Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Got to say having more than 30 in your average classroom is hard work to begin, most classrooms were designed to sit 30 max..
Burnham storms to 322 nominations for Labour leadership
Andy Burnham has secured 322 nominations from Labour MPs to be the next party leader on the first day of the leadership contest process.
He is just one nomination short of securing enough so that no other candidate could secure the 81 backers necessary to proceed to the next stage of the contest.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
There's a world of difference between accidentally saying 'one murder' to mean 'one mass murder' and then confirming 'one murder' when someone seeks clarity on that point, especially when the common interpretation of one murder will be, well, one murder. Lowe is not stupid, he would know what people would think that would mean.
Had Rogan not tried to clarify I could believe it was just a slip and given the benefit of the doubt.
The downplaying of Dunblane was calculated. Rupert was intent on highlighting the bigger (consequential) tragedy of people like his father who had their pistols taken away.
And implicitly exploiting Oxford University's reputation in support of his 'argument'.
Police investigate Reform donations by mother of fraudster who bankrolled Farage
Fiona Cottrell, mother of George Cottrell, who has been funding the Reform UK leader’s operations, gave £500,000 to the party before the last general election
The Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation into at least £500,000 of donations made to Reform UK by the mother of the convicted fraudster who secretly bankrolled Nigel Farage.
Scotland Yard has spent more than a year examining potential offences relating to “the evasion of restrictions on donations”.
This relates to concealing or disguising donations derived from an “impermissible” donor to a political party, or the use of “false” information about a donation including the amount or the identity of the donor.
Detectives have interviewed two people under caution.
Fiona Cottrell, 67, an aristocrat who was said to have dated Prince Charles in the 1970s and whose son is George Cottrell, 32, a fraudster who has secretly funded Farage’s life and operations, is at the centre of the investigation.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
I'd probably go for a similar goal via extra classroom assistants, and trying to do something about children confined to isolation cells, and I'd want to put some serious effort into "safe routes to schools" and similar interventions, as getting to school under your own steam helps with mental health.
There is also something correct about addressing SEND and transport, but that should in theory save money. When I have had to have a taxi to an opthalmology appointment (eye drops = cannot drive) it is very clear that taxis are entirely absent at school travel rush hour time.
Though I'd accept that others here are more knowledgeable about what happens inside schools, me not having children in any at present.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
There's a world of difference between accidentally saying 'one murder' to mean 'one mass murder' and then confirming 'one murder' when someone seeks clarity on that point, especially when the common interpretation of one murder will be, well, one murder. Lowe is not stupid, he would know what people would think that would mean.
Had Rogan not tried to clarify I could believe it was just a slip and given the benefit of the doubt.
The downplaying of Dunblane was calculated. Rupert was intent on highlighting the bigger (consequential) tragedy of people like his father who had their pistols taken away.
And implicitly exploiting Oxford University's reputation in support of his 'argument'.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
He said what he said, including when pressed, which is the key. I don't see why we should bend over backwards to assume he meant something else which was not what he said.
A slip gets corrected, not doubled down on. Then it is a choice and he cannot then act offended that people believe the double down, rather than what might conceivably have been the initial intention.
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
Farage brings out those who don't normally vote.
Tice? He is a rather less, er, enticing prospect....
Perhaps Farage is bored already. The cut and thrust of real Hitleresque Naziism from the Whitehouse must be a more interesting prospect than batting for those who swig from cans of Madri as they go about their business on their mobility scooters navigating manfully the pavements of Jaywick and Clacton.
there are very few pavements in Jaywick. At least that was the case when I was there last.
Jaywick is not Clacton. It's Mondeo Man country where MM has made their money, paid off their mortgage. They were Labour, went to the Conservatives and now Reform. Some stats.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
I'd probably go for a similar goal via extra classroom assistants, and trying to do something about children confined to isolation cells, and I'd want to put some serious effort into "safe routes to schools" and similar interventions, as getting to school under your own steam helps with mental health.
There is also something correct about addressing SEND and transport, but that should in theory save money. When I have had to have a taxi to an opthalmology appointment (eye drops = cannot drive) it is very clear that taxis are entirely absent at school travel rush hour time.
Though I'd accept that others here are more knowledgeable about what happens inside schools, me not having children in any at present.
I have rarely worked with a classroom assistant that has had any measurable impact on kids understanding of maths (with one very notable exception who is spectacular). Most just don't know enough maths to help.
It might be different in primary, or in other subjects.
Your other aims are all laudable, though complicated to make an impact with. Isolation, in particular, is a very unfortunate symptom of a system that has deep flaws elsewhere (inadequate restorative justice, inadequate pastoral support for those struggling etc etc) and probably needs more fundamental reform than simply an incremental increase in per pupil funding.
