What went wrong

In the fullness of time I am sure much more will be said about why the polls overestimated the level of Lib Dem support at the election, but there was an interesting nugget from Andrew Cooper of Populus on More or Less on Radio 4 earlier. Populus’s final poll, conducted on the Tuesday and Wednesday of election week, had the Lib Dems on 27%. However, according to Andrew in the fieldwork conducted on Tuesday the Lib Dems were in the high twenties, in the fieldwork conducted on the Wednesday they were on 24%. That looks like evidence of late swing – that the polls weren’t wrong, people just changed their mind right at the end.

However, there is also some evidence that casts doubt on late swing. Because they published in the Evening Standard on Thursday and had a later deadline Ipsos MORI’s final poll of the campaign had the latest fieldwork of all the pollsters – all their fieldwork was conducted on Wednesday… yet they still had the Lib Dems at 27%.

Also illustrative is Ipsos MORI’s post-election poll. Most companies use some form of past vote weighting, so their post-election polls will be calibrated to the new results and won’t really be directly comparable to pre-election polls. Ipsos MORI however don’t use any political weighting, so their post election polls should be conducted in exactly the same way as their pre-election polls. In their post-election poll for the News of the World MORI asked how people had voted in the election on May 6th, and found figures of CON 35%, LAB 31%, LDEM 28%. No sign there of a big drop off in Lib Dem support compared to pre-election polls.

Of course – we know all about the problems of false recall, there may be people claiming to have voted Lib Dem who didn’t actually do so, so this isn’t conclusive either, but it isn’t screaming out late swing.


410 Responses to “What went wrong”

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
  1. Amber
    My only grandchild helped my positive outlook greatly with his development but enraged me with his inherited deficiences (not from me of course).

    Re Clegg, essentially agreed but I suspect just his party’s presence stops further estrangement from EU.

    With five years in front of them Labour can afford to develop radical policies which also sell well. I believe that David Milband is the best (only?) one with the ability to do so.

    We need more research on GE motivations.

    BTW Trying to catch up on what has already been polled so will go silent fro a while.

  2. @ COLIN

    Each of the candidates should be required to answer it. On a post card.
    A very small post card.
    —————————————–
    Andy Burnham could actually do that:

    “Because I am a team player in a game that is filled with egomaniacs (& that includes Cameron & Clegg).”

  3. Laszlo – you say “do political styles and PR styles need to be matched beyond common sense?”

    Politically, perhaps there would something odd (and therefore less convincing) about a Party Political Broadcast by say the Green Party that was clearly wasting energy, or a telephone campaign by the Labour Party that were out-sourced to Bangalore (or at least odder than it would be in a Tory campaign and less odd than it would be in a BNP one)

    But, why is “match” important?

    The perpetual desire for consistency is misleading; finding solutions in scientific fields needs data and formulae. Politics is separate field (and includes Management). There needs to be an acceptable solution (as the Co-alition is trying to demonstrate),
    but the application of a rational formula is not right (because it’s politics not science)

    Therefore, it would be wrong for Labour to point up the co-alition agreement in terms of its inconsistency with the core principles of either parties to the co-alition. Much better to recognise the thing for what it is, and point out when it fails.

    Diifferent parties’ interests are not necessarily alignable, but that doesn’t mean that one or other side is irrational, or vulnerable to the charge of invalidity because their manifesto doesn’t match their pragmatic agreement.

    This kind of links to the West Lothian Question ( and the Catholic PM one for that matter ) Pragmatism usually prevails, though lots of fees get paid for constitutional consultations in the process, unfortuantely.

  4. @ Laszlo
    “But affirmative and negative are the same qualitatively. Think of the absolute value in maths. Think of light: in complete light you cannot see, and you cannot see in complete darkness either. These are not games – they are part of the cogition processes and the relationship between us and the world.”

    Sophistry.

  5. LASZLO

    Well that’s kind.

    I wish you to know that almost everything you write boils mine, but that it confirms long held beliefs; which makes me comfortable in them- and makes me smile.

    A knowing little smile.

    Like Ed Miliband’s smiles.

    ;-)

  6. test

  7. @ Owain

    Are you suggesting that -3 and 3 are not exactly at the same distance from 0? Are you suggesting that you see better in pefect light than in perfect darkness (or vice versa)?

    These are rather practical things. Your camera (if you have one) works on the second point (fuzzy sets)… And your mobile phone utilises the first one (by non Eucledian geometry).

