Could the 8,226 on the postal vote list be the key to Cheadle?
May 31st, 2005
-
Will party workers be less reluctant to “help” postal voters get their ballots in?
In an article in the Times just three weeks before polling day Cheadle was singled out as the prime example of a marginal constituency where there had been a big increase in postal votes over 2001. It noted on April 15th that In Cheadle, Manchester, where the Liberal Democrats have a majority of 33, the number of applications stands at 8,226, nearly five times the 1,695 cast in 2001.
At the time we speculated whether “this was partly the product of the “hidden” campaign that has been taking place over the past six months – the huge direct marketing effort in the marginal seats.” In this select voters were bombarded by mail and phone calls by centralised Labour and Conservative operations and the “sell” was confirmed by a postal vote application being returned to the parties’ national processing centres.
The Lib Dems did not have a national centre but had built up their postal vote numbers by work at a local level.
-
The problem for party organisers was that to convert those on the postal lists into real votes requires the final prong of the marketing operation – a visit or some contact to the postal voter’s home to make sure they have voted and to offer assistance if they haven’t.
For the process of voting by post is quite cumbersome. You have to mark the ballot paper and then put it in one envelope. Then you have to fill in a form and get your signature witnessed by someone who has to provide their address and finally you have to put all the bits together and ensure that it is put in the mail.
For many on the postal list the problem of finding a witness could the critical. It is here where a normal follow-up by the party machine could be very helpful. In the post-Birmingham atmosphere of the May 5 General Election, however, there was a reluctance amongst all the party machines to get to involved in this process. The result was a low level of turnout amongst those on the list in seats throughout the country. The proportion for Cheadle has not been made available but we guess that the seat would have followed normal patterns.
- In the rarefied atmosphere of a Conservative – Lib Dem by-election battle we would not expect the same fastidiousness by party workers. Those with postal votes are much more likely to be followed up and help, where asked for, will be provided.
Those 8,226 voters are almost certainly still on the postal list and the party machines know who they are. Whether and how they vote could determine whether the Lib Dems retain the seat.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Mr Smithson, have you seen this mornings Telegraph piece on a possible Clarke-Cameron Joint ticket, is this a goer? what are the Money Markets saying?
Surely this is just a piece of anti-Cameron spin?
2. Why?
There’s an old song (late 80s, early 90s) titled ‘Can I find a witness?’ Maybe it was inspired by postal voting…
off the thread : Dominique de Villepin is the new french PM
To be honest Mike, as someone who knew and liked Patsy Calton, who was both dignified and courageous in the face of considerable pain, I can’t help feeling that this is somewhat early to be opening a thread on the prospects for the forthcoming by-election. The funeral has not even taken place, so I do think you could have waited- after all there is up to six months to hold the by-election.
Why is the PV issue being talking up in Cheadle but not South Staffs? And more importantly I get the feeling that this will be a parliment full of by-elections!
6 - I agree
4 -”Can I get a witness”? early 1960s Marvin Gaye covered by the Rolling Stones?
James - fair point but this was being raised yesterday with more than 20 posts and there have been requests for a thread.
My response yesterday at message 7 on the Blair thread was … I’ll be doing a piece on Cheadle during this week - but today is too soon and the big story is the French NO.
To Tone 7 - South Staffs is not a by-election but a delayed part of the General Election and the campaign spending rules severely limit activity. Also I doubt whether in a super-safe Tory seat there was much effort to get postal votes and I’d be surprised if the numbers are anything like Cheadle.
6 - They are holding it in June, aren’t they?
News today says that coinciding with the South Staffs by-election has been ruled out and late July is much more likely (dignified period etc). As James O notes, it seems a bit early to start analysing the prospects one way or another.
re. James at 11. South Staffs is NOT a byelection. It is a delayed part of the general election.
6 - James I understand your concern and respect for Calton but I have to say the Lib Dems have no such scruples. In a number of by-elections in the past they have had their first leaflet out before the former MP had been buried. In the 1980’s I remember some distate expressed regularly and David Owen being portrayed as “Dr Death” because of his love for by-elections and the publicity it brought the then SDP.
If we are to have a “decent interval” it should be respected by all parties in all circumstances.
Rik 13. I think that this applies to all parties and not just the Lib Dems. A MP needs do little more than cough loudly in a Commons tea room and someone is dispatched to the seat from party HQ to find suitable premises and draw up delivery rounds.
Oh no, I think the Lib Dems are definitely the worst of the lot. In a local by-election this year in Oxford, in the seat of a Green incumbent who died of cancer, the Lib Dems called the contest instead of waiting, as is usual, for the party who has lost the person to do so. This was entirely an attempt to have the election before the students got back into college, which a major source of votes for the Greens. Furthermore they then went around saying that the Greens had no chance in this seat, erroneously using general election statistics. I have no qualms about tarring most Lib Dems with the same brush - there is a high degree of immorality about their ground campaign conduct generally.
Oh, and they did the same thing in Romsey, lest we forget, in 1999.
13 - 16 All , politics is a rough old game and if ANY party thinks they can squeeze advantage from a situation and not attract to much flak they’ll do so . None of the parties can too po-faced about this.
15 - Anatole: a couple of factual corrections due here.
* The Lib Dems did not call the contest. It was triggered by electors in the ward. As the recent Oxford elections proved, it’s hard to see what benefit it would be to the Lib Dems to exclude student voters.
* The Lib Dem literature did not use general election statistics for the bar chart. It showed the result for the most recent city election in that ward, in which the Tories came 2nd, and the Greens and Labour tied for last place.
cheers, stephen
18. That’s such a lie! Yes it was triggered by “electors”, but they were Lib Dem electors utilized by the party! For heaven’s sake, I have spoken to Lib Dem activists who have revealed as much. And don’t try and hide behind the last general elections as a means of looking at strategy - you know full well that students consistently vote for Greens in the Holywell Ward and that is what the Lib Dems were trying to eliminate at the time. Everyone involved in that Lib Dem campaign really ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves - as indeed some very few are.
And as for 14, I’m sorry but the simple fact is that the Lib Dems are must worse than any other party, and are willing to push the boundaries far beyond what others, in all decency, would. I’d be hugely surprised if there was not a wide consensus amongst the activists of other parties from across the spectrum, that this is the case.