Lowe seems to have wanted to downplay Dunblane as a way of suggesting the UK government over reacted to the alleged “ one murder “ .
He knew exactly what he was doing . If he had said a mass murder Rogan would have probably asked how many were killed and then Lowes concocted outrage at a ban would have looked on shaky ground especially as those murdered were mostly children .
Lowe can fxck right off , what a loathsome individual.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
I’m baffled that anyone hadn’t clocked Lowe was a bit of an arse some while back.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
He said what he said, including when pressed, which is the key. I don't see why we should bend over backwards to assume he meant something else which was not what he said.
A slip gets corrected, not doubled down on. Then it is a choice and he cannot then act offended that people believe the double down, rather than what might conceivably have been the initial intention.
I suppose I would give him the next 24 hours to give a decent apology and clarification before making the judgment you're making. Without that apology I'd agree with you.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He must have got it mixed up with a case involving one murder. No-one could deliberately be so stupid as to knowingly describe the Dunblane case in such a way.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Any sane education reform would seek to cut our class sizes by at least a third - possibly more in inner cities.
Unfortunately the DfE and Bridget Phillipson are in charge so there's no hope of sanity.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He must have got it mixed up with a case involving one murder. No-one could deliberately be so stupid as to knowingly describe the Dunblane case in such a way.
Nah, when speaking to a MAGA audience it is obvious that school shootings are a small price to pay for the freedom to own guns*.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He must have got it mixed up with a case involving one murder. No-one could deliberately be so stupid as to knowingly describe the Dunblane case in such a way.
He’s appealing to a US audience who hate laws restricting guns. He makes close to £10k a month from posting on X. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and he’s very deliberately saying what they want to hear.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
Poor start from England against a very modest total. Just maybe a more difficult wicket than it looked.
Bristol is always a hard place to score because the wicket is so slow. It's why Gloucestershire want to move.
I have to say I don't think Englnd's bowling was too smart either. Testing the middle of the pitch sort of worked but it gave India too many scoring opportunities. Better to pitch it up.
Dancing to the tune of trans activists is expensive for the Police, and the taxpayer.
A grovelling apology and 25 grand to Graham Linehan.
“ 📣🚨 METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFER UNRESERVED APOLOGY TO GRAHAM LINEHAN AND PAY HIM £25,000
The Metropolitan Police have at long last offered an unreserved apology to Graham Linehan and paid him £25,000.
Last September, the Irish comedian and co-creator of Father Ted was arrested by five armed police officers as he landed at Heathrow Airport.
His crime? Three gender-critical posts on X.
He was arrested, taken to a police station and questioned for several hours. In the early hours of the following morning, he was rushed to hospital after his blood pressure rose to dangerously high levels.
The Free Speech Union is proud to have supported Graham in taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest and breaches of his free speech rights.
General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, has said: “I’m beginning to lose count of the number of cases we’ve fought in which the police have arrested someone for a tweet, decided to take no further action and then had to pay them substantial compensation for wrongful arrest.
“At some point you’d think the penny would drop: police our streets, not our tweets.”
While we welcome the Metropolitan Police’s apology and compensation payout to @Glinner, this should never have happened in the first place.
It is high time the police focused on our streets, not our tweets.”
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He must have got it mixed up with a case involving one murder. No-one could deliberately be so stupid as to knowingly describe the Dunblane case in such a way.
He’s appealing to a US audience who hate laws restricting guns. He makes close to £10k a month from posting on X. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and he’s very deliberately saying what they want to hear.
Also, the affirmation for posting mad nasty stuff on social media tends to make it seem less mad and less nasty.
You might go into the freakshow hall of mirrors thinking you are the owner or the genius profiting from the dumb customers... but it's hard to avoid becoming just another freak.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I hope you're not taking the first tentative steps on a 'journey', Max.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I hope you're not taking the first tentative steps on a 'journey', Max.
Fear not. I'm safely at my (weird lefty proto-anarchist) destination and don't plan to move from it.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He must have got it mixed up with a case involving one murder. No-one could deliberately be so stupid as to knowingly describe the Dunblane case in such a way.
He’s appealing to a US audience who hate laws restricting guns. He makes close to £10k a month from posting on X. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and he’s very deliberately saying what they want to hear.
And he wants to construct a meme where Roganites have the impression that woke lefties banned handguns over ONE murder. Arsehole.
Well @CountBinface, actually I thought u were asking for the price of three low rent crossaints.....up for that but have to be vegan. Butter is so exploitative, I'm sure u know.
If I were advising Farage, I'd tell him to let Leila Cunningham stand as the Reform candidate in Clacton, and then he could try to get back into the HoC the next time there's a by-election in a Reform-friendly seat.
