Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Um, the Silvertown tunnel was always going to be tolled - new tunnels / bridges are always tolled - see the Tyne Tunnel.
And you have to add a toll to the Blackwell tunnel because the whole point of the Silvertown tunnel is to relief some of hte traffic that currently uses the Blackwell tunnel..
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Good. Will hopefully reduce the ridiculous congestion across Blackheath, which the Silvertown tunnel is only going to add to.
Wouldn’t want to be in the queue for the tiny Rotherhithe Tunnel, nor for Tower bridge, as anyone with more time than money makes the situation even worse.
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
And not trying it is failing here.
The theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
This has been observed in every place rent control has been tried.
It’s as reliable as creating inflation by printing money. Or lung cancer and cigarettes.
Imagine we have ample rental homes outside the private sector and those rents are kept affordable by local authorities. Why would this (keeping rents affordable) inevitably fail in its objective of keeping rents affordable?
Ample is your answer
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Livingstone won another one as an independent.
Hall seems to be doing pretty well anyway if she is just 3% behind Khan in London, a city which voted for Labour by a 16% margin even when they suffered a landslide defeat to the Conservatives nationally in 2019
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
And not trying it is failing here.
The theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
This has been observed in every place rent control has been tried.
It’s as reliable as creating inflation by printing money. Or lung cancer and cigarettes.
Imagine we have ample rental homes outside the private sector and those rents are kept affordable by local authorities. Why would this (keeping rents affordable) inevitably fail in its objective of keeping rents affordable?
Ample is your answer
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.
In a free market that works yes.
In a free market if rents get high people invest in constructing homes to let, which brings prices back down to equilibrium. In a free market if rents are held low, that prevents construction which leaves a shortage of homes which brings prices up to a new, higher equilibrium. Which is why rent controls are then counterproductive.
But we have a regulated market already that is ensuring we have too few houses anyway. Thanks to planning we have gone decades without getting enough homes built, so rental costs are already massively inflated over what they should be in a free market.
The problem is we have all the harms of rental control, but without the benefits. Worst of both worlds.
I would favour deregulation and liberalisation as a solution. Which would result in a huge building craze which would bring prices back down to where they should be.
But if you want to keep regulations and NIMBYism there's no reason not to have rent controls too. The harm of shortages already happens anyway, so what difference does it make?
A toasty 24C on the cards for the 1st October here, despite almost 100% cloud cover. Warm nights for the next 3 days should see this month home as the warmest September on record.
And a decidedly non-autumnal 38C in Southern Iberia (October record is 38.8C, though note these max forecasts can be a bit toppy for Alentejo during heatwaves).
Of more geopolitical relevance, still in the high 20s in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, with no rainfall for a while. And still touching 30C in parts of the Balkans where the average at this time of year is the high teens.
Meanwhile for balance the first snow in the high Caucasus of Georgia, where of course I'm heading on holiday in a couple of weeks. I always bring shit weather wherever I go. Temperatures there at or a little below average.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
How many did Labour win?
Three, like I said. Ken won the first one as an independent, beating Labour's Frank Dobson.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
How many did Labour win?
Three, like I said. Ken won the first one as an independent, beating Labour's Frank Dobson.
Um, the Silvertown tunnel was always going to be tolled - new tunnels / bridges are always tolled - see the Tyne Tunnel.
And you have to add a toll to the Blackwell tunnel because the whole point of the Silvertown tunnel is to relief some of hte traffic that currently uses the Blackwell tunnel..
Yes, but in what universe will that stop CCHQ blaming Sadiq Khan?
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Shad Cab unlikely to be a runner - needs to be someone a little outside. Ed Balls would be an option.
Um, the Silvertown tunnel was always going to be tolled - new tunnels / bridges are always tolled - see the Tyne Tunnel.
And you have to add a toll to the Blackwell tunnel because the whole point of the Silvertown tunnel is to relief some of hte traffic that currently uses the Blackwell tunnel..
Yes, but in what universe will that stop CCHQ blaming Sadiq Khan?
Not this one but I suspect a lot of people never use them and won't care.
In fact the only people I know who use the Blackwell tunnel don't have vote because they don't live in London.
Just imagine what would happen had the Tories put up a better candidate ?