And, back onto 18. the use of city council elections was still cynical. You don’t honestly mean to tell me that Lib Dem strategists rely on completely separate elections as some sort of opinion poll? The Greens were DEFENDING the seat - how could that ever translate into “they have no chance of winning”. It is pure, unadulterated deceit. Much like what I hear they were doing in David Davis’s seat in the General Election, passing literature that claimed the Tories “had no chance” in the constituency.
19 - whereas the other parties just push the boundaries far beyond decency whilst in Government.
19 , Anatole , we try and avoid the 3 letter “Howard” word on this site . I know it’s in vogue with the tories but it tends to frighten the horses.
20 - you are saying that when a council is elected by thirds, it is deceitful to use the most recent result as a guide rather than the one up to four years previous?
Very well, I shall “withdraw” the word. Though much as with the general election I can’t see the problem with telling it like it is. Lib Dems - Fighting Seats By Deceits!
23. Yes, because the different demographics of each ward would be like campaigning to win in Oxford West & Abingdon based on the results of the last election in Whitney.
19 - “you know full well that students consistently vote for Greens in the Holywell Ward”
Hmmm - that would explain why one of the two sitting councillors is a Lib Dem, then? The Greens do not have a monopoly on the student vote, you know.
24 , Anatole, As deputy Speaker (unelected) this House of Posters accepts withdrawl of the “Howard word” . “Deceit” is also unposting language , we would prefer “inexactitude” and invite the Honourable poster to comply accordingly and to ask him to dismount from his high horse.
No-one said they had a monopoly of the student vote, but they have more of one than the Lib Dems and any decrease in student voting would naturally have benefitted the Lib Dems. I’d completely forgotten that there is still a Green councillor in the ward - that just proves my point: let’s make it clear that this was a Green held seat being defended by the Greens, it is without doubt deceitful to label the Greens as being without a chance.
25 - if we are talking about two different wards at different levels, then I misinterpreted, so post 23 was misconceived.
Nonetheless, all of this is just becoming a very standard and boring slur against the Lib Dems. Every party chooses the most useful set of figures they can. I have on my desk an example of the Tories claiming to be the “only challenger” in a constituency where they have come a distant third for decades. And I cannot believe Labour examples are not easily to hand.
28 - some delightfully confused reasoning here. First, I’m not too sure any one party can have “more of” a monopoly than another one.
Secondly, I fail to see how a decrease in student voting would aid the Lib Dems: we won the seat in June 04 (with the student vote), when the Greens trailed in joint last; we lost the seat in Oct 04 (without the student vote). Go figure.
Thirdly, I’m not sure how your assertion that students consistently vote Green in Holywell sqaures with your forgetting there is one Green councillor in the ward.
29 - book value, you’re not wrong (though the city elections are by halves). Holywell and Carfax are the two central Oxford wards. Holywell is almost all students; Carfax is roughly two-thirds students. Currently both wards are split in their representation, with 2 Lib Dem and 2 Green councillors. And, as you can see, they are hotly contested…
Anatole. To a certain extent I do agree that your original point was true - I think that James has to be realistic - when an MP or Councillor dies, no matter how tragic the circumstances, the party machines go into action and to pretend otherwise is really not realistic.
However, I would say that it is a bit rich from supporters of other parties to claim that Liberal Democrats are any dirtier than anyone else. For example - in East Devon this year our campaign had 30 posterboards not only knocked over/defaced but stolen in one night. We were pretty sure we knew who did it and why they had done it. But when I suggested half in jest that we have a ‘tit for tat mission’ I was quickly shouted down by everyone else, including the PPC who happened to be there. The reason - “but we don’t fight dirty”.
The point I am trying to make is that all sides think that the other side is not above any underhand tactic short of hiring hitmen, and their own are beyond reproach. To be honest - I have heard this cr*p before - quite often from the Tories - and in 17 years of working for the Lib Dems locally and on by-elections I have never known anyone do anything particularly underhand - the biggest ‘crime’ being my personal ‘liberation’ of 10 badly posted Tory leaflets at the Christchurch by-election of which I was told that I was very naughty by a couple of friends.
So shall we drop this spurious cr*p about the Lib Dems being dirty fighters - we fight no dirtier than any other party - in fact if I have one complaint about some of my fellows, it is their reticence in putting the boot in to their opponents.
Paul Lloyd’s “I have one complaint about some of my fellows, it is their reticence in putting the boot in to their opponents”, says it all about much of the Lib Dem’s ‘distinctive’, perhaps even proprietorial, campaigning style.
Can only speak from personal experience, but I’ve contested 10 local elections since my first successful foray back in 1979 as one of the inaugural Councillors for Oxford’s then Central Ward (so the last few postings have been a real trip down memory lane!), and never once have either I or my Labour opponents ever felt the need to ‘put the boot in’ to each other. Clear policy issues devoid of personal nastiness seemed quite sufficient.
I’ll obey Mr Deputy Speaker Jack’s injunctions but on the few occasions when the Libs (SDP) were the main challengers, let’s just say Anatole’s observations struck a most resonant chord.
33 -Paul you are having a laugh. The Lib Dems are the dirtiest most deceitful liars in British Politics. I submit the following in evidence http://dirtyliberals.iainlindley.com/
Oh and BTW I had several streets repeatedly cleared of posters during the election. Mysteriously the one Lib Dem poster in the street most affected stayed up!
I could of course also cite http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:116194170&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser= or http://www.lambethlabour.com/news/liberaldemocrats/libdemdirtytricks.html
Oh and I nearly forgot http://inchbrakie.tripod.com/snpdingwall/id20.html
Lol - I think the point is made. Wherever you are in the United Kingdom, one thing is certain, the Lib Dems will resort to dirty tricks! Lets face it, that’s what their training manual for candidates tells them to do
35 - 37 - its a fair cop Rik. We just have to fess up to where we learned it all: http://www.suttoncheamconservatives.com/ especially the bit titled “Richard’s Newspaper”
Richard. Richard. Richard. You really are very sad. So Rik presents as his evidence the words of a Tory Councillor. Well done Rik - great piece of evidence from the defence
Well I present my word then - The last minute leaflet that I saw delivered to my door by your party on the 4th of May this year was the most shameless piece of misrepresentation of Liberal Democrat policies I have ever seen, as was half of the stuff you wrote on the back of your personal newsletters (we all had a good look - nice design by the way - very professional - shame about the content - quoting Lib Dem Watch - aren’t they funded by COHSE - not renowned for their welcoming approach to Tories).
