Also on dyslexia, I've seen children who have a lot of difficulties succeed in the state system, leave to university and gain medical qualifications. It's not true that the only good educational outcomes are achieved in private schools.
The problem is not the state system, the problem is that it is underfunded and hence provision is uneven.
Also possibly worth saying that there are varieties of independent schools in the UK. None of them get money from the state (outside of a small number of special schools).
So when one is talking about independent schools we might be talking about a Steiner school, a local independent day school (which resembles most a traditional grammar school with perhaps better sporting facilities) and a full boarding "public" school.
They're not all the same. Not all give the same social privilege and advantages, which is reflected in their desirability and cost.
Originally posted by stonespring: Not sure if this applies to the UK, but in the US I was taught in history and economics courses that part of the support for universal public education was from factory owners who wanted their workers to have at least basic literacy and numeracy, as it made them more productive.
It goes a lot further back here. In 1560, John Knox, setting out his vision for a post-Reformation Scotland stated:
Seeing that God has determined that his church here in earth shall be taught not by angels but by men; and seeing that men are born ignorant of all godliness; and seeing, also, God now ceases to illuminate men miraculously, suddenly changing them, as that he did his apostles and others in the primitive church: of necessity it is that your honours be most careful for the virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this realm, if either ye now thirst unfeignedly [for] the advancement of Christ's glory, or yet desire the continuance of his benefits to the generation following. For as the youth must succeed to us, so we ought to be careful that they have the knowledge and erudition to profit and comfort that which ought to be most dear to us-to wit, the church and spouse of the Lord Jesus.
...
The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the church, till trial is taken whether the spirit of docility is found in them or not. If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they (we mean neither the sons of the rich, nor yet the sons of the poor) not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them.
Knox saw education as something which benefitted the community, and boys "apt to letters and learning" whether rich or poor as a resource to be nurtured.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Education in Scotland was driven by the idea that people needed to be able to read the Bible in the first instance.
Although a full education was only for boys, girls were taught to read, so that they could read the Bible and also read the Bible to their children.
From the Reformation on, the aim was that Scotland would have a system of education which provided "a school in every parish" This system crumbled during the industrial revolution when a single school in a city parish became woefully inadequate, and then the Disruption of 1843 saw the Free Church try to create a second national network of schools. This resulted in Scotland having a patchwork of schools until the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 created a new system of compulsory education. (This is a gross over-simplification!)
Also possibly worth saying that there are varieties of independent schools in the UK. None of them get money from the state (outside of a small number of special schools).
So when one is talking about independent schools we might be talking about a Steiner school, a local independent day school (which resembles most a traditional grammar school with perhaps better sporting facilities) and a full boarding "public" school.
They're not all the same. Not all give the same social privilege and advantages, which is reflected in their desirability and cost.
No, they're not all the same: my husband went to a minor public school and I went to a bog-standard comprehensive. Both of us were bullied, but at least I got evenings and weekends off. I left with more GCEs than he did, and (imnsho) a more well-rounded education. But that is beside the point: the point is that independent schools are a luxury (given the existence of the state system, warts and all) and the top public schools are there primarily to perpetuate the rule of the elite. They even boast about it: Floreat Etona.
They don't have to follow the national curriculum or even submit to inspections. They can enter their students for any exams they like, or none. Judging by the performance of several recent prime ministers, if they were state schools at least half of them would be in special measures. They don't deserve to be (effectively) subsidised by the state.
@Arethosemyfeet In the case of the dyslexia I was actually thinking of another child at school with mine - came from over the county boundary to us.
On special needs: a mate (former HMI for SEN) spends 4 days a week of their "retirement" doing pro bono work on appeals and he de-stresses (frequently) with me over supper every few weeks. While he agrees that more money is required, he said one of the worst problems is the attitude of some people in LEAs responsible for commissioning places. It shouldn't be a lottery that a child with SEN is at the mercy of whether or not the bureaucrat making the decisions is prepared to think outside the box, be creative in finding a solution, or have a sense of urgency about the task in hand.
@betjemaniac Yes, a revised and better-run version of the old direct grant free places scheme is precisely what I'd advocate.
The worst thing about all the parties on education? The absence of anything on "looked after" children. It is a scandal that the education of the most vulnerable children in every way doesn't get a mention. We know the outcomes for most children in the so-called care system but they are swept under the carpet.
This is getting rather far away from the future of the Conservative Party. Maybe a new thread on education might be more appropriate (either here or in Epiphanies depending on the focus)?
Currently, based on polling averages, this suggests:
Labour - 451
Conservative - 88
Liberal Democrat - 67
SNP - 17
PC - 4
Green - 2
Reform - 2
That's an existential event for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's probably a decade and a half out of power. Historically we haven't seen a shift like this in a century. But then data suggests swings happen faster than they used to, so it's not impossible to come back from.
However, Johnson purged the party of the most capable MPs. The ones that are left are a long way to the right of most of the country.
Reform is out to hurt the Conservatives. That could lead to a major split and realignment of the right of UK politics. That's one major threat to their long term survival. That one I think is baked in.
The other big risk is how easily the LDs could overtake them for number of seats and become official opposition. Psychologically and politically that's an earthquake. Add in the effect of short-money losses, loss of shadow cabinet roles and diminished exposure as a consequence and it becomes a major, major problem.
There is a lot of anti-tory tactical voting potential here which could easily do enough damage to swap 2nd and 3rd places.