  8. Owain – theoretical and practical wisdom are linked. I think if you read Laszlo’s contributions you’ll recognise more phronesis than sophia.

    And Colin – how can your blood boil? I worry about you :)

    (BTW I’ve heard the Portillo programme, and I don’t share your view of its contents, but I’m an avid listener now, so thanks!)

    Laszlo – Elton Mayo claimed that the evidence that dis-proved the ridiculous Hawthorne effect was in fact evidence that proved it!!! Atheists are not proof that God exists (I thin is what Owain was driving at)

  9. AMBER

    “Andy Burnham could actually do that:
    “Because I am a team player in a game that is filled with egomaniacs ”

    Yes I think he could ( missed the bit in brackets-because it was unneccessary to the argument…….and because I disagree with it )

    Actually I would allow AB a bigger post card than the otheres, because he might say something :-

    a) relevant
    b) interesting
    c) comprehensible.

    The others wouldn’t/couldn’t -so their post cards are symbolic really.

    I have one or two important(ish) caveats about Mr Burnham-but he tick boxes which are important to me.

    ………….so………it is my duty to call for Balls for Labour.

    My slogan is New Balls Please-All the way with Balls-Balls all the way!!

    ;-)

  10. @ John TT

    I can see your point – although even science is dependent on framing the problem.

    I agree with you on political parties and pragmatism. Yet, as pragmatism is relative, the question remains relative to what (not the task – it can be framed and reframed).

  11. @ Laszlo
    “Are you suggesting that -3 and 3 are not exactly at the same distance from 0?”

    Why no, I’m saying that this is a matter of 3 and 0, not 3 and -3.

  12. It’s not original but talking about the LIB DEM vote being over represented. In 2015 the slogan Vote Lib Dem and you get CON will be powerful provided Labour holds its nerve, avoids 1950’s and 1980’s Bevan Foot Benn Heffer syndrome and remains in the centre left

  13. Laszlo – I’d define pragmatism as akin to ethics. If you can master your craft and pursue it with a motive that conforms to your character (or to the character of your employer) then all your activity (pragmatism) is relative to your goal.

    In the politicians’ case, the ethics is obvious – make things work in a way that reflects the reason why they were elected (or co-alesced). Pragmatism is relative to the goal

    In a company, where the clients’ needs are paramaount, but the shareholders and employees also have a stake, a pragmatic approach has to be relative to the overall performance (to which all can relate)

    This same pragamatism should lead a CEO away from the temptation to lie to each stakeholder about the other two stakeholders. Because pragmatism is akin to ethics (skill plus character), the CEO seeks refuge in transparent honesty. We hope.

  14. It is strange that religious affiliation seems to grow in significance now. A high proportion of early 20C PMs had unorthodox or no religious opinions. Eg Atlee – to paraphrase, “agree the social side, no time though for the mumbo-jumbo” Surely for the future the most important religious-political development is in Northern Ireland with Lady Hermon possibly taking the Labour whip? In a short time, N Ireland could become politically “normal”

  15. Chris Lane
    “Vote Lib get Con”
    Also Tories will not be able to say vote Clegg get (Labour leader). Some Tories *might* even vote Lib because they like that kind of toryism better.

  16. Citibank “1% control 99% – Problem is, the 99% still have a vote – Solution is, the 99% expect to be part of the 1% sometime soon”

    That’s management , par excellence.

    Good luck with the elections, Labour Party, but remember, the electorate will bite you in the bottom eventually, because the electorate still has a vote, and recognises any attempmt to “Manage” it as such.

    Hope that’s not partisan – I feel I should retire.

  17. @ John TT @ 11:15 pm.

    Well, we are talking about the same thing – the language (terms) is somewhat different, but I understand your language.

  18. Egeszsegedre

    Laszlo – accents missing, but aint this internet thing good?

  19. @ John TT

    Köszönöm :-). Thank you. Indeed it is Hungarian.

    I don’t drop the accent from either of the vowels normally, but it is much easier like this – instead of switching between various keyboards.

    Internet is wonderful – and it’s getting better and better.

    I wrote some answer, but did not manage to put in the code :-(. Will try again.

