politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation finds that YES could have an 8% lead if Scottish
Comments
-
Can do what you like !rcs1000 said:I just got Spain in the office World Cup sweepstake.
Given my addiction to Spanish economic statistics, this seems an appropriate pick. PBers - should I lay this off on Betfair for a quick profit?
I've got Cameroon and USA - Paid £2 for each pick,
I've calculated their fair values as £0.07 (Cameroon) & £0.26 (USA)0 -
You can teach ethics and morality without teaching religion. If you look - on a country-by-country basis - for correlation between religiosity and crime rates, the numbers do not look good for religion.HurstLlama said:Schools do impart values and norms on their pupils, this doesn't need to be done though formal lessons as it will always happen through the standards of behaviour and language the teachers use and judge to be acceptable. So removing lessons on faith from the curriculum may not actually produce the result you want. Voluntary apartheid and ghettoisation cannot be stopped by the state saying it wants to withdraw from the cultural field.
That said, @Socrates point about religious schools performing better academically is the best point in their favour. I suspect, however, that the real correlation is between parental involvement and achievement (and religious schools tend to have higher parental envolvement). Given that - rather than religion per se - is the arrow of causation, it seems that the job of government is to increase parental involvement (and to increase the desire of parents for their kids academic success). How to achieve this is another matter altogether.
As an aside, there have been studies that have demonstrated that the dominant predictor of a child's academic success is the parent's attitude towards education. And if parents care, they will get their kids into schools where all the other parents care about education too. The result is self-ghettoisation,0 -
I am tempted to say that the state should not be involved in the provision of primary and secondary education.FalseFlag said:
Libertarian principles out the window then? Taxpayers want religious education and most of these schools were established as religious institutions. Taxpayers don't want wizardry taught, lame straw man there.rcs1000 said:
Everybody is a taxpayer.Socrates said:
Because the religious are taxpayers too, and, as long as it's not teaching nastiness, they deserve to have the sort of education they want from their kids?
On that basis, you could justify schools in witchcraft and wizardry - on the basis that there are some people who are taxpayers and want their kids educated in such-and-such a way.
Surely there should be a curriculum - English, Maths, Science, History, Geography - proscribed by the government. And every school that receives money from the government can use that money only for teaching those things. Anything else can be paid for by parents who want it for their kids.
Ultimately the left see schools as centres for indoctrination rather than to develop children, let people educate their own children how they see fit. Disgusting how some people are determined to tell other people what to do with their children.
However, that may be a step too far for even my liberatarian principles :-)0 -
I specifically said non-nasty stuff, so that rules out racism. Feeding kids is not education, so that's a separate discussion.BobaFett said:@Socrates
Your argument is thin at best. Lots of parents are racists, would you advocate teaching racism in schools? Lots of parents are stupid and feed their children junk food at home. Would you advocate state funding for junk food school lunches?
How about the radical idea that schools teach established facts at school and if parents want to teach them that an omnipotent bloke with a beard will be very nasty to them if they cuddle a girl before they marry her, they pay for that themselves and do it in their own time?
As for your last point, no-one is suggesting they don't teach facts at school. I do wonder when people like you bash religious schools whether you've ever actually been to one. I went to a religious school, and it's not like we went through history classes with "and then God allowed us to win the Second World War!" It was just like any other, except we had chapel a couple times a week - and non-Christians were allowed to sit it out. The main effect of it being religious was that it just had a more traditional ethos which believed in developing personal character and having strict discipline. As a result it had markedly better results than the secular ones that had an ethos of lefty educational establishment political correctness, with every child being taught they were special, competition was avoided and terrible behaviour is allowed.0 -
Parents voluntarily pay to send there children to private school, I wonder how many proportionately are explicitly affiliated to a religion and also eschew lefty PC indoctrination?0
-
Yes, the state could outsource it to suitable organisations, like, say, the Church of England and the Catholic Church.rcs1000 said:I am tempted to say that the state should not be involved in the provision of primary and secondary education.
0 -
Iraqi Shias are Arabs. There's no way they would want to united with Persians. As for your oil point, well Iran has huge oil reserves - more than Iraq in fact. That's not going to make any difference.TheScreamingEagles said:
I do have some friends who are Iraqis, they've said the problem is that Iraq is predominately Shia, for his many many faults, the one good thing Saddam did was keep the place secular but that was at the expense of the Shias.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.
Once Saddam went, the Shia want to be more like Iran.
They do wonder ultimately the majority of the Shias in Iraq will want Anschluss with Iran.
Just imagine, the Ayatollahs of Iran, backed up with nuclear weapons in one hand, and Iraqi oil reserves in the other.
Guess George and Tony really did reshape that part of the world.0 -
We are veeering away from the point.HurstLlama said:
Sounds reasonable on the face of it. Of course, schools could then only be judged on how well their pupils learn those subjects, which would take the whole multiculturism/promotion of diversity stuff out of education. Again that sounds sensible to me (the Devon school reported as being down-graded for being "too white" in the news just recently), but elements in the educational establishment would probably have collective apoplexy.rcs1000 said:
Everybody is a taxpayer.Socrates said:
Because the religious are taxpayers too, and, as long as it's not teaching nastiness, they deserve to have the sort of education they want from their kids?
On that basis, you could justify schools in witchcraft and wizardry - on the basis that there are some people who are taxpayers and want their kids educated in such-and-such a way.
Surely there should be a curriculum - English, Maths, Science, History, Geography - proscribed by the government. And every school that receives money from the government can use that money only for teaching those things. Anything else can be paid for by parents who want it for their kids.