The problem (for both parties) is... Who?
For whatever reason, we're not getting impressive people queuing up to be Mayors.
The Tories afaicr had 2 credible candidates. CCHQ blocked both from standing so the leadership's poodle/alleged groper could get through, and once the story broke, Safer with Susan was the last woman standing.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Nah, Wes is my local MP, and a future leadership candidate I'm sure.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Shad Cab unlikely to be a runner - needs to be someone a little outside. Ed Balls would be an option.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
And not trying it is failing here.
The theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
This has been observed in every place rent control has been tried.
It’s as reliable as creating inflation by printing money. Or lung cancer and cigarettes.
Imagine we have ample rental homes outside the private sector and those rents are kept affordable by local authorities. Why would this (keeping rents affordable) inevitably fail in its objective of keeping rents affordable?
Ample is your answer
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.
In a free market that works yes.
In a free market if rents get high people invest in constructing homes to let, which brings prices back down to equilibrium. In a free market if rents are held low, that prevents construction which leaves a shortage of homes which brings prices up to a new, higher equilibrium. Which is why rent controls are then counterproductive.
But we have a regulated market already that is ensuring we have too few houses anyway. Thanks to planning we have gone decades without getting enough homes built, so rental costs are already massively inflated over what they should be in a free market.
The problem is we have all the harms of rental control, but without the benefits. Worst of both worlds.
I would favour deregulation and liberalisation as a solution. Which would result in a huge building craze which would bring prices back down to where they should be.
But if you want to keep regulations and NIMBYism there's no reason not to have rent controls too. The harm of shortages already happens anyway, so what difference does it make?
It will collapse the private rental market. So the sales relieve the house prices for buying, for a bit. Then the fundamental shortage returns.
On the rental side properties are cheaper. If there were any properties to rent.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Nah, Wes is my local MP, and a future leadership candidate I'm sure.
Nah. Health Sec is a hospital pass.
There is so much stuff going on that he hasn't a clue how to sort.
Khan is proving to be a very big drag on the Labour ticket. In the previous R&W poll, Khan was leading by 1% in the majoral election (and behind if Corbyn stood), yet Labour were still 20% ahead in Westminster voting intention in London.
Personally, I never liked the concept of putting governance of London or other cities in the hands of one man or woman, devoid of the collective decision making that takes place in the controlling group of a local authority.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
I had always understood it to be a sprint from the town hall to the closest lamp post with the voters entering a tote pool to predict the winner?
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
As far as I’m aware it has never had anything to do with the number of seats.
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Nah, Wes is my local MP, and a future leadership candidate I'm sure.
Nah. Health Sec is a hospital pass.
There is so much stuff going on that he hasn't a clue how to sort.
Yeah. And not a big enough job in normal times.. He'll soon be at the point where he needs to move up, or he'll risk his career getting stuck.
You could perhaps see him taking on an expanded Levelling Up brief, with responsibility for sorting out infrastructure and our failing councils. Hard to see where Nandy would go if that were to happen, though...
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
It seems to me that you're complaining that the term FPTP is usually inappropriate, whether in constituency or mayoral elections. If at all FPTP should be a mayoral candidate with transferable votes until one candidate has more than 50% which is more or less the old type of London Mayor system.
WHat we call FPTP would be better called "The longest jump".
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
And not trying it is failing here.
The theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
This has been observed in every place rent control has been tried.
It’s as reliable as creating inflation by printing money. Or lung cancer and cigarettes.
Imagine we have ample rental homes outside the private sector and those rents are kept affordable by local authorities. Why would this (keeping rents affordable) inevitably fail in its objective of keeping rents affordable?
Ample is your answer
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.
In a free market that works yes.
In a free market if rents get high people invest in constructing homes to let, which brings prices back down to equilibrium. In a free market if rents are held low, that prevents construction which leaves a shortage of homes which brings prices up to a new, higher equilibrium. Which is why rent controls are then counterproductive.
But we have a regulated market already that is ensuring we have too few houses anyway. Thanks to planning we have gone decades without getting enough homes built, so rental costs are already massively inflated over what they should be in a free market.
The problem is we have all the harms of rental control, but without the benefits. Worst of both worlds.
