Ealing Southall result: 6% swing from Labour to Lib Dem

by Stephen Tall on July 20, 2007

Results just in:

Labour Party: 15,188 (41%) -8% compared to 2005
Nigel Bakhai, Liberal Democrats: 10,118 (28%) +4%
David Cameron’s Conservatives: 8,230 (23%)

Huge congratulations to Nigel Bakhai, the Ealing Southall Lib Dems, and all those who helped the campaign, on achieving a 6% swing from Labour, and keeping David Cameron’s Tories firmly back in third place.

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

50 comments

A fairly good result for us – but I would be gutted if I were a Tory.

by Greenfield on July 20, 2007 at 2:52 am. Reply #

Yes-well done team! For a 3 week campaign that’s great – and a terrible result for Cameron!

by Paul Walter on July 20, 2007 at 2:55 am. Reply #

Who are you trying to kid, it’s an appalling result for the Lib Dems. You were kidding us all you were challenging to win the seat and you were miles off.

by David Boothroyd on July 20, 2007 at 2:58 am. Reply #

Hmmm Mr Boothroyd – yes they were good results for Labour, but the Lib Dems were the only party to improve their position. Votes and positions up, Labour votes down (but not to the next election losing levels).

Shouldn’t you be on ConHome – they’ve surely got huge wounds to lick where your usual dose of aspic will no doubt go down a treat.

by Dan on July 20, 2007 at 3:09 am. Reply #

What’s interesting (to me) about the result is that it’s despite a really quite lacklustre Labour campaign (and indeed candidate).

Their literature was poor and they delivered less than half what the Tories put out, let alone what we did.

The one thing I thought they did well was polling day: no tellers but absolutely swarms of Labour knockers up (presumably all the MPs’ staff & other payroll campaigners).

Conclusions?

(a) It’s a pretty naturally Labour area, so Labour could still win by working hard to get their vote out.

(b) The Tories’ energetic and vocal – if misjudged – campaign did enough to prevent the required squeeze on their vote.

(c) Despite an incredibly short campaign, we can be proud of the campaign we delivered (literally!) and it’s heartening to see the fantastic turnout from helpers from across the country – we have no trouble motivating our troops!

It’s fun now looking at all those Tory claims that they’d win / push us into third …

by Anthony on July 20, 2007 at 6:12 am. Reply #

It was hard to judge there. Many voters were just too damned polite. We did ok but let’s not make more of it than it was. Think back to Brent East where we won from a similar position – the big problem was the short campaign.

I suspect they will all be three weeks from now on.

by madmacs on July 20, 2007 at 7:57 am. Reply #

Labour and the Tories had plenty of tellers (3 or 4 per polling station each) at some of the Southall polling stations – generally hassling the voters on the way in to vote. Whereas we tended to have one, if any tellers and probably lost-out there – especially as we were doing proper telling ie trying to get polling card numbers after voting, rather than trying to influence votes.
Labour’s polling day material made a big thing of trying to undo any tactical voting for us by saying that if people didn’t vote Labour they’d end up with a Tory. Obviously this wasn’t true (and I doubt Labour thought it) but they were capable of misleading their softer voters into sticking with Labour.
I also noticed that a lot of our polling day literature reinforced that it was a secret ballot – obviously family and community pressure was a concern for us.
Meanwhile, the campaign was deliberately short and the Tories, supported by virtually every media outlet, conspired to convince residents that Tony Lit was the main challenger although clearly he was not (brilliant homophone on Tory leaflet: “Tony Lit/Tories etc are principle chanllengers to Labour in Ealing Southall”).

The Tory spin machine now trying to backtrack on why they always thought they were going to come third and have done *so* well is hilarious!

by Anthony F on July 20, 2007 at 8:55 am. Reply #

Yes, I agree with Anthony and most others on the campaign and polling day. Labour clearly managed the ‘community vote’ well. Bounced into a three week election very difficult to break down for Lib Dems or indeed anyone else.

Think the Tories were doing well, they’d persuaded the press and created an image enough to split the anti Labour vote, achieved the defection of 5 Lab cllrs -good until the wheels came off of Tony Lit (Tory Lite) carpetbagging candidate with no roots – but not before the postal vote had been cast…

In the circumstances good Lib Dem result – but not sensational – Labour kept their two seats but hardly a ringing endorsement – don’t expect an early General election.