However, there is another side to it. Schools do impart values and norms on their pupils, this doesn't need to be done though formal lessons as it will always happen through the standards of behaviour and language the teachers use and judge to be acceptable. So removing lessons on faith from the curriculum may not actually produce the result you want. Voluntary apartheid and ghettoisation cannot be stopped by the state saying it wants to withdraw from the cultural field.
Theschools under the spotlight were not Faith schools, they were ordinary state schools that were being run as though they were in an Islamic state (which they kind of were)
What is the use of telling Faith schools what they can and cant teach when secular schools teach what they like anyway?
0 -
Report from a couple of days ago - research shows Labour being damaged by UKIP as much as Tories:
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/exclusive-ukip-surge-is-costing-labour-as-many-votes-as-tories-research-suggests-9523847.html0 -
We tried having a national curriculum, and it ended up enforcing central ways of teaching from a Whitehall bureaucracy, stamping out innovation and ended up with silly concepts like library lessons with dictats on what you should spend each 15 minutes doing. Far better to have free schools, and give increasing independence to the good ones. The only time you need to intervene is if a school is being actively divisive to British society.rcs1000 said:
Everybody is a taxpayer.Socrates said:
Because the religious are taxpayers too, and, as long as it's not teaching nastiness, they deserve to have the sort of education they want from their kids?
On that basis, you could justify schools in witchcraft and wizardry - on the basis that there are some people who are taxpayers and want their kids educated in such-and-such a way.
Surely there should be a curriculum - English, Maths, Science, History, Geography - proscribed by the government. And every school that receives money from the government can use that money only for teaching those things. Anything else can be paid for by parents who want it for their kids.0 -
I was taught Scripture in my Prep school. The focus was 100% on the bible iirc. At Secondary school we learnt about other religions.
I've gone from being Christian -> Agnostic (Primary -> Secondary) and since I've left have definitely become an atheist.0 -
OK, would argue too much with any of that. Totally lost about how it fits with your idea that matters of faith be kept out of schools though. You can ban religious education lessons and replace them with ethics and morality lessons (well you can right up until a pupil asks a question about the stance of a religion), but the values and norms of the teachers are still going to be transmitted to the children. If those values and norms promote a certain, religious-based, world view then your objective of keeping faith out of education has gone out of the window.rcs1000 said:
You can teach ethics and morality without teaching religion. If you look - on a country-by-country basis - for correlation between religiosity and crime rates, the numbers do not look good for religion.HurstLlama said:Schools do impart values and norms on their pupils, this doesn't need to be done though formal lessons as it will always happen through the standards of behaviour and language the teachers use and judge to be acceptable. So removing lessons on faith from the curriculum may not actually produce the result you want. Voluntary apartheid and ghettoisation cannot be stopped by the state saying it wants to withdraw from the cultural field.
That said, @Socrates point about religious schools performing better academically is the best point in their favour. I suspect, however, that the real correlation is between parental involvement and achievement (and religious schools tend to have higher parental envolvement). Given that - rather than religion per se - is the arrow of causation, it seems that the job of government is to increase parental involvement (and to increase the desire of parents for their kids academic success). How to achieve this is another matter altogether.
As an aside, there have been studies that have demonstrated that the dominant predictor of a child's academic success is the parent's attitude towards education. And if parents care, they will get their kids into schools where all the other parents care about education too. The result is self-ghettoisation,
As I said, I am sympathetic to your aim, I am just not sure it will work.
0 -
I wasn't clear re the oil reserves, Iranian and Iraq oil reserves combined would be larger than Saudi Arabia's reserves, which would tip the balance in that region.Socrates said:
Iraqi Shias are Arabs. There's no way they would want to united with Persians. As for your oil point, well Iran has huge oil reserves - more than Iraq in fact. That's not going to make any difference.TheScreamingEagles said:
I do have some friends who are Iraqis, they've said the problem is that Iraq is predominately Shia, for his many many faults, the one good thing Saddam did was keep the place secular but that was at the expense of the Shias.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.
Once Saddam went, the Shia want to be more like Iran.
They do wonder ultimately the majority of the Shias in Iraq will want Anschluss with Iran.
Just imagine, the Ayatollahs of Iran, backed up with nuclear weapons in one hand, and Iraqi oil reserves in the other.
Guess George and Tony really did reshape that part of the world.0 -
The Football World Cup or the US Open Golf Championship? (which starts today at Pinehurst).
To me, who cannot stand football in any shape or form, there's no contest.0 -
Democracy rarely puts down strong roots when it simply appears out of thin air. It took quite a long time, and a lot of struggle, to fully form in the UK - and things like free speech and the rule of law came before full franchise elections.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.
I think there's so much emphasis on the vote these days, when it's the other bits of democracy that are more important. This is why Mugabe and Putin go after independent journalists but still organise sham elections.
I wonder whether democracy might have a better chance of becoming properly established in somewhere like Pakistan if there was a period there where the franchise was restricted to the middle classes.0 -
We certainly are seeing more weird stuff from around the world being published by ‘respectable’ on-line media sites. – It fulfils all the journalistic criteria: cheap column fillers, catchy sensationalism and all just a 'google' away.ToryJim said:Is it me or are we seeing more weird crimes, or maybe they just get reported more.
