Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Johnson’s mayoral rule changes make a CON London victory more likely – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,793
edited September 2023 in General
imageJohnson’s mayoral rule changes make a CON London victory more likely – politicalbetting.com

Speculation has already started about whether the Tories have a chance of regaining power in London.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    Yep. I'm on at 15
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,299
    edited September 2023

    TimS said:

    It’s insanely warm. 26.2C at the nearest weather station, at 10.30pm on a calm night. In September (Autumn, for the avoidance of doubt).

    I would be saying it’s insanely warm if this were the 20th July.

    It’s summer until the equinox on 22/23 September, although this is hot even for high summer in this country. Absolutely grim. Impossible to sleep. I have tried everything, but it’s like tucking up in a slightly faulty sauna.
    Meteorological summer ended at the end of August.

    Considering the weather follows meteorological seasons and not astronomical ones, its the more relevant definition too.
    That’s just a definition the Met Office uses so their statistics fall neatly into months. It has no basis whatsoever in science.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/autumn/when-does-autumn-start
    This is a rare situation where the Met Office are completely wrong. It's illogical to use the autumn equinox as the beginning of autumn.
    No, its entirely logical.

    The reason is the way the earth traps and loses heat. The winter solstice is just a few days before Christmas so why isn't November a part of winter, and why is February? Because February is much colder than November.

    There's a delayed reaction to the build up and loss of heat, which means that each season roughly starts at what you'd think astronomically should be its midpoint.

    In practice it starts a few weeks before that midpoint rather than starting exactly at the midpoint, which is why meteorological seasons don't align with astronomical ones.
    Yes, I do know that, thank you, but the lag is of different lengths depending on what you look at. For example, the Arctic sea ice spring doesn't start until April, because the temperature lag for sea ice is longer.

    There's no particular reason why the temperature lag should be equal to half the season length, and so there's no logic to using the equinox as the starting point for a season. And temperature is not the only variable you might use to define a season. There are good reasons to use day length, or rainfall, or wind, or many other variables.
    Yes, agreed on that, the lag is not half the season's length, which is why its patently absurd to class 20 December as "autumn" when all the leaves have fallen long before then, and its as cold as it gets. Its clearly winter.

    Ditto calling mid-June "spring" is just preposterous too.
    In your opinion. Yet 15 June is Spring, as it precedes the solstice. See below:

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/summer/when-does-summer-start
    As your link confirms 15 June is meteorologically Summer and 20 December is meteorologically Winter, as per your link, and as per meteorological science, and as per temperature gauges, and as per the fact that 20 December is frigging cold and in no way autumnal.

    The solstice is not the beginning of the season temperature-wise, its a few weeks after the start of the season, which is why meteorological science has moved on from astronomical dates.

    Of course if you're the kind of person who wants to measure the temperature in Farenheit, you might want to stick with the solstice, as that's how it was defined when you were a kid and why should anything ever change?
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    TimS said:

    It’s insanely warm. 26.2C at the nearest weather station, at 10.30pm on a calm night. In September (Autumn, for the avoidance of doubt).

    I would be saying it’s insanely warm if this were the 20th July.

    It’s summer until the equinox on 22/23 September, although this is hot even for high summer in this country. Absolutely grim. Impossible to sleep. I have tried everything, but it’s like tucking up in a slightly faulty sauna.
    My wife and I have a never ending (good natured) spat about the seasons.
    I say March-May is Spring and so on and so forth each three months. She insists Spring starts on 21st March (and so on). I understand one is the metrological convention and the other is the astronomical convention, but I still do say to her that she expects me to classify the 20th December, one of the darkest days of the year, and often very cold, as Autumn still. When it usually clearly isn't.

    My brother decided to upend all conventions. He runs a 4-2-4-2 system. Spring is March and April, Summer May to August, Autumn only September and October and Winter for the rest.
    Spring: 1st March to around 20th May
    Summer: around 20th May to around 15th September
    Autumn: around 15th September to around 10th November
    Winter: around 10th November to 1st March
    That's a pretty good stab at it! Definitely much more sensible than defining the start of summer a month later, and the start of winter about 6-7 weeks later.

    I'd maybe add another week of autumn, say winter begins late November rather than early November. Other than that its a pretty good shout.
  • Options
    Well the moths know it is autumn even if the human's don't. There are a whole series of moths which appear in the autumn with colouration to match the changing leaf colours. The Frosted Orange, Barred Sallow and various Thorn moths have all started putting in strong appearences in my trap since the start of the month.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,295
    Even without the rule change, Conservative support is surprisingly high.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,591
    edited September 2023
    On topic, as I've pointed out before, the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate (excluding the other candidates) and the second round shares between the two has been pretty trivial:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points, in three cases by one percentage point or less and never by enough to change the result. We don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change, but is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,108
    Russians improve tactics, utilize chemical weapons from WWI & drones, says Ukrainian field commander

    “When fighters start suffocating & jump out of the dugout, Russians throw grenades from drones and launch a ‘meat grinder’ at the moment of evacuation"

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1700328921932222468
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,108
    The federal court’s denial just now (Friday 9/8 at 6 pm) of Mark Meadows’ effort to remove the Georgia prosecution from state court is a massive victory for the rule of law. And it’s a huge defeat for Trump’s hopes to evade Georgia justice.
    https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1700268754423435460
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,217
    Sean_F said:

    Even without the rule change, Conservative support is surprisingly high.