Conversely, I still think over 100 seats is likely, which is probably enough to expect them to be competitive is the first election of the 2030s...
Currently, based on polling averages, this suggests:
Labour - 451
Conservative - 88
Liberal Democrat - 67
SNP - 17
PC - 4
Green - 2
Reform - 2
That's an existential event for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's probably a decade and a half out of power. Historically we haven't seen a shift like this in a century. But then data suggests swings happen faster than they used to, so it's not impossible to come back from.
AFZ
This was said of Labour in 2019 so I do agree with your last paragraph
Currently, based on polling averages, this suggests:
Labour - 451
Conservative - 88
Liberal Democrat - 67
SNP - 17
PC - 4
Green - 2
Reform - 2
That's an existential event for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's probably a decade and a half out of power. Historically we haven't seen a shift like this in a century. But then data suggests swings happen faster than they used to, so it's not impossible to come back from.
AFZ
This was said of Labour in 2019 so I do agree with your last paragraph
Indeed it was and I thought they wrong then. 2019 was a very untypical election. The unpopularity of Corbyn (whether fair or not is beside the point) combined with a desperate desire by a large number of people to 'get Brexit over and done with' created an odd coalition but a big one for Johnson.
I wrote at the time that I couldn't see a Johnson administration lasting 5 years due to his laziness and incompetence but that the real damage would be done in 5 weeks.
However, two key differences between Labour '19 and Conservatives '24: Labour had ~200 seats which is still a good base to work from. The Tories may have half of that or even fewer. Secondly, election defeats often lead to a period of disunity and recrimination, especially after a period of time in power. For lots of reasons, the Labour Party has spent the last 5 years becoming more unified. You can argue about how deep that unity actually runs and how long it will last but it is a fact. Labour has spent 5 years looking increasing together to the electorate. I think the Tories are going to rip themselves apart for the next two years in a very public way. Hence, they are unlikely to be a meaningful electoral force for a while. Whether they can come back at all, depends on how they deal with that and the other factors I alluded to above.
Currently, based on polling averages, this suggests:
Labour - 451
Conservative - 88
Liberal Democrat - 67
SNP - 17
PC - 4
Green - 2
Reform - 2
That's an existential event for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's probably a decade and a half out of power. Historically we haven't seen a shift like this in a century. But then data suggests swings happen faster than they used to, so it's not impossible to come back from.
AFZ
This was said of Labour in 2019 so I do agree with your last paragraph
Indeed it was and I thought they wrong then. 2019 was a very untypical election. The unpopularity of Corbyn (whether fair or not is beside the point) combined with a desperate desire by a large number of people to 'get Brexit over and done with' created an odd coalition but a big one for Johnson.
I wrote at the time that I couldn't see a Johnson administration lasting 5 years due to his laziness and incompetence but that the real damage would be done in 5 weeks.
However, two key differences between Labour '19 and Conservatives '24: Labour had ~200 seats which is still a good base to work from. The Tories may have half of that or even fewer. Secondly, election defeats often lead to a period of disunity and recrimination, especially after a period of time in power. For lots of reasons, the Labour Party has spent the last 5 years becoming more unified. You can argue about how deep that unity actually runs and how long it will last but it is a fact. Labour has spent 5 years looking increasing together to the electorate. I think the Tories are going to rip themselves apart for the next two years in a very public way. Hence, they are unlikely to be a meaningful electoral force for a while. Whether they can come back at all, depends on how they deal with that and the other factors I alluded to above.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ
The Conservatives have had a difficult four and half years. One advantage they will have is that they wont have to make any serious decisions in the next 5 years once they have found a leader
I think the Tories might struggle to get into triple figures. Today's reiteration of over £1 billion wasted on unused PPE is going to be the final nail, in my opinion.
I was idly wondering if there could be some kind of agreement where non-Tories work together to form the Opposition, as a Green-LD-SNP block.
If it is just the Tories because they are the second biggest party, it looks like they will struggle to fill all the shadow portfolios.
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
However, if the LibDems get 80 odd seats and overtake them, then some sort of coalition is possible. Relatively unlikely though, I think, as the Shadow briefs are more political than the actual cabinet and Davey would be giving up some political advantage. Expect empty shadow briefs and/or multiple, multiple portfolios.
Agreed, it might suit the other parties to watch the Tories struggle to form an Opposition front bench rather than forming an improbable opposition coalition.
Has there ever been an opposition coalition? Maybe it's not a thing in Westminster.
Regrettably, I think the widespread selection of beliefs as to how far the Conservative representation in Parliament will sink is wishful thinking and will not happen. I predict that Labour will win a comfortable overall majority, even allowing for the other parties. However, at the moment, the figures keep delivering an unusually large number of people who say they haven't made up their minds. Those who bandy figures around aren't allowing for the likelihood IMHO that a lot of those who say they are undecided are going to vote Conservative but don't want to admit it to anyone they don't know. I think they'll end up with somewhere around 140-145 seats.
That's pretty dismal, and better both than they deserve or I would like, a bit worse than they did in 1906, but nothing like as bad as Labour in 1931.
It's a foundational opinion of mine that the UK parliamentary electoral system is utterly incapable of delivering The Will Of The People™. The need to vote tactical demonstrates that. So does not just the Conservative result in 2019, but as I've pointed out many times on these boards, the Scottish representation in that Parliament. That, by any understanding of what that much abused word 'democracy' is supposed to mean is a travesty of worse than pre-1832 proportions.