Tories are the major losers – massive investment and loss of credibility – comments on their home site are priceless! Great laugh!

by Paul L on July 20, 2007 at 9:22 am. Reply #

I think this is a great result and about as much as we could have expected given the short run-in period.

I’m sure that Tories will be waking up and wondering where it all went wrong last night.

As for us – it wasn’t a win but it is a strong result for us to build on whenever Gordon next goes to the country and that’s good enough for me!

by Barry Scott on July 20, 2007 at 10:05 am. Reply #

Did anyone notice sky news last night were reporting the paries in the wrong order

They had:
CON 8,230
LAB 15,188
LD 10,118

Looks to me that the graphics team went to bed too early and put up the order Sky expected i.e. Tory victory.

by lharris999 on July 20, 2007 at 10:06 am. Reply #

10 or perhaps that they were reported by alphabetical order of party?

by Dan on July 20, 2007 at 10:23 am. Reply #

What did annoy me was that BBC News 24 dragged on Tony Lit to be interviewed before us. I was almost annoyed enough to complain. But not quite.

by Anthony F on July 20, 2007 at 10:58 am. Reply #

“The one thing I thought they did well was polling day: no tellers but absolutely swarms of Labour knockers up (presumably all the MPs’ staff & other payroll campaigners).”

All the phone canvassing they did before the incumbant was even dead was being put to good use.

“(b) The Tories’ energetic and vocal – if misjudged – campaign did enough to prevent the required squeeze on their vote.”

The Tories I think were very lucky that it was only a 3 week campaign. Another week and they may well have been in real trouble.

by Simon on July 20, 2007 at 11:02 am. Reply #

A great campaign by any standard – we held up really well considering just how much effort the tories were putting in to misleading the electorate that they were the challengers.

I do wonder how big the majority would have been if people were less taken in by the Tory rhetoric. People on the doorstep took some convincing where i was that we really were second.

Well done Nigel!

by Eastender on July 20, 2007 at 11:17 am. Reply #

My favourite moment watching the by-election on TV last night was Grant Shapps squirming in front of TV cameras desparately trying to spin what he could see as a Conservative failure.

He tried to make out that the Conservative 3rd place was not actually a bad result whereas the Lib-Dem’s beating them into second place was somehow a disaster for us. Now that’s what I call Spin!

by Alan Beddow on July 20, 2007 at 11:29 am. Reply #

Re; 5
We are always in danger of misjudging Labour’s campaign if we simply count (and contrast) the number and quality of leaflets that they’ve delivered. What they do really well – and a lot of – is telephone canvassing. Based on better quality voter data this enbables them to target calls and get their vote out – increasingly important when there is a low turnout.

by Tim Gordon on July 20, 2007 at 12:48 pm. Reply #

It was a difficult campaign because of all the unofficial communications networks (centred on Gudwaras for example) passing on word of mouth. Leaflets through the door are not the definitive response to this.

The Tories not only lost out in the ‘positioning’ stakes but they now have to live day-to-day with those ‘famous’ defecting Councillors who presumably will be active in local Tory politics including selection of the next Tory candidate for the Southall seat. That will of course be under its new boundaries, with a couple of eastern Wards in Ealing lopped off. Tony Lit will not be their choice. Stand by for some fireworks in Southall Conservative party.

by Edis on July 20, 2007 at 12:51 pm. Reply #

Does anyone know where all of the Tory bloggers have gone from this site?

They have spent the last week on here telling us how badly we were going to do.

Maybe they are still hung-over from their celebration party.

by Cheltenham Robin on July 20, 2007 at 1:13 pm. Reply #

It will be interesting to see how long the notorious 5 defectors stay put.

by Alex Foster on July 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm. Reply #

18 – “Does anyone know where all of the Tory bloggers have gone from this site?”

I know, its brilliant!

15 -“My favourite moment watching the by-election on TV last night was Grant Shapps squirming in front of TV cameras desparately trying to spin what he could see as a Conservative failure.”

Mine was actually the interview with Tony Lit himself. He was bloody terrible. Cross between a stuttering version of David Cameron and that guy who went for an interview as a cleaner at the BBC and was put live on news 24. Poor old Tony(and Davey C), he clearly got the shock of his life:):)

All together now: YOU’RE LIT AND YOU KNOW YOU ARE. YOU’RE LIT AND YOU KNOW YOU ARE.

