|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 29, 2017 14:28:16 GMT
Correct. Labour: 56, LibDem: 20, UKIP: 4, Green: 4. No Tories since 2008, see link. I knew that there were no Tory councillors in Sheffield but I would have thought, given their relatively respectable support in June, that there would be decent sized Tory associations. If that's not the case then that starkly shows the lack of correlation between membership size and popular support. It is possible for a party to pick up votes, especially in general elections when voting largely follows national campaigns, without much on the ground in terms of membership. It is much more difficult to advance from there, both in terms of getting beyond a respectable vote into a winning position within constituencies , and starting to pick up local government seats, without a solid local base. Not that that has to be a big membership, mind, its the numbers of activists that really matter. You could do a lot in a constituency with say 100 determined activists whereas a thousand paper members counts for practically nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 29, 2017 15:29:02 GMT
Quite. If there are grammar schools in an area it is highly misleading to refer to other secondary schools which share their catchment areas as "comprehensives", and I don't see anything hypocritical about parents who happen to live in such areas wanting their children to go to the local grammar, whether they support the selective system or not. It depends on the proportions of grammar and non-grammar schools. In Colchester there are two single-sex grammar schools and I am entirely comfortable with describing all the other secondary schools in the town as comprehensives, since they all get a decent proportion of academically able pupils. Speaking as a graduate as one of those grammars, I think this is a little optimistic. Sure, the grammar schools don't take a particularly high percentage of able pupils, particularly since the effective catchment area stretches from Ipswich to Chelmsford and from Braintree to Clacton, but they do have something of a lock on the really able pupils - you can get a very decent education from the Sixth Form College, but it gets very few people into Oxbridge, whereas CRGS is in double figures even in a bad year. This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one, particularly given that the grammar schools are not remotely socially representative (though they have started making efforts to change that since I was there). There's also the fact that said grammar schools are a very desirable place to work, so the most inspiring teachers are less likely to stay at comprehensives in town when they could get a job at a grammar. I would also note that it's not just the grammars - plenty of parents professed Catholicism so they could get their kids into St Benedict's if they failed the 11+, there used to be a definite house-price premium on Philip Morant's catchment area and these days there is for the Gilbert, and that's before we even consider the independent schools. Essex's version of a grammar school system is much the best variant of it and I personally benefited enormously from the hothouse environment it creates. But it's not a victimless system by a long way. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 29, 2017 15:54:48 GMT
It depends on the proportions of grammar and non-grammar schools. In Colchester there are two single-sex grammar schools and I am entirely comfortable with describing all the other secondary schools in the town as comprehensives, since they all get a decent proportion of academically able pupils. Speaking as a graduate as one of those grammars, I think this is a little optimistic. Sure, the grammar schools don't take a particularly high percentage of able pupils, particularly since the effective catchment area stretches from Ipswich to Chelmsford and from Braintree to Clacton, but they do have something of a lock on the really able pupils - you can get a very decent education from the Sixth Form College, but it gets very few people into Oxbridge, whereas CRGS is in double figures even in a bad year. This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one, particularly given that the grammar schools are not remotely socially representative (though they have started making efforts to change that since I was there). There's also the fact that said grammar schools are a very desirable place to work, so the most inspiring teachers are less likely to stay at comprehensives in town when they could get a job at a grammar. I would also note that it's not just the grammars - plenty of parents professed Catholicism so they could get their kids into St Benedict's if they failed the 11+, there used to be a definite house-price premium on Philip Morant's catchment area and these days there is for the Gilbert, and that's before we even consider the independent schools. Essex's version of a grammar school system is much the best variant of it and I personally benefited enormously from the hothouse environment it creates. But it's not a victimless system by a long way. Fair enough, though as an academically able graduate of one of those other schools (the Gilberd & then sixth form college back in the 90s) I definitely don't feel like a victim of the system. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 29, 2017 16:44:02 GMT
Yes, but what if you'd gone to TLA or Charlie Lucas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 29, 2017 22:03:07 GMT
Fine, Carlton, perfectly sensible tactical stuff. Of course a threat to the duopoly has to be crushed if you are a member of the duopoly - if our predecessors had been more ruthless about that (rather than splitting into splinters) we might be one of the duopoly today. I don't have a problem with that - it is our job to put the contrary case. But don't try to kid me that it has anything to do with principles though. Yes. You gave up power in the duopoly for the pleasures of internal factionalism. And, yes, this is about gaining and holding power. Principles do not come into it. And by that I do not mean it is un-principled, but that principles do not come into it. What is important is the long term threat. I see a large proportion of the LD votes to be Floating/Protest or 'I like that nice Mr. X'. We are not fighting policy or ideals but a movement that can mobilise a 'following' by other means. It is an incohate opponent unlike Labour who are the formal opposition.A very fair critique of (much of) our vote, and something that needs to be cured if we are ever to be a party of government again. But the party itself has two merits which keep my loyalty; firstly, it has been the sponsor of many of the most important ideas in British politics, and continues to be disproportionately fertile in that regard (in terms of ideas, what did the Coalition come up with other than same sex marriage and raising the tax free allowance? And are not Land Valuation Taxation and Universal Basic Income not old Liberal/Liberal Democrat policies?); and secondly, because our approach to most issues matches that of the British public more closely than that of either the Conservatives or Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by samdwebber on Nov 2, 2017 12:37:49 GMT
What was the mistake you spotted Mr Teale? We are keen to learn from the master! Please read and retweet or comment on a new weekly feature a colleague and I are writing for PoliticsHome on the byelections that week. We have credited this site for historic election results in each ward: Well, I only counted one mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 2, 2017 18:50:38 GMT
What was the mistake you spotted Mr Teale? We are keen to learn from the master! Well, I only counted one mistake. You referenced the town council candidate in East Grinstead rather than the district council candidate. Easy to do. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Nov 2, 2017 19:51:39 GMT
What was the mistake you spotted Mr Teale? We are keen to learn from the master! You referenced the town council candidate in East Grinstead rather than the district council candidate. Easy to do. Also the top Conservative 2015 vote in Ashbourne South was in fact 1,308 not the 1,388 shown. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 3, 2017 4:49:40 GMT
Yes, but what if you'd gone to TLA or Charlie Lucas? Those would have been poor schools whether or not they had those extra few highly able pupils. But point taken. |
|