Having called the election for one purpose, what explanation would he give for this switch? The narrative becomes Farage runs away in disgrace. Does Cunningham have any connection to the constituency? Once the Reform candidate changes, the other parties would perhaps all decide to stand.
Farage has made his bed and he now has to lie in it.
You don't have to have a connection. PBer Nick Palmer famously said he had no prior connections to Broxtowe before he was selected.
Judging by her media appearances over the last couple of days, lack of connection to the constituency is the least of her problems.
Well @CountBinface, actually I thought u were asking for the price of three low rent crossaints.....up for that but have to be vegan. Butter is so exploitative, I'm sure u know.
Thanks. So this guy is making a total song and dance about £24billion that might come from a wealth tax?
Your ocassional reminder that total government spend is: £1.29 trillion
He reminds me of those idiots in the early 2000s who were convinced Vodafone UK dodged £6 billion in taxes a year because they couldn't work out the difference between Vodafone UK and the Vodafone Group.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I hope you're not taking the first tentative steps on a 'journey', Max.
Fear not. I'm safely at my (weird lefty proto-anarchist) destination and don't plan to move from it.
Well @CountBinface, actually I thought u were asking for the price of three low rent crossaints.....up for that but have to be vegan. Butter is so exploitative, I'm sure u know.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
People love to be outraged. It's a very addictive emotion. See the success of soap operas and football.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Got to say having more than 30 in your average classroom is hard work to begin, most classrooms were designed to sit 30 max..
And our classrooms are smaller than average (without wishing to reveal exactly where I teach, it isn't a purpose-built building but a converted office block). When it was first converted we were given cast iron assurances the maximum in a class would be 28 because the classrooms couldn't hold any more...
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I don't think your first para is quite right.
In the UK I think our culture is generally to change as little as possible until there is a blatant reason to do so which renders an application of copium as clearly insufficient, and there have only been perhaps 4 or 5 spree shootings, other than in families or amongst criminal elements, in half a century, in Great Britain (ie discounting Northern Ireland).
That is West Bromwich / Nuneaton 1978, Hungerford 1987, Dunblane 1996, Cumbria 2010, and perhaps Plymouth 2021. *
I don't think anything less would prompt such a fundamental change here. And I'm not absolutely sure that we got the pistol ban quite right, but that's down in the detail.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Got to say having more than 30 in your average classroom is hard work to begin, most classrooms were designed to sit 30 max..
And our classrooms are smaller than average (without wishing to reveal exactly where I teach, it isn't a purpose-built building but a converted office block). When it was first converted we were given cast iron assurances the maximum in a class would be 28 because the classrooms couldn't hold any more...
Without wishing to venture guesses as to specifics, do you work for either an academy chain or a free school perchance?
Thanks. So this guy is making a total song and dance about £24billion that might come from a wealth tax?
Your ocassional reminder that total government spend is: £1.29 trillion
He reminds me of those idiots in the early 2000s who were convinced Vodafone UK dodged £6 billion in taxes a year because they couldn't work out the difference between Vodafone UK and the Vodafone Group.
He says he predicted that covid crisis would lead to inflation.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I hope you're not taking the first tentative steps on a 'journey', Max.
Fear not. I'm safely at my (weird lefty proto-anarchist) destination and don't plan to move from it.
🙂 ok just checking.
I suppose I would say that even if I was falling down the rabbit hole, though (it's not me changing, it's everyone else etc etc), so perhaps don't rest easy quite yet.
Well @CountBinface, actually I thought u were asking for the price of three low rent crossaints.....up for that but have to be vegan. Butter is so exploitative, I'm sure u know.
From 8th July Changes with 1st JulyIf you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
Ain't no ramping. Yesterday I pointed out that the last three polls (all fieldwork in July) failed to show a Burnham bounce and I was haughtily told that I was ignoring the Ipsos poll from June.
I am simply showing there is no Burnham bounce (yet).
As for the status quo, how many times have Labour been third (not including tied second) in four opinion polls on the trot this year? On only one other occasion. So no, it isn't the status quo.
So, all six pollsters that have reported since Starmer's resignation, comparing the most recent polls (including this one) with their last polls that took place prior to Starmer's resignation.
Labour 20.7 (+1.7) Reform 24.7 (-0.3) Conservative 20.2 (+0.9) LD 11.2 (-0.8) Green 13.8 (-1.0)
Labour down = MiC (-3%), Opinium (-1%), FON (-3%) Labour level = Yougov (=) Labour up = Ipsos (+4%), Freshwater (+1%)
So I'd disagree with your 1.7% calculation, suspect you aren't including latest FON poll (Lab on 18%). It is actually negative, they are DOWN. And there is nothing at all in here showing any Burnham bounce. It's an illusion.
To pick up on this one.
I compared last poll before Starmer's resignation to the most recent poll for the 6 pollsters.