Well done Nigel, a top man.

by imgladiwenttoealingsouthall on July 20, 2007 at 3:11 pm. Reply #

For all the Liberal Democrat bluster, this was the first by-election since early 1989 when you failed to win a seat you had been in second place in at the general election.

And in Sedgefield all you acheived was to soak up some of the vote that went to Reg Keys last time.

Laugh all you want but the Liberal Democrat by-election machine, with all its nasty negative campaigning that disgusts even some of your own members, has lost its sheen.

So who should go first – Sir Menzies Campbell or Lord Rennard?

by Tim Roll-Pickering on July 20, 2007 at 3:26 pm. Reply #

21 fol de rol….

by Daniel Bowen on July 20, 2007 at 3:28 pm. Reply #

WITH David Cameron’s name on ballot paper – 3rd place. WITHOUT David Cameron’s name on ballot paper – 3rd place. Let’s face it – we just don’t like the Tories!

by rwstruck on July 20, 2007 at 4:41 pm. Reply #

Tim Roll-Pickering needs to learn a few history lessons.

When the Conservatives threw Labour out of office in 1979, they had, just two years previously, won byelections in mining seats very similar to Sedgefield – Workington and Ashfield, to be precise. I suggest, therefore, that if David Cameron wants to become Prime Minister in 2 years time, those are the kind of performances he needs to be achieving at this stage in the Parliament.

In Southall, it proved impossible to shift the Asian block vote. No-one else has ever done so, why is it such a failure that the Lib Dems didn’t succeed on Thursday?

Cameron made a total ass of himself. First of all his personal selection of a candidate who had only a month previously appeared with Tony Blair at a Labour Party fundraiser. Secondly, parading himself with a group of Labour defectors of the most dubious kind. Thirdly, having the bare-faced hubris to believe that he could break the Asian block vote.

Cameron should also be worried about the strong Lib Dem showing in the “Ealing” wards, three out of four of which are classic Labour/Tory marginals with no history of Lib Dem success..

by Angus Huck on July 20, 2007 at 7:47 pm. Reply #

The Lib Dems may have done well accroding to their supporters but there are two questions that they need to think about:

1. What would have been the outcome had there been no donation “Scandal” in regar to the donation?

2. What would have happened if there was no Paul Seery campaigning hard against them?

The latter one I will answer with pride. During this by-election I delivered 13,000+ pieces of literature thoughought the ealing Southall seat. This included all the wards in the seat and all but 7 yes 7 polling districts in the seat also.

My efforts were so magnificant that it recieved such high praise not only from other conservative activists but from PPCs (Marke Clarke, Louise Blagshaw) and also MPs (Justine Greening, Grant Shapps etc.) that helped out there.

Whist it may not have been the best of results the Conservatives have found two positive things from this by-election: Me and the folder of LD leaflets and campaigning booklet booklet that I gave to them as apresent when I first came out to help.

The bottom line is that this by-election may not have been one but come a general election it is the Conservative Party that will challenge the Labour government and not the Liberal Democrats.

by Paul Seery on July 20, 2007 at 8:17 pm. Reply #

Paul, if that really is you, surely you’ve realised by now that there is more to life than delivering leaflets?

by Chris Keating on July 20, 2007 at 8:48 pm. Reply #

Were you at it full time Paul? 13000 leaflets in a 15+day campaign In a pretty concentrated constituency like that you should be looking at 1000-1200 a day at a minimum

by Hywel Morgan on July 20, 2007 at 9:41 pm. Reply #

I read somewhere that at 5.4% swing from lab to LD this is the smallest anti government swing in a by election since 1982? ( Beaconsfield ) Is this true? Even if not 5.4% is pretty sm,all beer by recent standards and against a third term Government. Does anyone have serious analysis of why Labour did so well?

by David Morton on July 20, 2007 at 9:58 pm. Reply #

Yes Mr Keating it is me and in answer to your question yes but I have some unfinished buisness to deal with first.

And Mr Morgan: Yes I damn well was. I did about 12 hours a day during the campaign which must toal in all about approx. 240 hours all together. In fact there were was one day where I delivered 1,300 leaflets.