    Uxbridge, etc.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,415
    Morning all.

    Were Johnson's voting system changes just in London, or across the country in all Mayoral elections?

    There are plenty of things they did just in London, such as expecting the car scrappage scheme to be covered from Mayoral funds, whilst elsewhere the Govt have contributed.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,660
    For most people, chatting about the weather is a pleasant, swift conversation.

    Not on PB.
  • Options
    In T1 at Manchester. God I despise all the rigmarole around flying. Had two hours kip, been up since half 12, might be slightly grumpy. The time when I would gleefully tuck into a pint at 4am seems to have gone.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,415
    Does Susan Hall have a policy platform yet? All I can see are bits and pieces, and lots of shoouting. I have her:

    1 - Being a Trump and Liz Truss as PM enthusiast.
    2 - Scrapping ULEZ,
    3 - Spend an extra £200m on the Met Police.
    4 - "Extending as long as necessary" Mayor Sadiq's free school meals policy, which is funded by a finite windfall. Will require extra continuing revenue.
    5 - 'Build more houses in the right places', but high density traditional not high rise. I have no idea what that even means in the context of London, and her previous NIMBY leanings.
    6 - Rather strange interventions in local planning applications, again questionable wrt the Mayor's powers.
    7 - Do a bundle of things that are entirely outside the powers of the Mayor, including building cycle tracks through Royal Parks and retaining 20mph speed limits on non-major roads, which are controlled by Boroughs.
    8 - Move the "dangerous" Notting Hill Carnival somewhere else.

    2 & 3 alone mean she will need to find an extra £0.5 - £1 billion from somewhere. Where from?

    I'd love to hear about a rational platform, but to me she's currently the Dazed and Confused candidate.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,877
    MattW said:

    Does Susan Hall have a policy platform yet? All I can see are bits and pieces, and lots of shoouting. I have her:

    1 - Being a Trump and Liz Truss as PM enthusiast.
    2 - Scrapping ULEZ,
    3 - Spend an extra £200m on the Met Police.
    4 - "Extending as long as necessary" Mayor Sadiq's free school meals policy, which is funded by a finite windfall. Will require extra continuing revenue.
    5 - 'Build more houses in the right places', but high density traditional not high rise. I have no idea what that even means in the context of London, and her previous NIMBY leanings.
    6 - Rather strange interventions in local planning applications, again questionable wrt the Mayor's powers.
    7 - Do a bundle of things that are entirely outside the powers of the Mayor, including building cycle tracks through Royal Parks and retaining 20mph speed limits on non-major roads, which are controlled by Boroughs.
    8 - Move the "dangerous" Notting Hill Carnival somewhere else.

    2 & 3 alone mean she will need to find an extra £0.5 - £1 billion from somewhere. Where from?

    I'd love to hear about a rational platform, but to me she's currently the Dazed and Confused candidate.

    If it becomes a close contest (which prior to the GE and in London is a huge ‘if’), I suspect her candidacy will fall apart under media scrutiny.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,365

    TimS said:

    It’s insanely warm. 26.2C at the nearest weather station, at 10.30pm on a calm night. In September (Autumn, for the avoidance of doubt).

    I would be saying it’s insanely warm if this were the 20th July.

    It’s summer until the equinox on 22/23 September, although this is hot even for high summer in this country. Absolutely grim. Impossible to sleep. I have tried everything, but it’s like tucking up in a slightly faulty sauna.
    Meteorological summer ended at the end of August.

    Considering the weather follows meteorological seasons and not astronomical ones, its the more relevant definition too.
    That’s just a definition the Met Office uses so their statistics fall neatly into months. It has no basis whatsoever in science.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/autumn/when-does-autumn-start
    This is a rare situation where the Met Office are completely wrong. It's illogical to use the autumn equinox as the beginning of autumn.
    No, its entirely logical.

    The reason is the way the earth traps and loses heat. The winter solstice is just a few days before Christmas so why isn't November a part of winter, and why is February? Because February is much colder than November.

    There's a delayed reaction to the build up and loss of heat, which means that each season roughly starts at what you'd think astronomically should be its midpoint.

    In practice it starts a few weeks before that midpoint rather than starting exactly at the midpoint, which is why meteorological seasons don't align with astronomical ones.
    Yes, I do know that, thank you, but the lag is of different lengths depending on what you look at. For example, the Arctic sea ice spring doesn't start until April, because the temperature lag for sea ice is longer.

    There's no particular reason why the temperature lag should be equal to half the season length, and so there's no logic to using the equinox as the starting point for a season. And temperature is not the only variable you might use to define a season. There are good reasons to use day length, or rainfall, or wind, or many other variables.
    Yes, agreed on that, the lag is not half the season's length, which is why its patently absurd to class 20 December as "autumn" when all the leaves have fallen long before then, and its as cold as it gets. Its clearly winter.

    Ditto calling mid-June "spring" is just preposterous too.
    In your opinion. Yet 15 June is Spring, as it precedes the solstice. See below:

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/summer/when-does-summer-start
    As your link confirms 15 June is meteorologically Summer and 20 December is meteorologically Winter, as per your link, and as per meteorological science, and as per temperature gauges, and as per the fact that 20 December is frigging cold and in no way autumnal.

    The solstice is not the beginning of the season temperature-wise, its a few weeks after the start of the season, which is why meteorological science has moved on from astronomical dates.