  20. @ John TT @ 10:52

    Indeed I’m more concerned with the contexts in which particular factors act or don’t act, reinforce each other and extinguish each other’s effects. I’m interested all these from the point of view of human actions. I don’t deny the existence of laws in social life, but I’m more interested in their evolvement, limits and mechanism. It helps to protect ourselves to mix up syllogisms with mediated processes (believing that just because some syllogism is true it would happen). I like Flyvbjerg’s questions, but I would like to go further than that. The question of truth is no a theoretical problem, but that of practice. Not isolated practice, but the practice of the humankind in a historic perspective. It may appear to be cockooland or sophism sometimes, but it’s the basic tennent of epistemology and the reality has the nasty habit of reminding us to this, sometimes in an upleasant way. It is important, because it means that truth is contradictory by nature – its existence is contradiction (the desire to eliminate contradictions lead to the untenable conclusion that there is no truth – the statement is contradictory: I know one thing about truth that it does not exist and I state that it is true).

    @ Owain

    It’s late, I could not be here and probably it’s not unnecessary, not to mention that it is out of the topic, to respond, but since you put the question and challenge…

    Theism and atheism are both based on belief. They have an identical frame of reference. Secondly, neither can exist without the other: atheism needs theism and theism is meaningless if others do not doubt in the existence of God – then would not need a structured conceptual framework. Both are locked in the same frame, hence their identity, their qualitative equality. Their only difference is that to the same question one gives a positive, the other a negative anwer (hence my reference to the absolute value).

    To show their identity we can put the following question: why do people believe in a transcendent being and what are the consequences of these to their behaviour. From the point of view of this question there is no qualitative difference between theism and atheism – this is why both can make the transition to try to answer this question (although admittedly more atheist do) in an identical way and why some representatives of both atheism and theism turn away from the question.

    I’m sorry, I know it is far too condense and I had no intention of convincing anybody. I put my original post up to help to overcome an invalid dichotomy. However, the challenge was there…

  21. I have a fresh idea:

    Maybe Labour should just dust itself down, then stand for what it stands for.
    It’s not very tricky, needs no theories or compromises.
    I’m sure the public are more than ready for a party that says what it believes, stands by the ideals it always stood by and strives to create a society it always envisaged.

    Labour is based on principles and values – that is it’s great strength. It doesn’t need to spin itself into oblivion any more.

  22. @ OWAIN

    “So absence of belief is a form of belief? Paint me unconvinced.”

    Me too.

    As johntt said-the internet is a wonderful thing.

    One really does not need to accept any statement at face value any more-however “authoratitively” it is made.

    Interesting topic though-I feel sure Ed Balls will have a view. ;-)

    @Sue Marsh

    “Labour is based on principles and values ”

    Yes-as for any Political party .

    It’s only the principles and values which survive-provided they are enduring.

  23. But Colin, for some time those who are not Labour voters have argued that Labour have been the furthest away from theirs lately.

    Who is the furthest from their values and principles now? THIS is Labour’s enormous advantage at the moment (if they take it.) In a country where Tories are no longer Tories and LibDems are no longer LibDems, it is an excellent time to simply be Labour.

    Ironically, columnists from the Telgraph, Mail, Guardian AND Independent would all agree with me for once.

  24. ….and my thoughts on Labour leadership.

    I am delighted with both the diversity and excellence of our candidates. No scraping the barrel for us and whatever sniping there is can easily be ignored.

    I am still slightly torn between David Miliband and Andy Burnham. DM is a genius. Pure and simple. He has a sure grasp of every element of politics and is very charismatic. AB on the other hand strikes me as more real, genuinely passionate and capable.

    I am delighted Diane Abbott is standing – it will broaden the debate in a wonderful way and along with John McDonnell shows Labour is more comfortable in it’s own skin, more willing to engage with all voices within it’s ranks.

    Ed Miliband is too young IMO, but also extremely clever, genuinely cares about people and has a clear view of Labour ideals.

    Balls is another excellent candidate, with a more radical view than some, able to command great respect amongst his colleagues.

    Those that underestimate DM or snipe about EB or judge the candidates on their waistlines or eyes could never be the same posters sneering at those who approach the new coalition with a degree of scepticism surely?

  25. Sue

    I can understand your thought.

    And it must give you comfort that Labour can now be “pure” because the others have abandoned their “purity”.

    But I I think you stretch things too far in ” Tories are no longer Tories “.

    Firstly-you are defining ” Tories” from a standpoint which is not Tory. Your idea of what it is to be Tory may not be what a Tory feels.

    Secondly-compromise is not to be equated to abandonment.

    As you so rightly observed, it is “principles and values” which matter . Provided they continue to support the edifice of policy, the adherants of those principles & values will recognise them in those policies.