Like I said before, we all feel that the other side is telling porkies and that we dliver the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - I am afraid that is called human nature. But at the end of the day - this is politics.
And John O - in our little election down here the only ‘personal attack’ came from the Tory candidate on our candidate in the local newspaper - so your argument is balls as well. I suppose your leader calling Blair a liar was all done in the spirit of gentlemanly conduct was it?
The reality is, that you Tories expect us to sit quietly in our corner whilst you wilfully misrepresent everything we say or do - as do your chums in the Labour Party. Well grow up. You have been exerting ‘unfair’ tactics against us for decades. But like all playground bullies, as soon as someone stands up to you, you go screaming to mummy.
Thanks Tabman for that link - it’s great to go and look at such a balanced and well rounded take on our policies. I can’t believe how wicked we have been - telling all those lies and half truths, whilst Richard has been trundling around Sutton & Cheam just giving a balanced view of our Party. No wonder he lost, poor soul.
A particularly good barchart here http://www.suttoncheamconservatives.com/getfile.php?selectid=49&type=local What were you implying to the voters of Sutton & Cheam Richard - that voting you in would reduce the Labour majority? I thought you were against misleading bar charts?
Paul -
To the Tories a “bar chart” is obviously a chart drawn up at a bar. That means that it can have all the attributes of common pub talk. Nobody is actually expected to believe it. They themselves certainly don´t - but we are supposed to just make polite sounding noises which don´t upset anybody and just indicate unoffended agreement - as one tends to do in a bar conversation, among gentlemen. That is why they get so upset when others fail to agree with their every extremist outpouring and, instead, start to get even more offensive. So please don´t take Rik too seriously - after all, nobody else does.
The Tories are just as bad. In the Horbury byelection for Wakefield Council held two weeks before the General Election they produced an eve of poll leaflet that was headed “Five Reasons not to Vote Liberal Democrat” stating that we were soft on crime even though we are campainging for an extra 10,000 bobbies on the beat. Thankfully the good voters of Horbury gave the Liberal Democrats the highest vote they have ever had in the ward 25.2% and the Tories lost the seat to Labour. Poetic Justice!!!
I have to agree with many of the previous posters on the thread - the Lib Dems are without doubt the “dirtiest” players of all, and it goes way beyond dodgy bar charts or warm grave tricks. The homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell in ‘82 after the death of “Bermondsey Bob” was an absolute disgrace and I have no use for Simon Hughes to this day as a result. They played the same gutter tactics in the middle 80s in Nottingham against the Labour council, even worse than the Tories.
On a related note roll on next May in the Northern cities, I won’t be that sorry if we do get a drubbing from the LDs as they’ll then be judged on their record in the Town Halls; if the experience up here in South Yorks is anything to go by they’ll soon get found out. Only 3 or 4 years ago Sheffield City Council was their jewel in the crown (visits from CK, etc, etc) with a big majority, now they are finished in the city -the old Labour wards are all coming back. Leeds, Newcastle will be the same
43 - mark, care to deop me a line please? tabman@thatsaid.co.uk
38-42 Oh please boys!!! There are no “dirty tricks” in my literature. The bar chart was of course a mickey take on all the Lib Dem bar charts, even a Lib Dem activist could see that.
And where is all this “misrepresentation” of Lib Dem policies? Mark states that Tories were “stating that we were soft on crime even though we are campainging for an extra 10,000 bobbies on the beat”. Well Mark, that is because you want to give prisoners the votes, not send Burglars to prison and scrap mandatory life sentences for murder. That sounds pretty soft on criminals to me and most people. An extra 10,000 Police would probably be used to say nice things to joy riders as you send them on go-karting courses. Lib Dem law and order policies were a joke. Even CK now accepts this, as he starts his review!
Any examples cited for the Lib Dems case are as nothing compared with what they get up to. Bermondsey was a good example as quoted at 44.
46 - ah, it was all a mickey take, so that makes it OK then. Actually, I believe you seriously mislead the voters of Sutton & Cheam with your statement: “There is only one way to be rid of TOny Blair and that is by voting Conservative in Sutton & Cheam.”
WRONG!!!
The only ways to be rid of Tony Blair are:
(i) by being a valid elector in the constituency of Sedgefield where Anthony Lynton Blair was the Labour party candidate - patently the electors of S&C are not in the constituency of Sedgefield and have no say in his election or not.
(ii) remove him as leader of the Labour party. Clearly none of your constituents are Labour MPs; some might be Trades Union members and some might be Labour Party members, but in neither case will voting Conservative in S&C remove Tony Blair.
So - I’m afraid to say we have clear evidence of your misconduct in misleading the electorate into thinking that by voting for you they were going to do anything about Tony Blair.
I do hope you will mend your ways!
What a fantastic thread of whinging by Labour and Tory alike. Rik’s ignorance is staggering - ‘redrobbie’ is clearly a troll as the Bernmondsey by-election was not caused by the death of ‘Bermondsey Bob’ Mellish - he was John O’Grady’s (the ‘Real Labour’ candidate) agent FFS! Mellish resigned to become the highly paid chair of the LDDC (at taxpayer’s expense). If anybody was to blame for Tatchell’s defeat it was himself and the loony left campaign he ran.
The homophobic accusations came from the ‘Real’ Labour campaign - witness O’Grady singing ‘Tatchell is a poppet’ from the back of a lorry the weekend before polling day.
Get real guys - all the parties indulge in robust campaigning - what’s ‘LibDemwatch’ - a front for Tom Watson and his campaigns. Rik praised the Tory campaign for its hard hitting anti-Lib Dem stance. Neither Tory and Labour can complain when they have it large back from the Lib Dems.