I would favour deregulation and liberalisation as a solution. Which would result in a huge building craze which would bring prices back down to where they should be.
But if you want to keep regulations and NIMBYism there's no reason not to have rent controls too. The harm of shortages already happens anyway, so what difference does it make?
It will collapse the private rental market. So the sales relieve the house prices for buying, for a bit. Then the fundamental shortage returns.
On the rental side properties are cheaper. If there were any properties to rent.
No it won't, because the private rental market is already collapsed due to the shortage of houses and inability to construct more.
The quantity of buildings won't change, because that's already restricted. We have the harms already, without the benefits. Everything that is wrong with rental controls (which is a lot) already is happening anyway.
Deregulation is preferable in my view, but pick your poison. If you want regulations and NIMBYism, then rental controls would fit in with those regulations, because the harms of rental control (shortage of housing) already exists.
The solution is liberalisation, but if you reject liberalisation, don't complain when regulations meet regulations.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
"First-past-the-post voting (FPTP or FPP)[1] is an electoral system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality (the greatest number) of the votes and not an absolute majority (greater than half). The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race; the electoral system is formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting.[3]"
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
I could have sworn that I'd read about it being used around the time of the Second Reform Act, which would obviously be before that Australian usage, but can't find any reference to it online. Google ngram records it from the 1850s, but the first couple of results pages of that I looked at referred only to sporting use. And searching specifically for "first past the post election" puts the first result in 1973!
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
But the end is decided by score rather than passing a post.
14% behind after a U turn designed to favour the RW looks like Custers Last Stand rather than a fightback.
And yet the gain has gone to Reform.
The risk for Rishi is that he increases the salience of red meat issues but only has a rubber bone to offer, so voters go for the real thing rather than the decaf version.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
But the end is decided by score rather than passing a post.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
But the end is decided by score rather than passing a post.
More like an eating contest than a horse race.
If we switched to an eating contest you'd imagine Sunak might be at a significant disadvantage......until you find out that 5'8 58kg Takeru Kobayashi is a multiple winner of the Nathans Hot Dog Eating contest and has world records such as 93 hamburgers in 8 minutes or 62 slices of pizza in 12 minutes....
Your regular reminder that of the six Mayoral elections up to now, Labour has won only three. CCHQ fatalism is unjustified (or was till they picked Susan Hall in a failed stitch-up for a #MeToo SpAd).
Hypothetical question. If Khan were to step down to spend more time with his family ahead of the next mayoral, who would be the ideal Labour candidate? Who would be able to reproduce the workrate and independence of Livingston, and the entertainment value of Johnson?
Wes Streeting? Not quite another Ken or Boris - perhaps more in the Andy Burnham mould. But he's got the big personality and would tick an awful lot of boxes.
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
Nah, Wes is my local MP, and a future leadership candidate I'm sure.
Nah. Health Sec is a hospital pass.
There is so much stuff going on that he hasn't a clue how to sort.
Yeah. And not a big enough job in normal times.. He'll soon be at the point where he needs to move up, or he'll risk his career getting stuck.
You could perhaps see him taking on an expanded Levelling Up brief, with responsibility for sorting out infrastructure and our failing councils. Hard to see where Nandy would go if that were to happen, though...
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
But the end is decided by score rather than passing a post.
More like an eating contest than a horse race.
No
The end is when the contest is finished.
Yes, but the end is when the hot dogs are finished, not by passing a landmark.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST.
Lots of things in the English language don’t make sense. That doesn’t change the fact what I said was correct.
(See my edit, btw. I'm not shouting at you personally.)
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
No
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
But the end is decided by score rather than passing a post.
More like an eating contest than a horse race.
The post is when voting stops at 10pm on election night.
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
"It'll be a laugh."
"The Labour candidate is past his sell by date."
"How much harm can they do?"
That's what a lot of us thought in 2008. Can I remind you how that ended?
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan. I will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it helps Hall to win.
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
"It'll be a laugh."
"The Labour candidate is past his sell by date."
"How much harm can they do?"
That's what a lot of us thought in 2008. Can I remind you how that ended?
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
A pedant notes: I don't think the London mayoral election can reasonably be called First Past the Post. There isn't a post - it's just whoever gets the most votes. A FPTP election implies a post - typically 50% + 1. That's exactly what we don't have. My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
No, FPTP refers to the method of election within a single seat. Nothing to do with the number of seats.