0 -
That seems to be your theory, rather than one backed up by evidence. I believe that it's actually more down to a stricter culture at the school that forces kids to knuckle down and not make excuses.rcs1000 said:That said, @Socrates point about religious schools performing better academically is the best point in their favour. I suspect, however, that the real correlation is between parental involvement and achievement (and religious schools tend to have higher parental envolvement). Given that - rather than religion per se - is the arrow of causation, it seems that the job of government is to increase parental involvement (and to increase the desire of parents for their kids academic success). How to achieve this is another matter altogether.
But even if your point were true, why do you think that parents show greater involvement at religious schools? Don't you think it might be down to the school having a culture that motivates parents and children alike?
I still feel the best balance is requiring a substantial share of the student intake to be from outside the religion. That way you get the positive effect of an ethos, but the school can't force the religion down students' throats too much, as it will scare off the nonbelievers.
0 -
Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose0 -
People used to say that about Latins and Indians. It just takes time to breed a democratic culture. Often people need to find out that all the other forms of government work worse first.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.0 -
I totally agree that the vote is not the be all and end all for democracy. In fact universal adult suffrage was usually the last thing added.OblitusSumMe said:
Democracy rarely puts down strong roots when it simply appears out of thin air. It took quite a long time, and a lot of struggle, to fully form in the UK - and things like free speech and the rule of law came before full franchise elections.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.
I think there's so much emphasis on the vote these days, when it's the other bits of democracy that are more important. This is why Mugabe and Putin go after independent journalists but still organise sham elections.
I wonder whether democracy might have a better chance of becoming properly established in somewhere like Pakistan if there was a period there where the franchise was restricted to the middle classes.0 -
There is, however, no record of witches and wizards establishing well-performing schools that parents wish to send their children to, unlike the churches. That's something of a red herring.rcs1000 said:
Everybody is a taxpayer.Socrates said:
Because the religious are taxpayers too, and, as long as it's not teaching nastiness, they deserve to have the sort of education they want from their kids?
On that basis, you could justify schools in witchcraft and wizardry - on the basis that there are some people who are taxpayers and want their kids educated in such-and-such a way.
Surely there should be a curriculum - English, Maths, Science, History, Geography - proscribed by the government. And every school that receives money from the government can use that money only for teaching those things. Anything else can be paid for by parents who want it for their kids.
0 -
Shame Godfrey Bloom is no longer part of UKIP, he speaks very well. Was great on Daily Politics just now0
-
Another idea might be to let anyone or any company run a school, impose an inspectorate to ensure basic standards, a give parents education vouchers that can be redeemed at the school of their choice.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, the state could outsource it to suitable organisations, like, say, the Church of England and the Catholic Church.rcs1000 said:I am tempted to say that the state should not be involved in the provision of primary and secondary education.
0 -
The problem with educational vouchers is that it just bumps up the price of private schools by the price of the voucher, and you end up funneling money into them without any benefit for parents. The only way educational vouchers will be value for money for the government is if you insist the schools don't charge additional fees on top.HurstLlama said:
Another idea might be to let anyone or any company run a school, impose an inspectorate to ensure basic standards, a give parents education vouchers that can be redeemed at the school of their choice.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, the state could outsource it to suitable organisations, like, say, the Church of England and the Catholic Church.rcs1000 said:I am tempted to say that the state should not be involved in the provision of primary and secondary education.
0 -
rcs1000 said:HurstLlama said:
Schools do impart values and norms on their pupils, this doesn't need to ,
I think that parental involvement is the key issue. The sort of people who attend places of worship regularly are likely to be the sort of people who vote regularly, become school governors, get involved in public affairs generally.rcs1000 said:
You can teach ethics and morality without teaching religion. If you look - on a country-by-country basis - for correlation between religiosity and crime rates, the numbers do not look good for religion.HurstLlama said:Schools do impart values and norms on their pupils, this doesn't need to be done though formal lessons as it will always happen through the standards of behaviour and language the teachers use and judge to be acceptable. So removing lessons on faith from the curriculum may not actually produce the result you want. Voluntary apartheid and ghettoisation cannot be stopped by the state saying it wants to withdraw from the cultural field.
That said, @Socrates point about religious schools performing better academically is the best point in their favour. I suspect, however, that the real correlation is between parental involvement and achievement (and religious schools tend to have higher parental envolvement). Given that - rather than religion per se - is the arrow of causation, it seems that the job of government is to increase parental involvement (and to increase the desire of parents for their kids academic success). How to achieve this is another matter altogether.
As an aside, there have been studies that have demonstrated that the dominant predictor of a child's academic success is the parent's attitude towards education. And if parents care, they will get their kids into schools where all the other parents care about education too. The result is self-ghettoisation,0 -
Do racists have a long track record of establishing successful racist schools?BobaFett said:@Socrates
Your argument is thin at best. Lots of parents are racists, would you advocate teaching racism in schools? Lots of parents are stupid and feed their children junk food at home. Would you advocate state funding for junk food school lunches?
How about the radical idea that schools teach established facts at school and if parents want to teach them that an omnipotent bloke with a beard will be very nasty to them if they cuddle a girl before they marry her, they pay for that themselves and do it in their own time?
0 -
This is an amusing analysis of World Cup history etc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10894633/England-tick-all-the-boxes-of-the-perfect-World-Cup-winners.html0 -
OblitusSumMe said:
Democracy rarely puts down strong roots when it simply appears out of thin air. It took quite a long time, and a lot of struggle, to fully form in the UK - and things like free speech and the rule of law came before full franchise elections.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.
I think there's so much emphasis on the vote these days, when it's the other bits of democracy that are more important. This is why Mugabe and Putin go after independent journalists but still organise sham elections.