    Your task is first of all to explain to the electorate afresh what society Labour has ” always envisaged.”

    And then you have to differentiate it from it’s competitor(s)…………….you may find that is becoming more difficult.

    We no longer have the politics of Good vs the politics of Evil .

  26. ….and my thoughts on Labour leadership.
    I am delighted with both the diversity and excellence of our candidates. No scraping the barrel for us and whatever sniping there is can easily be ignored.
    I am still slightly torn between David Miliband and Andy Burnham. DM is a genius. Pure and simple. He has a sure grasp of every element of politics and is very charismatic. AB on the other hand strikes me as more real, genuinely passionate and capable.
    I am delighted Diane Abbott is standing – it will broaden the debate in a wonderful way and along with John McDonnell shows Labour is more comfortable in it’s own skin, more willing to engage with all voices within it’s ranks.
    Ed Miliband is too young IMO, but also extremely clever, genuinely cares about people and has a clear view of Labour ideals.
    Balls is another excellent candidate, with a more radical view than some, able to command great respect amongst his colleagues.

    I would be happy with almost any of the candidates and would look forward to the direction they took the party in.

  27. My definition of “what a Tory feels ” comes from what I have read from all the Tory columnists. Maybe they don’t represent the grassroots of the Conservative party, but I have a hunch they represent them more than the current coalition.

    When NC claims that you’ve all been using different words for the same policies, it certainly implies that both Social Democrats and Conservative grassroots are now all Liberals.

  28. Sue Marsh

    My hope, and I believe It was GB’s stated intention, was that he would not resign the leadership in the event of defeat. Part of that thinking was that an inconclusive election result could lead to another GE within months.
    The ‘five year coalition’ *seems* to have changed that, but nothing so far has persuaded me that we have a strong, stable or enduring government. What about those ‘tearful’ ones who voted against their better instincts because they had been persuaded it was time for change? The scales will be lifted from their eyes and they will realise what good government they enjoyed under Brown.
    By all means look again at decisions like Iraq, if people want to. But keep the continuity – people will have had enough of gambling on change.

  29. @Owain, Colin

    “So absence of belief is a form of belief? Paint me unconvinced.”

    Surely there is a distinction between absence of belief – being unconvinced(!), i.e a non-believer – and belief of absence – i.e. atheism?

  30. @Laszlo – “Theism and atheism are both based on belief. They have an identical frame of reference. ……neither can exist without the other: atheism needs theism and theism is meaningless if others do not doubt in the existence of God – then would not need a structured conceptual framework.”

    Sorry, but this is complete tosh – it’s schoolboy philospohy of the kind often used by the religious when talking about ‘non believers’. There is no connection between theism and atheism. Theism is based on belief. Atheism is based on an absence of evidence – no ‘belief’ involved here.

    On to important things. The NOTW is today running a story claiming Tory backbenchers are plotting a ‘no confidence’ motion on DC. Seems a bit far fetched, and I doubt much will come of it, but it’s a remarkable position just two weeks into the new government.

  31. Alec
    I’ve read that in the NOTW, too, and it seems to me improbable that Con MPs are going to initiate a VoNC.

    But there must be great disquiet in the C party about DC’s betrayal of Con commitments.

    DC cannot ignore this disquiet, so some move(s) to appease the right wing of the party seems inevitable. I see he has already floated the idea of getting rid of the 50% rate of income tax. Any moves to the right by DC will place greater strain on the coalition.

  32. Alec – Does seem to be rather more than dinosaurs roaring. As you say, quite extraordinary just a few days into the coalition.

    Surely one attacks on’e backbenchers with a majority of 150 or so? Not when every single vote will count?

  33. Funny, I would have put money on dissent coming from the LibDems first. Seems a large minority of Conservatives don’t want “power at any price”

  34. I get the feeling that this won’t come to anything in terms of bringing the coalition down, as DC can easily balance his rebels against the Lib Dems. However, while it seems that conventional wisdom maintains that the Lib Dems will suffer at the next GE with the Tories mopping up their support if the government is reasonably successful, my feeling is that 4 or 5 years of rumblings and splits may mean that it’s the Tories who won’t perform as well next time around.

    Labour have finally discovered that an excess of triangulation leads only to strangulation. By cutting off so many core Tory policies Cameron has started down this route big time. By contrast, the big Lib Dem core issue of civil liberties is very well established in the coalition – the rest they can be pragmatic about.