As, if it happens, will be Swinney's claim that if the majority of the Scottish MPs in the next Parliament are SNP, that will constitute a mandate for independence.
Regrettably, I think the widespread selection of beliefs as to how far the Conservative representation in Parliament will sink is wishful thinking and will not happen. I predict that Labour will win a comfortable overall majority, even allowing for the other parties. However, at the moment, the figures keep delivering an unusually large number of people who say they haven't made up their minds. Those who bandy figures around aren't allowing for the likelihood IMHO that a lot of those who say they are undecided are going to vote Conservative but don't want to admit it to anyone they don't know. I think they'll end up with somewhere around 140-145 seats.
That's pretty dismal, and better both than they deserve or I would like, a bit worse than they did in 1906, but nothing like as bad as Labour in 1931.
It's a foundational opinion of mine that the UK parliamentary electoral system is utterly incapable of delivering The Will Of The People™. The need to vote tactical demonstrates that. So does not just the Conservative result in 2019, but as I've pointed out many times on these boards, the Scottish representation in that Parliament. That, by any understanding of what that much abused word 'democracy' is supposed to mean is a travesty of worse than pre-1832 proportions.
As, if it happens, will be Swinney's claim that if the majority of the Scottish MPs in the next Parliament are SNP, that will constitute a mandate for independence.
Well, we shall soon see - not long now!
I agree with what you say about The Will Of The People™, which is why I use the term ironically.
Regrettably, I think the widespread selection of beliefs as to how far the Conservative representation in Parliament will sink is wishful thinking and will not happen. I predict that Labour will win a comfortable overall majority, even allowing for the other parties. However, at the moment, the figures keep delivering an unusually large number of people who say they haven't made up their minds. Those who bandy figures around aren't allowing for the likelihood IMHO that a lot of those who say they are undecided are going to vote Conservative but don't want to admit it to anyone they don't know. I think they'll end up with somewhere around 140-145 seats.
That's pretty dismal, and better both than they deserve or I would like, a bit worse than they did in 1906, but nothing like as bad as Labour in 1931.
For a year or so, I was in the 150 ball-park range. Recent data has convinced me to look at fewer than 150. but greater than 100, I think.
If it does end up at anything close to 150, there will be a sense of the Tories doing 'ok.' Which is nonsense, of course. Anything less than 200 is a disaster for them. Especially given how our commentariat thought the 80-seat majority was unassailable. However with the really scary* polling models that have been bandied about, it will feel like a let off for many. Most importantly, I think that various commentators would spin it that way.
Realistically, whilst my expectation of Tory seats is dropping all the time, over 100, I think is most likely.
If they get over 100, then the consequences for the party are probably not immediately existential but it does depend on how the right re-aligns after the election.
However, fewer than 70-odd is possible. Because it is possible, the LibDems ending up with more seats is also possible. Whilst that scenario is something I hope for, I suspect it won't actually happen. It's not quite the extreme end of probabilities but it's towards one tail of the distribution.
In the context of this thread though, it is a very interesting prospect. If that cross-over occurs, it massively increases the likelihood of an existential crisis for the Tories. For what it's worth, that is not why the scenario appeals to me. I hope for it, because the relative prominence of the LibDems and the Tories that would follow could significantly change the political debate in this country. Not entirely, as the Right Wing press isn't going anywhere but it would change the dynamic quite significantly. Ed Davey would get 6 questions at PMQs and therefore clips etc. on the news. Political debates on the main channels (BBC / ITV / C4 / SKY News) would have to include Labour and the LibDems and sometimes the Tories and others...
So will it happen? Probably not, but:
1) Tactical voting may skew the results even further, increasing the number of LD MPs and reducing the number of Tory MPs. This makes the cross over more likely than it seems
2) If - IF - it does happen, the existential risk to the Conservatives is materially higher.
In 10 days or so, we will know. Which brings me to my final point:
VOTE! Make sure you vote and encourage everyone you know to vote.**
AFZ
*"scary" for the Tories: "Hopeful" for some others.
**I am at a pediatric surgical conference next Thursday. The date was set about 18 months ago, so the clash with the election was not foreseen. However, it one of their emails a couple of weeks ago, I was gratified to see that the organisers reminded people that if they were attending they would need a postal vote with a link for how to apply for one.
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
As, if it happens, will be Swinney's claim that if the majority of the Scottish MPs in the next Parliament are SNP, that will constitute a mandate for independence.
A mandate for independence will come from a referendum. The mandate to hold a referendum was established in 2021. The question is whether the incoming Labour government will respect that mandate, and for that matter respect the devolved Parliaments powers to legislate and remove the vetoes the Tories put on Scottish legislation. The SNP and SGP are campaigning for a mandate to represent the people of Scotland in London, hoping that the incoming government won't be as set on undermining devolution and the rights of the people and Parliament of Scotland.
As, if it happens, will be Swinney's claim that if the majority of the Scottish MPs in the next Parliament are SNP, that will constitute a mandate for independence.
A mandate for independence will come from a referendum. The mandate to hold a referendum was established in 2021. The question is whether the incoming Labour government will respect that mandate, and for that matter respect the devolved Parliaments powers to legislate and remove the vetoes the Tories put on Scottish legislation. The SNP and SGP are campaigning for a mandate to represent the people of Scotland in London, hoping that the incoming government won't be as set on undermining devolution and the rights of the people and Parliament of Scotland.