I wonder whether democracy might have a better chance of becoming properly established in somewhere like Pakistan if there was a period there where the franchise was restricted to the middle classes.
Arguably, establishing property rights is the single most important thing:ToryJim said:
I totally agree that the vote is not the be all and end all for democracy. In fact universal adult suffrage was usually the last thing added.OblitusSumMe said:
Democracy rarely puts down strong roots when it simply appears out of thin air. It took quite a long time, and a lot of struggle, to fully form in the UK - and things like free speech and the rule of law came before full franchise elections.Slackbladder said:
Can we dig up Saddam?TheScreamingEagles said:I'm coming to the conclusion what Iraq needs is a strong Sunni strongman to keep the place from turning to shite.
I do wonder if democracy will work in these states.
I think there's so much emphasis on the vote these days, when it's the other bits of democracy that are more important. This is why Mugabe and Putin go after independent journalists but still organise sham elections.
I wonder whether democracy might have a better chance of becoming properly established in somewhere like Pakistan if there was a period there where the franchise was restricted to the middle classes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10159983/It-is-capitalism-not-democracy-that-the-Arab-world-needs-most.html0 -
Every comment on this thread is coming through to my Hotmail account. Is there any way to block it?0
-
Your concern seems to be with the parents of the 7% of children who currently attend public schools, and the fact that these parents (who are currently paying fees of up to £30k per child per year) not gaining financially. I am not sure such people should be the focus of education policy.Socrates said:
The problem with educational vouchers is that it just bumps up the price of private schools by the price of the voucher, and you end up funneling money into them without any benefit for parents. The only way educational vouchers will be value for money for the government is if you insist the schools don't charge additional fees on top.HurstLlama said:
Another idea might be to let anyone or any company run a school, impose an inspectorate to ensure basic standards, a give parents education vouchers that can be redeemed at the school of their choice.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, the state could outsource it to suitable organisations, like, say, the Church of England and the Catholic Church.rcs1000 said:I am tempted to say that the state should not be involved in the provision of primary and secondary education.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you.0 -
" 27 per cent of Ukip voters in the first two years of the Coalition were ex Lib Dems. "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100276056/how-sticky-is-ukips-support/0 -
Yes, click here and change your preferencesSean_F said:Every comment on this thread is coming through to my Hotmail account. Is there any way to block it?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/preferences0 -
It's a setting in your Vanilla profileSean_F said:Every comment on this thread is coming through to my Hotmail account. Is there any way to block it?
0 -
Or what I would call 'culturally' Christian.Pulpstar said:
The vast majority are probably Christian for weddings, births & funerals.FalseFlag said:Parents voluntarily pay to send there children to private school, I wonder how many proportionately are explicitly affiliated to a religion and also eschew lefty PC indoctrination?
0 -
One of my film scripts is being read over the next 48 hours by two heavy-hitting directors. Fingers crossed one of them bites!0
-
12.52 There are reports that Isis fighters have surrounded the city of Samarra, in the Salah ad-Din Governorate, 125km north of Baghdad.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-live-isis-jihadists-march-baghdad-1452376
11:41: Al-Jazeera TV has reported that militant groups are trying to storm Samarra, a city north of Baghdad. Samarra is a mainly Sunni city, but it is also a major centre of pilgrimage for Shias. (BBC Monitoring)
0 -
Many thanks (and to Richard).TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, click here and change your preferencesSean_F said:Every comment on this thread is coming through to my Hotmail account. Is there any way to block it?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/preferences
0 -
Good luck Mark that you land a few more millions to the Marquee coffers.MarqueeMark said:One of my film scripts is being read over the next 48 hours by two heavy-hitting directors. Fingers crossed one of them bites!
0 -
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Isn't that how it goes?Socrates said:I specifically said non-nasty stuff, so that rules out racism. Feeding kids is not education, so that's a separate discussion.
As for your last point, no-one is suggesting they don't teach facts at school. I do wonder when people like you bash religious schools whether you've ever actually been to one. I went to a religious school, and it's not like we went through history classes with "and then God allowed us to win the Second World War!" It was just like any other, except we had chapel a couple times a week - and non-Christians were allowed to sit it out. The main effect of it being religious was that it just had a more traditional ethos which believed in developing personal character and having strict discipline. As a result it had markedly better results than the secular ones that had an ethos of lefty educational establishment political correctness, with every child being taught they were special, competition was avoided and terrible behaviour is allowed.
I do wonder when people like you bash secular schools whether you've ever actually been to one.
I went to a secular school, with enough lefties for their to be plenty of glum faces following Major's victory in 1992. I did not notice any political correctness. I did not notice every child being taught they were special. I did notice competition being encouraged with merit marks handed out to brainier kids, and those of us who were able encouraged to take GCSEs early and celebrated for doing so.
We certainly had a big problem with behaviour, but it wasn't because teachers were allowing it to happen, they were simply fighting a losing battle because too many of the parents had no respect for teachers or education and passed that on to their kids.
And people like you are often part of the problem, pretending that the biggest problem in education is lefty teachers, which just makes it harder for the teachers on the front-line.0 -
Best of luck.MarqueeMark said:One of my film scripts is being read over the next 48 hours by two heavy-hitting directors. Fingers crossed one of them bites!
0 -
David Cameron has offered to send in an elite team to sort out the jihadist takeover of Iraq's second city.
Ofsted
0 -
Fingers crossed! (And don't forget we'll be expecting invites to the glamorous premiere).MarqueeMark said:One of my film scripts is being read over the next 48 hours by two heavy-hitting directors. Fingers crossed one of them bites!
