I think it's a toss-up myself - that poll will help Jowell, but most members IMO probably slightly prefer Khan (TGOHF is not a good subsample of Labour members). I'd think he ought to be about 2-1 or 9-4 overall to win the Mayoralty, with Jowell on 7-4.
It seems to me that second and lower prefs are going to help Sadiq Khan in the Labour selection contest - surely he'll pick up the majority of the Lammy and Abbott second prefs?
I'm sure his price has shortened every time you've mentioned burning the betslips, Harry
Anyway I'm on Jowell, Goldsmith, Lammy (Small saver), the Tory field too :P
Trying to think of the circumstances at which Khan is good value at 3/1
Nope....
Well if he is the Labour candidate it certainly is value. The question is how do you price up who to be Labour candidate.
Do Lammy, Abbot and the other rags have a realistic chance ?
Should Jowell be ahead of Khan ?
Nobody has a realistic chance of the Labour nomination except Jowell and Khan. An important point that non-Labour punters may not realise - the number of nominations indicates little between them. Because of the way selection works, they've not really been tested against each other - Jowell mopped up most CLPs merely by beating Abbott, and the CLPs generally then picked Khan as best of the rest.
I think it's a toss-up myself - that poll will help Jowell, but most members IMO probably slightly prefer Khan (TGOHF is not a good subsample of Labour members). I'd think he ought to be about 2-1 or 9-4 overall to win the Mayoralty, with Jowell on 7-4.
The rule to which Nick alludes is the fact that each CLP in London got a maximum of two nominations (I think only one or two used on only one) and at least 1 had to be a woman. So Jowell was faced solely with Abbott, wheras Khan was fighting off Lammy, Thomas, and Wolmar.
I'm a bit confused about the timing of the Danish election. I originally thought it was being held on Thursday but I thought Nick wrote the other day that it was on Tuesday (ie. today).
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Trump was born incredibly rich. And his exertions have made him... about as rich as he was when he was born. Despite being leveraged and long through the greatest property boom in history.
Wiki says his Dad was worth $400 million. It's a riches to slightly more riches tale
I'm a bit confused about the timing of the Danish election. I originally thought it was being held on Thursday but I thought Nick wrote the other day that it was on Tuesday (ie. today).
This seems like incredibly shoddy journalism from the Sunday Times on the Snowden story. The reporter was interviewed about his piece and asked how he confirmed the story, and he just said:
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Trump was born incredibly rich. And his exertions have made him... about as rich as he was when he was born. Despite being leveraged and long through the greatest property boom in history.
Wiki says his Dad was worth $400 million. It's a riches to slightly more riches tale
Adjusted for nominal GDP growth, he's almost certainly gone backwards.
Which probably explains why @LuckyGuy wants him as President of the US.
I don't know anything about the US political scene, but I'd have thought in this anti-politics age, Trump could do very, very well... Especially as the Republicans/Democrat's look like serving up the "same old, same old" with more Bush/Clinton stuff...
Surely the Yanks are sick to the back teeth of these two families now?
I find it really hard to donate to partisan charities like this now. Sadly, there are far too many of them.
Someone with a sufficient interest in the matter ought to apply for an injunction to restrain this sort of political activity. As Hoffmann J (as he then was) stated in Webb v O'Doherty (1 February 1991):
There is ... a clear distinction between the discussion of political matters, or the acquisition of information which may have a political content, and a campaign on a political issue. There is no doubt that campaigning, in the sense of seeking to influence public opinion on political matters, is not a charitable activity.
Yes, I wish. Christian Aid, Save the Children, the RSPCA and Oxfam (as well as countless others) now seem to all be the 3rd sector wing of the Labour Party.
I don't know anything about the US political scene, but I'd have thought in this anti-politics age, Trump could do very, very well... Especially as the Republicans/Democrat's look like serving up the "same old, same old" with more Bush/Clinton stuff...
Surely the Yanks are sick to the back teeth of these families now?
Yes I think you're right about the 'anti politics' mood, but Donald Trump is not Ross Perot. His 'birther' theories are a good signal about this guy.
57% of GOP voters have an unfavorable view of him. Imagine what that figure is like when you include the rest of the electorate!
I don't know anything about the US political scene, but I'd have thought in this anti-politics age, Trump could do very, very well... Especially as the Republicans/Democrat's look like serving up the "same old, same old" with more Bush/Clinton stuff...
Surely the Yanks are sick to the back teeth of these families now?
Yes I think you're right about the 'anti politics' mood, but Donald Trump is not Ross Perot. His 'birther' theories are a good signal about this guy.
57% of GOP voters have an unfavorable view of him. Imagine what that figure is like when you include the rest of the electorate!
Oh well, it will be good publicity for The Donald's business empire!
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Trump was born incredibly rich. And his exertions have made him... about as rich as he was when he was born. Despite being leveraged and long through the greatest property boom in history.
Wiki says his Dad was worth $400 million. It's a riches to slightly more riches tale
Adjusted for nominal GDP growth, he's almost certainly gone backwards.
I'm a bit confused about the timing of the Danish election. I originally thought it was being held on Thursday but I thought Nick wrote the other day that it was on Tuesday (ie. today).
It's on Thursday.
I'm sure Nick said Tuesday, maybe it was an auto-correct.