    Of course if you're the kind of person who wants to measure the temperature in Farenheit, you might want to stick with the solstice, as that's how it was defined when you were a kid and why should anything ever change?
    The terms midsummer and midwinter are probably even older than Anabob.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    Not value any more! 4/1 now.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,877
    Foxy said:

    Not value any more! 4/1 now.

    The lay at 4 point something is now excellent value
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Even without the rule change, Conservative support is surprisingly high.

    Is it because Khan is loathed by so.many...
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,394
    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,877

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    Indeed. And a lay of Hall covers not only the likely Khan win but also a left field Corbyn win or the scenario where the Tories dump her before the contest for someone more credible.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,337
    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    Those whom the gods...
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    Those whom the gods...
    But what else can he say? In public, anyway.

    On topic- I wonder if the rule change is more about the provincial mayoralities, where the third party is strong enough that, once their second preferences are included, the result can flip.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,298
    kamski said:

    TimS said:

    It’s insanely warm. 26.2C at the nearest weather station, at 10.30pm on a calm night. In September (Autumn, for the avoidance of doubt).

    I would be saying it’s insanely warm if this were the 20th July.

    It’s summer until the equinox on 22/23 September, although this is hot even for high summer in this country. Absolutely grim. Impossible to sleep. I have tried everything, but it’s like tucking up in a slightly faulty sauna.
    Meteorological summer ended at the end of August.

    Considering the weather follows meteorological seasons and not astronomical ones, its the more relevant definition too.
    That’s just a definition the Met Office uses so their statistics fall neatly into months. It has no basis whatsoever in science.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/autumn/when-does-autumn-start
    This is a rare situation where the Met Office are completely wrong. It's illogical to use the autumn equinox as the beginning of autumn.
    No, its entirely logical.

    The reason is the way the earth traps and loses heat. The winter solstice is just a few days before Christmas so why isn't November a part of winter, and why is February? Because February is much colder than November.

    There's a delayed reaction to the build up and loss of heat, which means that each season roughly starts at what you'd think astronomically should be its midpoint.

    In practice it starts a few weeks before that midpoint rather than starting exactly at the midpoint, which is why meteorological seasons don't align with astronomical ones.
    Yes, I do know that, thank you, but the lag is of different lengths depending on what you look at. For example, the Arctic sea ice spring doesn't start until April, because the temperature lag for sea ice is longer.

    There's no particular reason why the temperature lag should be equal to half the season length, and so there's no logic to using the equinox as the starting point for a season. And temperature is not the only variable you might use to define a season. There are good reasons to use day length, or rainfall, or wind, or many other variables.
    Yes, agreed on that, the lag is not half the season's length, which is why its patently absurd to class 20 December as "autumn" when all the leaves have fallen long before then, and its as cold as it gets. Its clearly winter.

    Ditto calling mid-June "spring" is just preposterous too.
    In your opinion. Yet 15 June is Spring, as it precedes the solstice. See below:

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/summer/when-does-summer-start
    As your link confirms 15 June is meteorologically Summer and 20 December is meteorologically Winter, as per your link, and as per meteorological science, and as per temperature gauges, and as per the fact that 20 December is frigging cold and in no way autumnal.

    The solstice is not the beginning of the season temperature-wise, its a few weeks after the start of the season, which is why meteorological science has moved on from astronomical dates.

    Of course if you're the kind of person who wants to measure the temperature in Farenheit, you might want to stick with the solstice, as that's how it was defined when you were a kid and why should anything ever change?
    The terms midsummer and midwinter are probably even older than Anabob.
    Well yes, Anabob is a neologism as any fule kno

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Were Johnson's voting system changes just in London, or across the country in all Mayoral elections?

    There are plenty of things they did just in London, such as expecting the car scrappage scheme to be covered from Mayoral funds, whilst elsewhere the Govt have contributed.

    All directly elected Mayors and PCCs.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,598
    Listening to the “tribute” to Mike Yarwood on R4 and it’s pretty mean spirited, talks about his success but then also about his drink problem where he would drink to black out. I’m all for acknowledging flaws in the famous but not sure why it’s necessary to make a thing of that in a short tribute to someone who has just died. Strange.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    Those whom the gods...
    But what else can he say? In public, anyway.

    On topic- I wonder if the rule change is more about the provincial mayoralities, where the third party is strong enough that, once their second preferences are included, the result can flip.
    He didn't have to laugh.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    Those whom the gods...
    But what else can he say? In public, anyway.

    On topic- I wonder if the rule change is more about the provincial mayoralities, where the third party is strong enough that, once their second preferences are included, the result can flip.
    The change to FPTP won the Tories the Bedford mayoralty.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,473

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    Tend to agree. If they’d chosen a decent candidate, who knows?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Ghedebrav said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    Tend to agree. If they’d chosen a decent candidate, who knows?
    'Tories' and 'decent candidates' waved farewell to each other quite some time ago.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,598
    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    Tend to agree. If they’d chosen a decent candidate, who knows?
    'Tories' and 'decent candidates' waved farewell to each other quite some time ago.
    The Tories won’t really get fixed until there is a clear out of CCHQ I think. They keep making really bad decisions and either don’t do serious due diligence or seem enamoured of candidates where the man on the street just thinks that person is an idiot or unpalatable.

    I don’t know how it works there internally but I guess it’s a group of long standing party members who simply just don’t live in the real world so they have a group of other like minded weirdos who put their names forward and they seem like good choices as it’s all they know.