No.
There's an argument to be had about the rights and wrongs here. But there's no way Labour will go there in the short term. The focus will be elsewhere.
Theoretically it's possible as it's governed (I believe) by Parliamentary convention rather than statute but if the Tories are the second biggest party then they will form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
Ahh yes, thank you. I wonder how the statute is phrased...
Regrettably, I think the widespread selection of beliefs as to how far the Conservative representation in Parliament will sink is wishful thinking and will not happen. I predict that Labour will win a comfortable overall majority, even allowing for the other parties. However, at the moment, the figures keep delivering an unusually large number of people who say they haven't made up their minds. Those who bandy figures around aren't allowing for the likelihood IMHO that a lot of those who say they are undecided are going to vote Conservative but don't want to admit it to anyone they don't know. I think they'll end up with somewhere around 140-145 seats.
I just wanted to revisit this because a new JLP poll came out today. JLP handle the 'don't knows' in a complex way that gives a much better result for the Tories than other methods.
Seat prediction: That would give the Tories 129 seats on the Electoral Calculus model.
So, current best-case scenario for the Tories is losing two thirds of their seats.
Here's why I think the Tories will do worse: in this election, I think the reversion of undecided voters to previous party will be less than average.
Furthermore, whilst MRP is a relatively new technique, evidence thus far suggests good accuracy. So around 100 seats is my current central prediction. And I expect a lot of tactical voting this election.
I wonder if not making three figures will happen and be psychologically significant?
Regrettably, I think the widespread selection of beliefs as to how far the Conservative representation in Parliament will sink is wishful thinking and will not happen. I predict that Labour will win a comfortable overall majority, even allowing for the other parties. However, at the moment, the figures keep delivering an unusually large number of people who say they haven't made up their minds. Those who bandy figures around aren't allowing for the likelihood IMHO that a lot of those who say they are undecided are going to vote Conservative but don't want to admit it to anyone they don't know. I think they'll end up with somewhere around 140-145 seats.
I just wanted to revisit this because a new JLP poll came out today. JLP handle the 'don't knows' in a complex way that gives a much better result for the Tories than other methods.
Seat prediction: That would give the Tories 129 seats on the Electoral Calculus model.
So, current best-case scenario for the Tories is losing two thirds of their seats.
Here's why I think the Tories will do worse: in this election, I think the reversion of undecided voters to previous party will be less than average.
Furthermore, whilst MRP is a relatively new technique, evidence thus far suggests good accuracy. So around 100 seats is my current central prediction. And I expect a lot of tactical voting this election.
I wonder if not making three figures will happen and be psychologically significant?
AFZ
Achieving less than 100 seats must surely have a negative psychological effect, though whether they get 101 or 99 in a sense is neither here nor there.
I don't know quite why I think this, admittedly.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on, as @Enoch observes!
However, fewer than 70-odd is possible. Because it is possible, the LibDems ending up with more seats is also possible. Whilst that scenario is something I hope for, I suspect it won't actually happen. It's not quite the extreme end of probabilities but it's towards one tail of the distribution.
In the context of this thread though, it is a very interesting prospect. If that cross-over occurs, it massively increases the likelihood of an existential crisis for the Tories. For what it's worth, that is not why the scenario appeals to me. I hope for it, because the relative prominence of the LibDems and the Tories that would follow could significantly change the political debate in this country. Not entirely, as the Right Wing press isn't going anywhere but it would change the dynamic quite significantly. Ed Davey would get 6 questions at PMQs and therefore clips etc. on the news. Political debates on the main channels (BBC / ITV / C4 / SKY News) would have to include Labour and the LibDems and sometimes the Tories and others...
So will it happen? Probably not, but:
1) Tactical voting may skew the results even further, increasing the number of LD MPs and reducing the number of Tory MPs. This makes the cross over more likely than it seems
2) If - IF - it does happen, the existential risk to the Conservatives is materially higher.
Latest MRP poll suggesting this is a real possibility:
Do 'Conservatives' in the south really think that the LibDems would be a better Official Opposition? Do they actually agree with LibDems policies ?
Hard to tell because the link between which party someone votes for and policies they support is rarely clear.
However, since 2015, the Tories have moved ever more rightwards; trying to defeat UKIP/BP/Reform by aping them. Johnson's purge changed the nature of the parliamentary party quite dramatically.
There are undoubtedly a number of voters whose views have not changed but find themselves much closer to the LibDems than the Conservatives, when previously the opposite would have been true. Additionally voters look for competence and trustworthiness, not just policy. Once again, for which of these two parties would they vote?
Do 'Conservatives' in the south really think that the LibDems would be a better Official Opposition? Do they actually agree with LibDems policies ?
Hard to tell because the link between which party someone votes for and policies they support is rarely clear.
However, since 2015, the Tories have moved ever more rightwards; trying to defeat UKIP/BP/Reform by aping them. Johnson's purge changed the nature of the parliamentary party quite dramatically.
There are undoubtedly a number of voters whose views have not changed but find themselves much closer to the LibDems than the Conservatives, when previously the opposite would have been true. Additionally voters look for competence and trustworthiness, not just policy. Once again, for which of these two parties would they vote?
How many? Who knows but there are some.
AFZ
I judge the Conservatives on what they have done under the current PM and apart from some daft little mistakes, they have not been so bad
Do 'Conservatives' in the south really think that the LibDems would be a better Official Opposition? Do they actually agree with LibDems policies ?