Some of your comparisons are of a bounce dissipating or reverting to mean.
So,
FON: last poll before Starmers resigned, 15%, latest poll, 18% -> +3%. The fact that there was a 21% poll for Labour in the intervening time doesn't detract that Labour are up since Starmer resigned.
YouGov: current 20%, pre resignation 18% +2 MiC 21%, pre resignation 22% -1 Opinium 20% before and after, no change Ashcroft, 19 -> 21 +2 IPSOS, 20 -> 24 +4
Average rise, +1.66
All per the usual Wikipedia page (no Freshwater listed since Starmer resigned)
I think even after an aggregate of 6 pollsters its quite to being at the top of margin of error, but a somewhat dissipating bounce is still a bounce.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Got to say having more than 30 in your average classroom is hard work to begin, most classrooms were designed to sit 30 max..
And our classrooms are smaller than average (without wishing to reveal exactly where I teach, it isn't a purpose-built building but a converted office block). When it was first converted we were given cast iron assurances the maximum in a class would be 28 because the classrooms couldn't hold any more...
Without wishing to venture guesses as to specifics, do you work for either an academy chain or a free school perchance?
Academy chain. Your powers of deduction are quite remarkable.
Well @CountBinface, actually I thought u were asking for the price of three low rent crossaints.....up for that but have to be vegan. Butter is so exploitative, I'm sure u know.
Thanks. So this guy is making a total song and dance about £24billion that might come from a wealth tax?
Your ocassional reminder that total government spend is: £1.29 trillion
He reminds me of those idiots in the early 2000s who were convinced Vodafone UK dodged £6 billion in taxes a year because they couldn't work out the difference between Vodafone UK and the Vodafone Group.
He says he predicted that covid crisis would lead to inflation.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Got to say having more than 30 in your average classroom is hard work to begin, most classrooms were designed to sit 30 max..
And our classrooms are smaller than average (without wishing to reveal exactly where I teach, it isn't a purpose-built building but a converted office block). When it was first converted we were given cast iron assurances the maximum in a class would be 28 because the classrooms couldn't hold any more...
Without wishing to venture guesses as to specifics, do you work for either an academy chain or a free school perchance?
Academy chain. Your powers of deduction are quite remarkable.
I am a cynic about school management.
As defined by Humphrey Appleby: 'Cynic: what an idealist calls a realist.'
A reminder to everyone else (I know you won't need it!) that the plan is to force all schools into academy chains as part of these unhinged SEND reforms.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He must have got it mixed up with a case involving one murder. No-one could deliberately be so stupid as to knowingly describe the Dunblane case in such a way.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I don't think your first para is quite right.
In the UK I think our culture is generally to change as little as possible until there is a blatant reason to do so which renders an application of copium as clearly insufficient, and there have only been perhaps 4 or 5 spree shootings, other than in families or amongst criminal elements, in half a century, in Great Britain (ie discounting Northern Ireland).
That is West Bromwich / Nuneaton 1978, Hungerford 1987, Dunblane 1996, Cumbria 2010, and perhaps Plymouth 2021. *
I don't think anything less would prompt such a fundamental change here. And I'm not absolutely sure that we got the pistol ban quite right, but that's down in the detail.
Decent challenge. I agree with the general approach of small c conservatism (why change what works).
I don't like guns though. I grew up in a military family and vividly remember firing a live weapon off the back of a naval ship when quite young. There is something about the power it gives, and the ability to give in to your base impulses with irreparable consequences.
I acknowledge my distaste may not be rational, though.
The Metropolitan Police is conducting a criminal investigation into at least £500,000 in donations from George Cottrell's mother to Reform UK before last election.
Two people interviewed under caution about "disguising" source or making false statements about funds.
If you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
Ain't no ramping. Yesterday I pointed out that the last three polls (all fieldwork in July) failed to show a Burnham bounce and I was haughtily told that I was ignoring the Ipsos poll from June.
I am simply showing there is no Burnham bounce (yet).
As for the status quo, how many times have Labour been third (not including tied second) in four opinion polls on the trot this year? On only one other occasion. So no, it isn't the status quo.
So, all six pollsters that have reported since Starmer's resignation, comparing the most recent polls (including this one) with their last polls that took place prior to Starmer's resignation.
Labour 20.7 (+1.7) Reform 24.7 (-0.3) Conservative 20.2 (+0.9) LD 11.2 (-0.8) Green 13.8 (-1.0)
Labour down = MiC (-3%), Opinium (-1%), FON (-3%) Labour level = Yougov (=) Labour up = Ipsos (+4%), Freshwater (+1%)
So I'd disagree with your 1.7% calculation, suspect you aren't including latest FON poll (Lab on 18%). It is actually negative, they are DOWN. And there is nothing at all in here showing any Burnham bounce. It's an illusion.
