head teacher said this was nonsense, as pushing the kids stopped them enjoying their childhoods, and, besides, they get advantage from being "leaders" around so many strugglers. That place got a good rating, despite being a dump.

Socrates said:

Tykejohnno said:

Lib Dems urged to woo eastern European voters to avoid wipeout in Brussels elections in May

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550914/Lib-Dems-urged-woo-eastern-European-voters-avoid-wipeout-Brussels-elections-May.html

Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.

Pulpstar said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

Looks like the squirrels have infiltrated Populus HQ

What exactly is a squirrel poll :P ?

Tykejohnno said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Tykejohnno said:

Lib Dems urged to woo eastern European voters to avoid wipeout in Brussels elections in May

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550914/Lib-Dems-urged-woo-eastern-European-voters-avoid-wipeout-Brussels-elections-May.html

Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.

Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections

If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.

JackW said:

MarkSenior said:

Populus data looks ( more than ) a bit weird . Labour ahead of Con in South East and everywhere else in England/Wales but Con ahead of Labour in Scotland .

Chortle ....

rcs1000 said:

Tykejohnno said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Tykejohnno said:

Lib Dems urged to woo eastern European voters to avoid wipeout in Brussels elections in May

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550914/Lib-Dems-urged-woo-eastern-European-voters-avoid-wipeout-Brussels-elections-May.html

Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.

Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections

If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.

Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.

Of course, I could be unduly optimistic

TGOHF said:

This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.

http://s10.postimg.org/wm7m8ch9l/Evening_Telegraph_Monday_19_October_1936_nazi.jpg

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..

Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.

And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.

Eh ? Whit ?

Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?

ne of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.

A survey last year for the Imperial War Museum showed that Glaswegians were notably suspicious of political agendas in commemorating the Great War - the basic summary report is here
http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BRF_Declaration-of-war-report_P2_Web-1.pdf

and here is one press report (by a newspaper which is anti-indy on the whole)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/why-glasgow-men-do-not-want-to-celebrate-wwi.21772579
handled. I will be fascinated to see how it works out.

I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.

True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.


This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.

http://s10.postimg.org/wm7m8ch9l/Evening_Telegraph_Monday_19_October_1936_nazi.jpg

It is politics of the lowest order, trying to hijack the war dead re referendum. Pathetic Tory policy.

SouthamObserver said:

Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Tykejohnno said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Tykejohnno said:

Lib Dems urged to woo eastern European voters to avoid wipeout in Brussels elections in May

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550914/Lib-Dems-urged-woo-eastern-European-voters-avoid-wipeout-Brussels-elections-May.html

Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.

Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections

If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.

Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.

Of course, I could be unduly optimistic

Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.

I didn't know that, thanks for that.

It's absolutely bizarre that it still exists when the reciprocal right has long been abolished in India, Pakistan etc. I have no idea why the Tories don't do something about it: it seems like one of those things where they don't go near it under fear someone will scream racism, but if they actually did it they'd find it was quite popular. Like requiring English for claiming benefits.

edmundintokyo said:

On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.

There's an argument to be had about whether you should go by nationality or residence (I'd say that wherever your main country is for tax should be where you can vote) but the current thing is just a way to disfranchise mobile people. Ultimately I'd imagine at least a core of EU countries will come up with some consistent principles, probably splitting the difference, eg you only vote in one country, but that can transfer from country of nationality to country of residence after X years out of the country you're a national of.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..

Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.

And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.

Eh ? Whit ?

Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?

ne of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.

A survey last year for the Imperial War Museum showed that Glaswegians were notably suspicious of political agendas in commemorating the Great War - the basic summary report is here
http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BRF_Declaration-of-war-report_P2_Web-1.pdf

and here is one press report (by a newspaper which is anti-indy on the whole)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/why-glasgow-men-do-not-want-to-celebrate-wwi.21772579
handled. I will be fascinated to see how it works out.

I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.

True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.


This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.

http://s10.postimg.org/wm7m8ch9l/Evening_Telegraph_Monday_19_October_1936_nazi.jpg

It is politics of the lowest order, trying to hijack the war dead re referendum. Pathetic Tory policy.

However, the overall Nats' horror at Lang's words is as phoney as it is cynical, in that it's little more than a move to change the subject from the car crash that has occurred over their economic policy thanks to Mark Carney's verdict on their plan to keep the pound.
This is, after all, a party that tries desperately to keep onside with Scottish servicemen serving with the UK's Armed Forces whilst evincing a genuine and deep-seated animosity for Britishness and the flag under which those soldiers, sailors and airmen serve.
Many of them regard the Union Jack as "a flag of oppression" and call it The Butcher's Apron.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10611166/Nats-phoney-war-keeps-currency-woes-out-of-sight.html

OblitusSumMe said:

edmundintokyo said:

On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.

There's an argument to be had about whether you should go by nationality or residence (I'd say that wherever your main country is for tax should be where you can vote) but the current thing is just a way to disfranchise mobile people. Ultimately I'd imagine at least a core of EU countries will come up with some consistent principles, probably splitting the difference, eg you only vote in one country, but that can transfer from country of nationality to country of residence after X years out of the country you're a national of.