Hard to tell because the link between which party someone votes for and policies they support is rarely clear.
However, since 2015, the Tories have moved ever more rightwards; trying to defeat UKIP/BP/Reform by aping them. Johnson's purge changed the nature of the parliamentary party quite dramatically.
There are undoubtedly a number of voters whose views have not changed but find themselves much closer to the LibDems than the Conservatives, when previously the opposite would have been true. Additionally voters look for competence and trustworthiness, not just policy. Once again, for which of these two parties would they vote?
How many? Who knows but there are some.
AFZ
I judge the Conservatives on what they have done under the current PM and apart from some daft little mistakes, they have not been so bad
I still haven't voted for them though
I think many of us would dispute your judgement of recent performance. However that's a different point to the one you made earlier to which I was responding.
There are voters who decide the way you do and some will come to the same conclusion as you, whilst others a different one. Hence, I came back to what I was saying above. There are definitely voters who previously preferred the Tories who now prefer the LibDems and (crucially) will feel that they haven't moved at all. Similarly there are many who will look at the previous 18 months and/or 14 years and conclude that Ed Davey and his team will be much better.
So yes, there are some voters who previous supported the Tories who agree with LibDem policies and think they'll be better opposition. How many? No idea. And the distortions of FPTP mean that it's really hard to tell based on the actual election result.
There are many people like me who think the LibDems as official opposition would be an improvement but I have never voted Tory (and probably never will) and have not voted LD* this time round. I have a preference for both PM and LOTO... am I allowed both? Well, obviously that's just an opinion but I only get one vote anyway...
AFZ
*I have voted LD once. Mostly because it was a local election in the New Forest and the only choices were LD and Con...
Do 'Conservatives' in the south really think that the LibDems would be a better Official Opposition? Do they actually agree with LibDems policies ?
Hard to tell because the link between which party someone votes for and policies they support is rarely clear.
However, since 2015, the Tories have moved ever more rightwards; trying to defeat UKIP/BP/Reform by aping them. Johnson's purge changed the nature of the parliamentary party quite dramatically.
There are undoubtedly a number of voters whose views have not changed but find themselves much closer to the LibDems than the Conservatives, when previously the opposite would have been true. Additionally voters look for competence and trustworthiness, not just policy. Once again, for which of these two parties would they vote?
How many? Who knows but there are some.
AFZ
I judge the Conservatives on what they have done under the current PM and apart from some daft little mistakes, they have not been so bad
I still haven't voted for them though
I think many of us would dispute your judgement of recent performance. However that's a different point to the one you made earlier to which I was responding.
There are voters who decide the way you do and some will come to the same conclusion as you, whilst others a different one. Hence, I came back to what I was saying above. There are definitely voters who previously preferred the Tories who now prefer the LibDems and (crucially) will feel that they haven't moved at all. Similarly there are many who will look at the previous 18 months and/or 14 years and conclude that Ed Davey and his team will be much better.
So yes, there are some voters who previous supported the Tories who agree with LibDem policies and think they'll be better opposition. How many? No idea. And the distortions of FPTP mean that it's really hard to tell based on the actual election result.
There are many people like me who think the LibDems as official opposition would be an improvement but I have never voted Tory (and probably never will) and have not voted LD* this time round. I have a preference for both PM and LOTO... am I allowed both? Well, obviously that's just an opinion but I only get one vote anyway...
AFZ
*I have voted LD once. Mostly because it was a local election in the New Forest and the only choices were LD and Con...
80% of the LibDem MPs will be new and inexperienced. Will they be OK for His Majesty's loyal; opposition? I don't think so.
Do 'Conservatives' in the south really think that the LibDems would be a better Official Opposition? Do they actually agree with LibDems policies ?
Hard to tell because the link between which party someone votes for and policies they support is rarely clear.
However, since 2015, the Tories have moved ever more rightwards; trying to defeat UKIP/BP/Reform by aping them. Johnson's purge changed the nature of the parliamentary party quite dramatically.
There are undoubtedly a number of voters whose views have not changed but find themselves much closer to the LibDems than the Conservatives, when previously the opposite would have been true. Additionally voters look for competence and trustworthiness, not just policy. Once again, for which of these two parties would they vote?
How many? Who knows but there are some.
AFZ
I judge the Conservatives on what they have done under the current PM and apart from some daft little mistakes, they have not been so bad
I still haven't voted for them though
I think many of us would dispute your judgement of recent performance. However that's a different point to the one you made earlier to which I was responding.
There are voters who decide the way you do and some will come to the same conclusion as you, whilst others a different one. Hence, I came back to what I was saying above. There are definitely voters who previously preferred the Tories who now prefer the LibDems and (crucially) will feel that they haven't moved at all. Similarly there are many who will look at the previous 18 months and/or 14 years and conclude that Ed Davey and his team will be much better.
So yes, there are some voters who previous supported the Tories who agree with LibDem policies and think they'll be better opposition. How many? No idea. And the distortions of FPTP mean that it's really hard to tell based on the actual election result.
There are many people like me who think the LibDems as official opposition would be an improvement but I have never voted Tory (and probably never will) and have not voted LD* this time round. I have a preference for both PM and LOTO... am I allowed both? Well, obviously that's just an opinion but I only get one vote anyway...