0 -
An excellent article, well worthy of a thread.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
Everyone now seems to be saying Labour has to shake things up. No-one is offering them the route map though. What the WWC wants to hear is anathema to the urban elitists running the party. They have less than a year to find a way to connect to the voters. Currently they have a lack of policies and a lacking leader - and just "We're not the Tories!" as a flag to rally round.0 -
When even the Fabians are saying Ed is crap....MarqueeMark said:
An excellent article, well worthy of a thread.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
Everyone now seems to be saying Labour has to shake things up. No-one is offering them the route map though. What the WWC wants to hear is anathema to the urban elitists running the party. They have less than a year to find a way to connect to the voters. Currently they have a lack of policies and a lacking leader - and just "We're not the Tories!" as a flag to rally round.
Edit: Marcus Roberts is the deputy general secretary of the Fabian Society and served as Field Director of Ed Miliband's leadership campaign0 -
Yes, an excellent article. I agree though that the route map is very unclear - the second half of the article doesn't say what they should actually do to bring about 'Majority Miliband' [shudder!].MarqueeMark said:An excellent article, well worthy of a thread.
Everyone now seems to be saying Labour has to shake things up. No-one is offering them the route map though. What the WWC wants to hear is anathema to the urban elitists running the party. They have less than a year to find a way to connect to the voters. Currently they have a lack of policies and a lacking leader - and just "We're not the Tories!" as a flag to rally round.0 -
Intriguing piece on the admittance of AfD into the ECR group and what it might mean.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100276102/yet-again-david-cameron-will-have-to-face-the-wrath-of-angela-merkel-over-eu-reform/0 -
How many billions did the US and the UK spend supposedly building up the Iraqi army to an effective fighting force? How many men died in vain when those who they were supposedly training turned on them?RodCrosby said:12.52 There are reports that Isis fighters have surrounded the city of Samarra, in the Salah ad-Din Governorate, 125km north of Baghdad.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-live-isis-jihadists-march-baghdad-1452376
11:41: Al-Jazeera TV has reported that militant groups are trying to storm Samarra, a city north of Baghdad. Samarra is a mainly Sunni city, but it is also a major centre of pilgrimage for Shias. (BBC Monitoring)
Are we supposed to still believe some of the same people when they give us the same assurances about Afghanistan?
For all the problems that the new President of Afghanistan has in their intray when the election is over at least they don't need to concern themselves too much with annuity rates.
0 -
I've said it before, very few of us predicted or expected that with a year to go, the Tories would only be 2% down on their GE score AND UKIP to be on 14%.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, an excellent article. I agree though that the route map is very unclear - the second half of the article doesn't say what they should actually do to bring about 'Majority Miliband' [shudder!].MarqueeMark said:An excellent article, well worthy of a thread.
Everyone now seems to be saying Labour has to shake things up. No-one is offering them the route map though. What the WWC wants to hear is anathema to the urban elitists running the party. They have less than a year to find a way to connect to the voters. Currently they have a lack of policies and a lacking leader - and just "We're not the Tories!" as a flag to rally round.
We could have believed one of them to happen but not both.0 -
I've just noticed in the YouGov, the Liberal Democrats 6, and Greens 5.
It was really nice of Neil to offer me the other day 20/1 on the Greens out-polling the LDs at the General Election.0 -
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
0 -
I thought the article was abundantly clear about what the Party needed to do (re-connect with its old WWC core). Where it was completely silent was on how that could/should be done.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, an excellent article. I agree though that the route map is very unclear - the second half of the article doesn't say what they should actually do to bring about 'Majority Miliband' [shudder!].MarqueeMark said:An excellent article, well worthy of a thread.
Everyone now seems to be saying Labour has to shake things up. No-one is offering them the route map though. What the WWC wants to hear is anathema to the urban elitists running the party. They have less than a year to find a way to connect to the voters. Currently they have a lack of policies and a lacking leader - and just "We're not the Tories!" as a flag to rally round.
There are probably many reasons for that silence but chief amongst them is that the sort of policies they would need to get their old core back would be anathema to the leadership, including the bloke that wrote the article.0 -
''Intriguing piece on the admittance of AfD into the ECR group and what it might mean.''
Or yet another piece of limp poncey boots guff from some surrender monkey inside the Westminster bubble??
Who can tell?0 -
Labour need to go back to the blue Labour agenda. That will involve a number of policy choices that will upset the Guardianistas and even the massed cohorts of north London but it just might give the people of this country a credible choice.
I agree with Southam that there is no chance of this happening whilst north London personified is the leader.0 -
Perhaps its time for a "UKIP of the left". That is to say a popular party that can unite the socially conservative working class (for want of a better term) with the managerial class (again for want of a better term) under a banner of patriotic social democracy. You hinted at the sort of stance such a party could take on here a week or so ago. I might not agree with all your points but I can see the market for such a party and could join it. How to set it up and do so in time for it to make a difference is another matter. Its probably impossible to do.SouthamObserver said:
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose0 -
Oi Peter from Putney, what have you been up to ?
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 1m
A customer in a Ladbrokes shop in Putney has just had £1,000 on Ed Miliband to be next PM at Evens. Now 4/5.
pic.twitter.com/8XikmRQ6EW0 -
It is going to be funny watching ed miliband's labour party reaching out to white blue collar workers over the next year.0
-
Racist.HurstLlama said:
Perhaps its time for a "UKIP of the left". That is to say a popular party that can unite the socially conservative working class (for want of a better term) with the managerial class (again for want of a better term) under a banner of patriotic social democracy. You hinted at the sort of stance such a party could take on here a week or so ago. I might not agree with all your points but I can see the market for such a party and could join it. How to set it up and do so in time for it to make a difference is another matter.SouthamObserver said:
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose0 -
Ok. I'm calling it now.