The bottom line is that i worked my arse off and although it did not help the conservatives win the seat I played some part in at least stopping you lot from winning the seat.

by Paul Seery on July 20, 2007 at 10:22 pm. Reply #

Keep up your work Paul!My experience has shown the more people find out about the Tories the less they like them.

by Greenfield on July 20, 2007 at 10:23 pm. Reply #

David: Don’t know whether it is the smallest swing (compare with Ipswich?); the reason for the limited swing is the exceptionally short 3-week campaign.

by Chris Keating on July 20, 2007 at 11:01 pm. Reply #

Paul,

Come on mate, try and keep some dignity. You left, you joined another party. Good luck. I am sure that whatever sense of fulfillment and happiness that you are looking for will not be found by spending your time on Lib Dem voice.

In particular, posting things about how great you are is making you look very silly old friend. Come on, move on now and good luck in the future, I think your time here is done, don’t you?

by imgladiwenttoealingsouthall on July 20, 2007 at 11:26 pm. Reply #

240 hours, 13000 leaflets. I make that about 1 leaflet a minute (in territory with lots of terraces)

Golly. How do we cope without you?

by Hywel Morgan on July 20, 2007 at 11:45 pm. Reply #

“the reason for the limited swing is the exceptionally short 3-week campaign.”

That is one of them, but not the most important.

Divide the constituency by the River Brent and compare what happened on either side.

On the east (Ealing side), which is ethnically and socio-economically mixed, the Lib Dems picked up substantial numbers of votes from both Labour and Conservatives (certainly since 2006), even though three of the four wards are Labour/Tory marginals.

On the west side, the Asian block vote held, as it has always done in every election since the early 1960s. I bet you there were streets either side of Southall Broadway where Sharma got 80%. No number of lealets, no amount of door-knocking, will chage the way the bulk of Southall Asians vote. The defections made no difference, Tony Lit made no difference.

All of which tells us something about the sociology and culture of the Southall Asian community, but absolutely nothing about the state of British politics.

David Cameron failed to appreciate this, of course. He simply didn’t understand what makes the constituency tick. As an Old Etonian aristocrat he has been brought up to believe he is born to rule, and that ordinary people have a duty to follow him. He is lacking in empathy for and understanding of people outside his class. And that is his undoing.

by Angus Huck on July 20, 2007 at 11:56 pm. Reply #

“What would have happened if there was no Paul Seery campaigning hard against them?
The latter one I will answer with pride. During this by-election I delivered 13,000+ pieces of literature thoughought the ealing Southall seat. This included all the wards in the seat and all but 7 yes 7 polling districts in the seat also.
My efforts were so magnificant that it recieved such high praise not only from other conservative activists but from PPCs (Marke Clarke, Louise Blagshaw) and also MPs (Justine Greening, Grant Shapps etc.) that helped out there.”

When I first read these comments I assumed someone was being ironic – no one could really be quite so conceited as to believe they are *so* important. But actually I think maybe you do – and perhaps that’s why you left the party because you felt it failed to recognise your brilliance? Do your Conservative colleagues know how important you think you are?

by Grammar Police on July 21, 2007 at 10:14 am. Reply #

Angus: You may be right about the Southall Asian community – but there are places where solidy Labour Asian communities have swung to the Lib Dems. Look at the Birmingham Hodge Hill or Leicester South by-elections in 2004.

by Chris Keating on July 21, 2007 at 11:31 am. Reply #

25, I see you have a history of prodigiously enormous leaflet delivery – http://petersmallwood.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-seery-joins-conservatives.html

4% eh? I heard we delivered a million pieces of literature in bromley – so you delivered 40,000 there. You’re slacking off!

by Eastender on July 21, 2007 at 7:52 pm. Reply #

Angus Huck: That was a different era when the Liberal Democrat by-election machine had not yet emerged (and the late 1970s were a time when hardly anyone wanted to defend the Liberals, dog lovers or not). Since then the Liberal Democrat by-election machine has grown and had a constant string of results – until Thursday.

For all your bluster about second place you failed to squeeze the Conservative vote in either seat, stayed in the same place in Southall, in Sedgefield were only in third place in the first place because of Reg Keys and merely absorbed the vote share he got last time, and didn’t do much more.

It amazes me the way Liberal Democrats are running around pretending that they had some kind of triumph. Sir Menzies Campbell visited Southall even more times than David Cameron!