AFZ
*I have voted LD once. Mostly because it was a local election in the New Forest and the only choices were LD and Con...
80% of the LibDem MPs will be new and inexperienced. Will they be OK for His Majesty's loyal; opposition? I don't think so.
A pack of disposable cutlery would make a better opposition than the remaining Tory MPs.
Good news: Braverman predicted to lose her seat
Bad news: to Reform
Do 'Conservatives' in the south really think that the LibDems would be a better Official Opposition? Do they actually agree with LibDems policies ?
I think I fall roughly into that category and yes, I think the LibDems would be a better Opposition. I think they are less authoritarian than either Labour or Conservatives and would do a better job of sticking up for civil liberties and the rights of the individual.
I've been doing some work in the leafy shires, driving through little villages that seem to shout " Tory heartland" from every post card worthy cottage. But the small number of boards out make it look like a Labour Vs LibDem contest.
Comments
The problem is not the state system, the problem is that it is underfunded and hence provision is uneven.
So when one is talking about independent schools we might be talking about a Steiner school, a local independent day school (which resembles most a traditional grammar school with perhaps better sporting facilities) and a full boarding "public" school.
They're not all the same. Not all give the same social privilege and advantages, which is reflected in their desirability and cost.
Not sure if this applies to the UK, but in the US I was taught in history and economics courses that part of the support for universal public education was from factory owners who wanted their workers to have at least basic literacy and numeracy, as it made them more productive.
It goes a lot further back here. In 1560, John Knox, setting out his vision for a post-Reformation Scotland stated:
Seeing that God has determined that his church here in earth shall be taught not by angels but by men; and seeing that men are born ignorant of all godliness; and seeing, also, God now ceases to illuminate men miraculously, suddenly changing them, as that he did his apostles and others in the primitive church: of necessity it is that your honours be most careful for the virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this realm, if either ye now thirst unfeignedly [for] the advancement of Christ's glory, or yet desire the continuance of his benefits to the generation following. For as the youth must succeed to us, so we ought to be careful that they have the knowledge and erudition to profit and comfort that which ought to be most dear to us-to wit, the church and spouse of the Lord Jesus.
...
The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the church, till trial is taken whether the spirit of docility is found in them or not. If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they (we mean neither the sons of the rich, nor yet the sons of the poor) not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them.
Knox saw education as something which benefitted the community, and boys "apt to letters and learning" whether rich or poor as a resource to be nurtured.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Education in Scotland was driven by the idea that people needed to be able to read the Bible in the first instance.
Although a full education was only for boys, girls were taught to read, so that they could read the Bible and also read the Bible to their children.
From the Reformation on, the aim was that Scotland would have a system of education which provided "a school in every parish" This system crumbled during the industrial revolution when a single school in a city parish became woefully inadequate, and then the Disruption of 1843 saw the Free Church try to create a second national network of schools. This resulted in Scotland having a patchwork of schools until the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 created a new system of compulsory education. (This is a gross over-simplification!)
No, they're not all the same: my husband went to a minor public school and I went to a bog-standard comprehensive. Both of us were bullied, but at least I got evenings and weekends off. I left with more GCEs than he did, and (imnsho) a more well-rounded education. But that is beside the point: the point is that independent schools are a luxury (given the existence of the state system, warts and all) and the top public schools are there primarily to perpetuate the rule of the elite. They even boast about it: Floreat Etona.
They don't have to follow the national curriculum or even submit to inspections. They can enter their students for any exams they like, or none. Judging by the performance of several recent prime ministers, if they were state schools at least half of them would be in special measures. They don't deserve to be (effectively) subsidised by the state.
On special needs: a mate (former HMI for SEN) spends 4 days a week of their "retirement" doing pro bono work on appeals and he de-stresses (frequently) with me over supper every few weeks. While he agrees that more money is required, he said one of the worst problems is the attitude of some people in LEAs responsible for commissioning places. It shouldn't be a lottery that a child with SEN is at the mercy of whether or not the bureaucrat making the decisions is prepared to think outside the box, be creative in finding a solution, or have a sense of urgency about the task in hand.
@betjemaniac Yes, a revised and better-run version of the old direct grant free places scheme is precisely what I'd advocate.
The worst thing about all the parties on education? The absence of anything on "looked after" children. It is a scandal that the education of the most vulnerable children in every way doesn't get a mention. We know the outcomes for most children in the so-called care system but they are swept under the carpet.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast
Currently, based on polling averages, this suggests:
Labour - 451
Conservative - 88
Liberal Democrat - 67
SNP - 17
PC - 4
Green - 2
Reform - 2
That's an existential event for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It's probably a decade and a half out of power. Historically we haven't seen a shift like this in a century. But then data suggests swings happen faster than they used to, so it's not impossible to come back from.
However, Johnson purged the party of the most capable MPs. The ones that are left are a long way to the right of most of the country.
Reform is out to hurt the Conservatives. That could lead to a major split and realignment of the right of UK politics. That's one major threat to their long term survival. That one I think is baked in.
The other big risk is how easily the LDs could overtake them for number of seats and become official opposition. Psychologically and politically that's an earthquake. Add in the effect of short-money losses, loss of shadow cabinet roles and diminished exposure as a consequence and it becomes a major, major problem.
There is a lot of anti-tory tactical voting potential here which could easily do enough damage to swap 2nd and 3rd places.
Conversely, I still think over 100 seats is likely, which is probably enough to expect them to be competitive is the first election of the 2030s...