    CCHQ needs to bring in a wide range of new people from all backgrounds to make a panel for selections and someone like cyclefree to dig deep into any candidate before their name is put on any list.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    Tend to agree. If they’d chosen a decent candidate, who knows?
    'Tories' and 'decent candidates' waved farewell to each other quite some time ago.
    Looking at the list of Conservative candidates for London Mayor:

    Archer (selected but had to stand down)
    Norris
    Johnson
    Goldsmith
    Bailey
    Hall

    It's not a great set of standard bearers for what ought to be a high profile job with a lot of freedom to do what you like.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Imagine if he said ‘look, we’re hugely behind in the polls, we’ve been shown to be at best incompetent, at worst a pack of money grubbing weasels, the public despise us and I’m just staying as long as I can because I like Lulu Littles wallpaper’.
    The reality is the question itself is inane, as we all no.
    When I’m PM I will outlaw idiot journos yelling questions in Downing Street, or worse, plague them when they get home themselves ‘Are you going to do th3 washing tonight?’, ‘Why haven’t you prune the roses yet?’, etc
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,473
    boulay said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    Tend to agree. If they’d chosen a decent candidate, who knows?
    'Tories' and 'decent candidates' waved farewell to each other quite some time ago.
    The Tories won’t really get fixed until there is a clear out of CCHQ I think. They keep making really bad decisions and either don’t do serious due diligence or seem enamoured of candidates where the man on the street just thinks that person is an idiot or unpalatable.

    I don’t know how it works there internally but I guess it’s a group of long standing party members who simply just don’t live in the real world so they have a group of other like minded weirdos who put their names forward and they seem like good choices as it’s all they know.

    CCHQ needs to bring in a wide range of new people from all backgrounds to make a panel for selections and someone like cyclefree to dig deep into any candidate before their name is put on any list.
    It’s not just the candidates or potential candidates either; there’s so obviously a dearth of talent top to bottom. For example, a proper comms adviser/strategist would have never allowed Gillian Keegan to do her RAAC explainer video with the jaunty music, or the obvious-own-goal infographics.

    How many advisers have quit no. 10 over the last few years? Feels like a lot.
  • Options
    stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,782
    The header picture of Boris has reminded me of the uncanny likeness of him I saw in a painting when on holiday recently, visiting a villa in Lake Maggiore.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,473
    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    Obviously nonsense and a bit sad how they’re treating the near loss of what used to be a safe seat (the prior PM’s to boot!) as a portent for victory.

    Then again, he’s hardly going to come out and say ‘that’s it lads, we’re more fucked than a horse in the Hebrides’ is he?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
  • Options
    On topic, while I half agree with Mike, I don't think the dynamics will play out as he suggests. The tactical motivation to keep the Tory - the selected Tory - out will be sufficiently strong to enable enough tactical voting for Khan to win in the absence of a better candidate. And there isn't a better candidate (in the sense of one both able to really do the job well, and plausibly win). Khan will default to victory as Greens and LDs get squeezed.

    But, two points.

    Firstly, the Lib Dems are showing their usual lack of imagination, wedded to a grand strategy that has been tried for 40 years and consistently delivers tactical wins and strategic defeats, preferring to concentrate on meaningless district by-elections at the expense of the big picture.

    If they did concentrate on the big picture, they'd be throwing everything at London. They're currently polling in the mid-teens there in Westminster VI. That's a strong base. They're facing a weak Labour candidate and a Tory who centrists will recoil against. For 100 years, they never won an election bigger than Hampshire County Council (and that in NOC). Then, in 2019, they finished first in the whole of London at the Euro-elections. Their leader is a London MP. He should be their candidate.

    But he won't be, which leads to the second point. It's a really good election for an independent to stand in. Livingstone proved in 2000 that an independent with sufficient profile and connection could stand and win. Again, chances are that they won't but in the absence of any quality party candidate, the right one could do it in 2024. Rory Stewart fancied his chances for 2020, before Covid put and end to those ambitions. He'd do well to throw his hat back into the ring for next year.

    Still, I don't expect any of those opportunities to be anything but missed.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    Ghedebrav said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    Obviously nonsense and a bit sad how they’re treating the near loss of what used to be a safe seat (the prior PM’s to boot!) as a portent for victory.

    Then again, he’s hardly going to come out and say ‘that’s it lads, we’re more fucked than a horse in the Hebrides’ is he?
    Also he didn't seem to notice Selby...
  • Options
    I believe this settles the debate on the dates of an English Summer - cricket is definitively a summer sport.

    Note that the first date on which more than 5 Test matches have started in England is June 2nd, and the last date on which more than 5 Test matches have started in England is August 25th (with a 5-day match then scheduled to end on the 29th, unless it was held more than a few decades ago, in which case it would have had a rest day, and the final scheduled day of play would have been the 30th).
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 622
    edited September 2023
    My RWC predictions FWIW...

    Group A - I already predicted NZ beating France and with nobody else in with a chance, these two teams go through in first and second place.

    Group B - South Africa will be too strong for Ireland or Scotland. Scotland will give Ireland a tough fight, but Ireland will prevail. SA 1st, Ireland 2nd.

    Group C - This is most unpredictable group - Wales will do better than some pundits suggest - with Wales beating Fiji, Fiji beating Australia, Australia beating Wales. It will all come down to points difference and results against Georgia will be crucial. I think final placings will be Wales-Fiji-Oz but you can perm any two from three.