47 - Tabman, an interesting perspective. However the GE was about who governed the country; Blair or Howard. CK didnt feature. SInce the Lib Dems have a track record of going into coalition with Labour, a Lib Dem MP elected in S&C could have helped that Blair govt survive, if it was a hung Plmt. Only by electing me could people have the confidence that i would vote to be rid of Blair! A point I expounded on numerous occasions elsewhere. Also my bar chart accurately reflected the previous GE result - no amalgamations of several results, or showing the neighbouring constituency, or tampering with the scale! Lol
Just for the sake of impartiality, as Lib Dem Watch is already mentioned:
http://www.labour-watch.com/
http://www.newlabourscandals.co.uk/
48 - I wondered when Dan would resurface! Actually Dan most of the homophobic slagging of Tatchell came from the then Liberals. They produces leaflets alluding to Tatchell’s sexuality and wore badges saying “Ive been kissed by Peter Tatchell”. Gutter politics at its worst!
And as for Tories and for Bedford:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ellisa2079/
http://www.labour4guildford.com/LabBrief2.htm
http://www.bedfordconservatives.co.uk/
http://www.tatchell.freeserve.co.uk/politics/votes.htm
46 , Richard , I think your’e allowing an element of bitterness to cloud you veiws. Soft or hard on crime are meaningless slogans. Voters want you to be right on crime - to deliver policies that tackle problems effectively . As for the Lib Dems policies on crime , perhaps some are left field but mandatory life sentence for murder isn’t one of them - Is a serial killer in the same league as a battered wife or a mercy killing - no . It’s a policy that can be mis-represented , as the tories did at the election , but more careful and thoughtful examination of it reveals that it is entirely sensible. Remember as a PPC and even eventually an MP you don’t have to spout drivel from Central Office , you may even find your electorate like you for not doing it.
47 , Tabman , Naughty naughty , calling another poster “misleading” .
We’ll have to slap your wrists for that one and warn you about your future conduct.
54 - JackW I understand your general thrust but the point is not that one individual policy is arguably ok (maybe) but that the overall direction is one of being soft on criminals. Oh and BTW a “a battered wife or a mercy killing” would be likely to be manslaughter not murder, or not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
YOu may find this interesting http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=399
55 , Richard , there you go again Richard (sounds Reaganesque) soft/hard not relevant - what works is what’s right. I’m old enough to remember Willie Whitelaws’ boot camps and endless “crackdowns” on crime - all utter failures. Also I wish the DPP did charge more often manslaughter , regretably they don’t.
I’m one of those AB’s that have deserted the Tories and am awaiting your return from the “dark side” - is it going to happen in the near future ? or are we destined to have another generation of Labour government under Prime Minister Brown and revolving door right-wing Tory leaders ?
But I’ve never actually seen any evidence that sending TWOCers joy-riding, or refusing to jail burglars, actually works - in the sense of reducing crime - even if it does give a warm glow to the people who support such policies.
Crime rates rose steadily from the fifties to the early nineties, and the prison population hardly rose at all - meaning that the likelihood of being jailed for committing a particular offence dropped sharply. The Prison population has been increased by 70% since 1993, and crime rates have fallen - because a lot of recidivists have been taken out of circulation.
51 - Evidence please Rik? (And I don’t mean from Tatchell’s ‘Battle for Bermondsey’. The ‘I’ve been kissed by Peter Tatchell’ is an urban myth as far as I’m aware - probably a figment of Tatchell’s imagination.
You’re letting your hatred of Liberals cloud your view of the reality.
I’m sorry we will not take lessons in dirty and negative campaigning from the party that employed Lynton Crosby.
I’m probably in a minority in finding the “I’ve been kissed by Peter Tatchell” story rather funny, and something the Liberals should take credit for rather than denying.
59 - OK try http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Simon_Hughes
60, 61 - That is quite funny. Why does Tatchell claim it was a bid for the homophobic vote? If it was, it was rather heavily reliant on knuckle-dragging bigots having a strong appreciation of irony. Incidentally, Tatchell doesn’t appear to have a personal grudge against Hughes over any of it - I saw them a few years ago having a lengthy and seemingly perfectly friendly chat over a coffee in Parliament.
I refer you all to my favourite literature collected on the campaign trail. The Lib Dem leaflet from Calder Valley screaming “Labour can’t win here”
Result
Name Party Votes %
Christine McCafferty Labour 18,426 38.6
Liz Truss Conservative 17,059 35.7
Liz Ingleton Liberal Democrat 9,027 18.9
John Gregory British National Party 1,887 4.0
Paul Palmer Green 1,371 2.9
We’re currently getting Lib Dem leaflets in the two Brent North by-elections telling us that it’s a fight between them and Labour, notwithstanding they polled half the number of votes we did on May 6th, and they have not a single councillor in the constituency.
Hughes’s voting record hardly seems tailored to the homophobic vote.
I notice Rik’s source just refers to “multiple [nameless] witnesses”. Not the strongest evidence conceivable.
64 - rather like the Tory leaflet I had in the GE which claimed Southwark N & Bermondsey was a fight between them and the Lib Dems!
61 - “OK try http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Simon_Hughes ”
That’s an article based on Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You can see the oriinal article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hughes . Even you or I could edit that article, so how do we know that you actually haven’t? Probably not, but the fact that anybody, even bittered opponents, can edit the article makes it unreliable.
61 - have you tried this?…
http://search.psychcentral.com/search/search.pl?Match=1&Realm=Psych+Central&Terms=richard+willis&x=20&y=5
Maybe this is the real reason for your hatred of Mr Hughes?
There is an article about Richard Willis (though its seems about another kind of crook than a politician
) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Willis
In time http://psychcentral.com/ will probably update from Wikipedia, and then you will find the article there, as well.
Richard [55] - despite the above slur on Wikipedia, here’s what they say about murder/manslaughter
Murder - Killing of another person whilst having either the intention to kill (with “malice aforethought”) or to cause grievous bodily harm.
Manslaughter - Unintentional and unlawful killing of another person.
The examples you quote are murder.
The most significant correlate for the amount of crime in society is, quite simply, the number of young males. The carnage of World War I (and to a lesser extent, World War II) reduced this, so that the generation which is now dying of old age was brought up in a period when crime was lower than ever before or since - and so expected governments to “deliver” a lower level of crime than was possible.
As for your comment that we must be going soft on criminals because the number of prisoners hasn’t kept pace with the number of crimes committed, I will buy that when you demonstrate that everyone who was jailed say 50 years ago received an appropriate punishment.
The real problem in penal policy is that what is appropriate is very hard to “sell” in the hectic atmosphere of an election. There is little or no point in releasing a schizoid, illiterate offender (our jails are full of them) until his behavioural and educational problems have been dealt with - in other words, punishment should fit not the crime but the criminal. There’s a political education job of work to be done here… is there ever!