But that makes no sense whatsoever as a descriptor. It invites comparison with a race where a particular location is the winning line (like the 100m), but it's a race where who runs furthest wins (like the 1 hour). THERE IS NO POST. [To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
I agree. It is only FPTP if there is a post.
Thank you Foxy. I feared I was on my own on this.
You raise a perfectly valid concern. For me, how to make sense of it is - the 'post' is the moment the count finishes. That's the post. At this point the 'race', the election, is over and the candidate who has the most votes is the winner. He or she is the first *at* the post, FATP, but then we substitute 'past' for 'at' to further cement that conceit/impression of an actual race involving bodies and motion through time. FPTP.
When voting stops is the finishing post. Whoever is first after (past) that is duly elected.
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/27/car-drivers-charged-blackwall-tunnel-toll/ (£££)
The cricket county championship is still up in the air between Essex and Surry, which must be unusual as late as this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/65020050
And you have to add a toll to the Blackwell tunnel because the whole point of the Silvertown tunnel is to relief some of hte traffic that currently uses the Blackwell tunnel..
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.
That's with Jezza standing and getting 5%.
Hall seems to be doing pretty well anyway if she is just 3% behind Khan in London, a city which voted for Labour by a 16% margin even when they suffered a landslide defeat to the Conservatives nationally in 2019
That, and lots of prayers that Corbyn stands.
Too many dropped catches in the Hampshire game.
In a free market if rents get high people invest in constructing homes to let, which brings prices back down to equilibrium.
In a free market if rents are held low, that prevents construction which leaves a shortage of homes which brings prices up to a new, higher equilibrium. Which is why rent controls are then counterproductive.
But we have a regulated market already that is ensuring we have too few houses anyway. Thanks to planning we have gone decades without getting enough homes built, so rental costs are already massively inflated over what they should be in a free market.
The problem is we have all the harms of rental control, but without the benefits. Worst of both worlds.
I would favour deregulation and liberalisation as a solution. Which would result in a huge building craze which would bring prices back down to where they should be.
But if you want to keep regulations and NIMBYism there's no reason not to have rent controls too. The harm of shortages already happens anyway, so what difference does it make?
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/maps/GFSOPUK12_102_17.png
(not so toasty if you're in the Scottish Highlands, sorry)
A still toastier 34C in SW France, likely smashing the October all time record
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/maps/GFSOPFR12_102_17.png
And a decidedly non-autumnal 38C in Southern Iberia (October record is 38.8C, though note these max forecasts can be a bit toppy for Alentejo during heatwaves).
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/maps/GFSOPSP12_102_17.png
Of more geopolitical relevance, still in the high 20s in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, with no rainfall for a while. And still touching 30C in parts of the Balkans where the average at this time of year is the high teens.
Meanwhile for balance the first snow in the high Caucasus of Georgia, where of course I'm heading on holiday in a couple of weeks. I always bring shit weather wherever I go. Temperatures there at or a little below average.
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/maps/GFSOPTK12_156_25.png
"People purport to be gay when they're not actually gay"
Home Secretary @SuellaBraverman accuses asylum seekers of lying about their sexuality to gain refugee status in the UK
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1707044664463806598
What reason, other than either her own bigotry, or desire to appeal to bigots, is there for this ?
"But you don't drink, Sunil."
Oh, yeah!
The big downside would be that disappointed Corbynites despise him. They'd vote for Hall in order to stop him from winning.
For whatever reason, we're not getting impressive people queuing up to be Mayors.
In fact the only people I know who use the Blackwell tunnel don't have vote because they don't live in London.
Our cabinet contains Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman, Grant Shapps and Gillian Keegan.
Their opposite numbers are led by Keir Starmer and include Annelise Dodds (and until recently Richard Burgon, Laura Pidcock and Ian Lavery).
The Civil Service is led by Simon Case and numbers Bernadette Kelly, Christopher Wormald and Susan Acland-Hood among its senior staff.
All of these would be out of their depth running site security at Molineux in June.
The last real standout candidate for mayor anywhere major, was Andy Street.