    If I were UKIP I would change my name to ‘The Real Conservatives’ and get cracking on persuading a few defections, especially with AV voting on the way.

  35. Sue,

    I get a vote and am with you between DM’s undoubted intellect and AB’s more personable style which may have more reach.
    Edging towards AB as some of DM’s support puts me off and he could have been more supportive (or decisive) during GB time.
    EM is not ready and Balls time will come imo when the GB premiership with which he most closely identified is re-assessed more positiviely.
    I disagree about the field, though, as we have 2 possible left wing candidates with no chance of winning and 4 career politicians, former special advisors.
    Should be longer time to get nominations and only 10% of MPs needed.
    Forgive the LP stuff but no polls.

  36. Sue

    Don’t get your hopes up. According to the NoW it’s “at least three” rebel backbenchers. You could probably get “at least three” Tory backbenchers to agree to anything. :)

    It’s probably more interesting as an indication of News International’s feelings towards to Coalition. They clearly don’t like it and of course the whole election result was a sort of insult to the Sun etc, but they clearly haven’t decided what to do yet.

    What is clear from the polling data (see previous thread) is that ordinary Tory voters have a lot of goodwill towards the coalition at the moment, and I just don’t think that any rebel backbenchers will be foolish enough to cause a public row yet.

  37. I am not sure that much did go wrong as far as the pollsters were concerned. The final outcome was not too dissimilar from the the pollsa t teh beginning of the campaign. What confused things was that the media, through the leadership debated on TV, reflected a presidential type system – whilst back at base we have a parliamentary system. Voters will preceive different things to that of the pollsters and media.

  38. @SUE MARSH
    Hi Mrs, you may remember I was not very keen on a love affair with the LDs pre GE. I seem to remember saying with over 300 seats DC should go it alone. My reason was total conviction that most LDs are utterly bonkers and it would be worse than marriage to a bi-polar man/woman. As you say, it is in fact Tories who are getting of off their bicycles in a heated manner.
    I am very right wing in some respects myself (though quite liberal in others), but these Tories who make waves seem to have forgotten something that only happened a couple of weeks ago. WE DID NOT WIN OUTRIGHT. Therefore, the current arrangement based on seemingly good sense from the LDs and the little matter of the will of the people, must be given much more time. Anyway, with all this breakup going on, you know, John Terry, Ronan Keating, who wants to see Dave and Nick join the list.

  39. quasi-autonomous non government organisation:

    Please the acronym is QANGO, I would have thought that the educated media would know that.

    My main concern at the moment is behind the £531 million pound cuts is abolisihing various QANGO’s. Not that I think it is a bad idea but surely this will mean thousands of perople losing their jobs and not the most sensitive way to deliver that sort of news, nor is it when one paper delivers that 300,000 public sector workers are to lose their jobs. If this is compulsory redundancies, I think this shows a complete lack of compassion for those who will lose their liveliehoods. Unfortunately I always believe that conservatives and economists in general only ever look at the numbers not the people behind them.

  40. @Roland – “…it would be worse than marriage to a bi-polar man/woman.”

    Don’t you mean ‘bisexual’?….

    @Epochery – no, the anachronim is ‘Quango’ as they employ the ‘u’ to enable a phonetically appropriate word to be used. In fact, so far the sscore is +1 Quango, as the Office of Budget Responsibility has now been transfered from a tory party funded committe to a taxpayer funded quango. The fact that they have transfered a politically appointed committee straight over to the public sector without any formal assessment procedure or open recruitment is worrying for such an important policy making role.

    Back to Roland’s point about the Tory rank and file. I suspect the key will be just how successful or otherwise the government eventual is, and the level of motivation for core Tory support to turn out. Cameron has made it abundantly clear that he prefers the liberal viewpoint rather than traditional Tory policies. If this means that even a small number of Tory supporters question the value of voting for them it could make a substantial difference. bear in mind that UKIP currently clain they cost the Tories 17 seats this time – I’ve no idea how true this is, but it might show the potential for losing even a small % of the broad Tory coalition.

  41. My hopes are not up for a Tory VONC!!!
    I do think the coalition is rather silly, but that’s just my opinion. I laughed too, when I saw “at least three” Tories, but the rumblings are significant I think. They would be mad to rebel now, but it seems the battle lines are being drawn.

    Roland – I remember us BOTH saying if GB or DC couldn’t win a majority they didn’t deserve to govern. oh well……

  42. ALEC

    Who employs the U and what does it stand for. QANGO is not a word much the same as QANTAS (Queensland and northern territory Airial Service). Nevermind that is semantics.