    Group D - Argentina are going to beat England in their opener tonight - and Samoa will also beat England sending them home early. Argentina Samoa will be a slog but Argentina should win and top the group, with Samoa in second.

    QF1 - France v Ireland - I expect Ireland to keep their perfect RWC record and exit at this stage.

    QF2 - South Africa v NZ - this will be closer than their recent meeting at Twickenham, but with same result. NZ on the early flight home.

    QF3 - Wales (or Fiji or Oz) v Samoa. Again very unpredictable but think that Samoa's phyicality will edge it (irrespective of who they play)

    QF4 - Argentina v Fiji (or Wales or Oz). Argentina to win this one.

    SF 1 France v Samoa - Samoans will batter the French early but the French will eventually run rings around them.

    SF2 South Africa v Argentina - Another tough match but South Africa to take it.

    Final South Africa v France. Too close to call, but I think South Africa will beat France
  • Options
    Kinnock thought he was going to win in 1992. Blair and Brown didn’t
  • Options
    Penddu2 said:

    My RWC predictions FWIW...

    Group A - I already predicted NZ beating France and with nobody else in with a chance, these two teams go through in first and second place.

    Group B - South Africa will be too strong for Ireland or Scotland. Scotland will give Ireland a tough fight, but Ireland will prevail. SA 1st, Ireland 2nd.

    Group C - This is most unpredictable group - Wales will do better than some pundits suggest - with Wales beating Fiji, Fiji beating Australia, Australia beating Wales. It will all come down to points difference and results against Georgia will be crucial. I think final placings will be Wales-Fiji-Oz but you can perm any two from three.

    Group D - Argentina are going to beat England in their opener tonight - and Samoa will also beat England sending them home early. Argentina Samoa will be a slog but Argentina should win and top the group, with Samoa in second.

    QF1 - France v Ireland - I expect Ireland to keep their perfect RWC record and exit at this stage.

    QF2 - South Africa v NZ - this will be closer than their recent meeting at Twickenham, but with same result. NZ on the early flight home.

    QF3 - Wales (or Fiji or Oz) v Samoa. Again very unpredictable but think that Samoa's phyicality will edge it (irrespective of who they play)

    QF4 - Argentina v Fiji (or Wales or Oz). Argentina to win this one.

    SF 1 France v Samoa - Samoans will batter the French early but the French will eventually run rings around them.

    SF2 South Africa v Argentina - Another tough match but South Africa to take it.

    Final South Africa v France. Too close to call, but I think South Africa will beat France

    Interesting
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    Which are....?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,057
    Sean_F said:

    Even without the rule change, Conservative support is surprisingly high.

    For most people most of the time the only way of objecting to the status quo is voting for the other one. In the London Mayor battle Labour is status quo. Tory the only alternative.

    This has wider implications. The voter objection to status quo in the UK is overwhelming. It is hard to think of a time when fewer people thought that then exercise of governance at any level, national, devolved (NI, Scotland anyone?), local (Birmingham?) was any good at all.

    Labour will, I think, shortly discover the implications of this very soon after GE 2024.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    Which are....?
    Besides, has St Jeremy ever taking executive responsibility for anything, ever?

    Being in charge means saying no to people, including people who aren't obviously baddies.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    26.4C already at the local riverside weather station on this lovely Autumn morning.

    Two thoughts for today.

    1. Khan is not “hated”. His mayoralty just doesn’t inspire or interest many people

    2. Private polling is just polling. It disent have some magic extra level of accuracy that escapes public polling. This is a polling version of that human tendency to assume the illuminati have access to secret information the rest of us lack.
  • Options
    Fishing said:

    On topic, as I've pointed out before, the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate (excluding the other candidates) and the second round shares between the two has been pretty trivial:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points, in three cases by one percentage point or less and never by enough to change the result. We don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change, but is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway.

    There is quite a lot of evidence that many voters 'pre-distributed' their second preferences to Con/Lab anyway (see the differences in mayoral votes and those for the Assembly). In theory, that wasn't necessary under SV, particularly when it was clear that there was a big gap between second and third, so it was obvious who was on the 'ballot' for the second round, but voters chose to do so anyway.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,787
    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    He won't and it doesn't - which is why he won't. The last thing Corbyn will want is to be responsible for all of London's policing.

    Being a backbench MP able to spout off on whatever takes his interest is far more to his liking.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517

    Kinnock thought he was going to win in 1992. Blair and Brown didn’t

    In the documentaries, afterwards, Kinnock and some advisors were clear that they knew at the Sheffield rally that winning was very, very unlikely.

    I do wonder whether the mistake in tone at Sheffield was a reaction to that knowledge.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,057

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    I'm extremely sceptical when people start talking about "private polling" as if there is some kind of fundamentally more accurate type of special polling that is reserved to political parties and unavailable to the great unwashed.

    Parties will do some polling in key seats, and may dig into greater detail on perceptions of them and others than published polls go into. They also canvass so get a broad impression when their vote is a bit softer than published polls suggest. But it simply isn't the case that, for example, Labour high command weren't surprised on the downside in 1992.

    Take examples like the US Presidential election in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a seriously well-funded campaign which I am sure was not lacking in data. But their data was clearly as wrong as the published polls, since they wasted the late days of the campaign in states that weren't particularly competitive as it turns out.