To pick up on this one.
I compared last poll before Starmer's resignation to the most recent poll for the 6 pollsters.
Some of your comparisons are of a bounce dissipating or reverting to mean.
So,
FON: last poll before Starmers resigned, 15%, latest poll, 18% -> +3%. The fact that there was a 21% poll for Labour in the intervening time doesn't detract that Labour are up since Starmer resigned.
YouGov: current 20%, pre resignation 18% +2 MiC 21%, pre resignation 22% -1 Opinium 20% before and after, no change Ashcroft, 19 -> 21 +2 IPSOS, 20 -> 24 +4
Average rise, +1.66
All per the usual Wikipedia page (no Freshwater listed since Starmer resigned)
I think even after an aggregate of 6 pollsters its quite to being at the top of margin of error, but a somewhat dissipating bounce is still a bounce.
I don't like FoN methodology. They are not an easy pollster to demonstrate a trend, as from time to time they bounce all over the place. Sometimes a big Labour increase is often followed by a big drop the following poll.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I think this is just an attempt to rationalise/sanewash Lowe in the way that Trump has been sanewashed, and what he said has been minimised.
He said what he said and we should judge him on what he said, not make excuses for him.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I think this is just an attempt to rationalise/sanewash Lowe in the way that Trump has been sanewashed, and what he said has been minimised.
He said what he said and we should judge him on what he said, not make excuses for him.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
Rupert Lowe has his own shotguns removed by the police after he supposedly threatened to shoot Zia Yusuf.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I find Lowe a very distateful man but surely this is correct. Rogan clarifying the point and Lowe doubling down does reveal him to something of an arse, seeking to make hay by minimising a massacre rather than to portray events accurately and with nuance, but I doubt he was meaning to imply that just one person was murdered, rather that there was just one event.
It wasn't really just one event. There had been the Hungerford massacre previously.
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
Don't get me wrong. I am about as pro gun control as it is possible to be. I think it is ludicrous that it took a horrific mass murder to remove Lowe senior's shooting pistols.
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
I hope you're not taking the first tentative steps on a 'journey', Max.
Fear not. I'm safely at my (weird lefty proto-anarchist) destination and don't plan to move from it.
🙂 ok just checking.
I suppose I would say that even if I was falling down the rabbit hole, though (it's not me changing, it's everyone else etc etc), so perhaps don't rest easy quite yet.
It's ok to lobby for a wealth tax, isn't it? There's plenty lobbying the other way.
The poster I responded to originally asked who he was. I answered.
Any issue with that ?
Just my usual curiosity. You said "shill". That indicates a dim view of the person or the cause (or usually both).
I think it's quite justified in this case.
It's an extremely well-funded and massively organised lobbying campaign donning the guise of a spontaneously acting folk hero motivated by a pricked conscience. That's manipulative. It's lying. Why does your side always do that?
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Any sane education reform would seek to cut our class sizes by at least a third - possibly more in inner cities.
Unfortunately the DfE and Bridget Phillipson are in charge so there's no hope of sanity.
The least that it might do is relieve stress on teachers - reducing burnout.
The evidence on reducing class size may or may not be ambiguous. The fact that no serious study has been done in this country suggests to me that people are afraid of the results.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that reduced class sizes are harmful to pupils or teachers.
If you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
Ain't no ramping. Yesterday I pointed out that the last three polls (all fieldwork in July) failed to show a Burnham bounce and I was haughtily told that I was ignoring the Ipsos poll from June.
I am simply showing there is no Burnham bounce (yet).
As for the status quo, how many times have Labour been third (not including tied second) in four opinion polls on the trot this year? On only one other occasion. So no, it isn't the status quo.
So, all six pollsters that have reported since Starmer's resignation, comparing the most recent polls (including this one) with their last polls that took place prior to Starmer's resignation.
Labour 20.7 (+1.7) Reform 24.7 (-0.3) Conservative 20.2 (+0.9) LD 11.2 (-0.8) Green 13.8 (-1.0)
Labour down = MiC (-3%), Opinium (-1%), FON (-3%) Labour level = Yougov (=) Labour up = Ipsos (+4%), Freshwater (+1%)
So I'd disagree with your 1.7% calculation, suspect you aren't including latest FON poll (Lab on 18%). It is actually negative, they are DOWN. And there is nothing at all in here showing any Burnham bounce. It's an illusion.
To pick up on this one.
I compared last poll before Starmer's resignation to the most recent poll for the 6 pollsters.
Some of your comparisons are of a bounce dissipating or reverting to mean.
So,
FON: last poll before Starmers resigned, 15%, latest poll, 18% -> +3%. The fact that there was a 21% poll for Labour in the intervening time doesn't detract that Labour are up since Starmer resigned.