My understanding is that FPTP elections are so called because there is a 'winning post' at, in our case, 325 MPs at which party x can form a government - rather than describing the method of elections in individual constituencies. The latter wouldn't make sense.
On the rental side properties are cheaper. If there were any properties to rent.
There is so much stuff going on that he hasn't a clue how to sort.
Personally, I never liked the concept of putting governance of London or other cities in the hands of one man or woman, devoid of the collective decision making that takes place in the controlling group of a local authority.
[To be clear, I'm not block capitals shouty with you, RobD, I'm block capitals shouty with this NONSENSICAL naming convention.]
Red Wall VI (23 Sep):
Labour 45% (-3)
Conservative 31% (-1)
Reform UK 10% (+4)
Lib Dem 6% (-1)
Green 6% (+3)
Plaid 1% (-1)
Other 1% (-2)
Changes +/- 3 Sep
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1707062541308792880
Surely that was what it originally meant though? Surely when the term was coined, whoever coined it had in mind 325 MPs to form a government, rather than the completely postless who-can-get-the-most-votes-in-a-constituency? And it's meaning has changed through misunderstanding? Nothing else would make sense.
At this moment, which of the following do Red Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (23 September)
Starmer 42% (-1)
Sunak 36% (+4)
Rishi Sunak's approval rating in the Red Wall is -11%.
Rishi Sunak Red Wall Net Approval Rating (23 September):
Disapprove: 44% (-2)
Approve: 33% (+2)
Net: -11% (+4)
Keir Starmer's approval rating in the Red Wall is +7%.
Keir Starmer Red Wall Net Approval Rating (23 September):
Approve: 38% (+1)
Disapprove: 31% (-1)
Net: +7% (+2)
Changes +/- 3 September
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton
Or people are voting Reform out of disgust at current Conservative policies and politicians!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12333013/Immigration-law-firms-LIE-authorities-win-asylum.html
You could perhaps see him taking on an expanded Levelling Up brief, with responsibility for sorting out infrastructure and our failing councils. Hard to see where Nandy would go if that were to happen, though...
So this just happened in the Turkish league…. 😬😂
https://twitter.com/ProjectFootball/status/1706731253511107033
WHat we call FPTP would be better called "The longest jump".
The quantity of buildings won't change, because that's already restricted. We have the harms already, without the benefits. Everything that is wrong with rental controls (which is a lot) already is happening anyway.
Deregulation is preferable in my view, but pick your poison. If you want regulations and NIMBYism, then rental controls would fit in with those regulations, because the harms of rental control (shortage of housing) already exists.
The solution is liberalisation, but if you reject liberalisation, don't complain when regulations meet regulations.
"First-past-the-post voting (FPTP or FPP)[1] is an electoral system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality (the greatest number) of the votes and not an absolute majority (greater than half). The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race; the electoral system is formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting.[3]"
Conservative and reform are on 41% and I think reform is too high, and what happens to their vote in the seats they do not stand
Is Labour loosing votes to the Greens ?
The person in the lead at the end is the winner
That describes both the end of a race and our electoral system
I could have sworn that I'd read about it being used around the time of the Second Reform Act, which would obviously be before that Australian usage, but can't find any reference to it online. Google ngram records it from the 1850s, but the first couple of results pages of that I looked at referred only to sporting use. And searching specifically for "first past the post election" puts the first result in 1973!
More like an eating contest than a horse race.
The risk for Rishi is that he increases the salience of red meat issues but only has a rubber bone to offer, so voters go for the real thing rather than the decaf version.
Could all be noise, of course.
The end is when the contest is finished.
I know who I’d favour in a cat fight between Rayner and Wes Streeting if it came down to it. Hint: not Streeting.
(Lisa Nandy is Shadow Cabinet Minister for International Development.)
London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the Tory joke.
Whoever is first past that is duly elected.
"The Labour candidate is past his sell by date."
"How much harm can they do?"
That's what a lot of us thought in 2008. Can I remind you how that ended?
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1706321163255677289
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/04/reform-uk-field-candidate-against-every-tory-next-election-richard-tice
then?
Counting is no different to reviewing the tape to see who was first. It doesn't determine the winner, the winner was determined at the end of the race (when the horse crossed the line/10pm election night).