70 - Victims of domestic violence may be convicted of manslaughter for even the intentional killings of their partners: however as you say IA, this goes beyond the traditional meaning of manslaughter as a judicial precedent to work around mandatory sentencing of murder. This is something I think we ought to rationalise with the concept of degrees of murder.
55 - You cannot be found acquitted on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibility (paraphrasing, “an abnormality of mind significantly reducing culpability”) reduces murder to manslaughter - it does not lead to acquittal.
Diminished responsibility would not normally be available to domestic violence victims as it requires a mental problem of some kind short of insanity (I believe Tony Martin successfully argued it on appeal to get his murder sentence reduced to manslaughter).
Domestic violence victims who kill their abusers can try for provocation (which also reduces murder to manslaughter). But it doesn’t work very well because it is designed for split-second decisions based on extreme provocation, not the more typical scenario where the abused wife waits until her drunken partner is asleep and hits him over the head with an ashtray. In fact, any criminal lawyer will tell you that the battered wife in that situation will have real trouble getting away with anything less than a life sentence for murder.
Neither provocation nor diminished responsibility are likely to be available to anyone accused of a mercy killing.
I suggest Richard doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Oops - “be acquitted” rather than “be found acquitted” in the first line of my comment above.
48 Dan etc . As I recall Bermondsey was one of the safest Labour seats in the country at the time of the byelection, and yet Simon Hughes has held it for 20+ years. Isn’t it still predominantly council estates or has it become gentrified. How come Labour haven’t won it back - is there such a strong personal vote for Mr Hughes ?
[74] Book Value will probably wish to comment to better effect than I can, but I would suggest the following factors
- strong LD local government base since 1982 playing on real or imaginary bias against area from Peckham-based Southwark Council;
- Docklands development taking electorate upmarket;
- Hughes is an assiduous and effective MP.
One of the most entertaining things about this site is the way certain posters make up arguments then demolish them and claim some sort of victory!!! 72 James’ post is a classic example. I would suggest that James doesnt know what he is talking about!
Dan’s juvenile arguments dont even deserve a reply.
70 - IA maybe you could show me where I said “As for your comment that we must be going soft on criminals because the number of prisoners hasn’t kept pace with the number of crimes committed”. That is such bollox, that it could have only come out of the mouth of a Lib Dem.
I was going to post the link to my site, but it seems the honours have already been done on my behalf. Other less recent tricks by the Salford Liberal Democrats include claiming that “the Tories can’t win here” in a ward with a Conservative incumbent. Whoops.
59.”(And I don’t mean from Tatchell’s ‘Battle for Bermondsey’. ”
why Tatchell’s version is not considered an evidence, while the Liberals denial is?
60. Sean Fear, it could have benn funny if isolated, but in that context it wasn’t funny at all.
I find funny that Hughes own sexuality has been heavily rumored during his political career.
76 - Rik My dad’s bigger than your dad! Na na na na.
There is no point in debating with you - you don’t know the meaning of the word.
By the way - did you know that your result in Sutton and Cheam puts you in a very elite group of around a dozen people? Candidates who got over 40% of the vote yet lost! That must hurt….
… a lot.
OT, but Respect is asking an investigation about possible frauds in Birmingham Sparkbrook
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4599727.stm
79 — That is about the level of most of your arguments. If you were interested in debating I would happily do so, but you are only interested in sarcasm and juvenile arguments.
BTW my result doesnt “hurt” at all (except of course not winning). Since this was my first seat it places me very well for next time. Thanks for your concern!
Rik -you’ve blown it. You’re wrong. Redrobbie is wrong (and trolling). Mellish did not die: he resigned to take up a job with London Docklands Corporation (Chairman, I think).
I did a lot of canvassing in that by-eletion. The only badge I wore said “Vote Liberal/Alliance”. I saw no Liberal wearing anything different.
Dan is right. “Tatchell is a gay” taunts came from a) from John O’Grady b) from some (non-party) gay activists who believed that gay candidates should stand up and be counted rather than staying in the closet (or in Tatchell’s case, stepping back in it). Some gays get worked up about this sort of thing, I don´t know why.
It was a lovely by-election. The people were great. There was that intersting campaign form the WRP (”I am not an anti-racialist…”) John O’Grady’s unpleasant campaign did not prosper - as many thought it might. Bermondsey got a great MP. And for once the tories got the level of support they deserved!
Rik W [76] wrote 70 - IA maybe you could show me where I said “As for your comment that we must be going soft on criminals because the number of prisoners hasn’t kept pace with the number of crimes committed”. That is such bollox, that it could have only come out of the mouth of a Lib Dem.
I owe you an apology, Rik. You have indeed said no such thing. I was responding to post 58… I leave it to you to square yourself with Sean Fear…
82, And Peter Tatchell himself has blown it too, has he? After all, he’s the one who made the allegation, and doesn’t appear to have ever withdrawn it. And surely he is in just a good position to know what really happened in the campaign as you are.
82- “from some (non-party) gay activists who believed that gay candidates should stand up and be counted rather than staying in the closet”
Is a Libdems new policy to push gays back in the closet?
“It was a lovely by-election”
I would really like to see you in Tatchell’s situation if it was a so lovely by-election.
“I did a lot of canvassing in that by-eletion. The only badge I wore said “Vote Liberal/Alliance”. I saw no Liberal wearing anything different. ”
Tatchel was there too and he saw different things. Are the Liberals the only source of truth in UK?
(I’m a little bitter today as probably showed by my posts).
83 no probs IA!
82-
“Is a Libdems new policy to push gays back in the closet?”
Speaking personally I am happy for gays to be out if they want or to stay in the closet if they don´t want. Whatever makes people happy. I thought it was Tatchell’s business. I also knew that Mandelson was gay (like many people here). I thought he had a right to privacy.
“I would really like to see you in Tatchell’s situation if it was a so lovely by-election.”
Andrea. He had no God given right to the seat. He did not (in my view) lose because he was gay. He lost because he was a left wing candidate who had been disavowed by Michael Foot before the Election. (This is the point the trollers never repeat!) I never heard any voter mention his sexuality on the doorstep (nor anywhere else).
“Tatchel was there too and he saw different things. Are the Liberals the only source of truth in UK?”