At the next election we will see the following posters
Labour poster: Don't vote UKIP or you'll let the Tories in
Con poster: Don't vote UKIP or you'll let Labour in0 -
@Socrates
Yes, when I went to school pretty much all schools had religious elements, every morning in assembly. It was not only boring, it was scandalous that this daily indoctrination even happened. I remember a number of times where classmates told the teacher on me for "not believing in God". Oppressive.0 -
And enough of this equating secularism with being a lefty. PB is bigoted and laughable at times, even presented with clear evidence in front of them.
Our very own Richard Tyndall and Dyed In The Wool are vocal secularists, and are also of the right.0 -
SouthamObserver said:
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
It should be Jon Cruddas and they should move towards Blue Labour
Unfortunately Ed got scared off by The Guardian, & lots of WWC Labour voters went to UKIP instead
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/21/blue-labour-lord-glasman-conservative-socialism
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/blue-labour-immigration
0 -
Thanks for that eloquent comment, Mr. Brooke. More pilsner spluttered over the keyboard.Alanbrooke said:
Racist.HurstLlama said:
Perhaps its time for a "UKIP of the left". That is to say a popular party that can unite the socially conservative working class (for want of a better term) with the managerial class (again for want of a better term) under a banner of patriotic social democracy. You hinted at the sort of stance such a party could take on here a week or so ago. I might not agree with all your points but I can see the market for such a party and could join it. How to set it up and do so in time for it to make a difference is another matter.SouthamObserver said:
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
Whilst you are on did you see this little gem on the Telegraph site:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jennyjones/100275978/too-many-banks-are-socially-useless-time-to-bring-back-captain-mainwaring/
I couldn't help think of you as I read it.0 -
Re read the post that I replied to. If you dont believe, then fair enough. No need to get all Richard Dawkins about it. So last decade!BobaFett said:@Isam
Show me where I am taking the piss out of them. I am merely showing you the absurdity of state funding for teaching superstition. I have no problem with people being religious, but state funding such teachings is utterly scandalous.0 -
I thought Northern Ireland was too pre-occupied with sectarianism to be bothered with racism?
Racism in Northern Ireland: 'They called our children monkeys'
Mixed-race couple tell of daily abuse they faced for six years in Belfast as statistics show a sharp rise in racist incidents
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/12/racism-northern-ireland-couple-tell-abuse-belfast0 -
There is no chance of the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems at the 2015 general election.TheScreamingEagles said:I've just noticed in the YouGov, the Liberal Democrats 6, and Greens 5.
It was really nice of Neil to offer me the other day 20/1 on the Greens out-polling the LDs at the General Election.
Remember that the Greens managed to lose vote share at the 2010 general election. The Liberal Democrats will poll more votes in the 57 seats that they currently hold than the Greens will nationwide. Probably they will poll more votes in the seats that they hold after the 2015 general election than the Greens do nationwide.0 -
Bell end.
England 120/40 -
Here's a radical and dangerous prediction.
Labour will carry the WWC handsomely at the general election.0 -
"... I remember a number of times where classmates told the teacher on me ..."
It has never ceased to amaze me how many people with strong views, to the extent of at least wanting to ban things, turn out to have been bullied or otherwise felt themselves a failure at school.0 -
I'm liking my decision to back England and lay the draw here. Can't see it lasting 5 days at this rate of wickets.TheScreamingEagles said:Bell end.
England 120/40 -
They already exist: Patriotic Socialist Party.HurstLlama said:
Perhaps its time for a "UKIP of the left". That is to say a popular party that can unite the socially conservative working class (for want of a better term) with the managerial class (again for want of a better term) under a banner of patriotic social democracy. You hinted at the sort of stance such a party could take on here a week or so ago. I might not agree with all your points but I can see the market for such a party and could join it. How to set it up and do so in time for it to make a difference is another matter. Its probably impossible to do.SouthamObserver said:
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
They even have a picture on their webpage proving that they have at least seven supporters.
0 -
You're missing the toxicity of the LDs and their Zulu strategy, plus I think the Greens will become the home of the Luddites anti-frackers.OblitusSumMe said:
There is no chance of the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems at the 2015 general election.TheScreamingEagles said:I've just noticed in the YouGov, the Liberal Democrats 6, and Greens 5.
It was really nice of Neil to offer me the other day 20/1 on the Greens out-polling the LDs at the General Election.
Remember that the Greens managed to lose vote share at the 2010 general election. The Liberal Democrats will poll more votes in the 57 seats that they currently hold than the Greens will nationwide. Probably they will poll more votes in the seats that they hold after the 2015 general election than the Greens do nationwide.0 -
Apparently the situation in Iraq is all Obama's fault. Hmm.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100276090/iraq-crisis-obama-is-paying-the-price-for-abandoning-the-arab-world/0 -
@Isam
How is that talking the piss? It is describing the views of many religions. You are dangerously close to saying that it is unacceptable to actually point out what religion teaches. Sadly, such a position is actually quite common.