Whining about a “block vote” that has moved in past by-elections or claiming the constituency is atypical despite past successes in equally atypical consituencies are after the event justifications. Something has gone wrong with the Liberal Democrat machine and smugness is not going to disguise it.

by Tim Roll-Pickering on July 22, 2007 at 11:54 am. Reply #

Here here Tim.

You Liberals may be smug now but if there was a by-election in a Lib Dem – Conservative marginal seat I fancy the Conservatives to turn the Lib Dems over.

Oh and on Ealing Southall I am suprised that the Lib Dems are rather quiet about the fact that on one of their walkabouts they were stunned by the social action project that Tony Lit put on in Southall. They were so stunned that Lib Dem Goldenboy Nick Clegg hid himself in the Lib dem walkabout group. I was not there personally to see it but from what I heard it was very funny.

Also Lib Dems why did you select a candidate that has no carisma, no political success and is a ugly baldy. For all the few faults that the Conservative candidate may have had at least he had carisma and was also a winner and a success story, unlike wacky backie Bahki with his background in being a shelf fillier and a worker for mothercare.

That is all I am going to say on the matter.

by Paul Seery on July 22, 2007 at 12:43 pm. Reply #

“That was a different era when the Liberal Democrat by-election machine had not yet emerged (and the late 1970s were a time when hardly anyone wanted to defend the Liberals, dog lovers or not). Since then the Liberal Democrat by-election machine has grown and had a constant string of results – until Thursday.”

Tim Roll-Pickering is a typical arrogant public school nincompoop who pontificates from a position of crass ignorance – like his hero, Mr Cameron.

Has he never heard of Sutton & Cheam, Ripon, Berwick-on-Tweed, Liverpool Edge Hill? Or Orpington?

Wake up, Mr Roll-Pickering. The UK is a democracy. People are entitled to vote for parties other than the Tories. The Conservative Party hasn’t been chosen by God to reign over us. That went out with Charles I’s head.

And Tim-Roll Pickering. At least we have never had a leader three of whose children were fathered by Boothby.

by Anonymous on July 22, 2007 at 1:15 pm. Reply #

“Also Lib Dems why did you select a candidate that has no carisma”

It might help if you learned how to spell the word, “charisma”. Try the dictionary.

“unlike wacky backie Bahki with his background in being a shelf fillier and a worker for mothercare.”

No. Shelf-fillers don’t get time to deliver leaflets all day, do they? Unlike some people.

by Anonymous on July 22, 2007 at 1:18 pm. Reply #

Sorry. comments 40 and 41 are mine. Because I am using a public computer and not my own, my name did not get added.

by Angus Huck on July 22, 2007 at 1:21 pm. Reply #

“You Liberals may be smug now but if there was a by-election in a Lib Dem – Conservative marginal seat I fancy the Conservatives to turn the Lib Dems over.” – Paul Seery (comment 39)

Yeah, like Bromley & Chislehurst, you Tory toss-pot.

by Stuart on July 22, 2007 at 2:13 pm. Reply #

“For all the few faults that the Conservative candidate may have had at least he had carisma and was also a winner and a success story”

Uhhh…. he was a Labour donor, who came third. If that’s Cameron’s Conservative’s definition of a “winner”, it might explain why they’re cheerfully off this weekend to pick up votes in Kigali South constituency…

by John Smith on July 22, 2007 at 4:40 pm. Reply #

Paul Seery apparently says “Also Lib Dems why did you select a candidate that has no carisma [sic], no political success and is a ugly baldy. For all the few faults [sic] that the Conservative candidate may have had at least he had carisma [sic] and was also a winner and a success story, unlike wacky backie Bahki with his background in being a shelf fillier [sic] and a worker for mothercare.”

Paul, you’re not doing yourself any favours here. You apparently left the Lib Dems because you were bullied by LDYS members – well, I don’t know anything about that, but you’re coming across as quite an unpleasent individual.
If I was being partisan I could suggest that Tony Lit was so much of a success story, he came, er, third. But instead, I’ll just say that I’d rather be represented by someone who’s got some experience of real life (perhaps like stacking shelves, or working at Mothercare) than someone who swans around on the success of his father’s business.