Well I was there and I think I am a reliable witness. I think it suited Tatchell to blame the sexuality issue.
(I’m a little bitter today as probably showed by my posts).
Spero che non sia colpo mio! Non mi piace per niente che questa gente dica qualcosa che non è vero semplicemente per fastidiare Hughes. Come dice Book Value, Hughes non e mai stato anti-gay. Neanch’io!
76 - Rik, your original comment (at 55 if you would care to refer back) was “BTW a “a battered wife or a mercy killing” would be likely to be manslaughter not murder, or not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility.”
I was simply telling you, as a lawyer myself, that:
1. You cannot, as a matter of law, be “not guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility”;
2. You are unlikely to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter in a “battered wife” type case. Manslaughter arises (broadly) because you lack the requisite intent to kill or do really serious harm or you have a partial defence (normally diminished responsibility or provocation). In fact - and any criminal lawyer will confirm this - none of those things are likely to apply to battered wives (although they may in some cases); and
3. The same applies even more in mercy killing situations (the killer will intend to kill by definition and is highly unlikely to be “provoked” or menatally impaired).
Kindly do not accuse me of making up arguments to knock them down. You were simply exposed, I am afraid, as not knowing a lot about the law.
88 - well James I certainly wouldnt hire you in my defence! I cannot recall specifics but I am sure there have been cases where the defence has proven diminshed responsibility to demonstrate that while there may be an “actus rea” there is no “mens rea” (check spelling!). They would therefore have been acquitted. of course if this had been shown from the start they could have been charged under a different charge but we know the CPS are not infallible!
YOu also accept that in a battered wife scenario this may apply!
I assumed that James was saying that you may be a battered wife and still not mean to kill your husband.
But I enjoyed that failure to recall specifics…
IIRC there was a precedent in the 1990s that sustained provocation could be considered under the provocation defence (to murder but not to manslaughter). I think what James is saying is that this is not automatically applicable in some cases.
BV at 91 - I think what James is saying is that this is not automatically applicable in some cases.
Exactly - but with ‘mandatory’ life sentences the judges have no discretion.
In a way it will be good to see how the Tories react to the next ‘battered wife’ who gets 15 years - will they be calling for their early release?
I don’t know whether the Libs stepped over the line in Bermondsey, Southwark or wherever but IF they did they should be condemned as should whoever was responsible for Smethwick in the ’60’s. However to use alleged incidents, whether true or not, as an example to ‘prove’ that all Lib/Lab/Cons (delete as applicable) are evil is of course ridiculous. Just as Peter Sutcliffe doesn’t ‘prove’ that all yorkshiremen/englishmen/men are evil.
This is exactly the way people talking about immigrants/gays/moslems etc talk - ‘they’re all like that’- . We’ve all heard it from some pub ‘expert’. Let’s avoid such nonsense debates in future shall we?
87.”Speaking personally I am happy for gays to be out if they want or to stay in the closet if they don´t want. Whatever makes people happy. I thought it was Tatchell’s business. I also knew that Mandelson was gay (like many people here). I thought he had a right to privacy.”
I’m a bit undecided here. I support the outing of anti-gay gay politician. The Mandelson thing is a bit weird. If Parris would have revealed that an MP has a beautiful young girl as a girlfriend, very few would have asked for the right of privacy, while if someone reveals someone else’s homosexuality, it immeadiatly become an issue and something is right to hide (like it’s a terrible shame).
Why is it right to mention that an MP has a new girlfriend/boyfriend without waiting an acknowledgement by him/her but it’s not good to mention that someone is gay (if he’s common knowledge)?
The BBC reaction was too much (btw now is it possible to say that Mandelson is gay or it’s still forbidden?). Mandelson himself acted like it was great shame for him (considering he is seen as a great PR, he didn’t build a good image for himself); I noticed that in various forums/boards posters use Mandelson’s homosexuality to make fun of him, while the same thing doesn’t happen with Chris Smith (probably becuase they knew that the mention of his sexuality is not a problem for Smith).
And poor Parris, it wasn’t the first to mention it (it was mentioned back in the 80’s by one of the tabloids, then in recent times before Parris’ “outing” by the Independent, by Private Eye and by Edwina Currie).
“I would really like to see you in Tatchell’s situation if it was a so lovely by-election.”
Andrea. He had no God given right to the seat. He did not (in my view) lose because he was gay. He lost because he was a left wing candidate who had been disavowed by Michael Foot before the Election. (This is the point the trollers never repeat!) I never heard any voter mention his sexuality on the doorstep (nor anywhere else).
Nobody said he should have won, but there are different things to attack him about other than his sexuality. Every newspapers article I read about this by-election mentioned that during the campaign his homosexuality was an issue.
“Well I was there and I think I am a reliable witness. I think it suited Tatchell to blame the sexuality issue. ”
but why did he accuse the liberals if it wasn’t true? He could have accused only John O’Grady. And put the tories in the mix considering how anti-tory he is).
“(I’m a little bitter today as probably showed by my posts).
Spero che non sia colpo mio!”
don’t worry, it’s not your fault.
92 - yes, I agree. The absence of the concept of degree of murder means there is no real framework for dealing with these things rationally and consistently.
89 - You recall wrongly. Diminished responsibility is never a full defence, full stop. The most it can ever do is reduce murder to manslaughter.
You can argue diminished responsibility for battered wives but it is very difficult - you can’t just adduce evidence the wife was battered and leave it at that. There has to be solid evidence of a pretty serious, medically proven mental defect on the part of the wife.
You can’t argue it for mercy killings at all as asserted in Rik’s original post (unless obviously the killer has a serious mental problem quite apart from the “mercy killing” dimension).
A further disadvantage of arguing diminished responsibility is always that the prosecution may raise insanity (which, unlike diminished responsibility, does negate mens rea). This would be a tactical move by the prosecution because there can be a fine line between diminished responsibility and insanity. Generally, it is much worse to be found not guilty by reason of insanity than guilty (secure mental hospitals are worse places to be than prisons).
91 - Yes, you can have a series of provoking acts with a cumulative effect (in fact the main precedent is 1940s vintage) but it is incredibly tricky and it is very, very difficult to argue it for a battered wife who waits until hubby is asleep etc. A defence would probably argue it. If successful (quite unlikely) it would reduce murder to manslaughter again, not lead to acquittal. In any event, I only raised provocation to help Rik out - he did not bring it up in his original post.