    The whole "private polling" as a higher grade of polling suggestion is for the birds.
    This is right. The only possible reliability of polling rests on boring stuff like sampling, the best use of human factors to know what to do with the raw data, and the application of maths.

    (And the only poll testable for accuracy is John Curtice's poll of actuality on election night.)

    There is sufficient voodoo in this without the meaningless word 'private'.

  • Options
    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    1: Betting opportunities.

    See site's raison d'etre.

    I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    Which are....?
    Engaging young and marginalised people politically and giving them a voice on the national stage.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, Communists being marginalised is an excellent thing for the body politic.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
    People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.

    In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,230
    Anecdote alert. My Londoner brother will not be voting for Sadiq Khan this time because of Ulez.

    However, he says he will definitely not be voting for Susan Hall either as she's 'repulsive'. Had the tories of chosen a moderate he would have been very tempted.

    Make of this what you will.

    A plague on both your houses?
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,787

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    He won't and it doesn't - which is why he won't. The last thing Corbyn will want is to be responsible for all of London's policing.

    Being a backbench MP able to spout off on whatever takes his interest is far more to his liking.
    Steady on. Just because someone is manifestly unsuited to office doesn't mean they won't win. See Johnson, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel; Trump, Donald John; Bolsonaro, Jair Messias, et al.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    Which are....?
    Besides, has St Jeremy ever taking executive responsibility for anything, ever?

    Being in charge means saying no to people, including people who aren't obviously baddies.
    He was briefly chair of a housing committee while a councillor in Haringey.

    That's about it.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,598
    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    The only reason I can think of is that London can be a test tube for policies that could end up being rolled out across the country.

    The mayor of London probably has the resources and clout due to London being big and generating loads of cash so that if the mayor wants to do something new it will get a lot of coverage from the media and a lot of study from national parties where another devolved area might not.

    It’s like me caring about UK politics - I can’t vote and decisions or the choice of government doesn’t affect me on a day to day basis but decisions made by the UK gov will have affects on where I live - Brexit had a knock on effect but we had no say or vote (which is fair enough) and if a gov came in and changed the relationship with Crown dependencies it would have consequences.

    So that’s a long winded boring way of saying it’s worth keeping an eye on.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    I'm extremely sceptical when people start talking about "private polling" as if there is some kind of fundamentally more accurate type of special polling that is reserved to political parties and unavailable to the great unwashed.

    Parties will do some polling in key seats, and may dig into greater detail on perceptions of them and others than published polls go into. They also canvass so get a broad impression when their vote is a bit softer than published polls suggest. But it simply isn't the case that, for example, Labour high command weren't surprised on the downside in 1992.

    Take examples like the US Presidential election in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a seriously well-funded campaign which I am sure was not lacking in data. But their data was clearly as wrong as the published polls, since they wasted the late days of the campaign in states that weren't particularly competitive as it turns out.

    The whole "private polling" as a higher grade of polling suggestion is for the birds.
    Correct. Private polling exists to tell you things the public polls don't, not to second-guess them.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    I could hardly think of anyone less suitable for being put in charge of being responsible for the Metropolitan Police. Except maybe Cressida Dick.

    Or being the political figurehead and representative for London's Jewish community.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,787

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    1: Betting opportunities.

    See site's raison d'etre.

    I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
    Great answer, within the letter of my question, but the spirit of it was in terms of political outcomes. Genuinely wondering how much the mayoralty affects my life.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Incidentally this looks grim:

    Morocco earthquake: 632 killed as buildings damaged
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66759069
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
    People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.

    In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
    I’m trying to remember the exact form of words from the documentary. Something like “our internal poling data was saying that….”
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    I could hardly think of anyone less suitable for being put in charge of being responsible for the Metropolitan Police. Except maybe Cressida Dick.

    Or being the political figurehead and representative for London's Jewish community.
    If I say 'Amanda Spielman' would I be accused of having an unreasonable obsession?
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,230

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    1: Betting opportunities.

    See site's raison d'etre.

    I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
    I don't always, or indeed often, agree with you but I've liked a few things you've been posting about London. Especially your rather amusing retort that if Susan Hall wins it will be because she got most votes :D

    And, yes, this is a political betting site. I place bets on people and places far away from my location. I made a big sum spread betting on Joe Biden when the market panicked over the Florida results. I've also made money betting on David Cameron, Brexit, and the LibDems to name a few.

    The site is at its best when people lay aside their personal wishes and use their heads to judge correctly the way the wind is blowing.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    1: Betting opportunities.

    See site's raison d'etre.

    I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
    Great answer, within the letter of my question, but the spirit of it was in terms of political outcomes. Genuinely wondering how much the mayoralty affects my life.
    It doesn’t. It affects mine, but the - say - Manchester Met mayoralty doesn't, nor does Holyrood.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    By the time of the mayoral election I think we'll still be in national 'bash the Tories' mood, which will probably undercut even a surprisingy resilient London campaign.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,787
    boulay said:

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    The only reason I can think of is that London can be a test tube for policies that could end up being rolled out across the country.

    The mayor of London probably has the resources and clout due to London being big and generating loads of cash so that if the mayor wants to do something new it will get a lot of coverage from the media and a lot of study from national parties where another devolved area might not.