AFZ
Indeed it was and I thought they wrong then. 2019 was a very untypical election. The unpopularity of Corbyn (whether fair or not is beside the point) combined with a desperate desire by a large number of people to 'get Brexit over and done with' created an odd coalition but a big one for Johnson.
I wrote at the time that I couldn't see a Johnson administration lasting 5 years due to his laziness and incompetence but that the real damage would be done in 5 weeks.
However, two key differences between Labour '19 and Conservatives '24: Labour had ~200 seats which is still a good base to work from. The Tories may have half of that or even fewer. Secondly, election defeats often lead to a period of disunity and recrimination, especially after a period of time in power. For lots of reasons, the Labour Party has spent the last 5 years becoming more unified. You can argue about how deep that unity actually runs and how long it will last but it is a fact. Labour has spent 5 years looking increasing together to the electorate. I think the Tories are going to rip themselves apart for the next two years in a very public way. Hence, they are unlikely to be a meaningful electoral force for a while. Whether they can come back at all, depends on how they deal with that and the other factors I alluded to above.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ
The Conservatives have had a difficult four and half years. One advantage they will have is that they wont have to make any serious decisions in the next 5 years once they have found a leader
With probably 40% or less of the votes
Do you mean party as in political grouping, or as in celebration? (Or maybe both?)
Well, that's par for the course under Westminister.
I was idly wondering if there could be some kind of agreement where non-Tories work together to form the Opposition, as a Green-LD-SNP block.
If it is just the Tories because they are the second biggest party, it looks like they will struggle to fill all the shadow portfolios.
However, if the LibDems get 80 odd seats and overtake them, then some sort of coalition is possible. Relatively unlikely though, I think, as the Shadow briefs are more political than the actual cabinet and Davey would be giving up some political advantage. Expect empty shadow briefs and/or multiple, multiple portfolios.
AFZ
Has there ever been an opposition coalition? Maybe it's not a thing in Westminster.
Yes, and it would, naturally, be The Will Of The People™...
I mean champagne.
That's pretty dismal, and better both than they deserve or I would like, a bit worse than they did in 1906, but nothing like as bad as Labour in 1931.
It's a foundational opinion of mine that the UK parliamentary electoral system is utterly incapable of delivering The Will Of The People™. The need to vote tactical demonstrates that. So does not just the Conservative result in 2019, but as I've pointed out many times on these boards, the Scottish representation in that Parliament. That, by any understanding of what that much abused word 'democracy' is supposed to mean is a travesty of worse than pre-1832 proportions.
As, if it happens, will be Swinney's claim that if the majority of the Scottish MPs in the next Parliament are SNP, that will constitute a mandate for independence.
Well, we shall soon see - not long now!
I agree with what you say about The Will Of The People™, which is why I use the term ironically.
For a year or so, I was in the 150 ball-park range. Recent data has convinced me to look at fewer than 150. but greater than 100, I think.
Again, feel free to place your prediction here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CNZFXCG
If it does end up at anything close to 150, there will be a sense of the Tories doing 'ok.' Which is nonsense, of course. Anything less than 200 is a disaster for them. Especially given how our commentariat thought the 80-seat majority was unassailable. However with the really scary* polling models that have been bandied about, it will feel like a let off for many. Most importantly, I think that various commentators would spin it that way.
Realistically, whilst my expectation of Tory seats is dropping all the time, over 100, I think is most likely.
If they get over 100, then the consequences for the party are probably not immediately existential but it does depend on how the right re-aligns after the election.
However, fewer than 70-odd is possible. Because it is possible, the LibDems ending up with more seats is also possible. Whilst that scenario is something I hope for, I suspect it won't actually happen. It's not quite the extreme end of probabilities but it's towards one tail of the distribution.
In the context of this thread though, it is a very interesting prospect. If that cross-over occurs, it massively increases the likelihood of an existential crisis for the Tories. For what it's worth, that is not why the scenario appeals to me. I hope for it, because the relative prominence of the LibDems and the Tories that would follow could significantly change the political debate in this country. Not entirely, as the Right Wing press isn't going anywhere but it would change the dynamic quite significantly. Ed Davey would get 6 questions at PMQs and therefore clips etc. on the news. Political debates on the main channels (BBC / ITV / C4 / SKY News) would have to include Labour and the LibDems and sometimes the Tories and others...
So will it happen? Probably not, but:
1) Tactical voting may skew the results even further, increasing the number of LD MPs and reducing the number of Tory MPs. This makes the cross over more likely than it seems
2) If - IF - it does happen, the existential risk to the Conservatives is materially higher.
In 10 days or so, we will know. Which brings me to my final point:
VOTE! Make sure you vote and encourage everyone you know to vote.**
AFZ
*"scary" for the Tories: "Hopeful" for some others.
**I am at a pediatric surgical conference next Thursday. The date was set about 18 months ago, so the clash with the election was not foreseen. However, it one of their emails a couple of weeks ago, I was gratified to see that the organisers reminded people that if they were attending they would need a postal vote with a link for how to apply for one.
No, this was codified in 1975 - because of the provision of Short Money - the only wriggle room is what constitutes a 'party' - in theory the opposition could consist of a coalition.
It's not actually. Corbyn got 40% in 2017 and lost
Fixed code - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
No.
There's an argument to be had about the rights and wrongs here. But there's no way Labour will go there in the short term. The focus will be elsewhere.