Now Paul, the only experience I have of you is seeing your comments on sites like this. Now, I’m sure you had your reasons to leave the Lib Dems – perhaps some of them were even justified. As you keep going on about how many leaflets you’re capable of delivering, you clearly didn’t think the Lib Dems respected your brilliance or weren’t grateful enough. Well, perhaps they didn’t. And perhaps you’re just not as brilliant as you think.
You do, of course, realise that every time you post stuff on Lib Dem voice like this you’re potentially just giving Liberal Democrats ammunition to use against you, should the Tories ever allow you to stand on a Conservative ticket. I can just see your obvious disdain for supermarket and shop workers going down a treat in an election.
And, to be honest, I doubt that your new Conservative mates are too keen on you spouting off like this. You’re just making it look like you think you’re God’s gift – and I doubt that would endear you to anyone!

by Grammar Police on July 22, 2007 at 4:42 pm. Reply #

Angus Huck/Anonymous – Nice to see personal abuse comes out. It’s a great credit to the Liberal Democrat school of nastiness. For the record I am not a public school old boy (and very proud of that fact) and would personally abolish the public schools (by the correct sense of the term) given the chance.

And the by-elections you refer to were won by Liberals, not Liberal Democrats, in an earlier era. The machine wasn’t in much shape in the late 1970s – Liverpool Edge Hill aside it wasn’t a good time to be a Liberal.

Nor is there any God Given right to victory – parties obtain and retain office by virtue of the consent of the people as represented in Parliament. No party has any automatic right to power, or if we’re going down this path, to third party votes in a two-way marginals, despite what many Liberal Democrats seem to think when they’re one of the two parties (and distinctly *don’t* think when even they can’t deny they’re the third party).

As for Harold Macmillan’s wife’s children, get your facts clear. Only Sarah Macmillan’s paternity was ever in doubt – Maurice, Caroline & Catherine were all born well and truly before the affair between Lady Dorothy and Boothby began and no-one ever doubted they were Harold’s. Even with Sarah it’s not clear – Boothby himself had severe doubts (he thought she had Macmillan eyes) whilst the birth certificate for Sarah which names Harold as her father was filed at the very end of the legal period for registration. Burke’s Peerage did not recognise her as Harold Macmillan’s daughter. Some believe that Lady Dorothy invented the story to seek a divorce. From what I can tell it seems none of the possible and definite parents were sure.

by Tim Roll-Pickering on July 22, 2007 at 5:23 pm. Reply #

Chris K: “Angus: You may be right about the Southall Asian community – but there are places where solidy Labour Asian communities have swung to the Lib Dems. Look at the Birmingham Hodge Hill or Leicester South by-elections in 2004.”

The Asian communities in those two seats were substantially Muslim for whom Iraq was a significant issue. The Asian community in Southall AIUI is predominantly Sikh (though I assume our candidate in Leicester South was a Sikh from his name)

In both consitutuencies we had a significant base of support before the by-election which doesn’t seem to have been true in Ealing.

by Hywel Morgan on July 22, 2007 at 9:26 pm. Reply #

Paul S “background in being a shelf fillier and a worker for mothercare.”

I don’t see anything wrong with having either of those backgrounds. Are they unacceptable to David Cameron’s new Conservatives?

by Hywel Morgan on July 22, 2007 at 9:28 pm. Reply #

Both Angus and Hwyel are right to stress the strong loyalty of Southall (the town) and particularly Sikh voters, which Cameron totally misunderstood.

To be fair though the blog comments of Chris Rennard and Duncan Borrowman about canvass returns not being delivered also indicate a misreading of how politics works in Southall – as also shown in the widespread incredulity of outside campaigners and journalists to the Southall tradition of shopkeepers having posters up of different parties.

East of the Iron Bridge, as Angus points out, politics is very different. My estimate is that we won Ealing Common very comfortably (over 50%) had a too close to call three way result in Walpole and came second to Labour in Elthorne. Only Northfield was a Tory win – in a strange ward that should be natural territory for us, but has for some reason long been a Labour/Tory marginal.

by Kieron on August 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm. Reply #

It’s interesting that Tim Roll-Pickering says he didn’t go to public school. His Facebook profile and Wikipedia user page say that after Downsend prep school he went to Radley and City of London. These are, by any normal standards (he makes the peculiar comment, ‘by the correct sense of the term’), what is meant by a public school, especially Radley, which is one of the last public schools to be all boys and all boarding, and where boys wear gowns to all their lessons.

by Alexander on April 14, 2008 at 2:17 am. Reply #

Leave your comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

If you have one.