If I said "ha ha you are all silly for believing in this, aren't you stupid," that would be talking the piss. But I didn't, did I?0 -
Today:
1. Pointing out the teachings of religion is taking the piss out of the religious.
2. People with strong views were usually bullied at school.
3. The state should fund the teaching of superstitions because some faith schools get good grades.
Only on PB.0 -
You are mocking something that many people hold dear by parodying their belief. It is impolite at best. You would be better off telling people why not believing would be better. Outline the positives of atheism. Attacking your opponents weakest argument isnt that great a debating tacticBobaFett said:@Isam
How is that talking the piss? It is describing the views of many religions. You are dangerously close to saying that it is unacceptable to actually point out what religion teaches. Sadly, such a position is actually quite common.
If I said "ha ha you are all silly for believing in this, aren't you stupid," that would be talking the piss. But I didn't, did I?
I am not saying it is unnacceptable to criticse religion, I used to have the same kind of attitude as you, I've just realised what a childish prick I sounded0 -
Finally, someone wants to back Ed Miliband.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/finally-someone-wants-to-back-ed-miliband/0 -
From an erudite former England test cricketer
If you want to imagine England under Ukip, think back to cricket in the 1980s
Back then when critics pointed out that England had been overtaken by hungrier and more progressive teams, a stock reply was ready: “But we’re English and we’ve always done it this way.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/06/if-you-want-imagine-england-under-ukip-think-back-cricket-1980s0 -
@Isam
I think we can safely say you have lost this argument. You are effectively saying that pointing out the views of religion is off limits because it makes one sound like a prick. I see no future for this conversation if that is your position - you point out what you believe to be the views of "lefties" every day on here.0 -
I think the LD might have crossed the event horizon.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're missing the toxicity of the LDs and their Zulu strategy, plus I think the Greens will become the home of the Luddites anti-frackers.OblitusSumMe said:
There is no chance of the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems at the 2015 general election.TheScreamingEagles said:I've just noticed in the YouGov, the Liberal Democrats 6, and Greens 5.
It was really nice of Neil to offer me the other day 20/1 on the Greens out-polling the LDs at the General Election.
Remember that the Greens managed to lose vote share at the 2010 general election. The Liberal Democrats will poll more votes in the 57 seats that they currently hold than the Greens will nationwide. Probably they will poll more votes in the seats that they hold after the 2015 general election than the Greens do nationwide.
The left has left to Labour.
The right has left to the Tories.
The protest votes has left to UKIP.
And now the center is leaving to the Greens.
The Zulu strategy can work higher that 6%, if they get absolutely no votes at all in the rest of he seats, they can get on average 33% on their 57 seats on 6% if they get 0 votes in all the others.
However practically at these levels it can't be done, they will still get what 1 or 2% in the other seats so that will push them bellow 30% on average on their 57 seats.
Oh and oil has jumped to a 3 year high. (Now what did I say about oil the other day?)0 -
Not a lot of common ground between us on much in politics, but here 100% agree! quite ridiculous.BobaFett said:Today:
1. Pointing out the teachings of religion is taking the piss out of the religious.
2. People with strong views were usually bullied at school.
3. The state should fund the teaching of superstitions because some faith schools get good grades.
Only on PB.
As ridiculous as the beliefs of those with faith in God, welcome as they are to believe such incredible things.
Go forth and indoctrinate the little ones, that my word shall be law forever.0 -
Mr. Me, Thank you for that. Having had a look at their objectives/principles, I wonder how many voters would object to them. In fact I would go as far as to say if Labour put out a manifesto on the PSP's ten point plan they would cake walk the next election, providing the electorate thought they meant it.OblitusSumMe said:
They already exist: Patriotic Socialist Party.HurstLlama said:
Perhaps its time for a "UKIP of the left". That is to say a popular party that can unite the socially conservative working class (for want of a better term) with the managerial class (again for want of a better term) under a banner of patriotic social democracy. You hinted at the sort of stance such a party could take on here a week or so ago. I might not agree with all your points but I can see the market for such a party and could join it. How to set it up and do so in time for it to make a difference is another matter. Its probably impossible to do.SouthamObserver said:
Very good article; totally wrong leader. This will be a task for the person who replaces Ed. He is not capable of doing it.TheScreamingEagles said:Great piece by Marcus Robert of the Fabians (and occasional PB guest contributor)
Without change, Labour is choosing to lose
The party's present strategy of managing a declining poll lead must be altered.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/without-change-labour-choosing-lose
They even have a picture on their webpage proving that they have at least seven supporters.
Which brings us back to Mr. Observer's point - with its current leadership (not just Miliband but the rest of the clique, in my view) Labour cannot cut the mustard. They may sneak under the wire next year on a 35% or less vote, but as a popular party to lead the country to a new model of shared prosperity - I think not.0 -
You lost the argument when you caricatured people's belief the way you did rather than understand that to some it is a positive force in their life, and criticism of it should be more sensitive.BobaFett said:@Isam
I think we can safely say you have lost this argument. You are effectively saying that pointing out the views of religion is off limits because it makes one sound like a prick. I see no future for this conversation if that is your position - you point out what you believe to be the views of "lefties" every day on here.
0 -
Lol @ Some of the othersTheScreamingEagles said:Finally, someone wants to back Ed Miliband.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/finally-someone-wants-to-back-ed-miliband/
Boris Johnson Next PM @ 7-1.
What a ridiculous price.0 -
I am not sure that England are remembering that the ODIs are finished. They are going to get a right shock when they are told to turn up again tomorrow (and probably bowl).0
-
146 off 33 overs is going some.0
-
If the Lib Dems poll at the very worst end of my expectations they will still poll more than one million votes.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're missing the toxicity of the LDs and their Zulu strategy, plus I think the Greens will become the home of the Luddites anti-frackers.OblitusSumMe said:
There is no chance of the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems at the 2015 general election.TheScreamingEagles said:I've just noticed in the YouGov, the Liberal Democrats 6, and Greens 5.