    It’s like me caring about UK politics - I can’t vote and decisions or the choice of government doesn’t affect me on a day to day basis but decisions made by the UK gov will have affects on where I live - Brexit had a knock on effect but we had no say or vote (which is fair enough) and if a gov came in and changed the relationship with Crown dependencies it would have consequences.

    So that’s a long winded boring way of saying it’s worth keeping an eye on.
    That sounds like an argument for me paying attention to London politics in general as well as the mayoralty! Which is fair enough.
    Where do you stay, by the way?
  • Options
    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    He won't and it doesn't - which is why he won't. The last thing Corbyn will want is to be responsible for all of London's policing.

    Being a backbench MP able to spout off on whatever takes his interest is far more to his liking.
    Steady on. Just because someone is manifestly unsuited to office doesn't mean they won't win. See Johnson, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel; Trump, Donald John; Bolsonaro, Jair Messias, et al.
    Yes, but they all thought they were suited to the job, and craved for it. Corbyn doesn't. His political comfort zone is on the rally platform, making speeches about what he sees as injustice. He has never been interested in office for its own sake, or even for the sake of the powers it brings.

    When he did, by chance, end up in an office that brought a semblance of real power, he still preferred to use it as a bully pulpit rather than to address issues which as LotO he really should have but which didn't interest him (or, worse, where the obviously right response was one he emotionally recoiled against), and which as PM he'd have had no choice but to.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    1: Betting opportunities.

    See site's raison d'etre.

    I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
    Great answer, within the letter of my question, but the spirit of it was in terms of political outcomes. Genuinely wondering how much the mayoralty affects my life.
    The Mayor doesn't have much real power, it is more a spokesperson job, hence the success of Citizen Ken or Boris in the job.

    And could Corbyn do a worse job with the Met than other mayors have done? A thorough purge may be just the ticket.

  • Options
    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,230
    TimS said:

    In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.

    I noticed the same during my Surrey stay this week. Very odd.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,057

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
    In the 1992 GE Labour did worse than every poll before, and Tories did better than every poll before.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    kle4 said:

    By the time of the mayoral election I think we'll still be in national 'bash the Tories' mood, which will probably undercut even a surprisingy resilient London campaign.

    Khan really should step down and allow a new face to run (or rather, a new old face). Ed Balls.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    I'm extremely sceptical when people start talking about "private polling" as if there is some kind of fundamentally more accurate type of special polling that is reserved to political parties and unavailable to the great unwashed.

    Parties will do some polling in key seats, and may dig into greater detail on perceptions of them and others than published polls go into. They also canvass so get a broad impression when their vote is a bit softer than published polls suggest. But it simply isn't the case that, for example, Labour high command weren't surprised on the downside in 1992.

    Take examples like the US Presidential election in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a seriously well-funded campaign which I am sure was not lacking in data. But their data was clearly as wrong as the published polls, since they wasted the late days of the campaign in states that weren't particularly competitive as it turns out.

    The whole "private polling" as a higher grade of polling suggestion is for the birds.
    Correct. Private polling exists to tell you things the public polls don't, not to second-guess them.
    Isn't it only private after the event? The polls the parties decide not to release to the newspapers once they see the results?
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    I could hardly think of anyone less suitable for being put in charge of being responsible for the Metropolitan Police. Except maybe Cressida Dick.

    Or being the political figurehead and representative for London's Jewish community.
    If I say 'Amanda Spielman' would I be accused of having an unreasonable obsession?
    Amanda Spielman isn't entirely without political opportunities.

    Amanda Spielman would be an excellent candidate for Ambassador to Sol.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    Heathener said:

    TimS said:

    In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.

    I noticed the same during my Surrey stay this week. Very odd.
    Depends, surely? The robins are singing here, but specifically the autumn song I think.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,230

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
    People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.

    In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
    On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.

    He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.

    Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    Anecdote alert. My Londoner brother will not be voting for Sadiq Khan this time because of Ulez.

    However, he says he will definitely not be voting for Susan Hall either as she's 'repulsive'. Had the tories of chosen a moderate he would have been very tempted.

    Make of this what you will.

    A plague on both your houses?

    Well, that anecdata is in line with the actual data in the previous thread where the Con/Lab combined polling share is a surprisingly low 65% without Corbyn running and a VERY low 55% if he does.

    I'm doubtful that will hold up to next May - campaigns focus the mind on the real choice, and Labour and Conservative have a ground game across much more of the capital than other parties. It might happen, but if the Lib Dem mayoral candidate actually gets close to the 16% he's at in the poll, that'd be very surprising. Similarly, will the Greens hold up at 9% when the Tory candidate is explicitly campaigning for what most Green-inclined voters would see as worsening air quality? Doubt it.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,057

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
    The beating heart bit slightly depends on prior assumptions. Like whether price or value is the real measure of a human economy. Perhaps the beating heart of the UK economy is where potatoes are grown, cattle reared, and stuff manufactured, and where the practical logistics of this is organised.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    TimS said:

    In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.

    I noticed the same during my Surrey stay this week. Very odd.
    Isn't this just a sign of it being autumn, and the dawn consequently occurring later, so that you are awake to hear it?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited September 2023
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.

    Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.

    Which are....?
    Engaging young and marginalised people politically and giving them a voice on the national stage.
    I don't really disagree that the London Mayoralty is not a terrible fit for Corbyn - being suitable for those who don't rigidly follow a party line (albeit he rigidly follows his own dogma) and despite some powers is more about presentation than substance, given the past holders - certainly a better fit than being an MP, where he enjoys one aspect but despises the others, and would clearly prefer to be doing rallies.