YouGov: current 20%, pre resignation 18% +2 MiC 21%, pre resignation 22% -1 Opinium 20% before and after, no change Ashcroft, 19 -> 21 +2 IPSOS, 20 -> 24 +4
Average rise, +1.66
All per the usual Wikipedia page (no Freshwater listed since Starmer resigned)
I think even after an aggregate of 6 pollsters its quite to being at the top of margin of error, but a somewhat dissipating bounce is still a bounce.
This factional coup inside Labour will be much more consequential on British politics than is being appreciated right now.
Comments
Fiona Cottrell, mother of George Cottrell, who has been funding the Reform UK leader’s operations, gave £500,000 to the party before the last general election
The Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation into at least £500,000 of donations made to Reform UK by the mother of the convicted fraudster who secretly bankrolled Nigel Farage.
Scotland Yard has spent more than a year examining potential offences relating to “the evasion of restrictions on donations”.
This relates to concealing or disguising donations derived from an “impermissible” donor to a political party, or the use of “false” information about a donation including the amount or the identity of the donor.
Detectives have interviewed two people under caution.
Fiona Cottrell, 67, an aristocrat who was said to have dated Prince Charles in the 1970s and whose son is George Cottrell, 32, a fraudster who has secretly funded Farage’s life and operations, is at the centre of the investigation.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/police-investigate-reform-donations-by-mother-of-fraudster-who-bankrolled-farage-3kd826j7h
There is also something correct about addressing SEND and transport, but that should in theory save money. When I have had to have a taxi to an opthalmology appointment (eye drops = cannot drive) it is very clear that taxis are entirely absent at school travel rush hour time.
Though I'd accept that others here are more knowledgeable about what happens inside schools, me not having children in any at present.
A slip gets corrected, not doubled down on. Then it is a choice and he cannot then act offended that people believe the double down, rather than what might conceivably have been the initial intention.
What’s that, @DaleVince?
You want to give me an unconditional personal gift of £5million to do whatever I want with?
Sure! I just need to fill out a form. If I didn’t declare it that would be silly.
https://x.com/CountBinface/status/2075261988649726036
Edit: And the reason there haven't been any more mass shootings at British schools..?
He's now all over my X feed and often not in a good way.
He's now all over my X feed and often not in a good way.
It might be different in primary, or in other subjects.
Your other aims are all laudable, though complicated to make an impact with. Isolation, in particular, is a very unfortunate symptom of a system that has deep flaws elsewhere (inadequate restorative justice, inadequate pastoral support for those struggling etc etc) and probably needs more fundamental reform than simply an incremental increase in per pupil funding.
Overplaying of hands much? Dale (vomits a bit in mouth) Vince?
He knew exactly what he was doing . If he had said a mass murder Rogan would have probably asked how many were killed and then Lowes concocted outrage at a ban would have looked on shaky ground especially as those murdered were mostly children .
Lowe can fxck right off , what a loathsome individual.
It’s an offshoot of a US lobbying group.
https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/who-we-are
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2075206427476459826
Unfortunately the DfE and Bridget Phillipson are in charge so there's no hope of sanity.
*applies only to white people.
Dig deep wage slaves. Other people need your money 👍
“ Full text of Labour MPs' letter to Burnham demanding changes to Shabana Mahmood's migration policies revealed by @theipaper this evening
"We are expending political capital... and losing progressive voters on Indefinite Leave to Remain reform which few really understand or want"
https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2075273460452913365?s=61
I am also just instinctively uncomfortable with a political space that turns outrage up to the maximum, even against people who probably deserve it.
https://x.com/benjaminbutter/status/2075254350792761704
I have to say I don't think Englnd's bowling was too smart either. Testing the middle of the pitch sort of worked but it gave India too many scoring opportunities. Better to pitch it up.
A grovelling apology and 25 grand to Graham Linehan.
“ 📣🚨 METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFER UNRESERVED APOLOGY TO GRAHAM LINEHAN AND PAY HIM £25,000
The Metropolitan Police have at long last offered an unreserved apology to Graham Linehan and paid him £25,000.
Last September, the Irish comedian and co-creator of Father Ted was arrested by five armed police officers as he landed at Heathrow Airport.
His crime? Three gender-critical posts on X.
He was arrested, taken to a police station and questioned for several hours. In the early hours of the following morning, he was rushed to hospital after his blood pressure rose to dangerously high levels.
The Free Speech Union is proud to have supported Graham in taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest and breaches of his free speech rights.
General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, has said: “I’m beginning to lose count of the number of cases we’ve fought in which the police have arrested someone for a tweet, decided to take no further action and then had to pay them substantial compensation for wrongful arrest.
“At some point you’d think the penny would drop: police our streets, not our tweets.”