Fixed code - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Ahh yes, thank you. I wonder how the statute is phrased...
Mea culpa. I was wrong.
I meant more that it's common for popular vote to be out-of-whack with seat count. Not that it always manifests itself as "40% = a majority".
Well, quite. Most of us probably understood exactly what you meant.
I just wanted to revisit this because a new JLP poll came out today. JLP handle the 'don't knows' in a complex way that gives a much better result for the Tories than other methods.
Discussion of how polls handle undecided voters here:
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-2024-why-are-different-polling-companies-getting-such-different-results-13145117
Today's poll:
LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 25% (+2)
REF: 15% (-3)
LDEM: 11% (+2)
GRN: 5% (-)
Seat prediction: That would give the Tories 129 seats on the Electoral Calculus model.
So, current best-case scenario for the Tories is losing two thirds of their seats.
Here's why I think the Tories will do worse: in this election, I think the reversion of undecided voters to previous party will be less than average.
Furthermore, whilst MRP is a relatively new technique, evidence thus far suggests good accuracy. So around 100 seats is my current central prediction. And I expect a lot of tactical voting this election.
I wonder if not making three figures will happen and be psychologically significant?
AFZ
Achieving less than 100 seats must surely have a negative psychological effect, though whether they get 101 or 99 in a sense is neither here nor there.
I don't know quite why I think this, admittedly.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on, as @Enoch observes!
Latest MRP poll suggesting this is a real possibility:
LAB: 450 (+250)
LDM: 71 (+63)
CON: 60 (-312)
SNP: 24 (-24)
RFM: 18 (+18)
GRN: 4 (+3)
PC: 4 (+2)
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1806026343781634544?t=9_0AgRpROR-bqoJBcddmsw&s=19
AFZ
Richmond and Northallerton: Overview
PREDICTION: LAB
Implied MP at 2019: Rishi Sunak (CON)
County/Area: North Yorkshire (Yorks/Humber)
Electorate: 73,217
Implied Turnout 2019: 69.9%
Predicted Turnout: 65.2%
Party 2019 Votes 2019 Share Pred
Votes
CON 32,107 62.7% 34.1%
LAB 8,593 16.8% 34.2%
LIB 6,508 12.7% 9.4%
Green 2,065 4.0% 4.6%
OTH 1,894 3.7% 0.6%
Reform 0 0.0% 17.3%
CON Majority 23,514 46.0% 0.1%
LAB Maj
Oh don't spoil the moment...
Hard to tell because the link between which party someone votes for and policies they support is rarely clear.
However, since 2015, the Tories have moved ever more rightwards; trying to defeat UKIP/BP/Reform by aping them. Johnson's purge changed the nature of the parliamentary party quite dramatically.
There are undoubtedly a number of voters whose views have not changed but find themselves much closer to the LibDems than the Conservatives, when previously the opposite would have been true. Additionally voters look for competence and trustworthiness, not just policy. Once again, for which of these two parties would they vote?
How many? Who knows but there are some.
AFZ
I judge the Conservatives on what they have done under the current PM and apart from some daft little mistakes, they have not been so bad
I still haven't voted for them though
What? LibDems have policies? 😜
I think many of us would dispute your judgement of recent performance. However that's a different point to the one you made earlier to which I was responding.
There are voters who decide the way you do and some will come to the same conclusion as you, whilst others a different one. Hence, I came back to what I was saying above. There are definitely voters who previously preferred the Tories who now prefer the LibDems and (crucially) will feel that they haven't moved at all. Similarly there are many who will look at the previous 18 months and/or 14 years and conclude that Ed Davey and his team will be much better.
So yes, there are some voters who previous supported the Tories who agree with LibDem policies and think they'll be better opposition. How many? No idea. And the distortions of FPTP mean that it's really hard to tell based on the actual election result.
There are many people like me who think the LibDems as official opposition would be an improvement but I have never voted Tory (and probably never will) and have not voted LD* this time round. I have a preference for both PM and LOTO... am I allowed both? Well, obviously that's just an opinion but I only get one vote anyway...
AFZ
*I have voted LD once. Mostly because it was a local election in the New Forest and the only choices were LD and Con...
80% of the LibDem MPs will be new and inexperienced. Will they be OK for His Majesty's loyal; opposition? I don't think so.
No one can avoid experience, but anyone can avoid learning from it.
I think the LibDems would probably be great in opposition - they have survived by being focussed campaigners.
And PMQs would be transformed. No more “well, under the last X government…” as a comeback, because it wouldn’t make sense.
We might even end up with a parliament that debates issues properly. That change might leave the Tories in the wilderness for longer.
A pack of disposable cutlery would make a better opposition than the remaining Tory MPs.
Good news: Braverman predicted to lose her seat
Bad news: to Reform
Electoral Calculus are making the same prediction for Lee Anderson's seat of Ashfield.
No surprise there, given the opinions of at least one of Lee's constituents (*Don't hang murderers - that's too quick! Torture them instead!*).
I daresay Reform will win at least a handful of seats, but (hopefully) not enough to give them much of a voice in Parliament.
I didn't think Fareham & Waterlooville was quite so evilly-disposed...
I think I fall roughly into that category and yes, I think the LibDems would be a better Opposition. I think they are less authoritarian than either Labour or Conservatives and would do a better job of sticking up for civil liberties and the rights of the individual.
Instead we’d get “well, under the coalition …”