    But I would actually contest that he really engages young people all that much. The British Election Study team for instance argued that there was no 'youthquake' in 2017, and youth turnout was down in 2019. There are caveats to making such estimates of course, it is not easily provable, but it still seems a more solid foundation than the counter, which is that young people on twitter and at rallies seem to like Corbyn, which means...nothing. Very political young people adore(d) him, is that sufficient in itself to mean he engages them meaningfully when they still didn't turn out to vote?
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/

    And since he is so ostracised from mainstream politics thesedays, for good reason, his voice even amplified by being London mayor is not going to carry much weight on anything national, as opposed to regional.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,787

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
    Interesting. What levers does the mayor actually have to affect the London economy? This is getting into the meat of it now, I'm pretty clueless as to the mayor's power.
  • Options
    algarkirk said:

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
    The beating heart bit slightly depends on prior assumptions. Like whether price or value is the real measure of a human economy. Perhaps the beating heart of the UK economy is where potatoes are grown, cattle reared, and stuff manufactured, and where the practical logistics of this is organised.
    Leon isn't awake yet. We all have to do our bit to try and add some colour and poetry to our comments in his absence, so I'm claiming poetic licence.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    I'm extremely sceptical when people start talking about "private polling" as if there is some kind of fundamentally more accurate type of special polling that is reserved to political parties and unavailable to the great unwashed.

    Parties will do some polling in key seats, and may dig into greater detail on perceptions of them and others than published polls go into. They also canvass so get a broad impression when their vote is a bit softer than published polls suggest. But it simply isn't the case that, for example, Labour high command weren't surprised on the downside in 1992.

    Take examples like the US Presidential election in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a seriously well-funded campaign which I am sure was not lacking in data. But their data was clearly as wrong as the published polls, since they wasted the late days of the campaign in states that weren't particularly competitive as it turns out.

    The whole "private polling" as a higher grade of polling suggestion is for the birds.
    Correct. Private polling exists to tell you things the public polls don't, not to second-guess them.
    Isn't it only private after the event? The polls the parties decide not to release to the newspapers once they see the results?
    IIRC it turned out that a lot of the “private polling” that parties were buying was from the same data that the publicly available polls used.

    With Clinton, it seemed that she and her advisors were ignoring the polling. Instead they were running the campaign as if it was a triumphal tour of an revived rock band.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
    People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.

    In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
    On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.

    He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.

    Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
    Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.

    Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,230

    Heathener said:

    TimS said:

    In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.

    I noticed the same during my Surrey stay this week. Very odd.
    Isn't this just a sign of it being autumn, and the dawn consequently occurring later, so that you are awake to hear it?
    I usually awake between 4 and 5.

    I'm not sure. I can't say that I've ever heard them singing like this before in September. I was sitting up in bed with my coffee thinking it sounded strangely like the month of May.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    1: Betting opportunities.

    See site's raison d'etre.

    I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
    Great answer, within the letter of my question, but the spirit of it was in terms of political outcomes. Genuinely wondering how much the mayoralty affects my life.
    The Mayor doesn't have much real power, it is more a spokesperson job, hence the success of Citizen Ken or Boris in the job.

    And could Corbyn do a worse job with the Met than other mayors have done? A thorough purge may be just the ticket.

    Hurts me to say it Foxy but am inclined to agree with you.

    Corbyn may have been a disaster for the Labour Party Nationally but I could see him doing a decent job in the largely ceremonial capacity of Mayor. He's undoubtedly honest, sincere and hard-working on behalf of his constituents. At Council level I could see why he would be liked and respected.

    As for the Met, sorting them out would probably be beyond anyone's capabilities. You are talking about decades of decay, and any remedies are sure to be opposed by the powerful Police Federation, once aptly described by Tony Blair as the strongest Trade Union in the Country.

    Maybe as a bit of a Union Man himself he might have some luck with them, but if he merely declines to put up with their bullshit he'd be doing alright.

    I no longer have a vote in London but Mrs PtP does. i'll have a word with her, if he stands.
  • Options
    algarkirk said:

    Farooq said:

    Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).

    Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?

    London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
    The beating heart bit slightly depends on prior assumptions. Like whether price or value is the real measure of a human economy. Perhaps the beating heart of the UK economy is where potatoes are grown, cattle reared, and stuff manufactured, and where the practical logistics of this is organised.
    A lot of the supposed value of London is a well known statistical flaw in measuring economics that distorts value production to the capital rather than where the value production is actually happening. Capital cities disproportionately have the registered HQ of many firms etc nominally in the city even if their actual activities are all over the country and a lot of their value ends up being assigned to the capital as a result.

    Its a distortion that happens in almost every state and country all over the planet. So anyone who takes localised data without taking that into account is on a fool's errand.

    London is productive in many things, like finance, but overall its not as much as the data implies if taken without a pinch of salt.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.

    The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.

    The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.

    Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.

    “I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-fired-up-to-win-next-election-2fpgcmg8q
    I know he has to say that he can win another term, but it does sound deluded. Hints at Jan 2025 too.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23881410/fired-up-rishi-sunak-next-general-election-win/
    Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.

    Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992

    In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.

    It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
    Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
    In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
    People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.

    In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
    On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.

    He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.

    Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
    Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.

    Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
    Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
This discussion has been closed.