While we welcome the Metropolitan Police’s apology and compensation payout to @Glinner, this should never have happened in the first place.
It is high time the police focused on our streets, not our tweets.”
https://x.com/speechunion/status/2075189188488515808?s=61
You might go into the freakshow hall of mirrors thinking you are the owner or the genius profiting from the dumb customers... but it's hard to avoid becoming just another freak.
To say he founded it is a bit of a stretch. More like franchised it among others.
He’s still a shill and a lobbyist. They literally lobby for a wealth tax. They lobby via the media and via politicians.
He’s not just some edgy geezer who’s set up a YouTube channel in his kitchen speaking about it and gone viral. As he likes to give the impression.
https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/our-work
Your ocassional reminder that total government spend is: £1.29 trillion
Arsehole.
Well @CountBinface, actually I thought u were asking for the price of three low rent crossaints.....up for that but have to be vegan. Butter is so exploitative, I'm sure u know.
Farage is a far better performer.
It soon progresses from there and the scope widens.
The percentage take goes up and amount at which it cuts in goes down.
Get the policy over the line then go for,it.
In the UK I think our culture is generally to change as little as possible until there is a blatant reason to do so which renders an application of copium as clearly insufficient, and there have only been perhaps 4 or 5 spree shootings, other than in families or amongst criminal elements, in half a century, in Great Britain (ie discounting Northern Ireland).
That is West Bromwich / Nuneaton 1978, Hungerford 1987, Dunblane 1996, Cumbria 2010, and perhaps Plymouth 2021. *
I don't think anything less would prompt such a fundamental change here. And I'm not absolutely sure that we got the pistol ban quite right, but that's down in the detail.
* Wiki has a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_Kingdom
No shit Sherlock. Who the fuck didn't?
Any issue with that ?
➡️ REF: 23% (-2]
🌳 CON: 20% (+1)
🌹 LAB: 18% (-3)
🟢 GRN: 16% (=)
🔶 LDEM: 13% (+3)
From
@FindoutnowUK
From 8th July
Changes with 1st JulyIf you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
Ain't no ramping. Yesterday I pointed out that the last three polls (all fieldwork in July) failed to show a Burnham bounce and I was haughtily told that I was ignoring the Ipsos poll from June.
I am simply showing there is no Burnham bounce (yet).
As for the status quo, how many times have Labour been third (not including tied second) in four opinion polls on the trot this year? On only one other occasion. So no, it isn't the status quo.
So, all six pollsters that have reported since Starmer's resignation, comparing the most recent polls (including this one) with their last polls that took place prior to Starmer's resignation.
Labour 20.7 (+1.7)
Reform 24.7 (-0.3)
Conservative 20.2 (+0.9)
LD 11.2 (-0.8)
Green 13.8 (-1.0)
Labour down = MiC (-3%), Opinium (-1%), FON (-3%)
Labour level = Yougov (=)
Labour up = Ipsos (+4%), Freshwater (+1%)
So I'd disagree with your 1.7% calculation, suspect you aren't including latest FON poll (Lab on 18%). It is actually negative, they are DOWN. And there is nothing at all in here showing any Burnham bounce. It's an illusion.
To pick up on this one.
I compared last poll before Starmer's resignation to the most recent poll for the 6 pollsters.
Some of your comparisons are of a bounce dissipating or reverting to mean.
So,
FON: last poll before Starmers resigned, 15%, latest poll, 18% -> +3%. The fact that there was a 21% poll for Labour in the intervening time doesn't detract that Labour are up since Starmer resigned.
YouGov: current 20%, pre resignation 18% +2
MiC 21%, pre resignation 22% -1
Opinium 20% before and after, no change
Ashcroft, 19 -> 21 +2
IPSOS, 20 -> 24 +4
Average rise, +1.66
All per the usual Wikipedia page (no Freshwater listed since Starmer resigned)
I think even after an aggregate of 6 pollsters its quite to being at the top of margin of error, but a somewhat dissipating bounce is still a bounce.
As defined by Humphrey Appleby: 'Cynic: what an idealist calls a realist.'
A reminder to everyone else (I know you won't need it!) that the plan is to force all schools into academy chains as part of these unhinged SEND reforms.
I don't like guns though. I grew up in a military family and vividly remember firing a live weapon off the back of a naval ship when quite young. There is something about the power it gives, and the ability to give in to your base impulses with irreparable consequences.
I acknowledge my distaste may not be rational, though.
Gabriel Pogrund
@Gabriel_Pogrund
EXCLUSIVE
The Metropolitan Police is conducting a criminal investigation into at least £500,000 in donations from George Cottrell's mother to Reform UK before last election.
Two people interviewed under caution about "disguising" source or making false statements about funds.