Basically, Rik’s glib remark that a killing by a victim of domestic violence would “be likely to be manslaughter” is just silly.
Blimey James - “glib” “silly”, you would think we were on PB.com and not in a law school! Forgive me if my memory of law is a little rusty but you have successively made my points for me. You said “Diminished responsibility is never a full defence, full stop. The most it can ever do is reduce murder to manslaughter.” - which is what I was arguing at 55 when I said “the point is not that one individual policy is arguably ok (maybe) but that the overall direction is one of being soft on criminals. Oh and BTW a “a battered wife or a mercy killing” would be likely to be manslaughter not murder, or not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility.”
The original point was that murder is murder and deserves a life sentence. Other instances (as you have gradually conceded) would be likely to be dealt with as manslaughter or end up with the individual found NOT GUILTY of murder.
Phew
“Forgive me if my memory of law is a little rusty but you have successively made my points for me…. Oh and BTW a “a battered wife or a mercy killing” would be likely to be manslaughter not murder, or not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility.””
Rik, I don’t think that’s a point James “made for you”. He is saying that this is possible but certainly not likely, as you claimed.
Well - Rik’s got at least one qualification for becoming a politician; he’s quite prepared to take on a fully-qualified professional in their own subject area and tell them he knows better than them
…even if he can’t quite remember why.
I’ve long thought that Tory penal policy has a strained logic: FOR life meaning life when a child kills a child; AGAINST any significant punishment when a farmer kills a child.
I know they say these things to win votes. But I think it just makes them look like a bunch of populists. And in the end, that doesn´t do them any favours.
100 - perhaps we could have a debate about RAF logistical arrangements during the recent Gulf War II? Starter for ten - body armour.
101-Indeed!
97-I might be wrong, but I think that in the days when murder meant the rope, juries would sometimes acquit someone they believed to be guilty because they didn´t believe that s/he deserved such a punishment. Isn´t murder is murder and deserves a life sentence open to the very objection you make? Won´t juries sometimes decide that the punishment is to harsh and so find not guilty? So someone who should be punished (by less than life) will go free under your proposals?
Glosboy at 101 -
I’m assuming that you’re referring to the two 11 year-olds kidnapping, torturing and murdering three-year-old Jamie Bulger as “a child kills a child” and to Tony Martin shooting the 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras as “a farmer kills a child”?
On both of these - personally, I can see a real difference between them, although I would not simply say “life in jail” and “no punishment” as the answers:
For the first - as an eleven year old, I knew that torturing and murdering toddlers was wrong. My eleven-year-old daughter is the same. The argument that a child is the product of his/her environment is valid, but can be extended too far so as to be meaningless - the vast majority of disadvantaged/abused children do not commit such heinous crimes.
There are real and valid arguments to be made as to the best way to address failed families, collapses in society, and twisted children.
There are also real discussions to be made as to the best way to approach collapses in law and order and defence of property/piece of mind versus rights to life (and yes, I know that Martin lay in wait for the burglars and shot Barras in the back. This was definitely disproportionate and beyond acceptable responses. So was the collapse of the state’s responsibility to protect Martin and the environment that produced the repeated and routine burglaries).
Overly simplistic and pious pronouncements such as ” I’ve long thought that Tory penal policy has a strained logic: FOR life meaning life when a child kills a child; AGAINST any significant punishment when a farmer kills a child.” in reference to such issues merely trivialises and oversimplifies real and major issues, and does not serve to advance the cause of the liberal left/progressive argument in any way. It also smacks of deliberately being provocative (trolling).
Rik - another thing, if you’re so “hard” on crime, why are you so keen to send petty criminals to prison where, some years later, they can emerge in all likelihood either with a significant drugs habit to maintain, or now fully educated in many more sophisticated criminal activities than they were aware of before their incarceration (or sometimes both)?
It looks to me like a policy that very often gives you the opposite of what you’re intending.
Andy - of course you are right about the Bulger killers.
I think you are mostly correct about Martin (I don´t buy society’s blame on this).
Provocative? I’d say provoked.
101 - when a farmer shoots a BURGLAR - not a child!
102 - the RAF can only move kit that the MoD has ordered and had delivered!
103 - that was exactly the settlement, that in return for the regretable abolition of hanging, the substitute was life in prison.
104 - hear hear!
105 - prison needs serious reforming to reduce recidivism. It needs to train and rehabilitate but the alternative is not to refuse to send people to prison. Burglars behind bars cannot burgle!
The abolition of hanging was regretable??? Watch out Rik. With the new rules coming in for the candidate’s list, views like that may not pass muster.
I cannot believe that people on this thread really believe that the LibDems aren’t the dirtiest players in town! Why do you think they win?!? The Tories (and Labour to a lesser extent) are just catching up. Rik’s bar chart is perfectly reasonable, as are the claims that go with it, however much LibDem apologist Tabman might protest. However, we all know that there are no lows that the LDs won’t sink to (Hartlepool Hospital springs to mind, as does the famous Brent £100). I used to vote LD before I became involved in community campaigning here in London. Never again.
Glosboy at 106,
Actually, looking back up, the entire thread has been veering wildly around. My language in the final paragraph of 104 was unhelpful and inflammatory.
I apologise.
Anyway, what do people think about whether the party machines will Get Out The Vote of the postal voters …?
107 - hmm, you seem awfully hung up on punishment and retribution Rik, are you sure it wasn’t a public school you went to?
And ther’e the rub - your party is all about prison as punishment, yet you’re trying to argue for reform to end recidivism.
Liberals argue that the deprivation of liberty is the punishment; prison should therefore be about rehabilitation. Overcrowded underfunded gaols do not acheive this aim (and you party seem jkeen to make them even more overcrowded).
As a citizen I am concerned that I don’t get burgled; that if I do, the offenders are caught and given some form of punishment but, most of all, that when they are released they are not far better trained in burglary through spending 5 years locked up 23 hours a day with a master burglar and quite possibly with the added urgency of needing to steal to fund a drugs habit. Given that that’s what our prisons seem to be doing, I’d be willing to look at alternatives.