    Could I just point point that the idea of tory mp’s crossing the floor to bring down a tory government is absolutley bonkers, not a fact just an opinion i’m afraid.

    I am quite sure that the coalition will survive for the five years it has agreed to as it serves both parties interests.

  43. @Jim Jam & Sue – I didn’t want to make the last post too long, but in terms of the Labour leadership debate I am currently rather depressed.

    The main thrust seems to be a knee jerk reaction on immigration, which although important, is only important in terms of what flows from it. Labour’s greatest failure was on housing, both the lack of social housing, failure to structure the private rented sector adequatey and the rampant price inflation in the housing market.

    Alongside this, they lost their nerve very early on over reform of the criminal justice system and ended up in a spiral of anti libertarian legislation, that they currently show no signs of addressing, and allowed themselves to be swallowed up by conservative market orthodoxy that ended up in the biggest global meltdown for 70 years.

    Nowhere yet have we seen this orthodoxy (that has dominated only since the mid to late 1970’s) been properly analysed and challenged and so far, in this regard, the banking crisis has been wasted. Labour in opposition should be able to do this, but I don’t see much coming from the current crop of serious candidates other than more triangulation to take them further right of the coalition. Depressing.

  44. @ALEC
    Had I meant bi sexual, I would have said bi sexual. I do not believe for one moment that UKIP cost the Tories 17 seats, however, the brilliant logic that says ” the Cons are soft on Europe, therefore I will waste my vote and risk returning Labour”
    does square very well with Sir Ulrich Bufton-Tuffton bt, being “disgusted and shocked” by fusion with the LDs. This of course ignores the alternatives available and also ignores the fact that the electorate have got what they voted for.

  45. @Alec

    If all UKIP voters had voted Con instead, the Tories would have won 21 more seats.

    @Epochery

    Quango is a word. The definition of an acronym requires that it forms a word (as opposed to an initialism such as BBC, which does not).

  46. Tory VONC

    1992 Committee are saying Cameron misunderstands the rules and the changes he pushed through last week will not stand. More on this in The Sunday Telegraph.

  47. I really cant see that Housing is labour’s failure. the right to buy in my view was a disaster for public housing as mush as it was a success for home ownership. Labour has done alot to get people on the housing ladder with shared ownership and equity loans for instance but there is a dire shortfall in affordable housing for the rental market. The fact is there is so much opposition to new housing developments that it means that housing stock cannot keep up with demand.

    Immigratnts are not a scapegoat but if you ask the three reasons why they lost faith in labour i would think they would be: the economy, immigration and the iraq war. Much of the problem is perception rater than reality but labour has not got its message out as well as the tories and that there has been a continuing perception that labour stopped listening. My view is that labour must accept the things that is got wrong an look to put these perceptions right. Hence why ed balls and ed milliband have said the iraq ware was wrong because it was in hindsight. The eradication of certain civil liberties and in particular the way the labour government was complicit in human rights abuses in trying to combat terrorism on top of the abandonement of habeas corpus in dealing with suspected terrorists is also a key reason for the loss of faith/trust in labour. Whoever leads labour come september 26th, they have little time to convince the electorate that Labour is truly on the side of the ordinary people of this nation.

  48. I am hearing that more than 2 dozen are ready to vote a motion of no-confidence in DC from the blue benches. There is currently a large amount of dissuasion from them doing so. The Independance of the 1922 allowed them to squabble in private. The imposition of ministers into the committee is forcing the hand of ‘rebels’ quicker than they would have liked.

    Blue blogs are awash with it….

  49. @Epoc,

    Tis Quango- to make it work they took the ‘u’ with the ‘q’. It is reasonably common to employ poetic liscense with these acronyms.

    I am worried about the QCA being removed. I am an examiner accross a number fo exam boards. Some uniformity in testing is important. In GCSE hist for example we have one exam board who’s sylabus consists of ‘ruling britannia’ type question…. (quite difficult for our ethnic minorities). Then another exam board is more ‘black peoples of america’ (More challenging for the all white communities)..

    Uniformity helped push the assessment techniques of these boards together

  50. I’ve just been reading the Telegraph’s article on the Queen’s speech. I can’t find anything on Cameron’s plans to reduce the number of MPs by 10%. Have I missed something or has the plan been ditched?

    Thanks all.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9