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/2075281208032870468
NEW THREAD
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
Ain't no ramping. Yesterday I pointed out that the last three polls (all fieldwork in July) failed to show a Burnham bounce and I was haughtily told that I was ignoring the Ipsos poll from June.
I am simply showing there is no Burnham bounce (yet).
As for the status quo, how many times have Labour been third (not including tied second) in four opinion polls on the trot this year? On only one other occasion. So no, it isn't the status quo.
So, all six pollsters that have reported since Starmer's resignation, comparing the most recent polls (including this one) with their last polls that took place prior to Starmer's resignation.
Labour 20.7 (+1.7)
Reform 24.7 (-0.3)
Conservative 20.2 (+0.9)
LD 11.2 (-0.8)
Green 13.8 (-1.0)
Labour down = MiC (-3%), Opinium (-1%), FON (-3%)
Labour level = Yougov (=)
Labour up = Ipsos (+4%), Freshwater (+1%)
So I'd disagree with your 1.7% calculation, suspect you aren't including latest FON poll (Lab on 18%). It is actually negative, they are DOWN. And there is nothing at all in here showing any Burnham bounce. It's an illusion.
To pick up on this one.
I compared last poll before Starmer's resignation to the most recent poll for the 6 pollsters.
Some of your comparisons are of a bounce dissipating or reverting to mean.
So,
FON: last poll before Starmers resigned, 15%, latest poll, 18% -> +3%. The fact that there was a 21% poll for Labour in the intervening time doesn't detract that Labour are up since Starmer resigned.
YouGov: current 20%, pre resignation 18% +2
MiC 21%, pre resignation 22% -1
Opinium 20% before and after, no change
Ashcroft, 19 -> 21 +2
IPSOS, 20 -> 24 +4
Average rise, +1.66
All per the usual Wikipedia page (no Freshwater listed since Starmer resigned)
I think even after an aggregate of 6 pollsters its quite to being at the top of margin of error, but a somewhat dissipating bounce is still a bounce.
I don't like FoN methodology. They are not an easy pollster to demonstrate a trend, as from time to time they bounce all over the place. Sometimes a big Labour increase is often followed by a big drop the following poll.
He said what he said and we should judge him on what he said, not make excuses for him.
https://bsky.app/profile/belalugosisdad.bsky.social/post/3mq7juakqnk2y
He got them back when he was cleared.
It's an extremely well-funded and massively organised lobbying campaign donning the guise of a spontaneously acting folk hero motivated by a pricked conscience. That's manipulative. It's lying. Why does your side always do that?
The evidence on reducing class size may or may not be ambiguous. The fact that no serious study has been done in this country suggests to me that people are afraid of the results.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that reduced class sizes are harmful to pupils or teachers.
So why not give it a whirl?
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
Ain't no ramping. Yesterday I pointed out that the last three polls (all fieldwork in July) failed to show a Burnham bounce and I was haughtily told that I was ignoring the Ipsos poll from June.
I am simply showing there is no Burnham bounce (yet).
As for the status quo, how many times have Labour been third (not including tied second) in four opinion polls on the trot this year? On only one other occasion. So no, it isn't the status quo.
So, all six pollsters that have reported since Starmer's resignation, comparing the most recent polls (including this one) with their last polls that took place prior to Starmer's resignation.
Labour 20.7 (+1.7)
Reform 24.7 (-0.3)
Conservative 20.2 (+0.9)
LD 11.2 (-0.8)
Green 13.8 (-1.0)
Labour down = MiC (-3%), Opinium (-1%), FON (-3%)
Labour level = Yougov (=)
Labour up = Ipsos (+4%), Freshwater (+1%)
So I'd disagree with your 1.7% calculation, suspect you aren't including latest FON poll (Lab on 18%). It is actually negative, they are DOWN. And there is nothing at all in here showing any Burnham bounce. It's an illusion.
To pick up on this one.
I compared last poll before Starmer's resignation to the most recent poll for the 6 pollsters.
Some of your comparisons are of a bounce dissipating or reverting to mean.
So,
FON: last poll before Starmers resigned, 15%, latest poll, 18% -> +3%. The fact that there was a 21% poll for Labour in the intervening time doesn't detract that Labour are up since Starmer resigned.
YouGov: current 20%, pre resignation 18% +2
MiC 21%, pre resignation 22% -1
Opinium 20% before and after, no change
Ashcroft, 19 -> 21 +2
IPSOS, 20 -> 24 +4
Average rise, +1.66
All per the usual Wikipedia page (no Freshwater listed since Starmer resigned)
I think even after an aggregate of 6 pollsters its quite to being at the top of margin of error, but a somewhat dissipating bounce is still a bounce.
This factional coup inside Labour will be much more consequential on British politics than is being appreciated right now.