Tabman, Book Value, PaulLloyd et al: So in the recent Town Close By-Election in Norwich, should the LibDems have used the result from 4 years ago in a ward that had undergone severe boundary changes (a fraction of the old ward remained in the new one - only the name didn’t change)? Should they have claimed that the Greens were on 5% and the threat was from Labour in this ward despite the fact that the ONLY time it was fought on new boundaries the Greens were the runners-up and Labour more adrfit than them? Simple yes or no answers would suffice.
Oh, and to sum up my thoughts on prison:
-It isolates criminals from the community very effectively and thus “prison works” for the incapacitation effect.
-It concentrates prisoners together and thus “prison doesn’t work” for reducing recidivism.
-Its effectiveness in punishment is arguable and in rehabilitation/training its ineffectiveness is patently unacceptable.
As Rik points out in 107 above and Tabman in 105, the rehabilitation/training/reduction in recidivism issues desperately need addressing and all parties have to accept that.
The most effective prison in terms of training/rehabilitation/low recidivism that I am aware of is the military “Glasshouse” (I heard quoted that the recidivism rate is less than 5% - definitely favourably comparable to normal prisons). Whether or not the Glasshouse regime could ever be applicable to a normal prison is, however, arguable …
I feel a few responses are in order to the comments on the Bermondsey-Tatchell mini thread of yesterday. I apologise for getting the circumstances of the BE wrong (year wrong as well I think 83 not 82) in mitigation I plead ‘non obsessive’and a dodgy memory due to an industrial accident in a dirty-hands manual job we still do that up here you know. Not being familiar with metrosexual-speak I presume the references to troll and trolling are meant to suggest I am gay myself which rather proves the point I am making I would have thought. ie when disagreeing with someone who is gay/black/moslem throw in a derogatory comment to mention same. For what it’s worth no I’m not gay, as a socialist I am, however, used to getting just that sort of comment for supporting minority rights. We made a stand on gay rights in the 80s in Nottingham and got pilloried for doing so in The Sun, Evening Post etc and on the doorsteps by our political opponents, which is why I mentioned it.Thanks for reminding me why I am a socialist and vote Labour
110 - accepted. I did think you were a bit hard on me there.
Given what happens to people in prison (drugs as well as crime coaching) I think it is as well to keep people out while you have an alternative. And I object to penal policies being decided by tabloid newspapers. Politicians to make laws; Juries to hear evidence; Judges to decide on sentencing.
114 - you have the wrong end of the stick, redrobbie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
114 - Robbie, watch that chip on your shoulder, it’ll be a full fish supper before long
“Troll” in this context is an internet term for someone who posts deliberately inflama-tory comments in a public forum in order to provoke a response (verb; trolling). Such full-bodied responses are known as “flames”, and heated exchanges as “flame wars”. They are, on the whole, avoided here - the ethos being to debate issues rather than exchange personal comments.
113 - Andy, the difference in the military is that forces personnel are all volunteers so have chosen to submit to a particular regieme; in other words they are a self-selecting group of people who are ultimately receptive to discipline. That does not hold true for the majority of the population.
54 - Jack, it was a posting “in the style of … “, so can I claim absolution on that basis?
Besides, it was only aimed at Rik; as he’s already told us, he’s a big boy (6′5″ would you believe!) and he has a hide like a rhinosceros, otherwise he wouldn’t keep coming back for more, so I’m sure he can take it 
Indeed, redrobbie. You got the mythology wrong. Trolls and fairies are not the same.;-)
As a gay myself I fail to see, how socialism would benefit gays. In Soviet Union there was a socialist system, and homosexualism was criminalised.
Or wasn’t that a TRUE socialist system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
117, Tabman, We’ll slap your wrists “in the style of” ..accordingly.
117 - arguing someone has mislead someone isn;t calling them the L-word
49 - Rik - you say we have a track record of Lib/Lab coalitions - examine the picture in local government and you’ll find there are plenty of instances of Lib/Tory co-operation and coalition. It also nearly happened in 1970 at the national level; thus far circumstances have not permitted it.
118 - all Trots can tell you the USSR was “state capitalist”
121 Cuba?
120, Tabman , The “Howard word” is of course slightly different from the “M” word (or “Tabman word” , if you’re not careful) , yet its’ use is to be deprecated and we urge Honourable and Right Honourable Members to desist from using such terms against each other across the floor ot the Site.
In laymans terms consider yourself boll**ked.
108.”The abolition of hanging was regretable??? Watch out Rik. With the new rules coming in for the candidate’s list, views like that may not pass muster. ”
with the new rules the tories will soon expel all their candidates
re rik at 49 - the fact that you didn’t get elected perhaps tells us more about the politics of the conservative party then the percieved notions of lib dems and labour ?
Given that most of the spectacular gains from labour were Lib Dems, suggests to me that the public were happy to be governed by Labour and the Lib Dems but not your party.
Unless the Cons have a radical re- think in their political position then I am afraid that the next GE will still see the Cons locked in the 32-34 % box. Oh bring back graham !!
123 - Jack, it may have been before your time but the Squadron Leader himself used the L-word on this very portal. Rik likes the rough stuff; I would never use such a word to anyone else (and the posting was trying to amke a point in the style of our estemmed former PPC).
125 - Michael that is the most ludicrous conclusion “Given that most of the spectacular gains from labour were Lib Dems, suggests to me that the public were happy to be governed by Labour and the Lib Dems but not your party.” I could point out that more than 3 times as many Tories were elected than Lib Dems and that the public were therefore more happy to be governed by Tories than Lib Dems - OR that the public were more happy to be governed by Labour and Tory than Lib Dem!!!!! There were also several spectacular Tory gains from Labour (eg Reading East) and quite a few gains in the South from the Lib Dems (eg Guildford, Weston SM, Newbury)
126- what’s the the “L-word”?
128 - Andrea: “L—, l—, pants on fire!” Present participal of “laid”. An untruth.
129. ok, Tabman. I’ve understood now. but why did you all use the abbreviation and not the full word? Is something unsayable?
[129] The present participle (n.b. spelling) of “laid” is “lay”. As in the opposite of “back” … educated at Fenland Poly, further comment otiose…
131 - it concentrates on the sciences, although I blame Thatcher (I went to a comprehensive). I should of course have written “lain” but was overcome by self doubt; we comp boys don’t have the “confidence” (some might use the a-word) of the expensively-educated