It was really nice of Neil to offer me the other day 20/1 on the Greens out-polling the LDs at the General Election.
Remember that the Greens managed to lose vote share at the 2010 general election. The Liberal Democrats will poll more votes in the 57 seats that they currently hold than the Greens will nationwide. Probably they will poll more votes in the seats that they hold after the 2015 general election than the Greens do nationwide.
If the Greens poll at the very best end of my expectations they will poll no more than half a million votes - though they might have two MPs.
Interesting that you mention fracking. Balcombe [according to wikipedia] that was in the news for the anti-fracking protests, at which Green MP Caroline Lucas was arrested, is also the birthplace of "Colour Sergeant (later Lieutenant Colonel) Frank Bourne DCM, who fought at the battle of Rorke's Drift in the Zulu War. He was the last British survivor of that battle when he died in Dorking in 1945."
Balcombe is in the constituency of Horsham, held by Francis Maude. I reckon the Lib Dems will outpoll the Greens even in this constituency.0 -
I'm an atheist, and I don't think there are positives for it. A lack of belief in deities doesn't really have much going for it - it's not meant to.isam said:
You are mocking something that many people hold dear by parodying their belief. It is impolite at best. You would be better off telling people why not believing would be better. Outline the positives of atheism. Attacking your opponents weakest argument isnt that great a debating tacticBobaFett said:@Isam
How is that talking the piss? It is describing the views of many religions. You are dangerously close to saying that it is unacceptable to actually point out what religion teaches. Sadly, such a position is actually quite common.
If I said "ha ha you are all silly for believing in this, aren't you stupid," that would be talking the piss. But I didn't, did I?
I am not saying it is unnacceptable to criticse religion, I used to have the same kind of attitude as you, I've just realised what a childish prick I sounded
I cringe at militant atheists (I was, briefly, one myself) that want to aggressively deride people who believe in..."sky pixies" (as they would put it) and the like.
If you're both an atheist and a fully paid up member of the smugocracy, I suppose you can pat yourself on the back for being so supremely rational and clever and so forth, but it's a pretty bankrupt position.
I do have issues if someone uses religious beliefs as a justification for (as an example) misogyny, but that's based on outcomes, not the belief per se, if that makes sense.
0 -
Indeed Brent Crude @ $110Speedy said:
I think the LD might have crossed the event horizon.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're missing the toxicity of the LDs and their Zulu strategy, plus I think the Greens will become the home of the Luddites anti-frackers.OblitusSumMe said:
There is no chance of the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems at the 2015 general election.TheScreamingEagles said:I've just noticed in the YouGov, the Liberal Democrats 6, and Greens 5.
It was really nice of Neil to offer me the other day 20/1 on the Greens out-polling the LDs at the General Election.
Remember that the Greens managed to lose vote share at the 2010 general election. The Liberal Democrats will poll more votes in the 57 seats that they currently hold than the Greens will nationwide. Probably they will poll more votes in the seats that they hold after the 2015 general election than the Greens do nationwide.
The left has left to Labour.
The right has left to the Tories.
The protest votes has left to UKIP.
And now the center is leaving to the Greens.
The Zulu strategy can work higher that 6%, if they get absolutely no votes at all in the rest of he seats, they can get on average 33% on their 57 seats on 6% if they get 0 votes in all the others.
However practically at these levels it can't be done, they will still get what 1 or 2% in the other seats so that will push them bellow 30% on average on their 57 seats.
Oh and oil has jumped to a 3 year high. (Now what did I say about oil the other day?)0 -
Codswallop. It's as fair game as any other ridiculous belief - be that in progressive socialism, communist dogma or a hard right agenda.isam said:
You lost the argument when you caricatured people's belief the way you did rather than understand that to some it is a positive force in their life, and criticism of it should be more sensitive.BobaFett said:@Isam
I think we can safely say you have lost this argument. You are effectively saying that pointing out the views of religion is off limits because it makes one sound like a prick. I see no future for this conversation if that is your position - you point out what you believe to be the views of "lefties" every day on here.
We want the right to believe in ridiculous things and the right not to be mocked or charicatured for it? Tough, grow up and smell the quantum physics.0 -
Really cogent piece, shame that you can't envisage too many footballers being able to replicate that.TheScreamingEagles said:From an erudite former England test cricketer
If you want to imagine England under Ukip, think back to cricket in the 1980s
Back then when critics pointed out that England had been overtaken by hungrier and more progressive teams, a stock reply was ready: “But we’re English and we’ve always done it this way.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/06/if-you-want-imagine-england-under-ukip-think-back-cricket-1980s0 -
Allan Lamb, Robin & Chris Smith, Devon Malcolm, Gladstone Small, Norman Cowans, Chris Lewis, Nasser Hussain, Graeme Hick, Robin Jackman, Tony Greig etc might have something to say about thatTheScreamingEagles said:From an erudite former England test cricketer
If you want to imagine England under Ukip, think back to cricket in the 1980s
Back then when critics pointed out that England had been overtaken by hungrier and more progressive teams, a stock reply was ready: “But we’re English and we’ve always done it this way.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/06/if-you-want-imagine-england-under-ukip-think-back-cricket-1980s0 -
No offence intended to the residents of Sussex, but quite how an abomination of an electoral boundary like that for Mid Sussex was ever agreed is a mystery to me.0