Edmund, in general I'd agree with you, but you aren't reckoning with the way most people think about this sort of issue. Forget about the West Lothian question, what about the South Gdansk question?

Under your entirely reasonable proposal, the vote of a plumber from South Gdansk in the East Midlands could make the difference between a party that wants to take Britain out of the EU forming the government and a party that wants to stay in the EU doing so instead.

Your proposal only works if you relegate the elections to National Parliaments to the status of elections to, say, County Councils, with most people adopting a European identity above their national identity, and a European state having primacy over the constituent nation states.

Much as I might prefer that outcome, I doubt that the people of Europe are ready for it, so the minority of mobile Europeans will continue to be disenfranchised - unless they're Irish and living in the UK, or British and living in Ireland.

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

It would also be incredibly simple to pass a 'non-reciporical rights bill', which simply struck of commonwealth countries that did not give British citizens equivalent rights. In this way it wouldn't be about people from x, but about countries that did not give rights to British citizens.

That should be the bare minimum. When the immigration is overwhelmingly one way (like Jamaica --> UK) I think there should be an agreement to strip it away on both sides.

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?

Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.

And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?

As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?

After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.

I'm pretty sure you can become a UK national after a lot less than 15 years if you're at all bothered to adopt your new home.

malcolmg said:

Poor dears in HOL are upset about their conditions, can you imagine



“House of Lords is no longer a place for fine dining, peers gripe
A full roast dinner costs £9.50. Peers also receive a £300-a-day expenses allowance for attending the House of Lords.

antifrank said:

I don't see any harm in disfranchising the mobile. They won't have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

However, the overall Nats' horror at Lang's words is as phoney as it is cynical, in that it's little more than a move to change the subject from the car crash that has occurred over their economic policy thanks to Mark Carney's verdict on their plan to keep the pound.
This is, after all, a party that tries desperately to keep onside with Scottish servicemen serving with the UK's Armed Forces whilst evincing a genuine and deep-seated animosity for Britishness and the flag under which those soldiers, sailors and airmen serve.
Many of them regard the Union Jack as "a flag of oppression" and call it The Butcher's Apron.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10611166/Nats-phoney-war-keeps-currency-woes-out-of-sight.html

Carlotta , you get ever more desperate , to try and put forward the demented self opinion of Cockers as being the truth beggars belief. Next you will be telling me he told you Alex Salmond eats babies.

rcs1000 said:

However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

@sOCRATES - "Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs?"

It depends on the intake of kids. In areas of deprivation 60% of pupils getting A-C might be considered an outstanding result. Rather less so in affluent areas.

I'm sorry, but I think this is where Michael Gove is exactly right in criticising "the bigotry of soft expectations". I've seen scientific studies where they find that when teachers are told the kids in their class have done worse in the previous round, the kids do worse on the next test. It's because the teachers don't push them so hard. This effect is accentuated hugely by the class system in this country and the cultural mentality it encourages. In Finland, there is very little difference between performance of rich kids and poor kids, while the UK is one of the worst in terms of discrepancy. And it's because parents, teachers and society at large think a kid with a working class accent from a council estate is doing well if they get to be manager of the local supermarket. I've known a lot of this stuff happen at the Ofsted-"good" schools we're talking about. Excellent teachers wanting to do exciting projects in art or history being told "well, that might work in the home counties, but these inner city kids can't cope with this stuff." It's frankly, bullshit. GCSEs really aren't very hard. There is absolutely no reason why any kid without learning difficulties shouldn't be able to get 8 or 9 Bs at GCSE.

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?

Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.

And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?

As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?

After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.

Well you have your views and I have mine. And if you do not believe that there has been a remarkable transformation in London's schools so be it. We are never going to agree, so there's not much point in debating it.

What I find remarkable is how you are clinging to London, whilst ignoring that grade inflation (yes, the thing that so many Labour supporters on here told us wasn't happening) did actually occur, as admitted by Hunt. Or ignoring the PISA results.

It's a bit like Labour supporters talking about the NHS, yet remarkably ignoring the experience of NHS Wales.

Remarkable.

As I said above, I'd call London's improvement welcome and interesting.

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.

That's a contradictory statement.

That'll be because I made a typo! I meant "it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have not shown a dramatic relative improvement"

Carnyx said:

Patrick said:

Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.

But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.

It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.

SouthamObserver said:

The fact that I am saying we should learn the lessons from London does rather imply that I believe there are lessons to be learned. But you wish to believe that I am complacent, clinging on, in denial and all the rest of it. And if that makes you feel good, so be it. I will make myself feel good by believing that you are incapable of recognising that anything that may have happened or been instigated before 2010 was in any way beneficial. Thus, there is no point in debating - you have decided what I think and I have decided what you think. We are not going to agree.

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Patrick said:

Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.

But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.

It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.

I mean really ?

From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Patrick said:

Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.

But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.

It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.

I mean really ?

From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?