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
Hodges did continually say that UKIP would poll about 6% and the Lib Dems would get about 15%, though
Yep, he did. That's the thing about Hodges - because he got the election right, he feels he'll be right on literally everything. What I've found more note-worthy is his overreaction to Corbyn being on the ballot. Last time out someone as left-wing as Corbyn, Abbot was also on the ballot, she ended up coming last in the final leadership election. Why Hodges therefore thinks, that Corbyn has a shot at getting elected is beyond me. The last time Labour members voted for a left-wing leader was decades ago. Hodges seems to think one day, you'll manage to get rid of left-wing people in the Labour party. That'll never happen, just like the Conservatives will always have right-wing people in their party.
I also note PB aren't singing the virtues of Hodges' endorsement of Yvette Cooper, instead of Kendall (who is liked by a lot of the Tories on here).
I don't know anything about the US political scene, but I'd have thought in this anti-politics age, Trump could do very, very well... Especially as the Republicans/Democrat's look like serving up the "same old, same old" with more Bush/Clinton stuff...
Surely the Yanks are sick to the back teeth of these families now?
Yes I think you're right about the 'anti politics' mood, but Donald Trump is not Ross Perot. His 'birther' theories are a good signal about this guy.
57% of GOP voters have an unfavorable view of him. Imagine what that figure is like when you include the rest of the electorate!
Oh well, it will be good publicity for The Donald's business empire!
Which is exactly why he'd doing it i would imagine!
The GOP has track record in this department though. Pat 'abortion and gays caused 911' Robertson ran a decent early campaign in 1988, coming second in Iowa and beating George Bush, despite his repeated predictions of apocalypse. If a guy like that can come 2nd in Iowa anything can happen!
If by some miracle Trump gets the nomination it might be worth looking at the Democrat odds on some reasonably deep red states. Hillary will be backable at pretty much any price for POTUS too.
There are some problems for Hillary in N.Hampshire with Sanders lately but I think she will brush him off even if Sanders wins that primary. I agree though, the moment I heard Trump saying that americans are stupid on his announcement speech, that guy might not even win Wyoming against any democrat, it reminded me of these parodies:
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Trump was born incredibly rich. And his exertions have made him... about as rich as he was when he was born. Despite being leveraged and long through the greatest property boom in history.
Wiki says his Dad was worth $400 million. It's a riches to slightly more riches tale
Adjusted for nominal GDP growth, he's almost certainly gone backwards.
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I can only put your comments down to your lack of overexposure we get this side of the pond to The Donald's rambling and embarrassing politics. Don't forget, he is inter alia a Birther.
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Trump was born incredibly rich. And his exertions have made him... about as rich as he was when he was born. Despite being leveraged and long through the greatest property boom in history.
Wiki says his Dad was worth $400 million. It's a riches to slightly more riches tale
Adjusted for nominal GDP growth, he's almost certainly gone backwards.
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I don't know anything about the US political scene, but I'd have thought in this anti-politics age, Trump could do very, very well... Especially as the Republicans/Democrat's look like serving up the "same old, same old" with more Bush/Clinton stuff...
Surely the Yanks are sick to the back teeth of these families now?
Yes I think you're right about the 'anti politics' mood, but Donald Trump is not Ross Perot. His 'birther' theories are a good signal about this guy.
57% of GOP voters have an unfavorable view of him. Imagine what that figure is like when you include the rest of the electorate!
Oh well, it will be good publicity for The Donald's business empire!
Which is exactly why he'd doing it i would imagine!
The GOP has track record in this department though. Pat 'abortion and gays caused 911' Robertson ran a decent early campaign in 1988, coming second in Iowa and beating George Bush, despite his repeated predictions of apocalypse. If a guy like that can come 2nd in Iowa anything can happen!
According to the polls so far, Trump can come second in N.Hampshire.
However the debates with Trump would probably be more lively than the debates with Robertson:
I'm a bit confused about the timing of the Danish election. I originally thought it was being held on Thursday but I thought Nick wrote the other day that it was on Tuesday (ie. today).
It's on Thursday.
I'm sure Nick said Tuesday, maybe it was an auto-correct.
When he talks about the country going to hell under its probably Kenyan, probably Muslim President, it’s hard not to hear the clink of scotch glasses and the rustle of white hoods. But he’s good box office in early campaign days when the press is otherwise stuck with candidates munching on funnel cake at state fairs.
If by some miracle Trump gets the nomination it might be worth looking at the Democrat odds on some reasonably deep red states. Hillary will be backable at pretty much any price for POTUS too.
There are some problems for Hillary in N.Hampshire with Sanders lately but I think she will brush him off even if Sanders wins that primary. I agree though, the moment I heard Trump saying that americans are stupid on his announcement speech, that guy might not even win Wyoming against any democrat, it reminded me of these parodies:
But it's good entertainment, since the Republicans were always going to lose in 2016 at least they can now lose in style.
Not sure how you get to the GOP always going to lose 2016. I think it is the other way around - they will have to work hard to lose it. But, in that regard, they have form.
When he talks about the country going to hell under its probably Kenyan, probably Muslim President, it’s hard not to hear the clink of scotch glasses and the rustle of white hoods. But he’s good box office in early campaign days when the press is otherwise stuck with candidates munching on funnel cake at state fairs.
Well he does come to Britain from time to time: Anthony Baxter @antbaxter 60m60 minutes ago Donald #Trump running for President? This is how how he treated 90 year old Molly in #Scotland: @ADGmovie
So it's the usual story - pick the centre ground candidate and Lab will be guaranteed to win.
This didn't work so well for the Lib Dems in the last election, did it?
Not sure what relevance the LDs have.
GEs are primarily a battle between Con and Lab - and you only need to look at the results of the last 35 years - every single time the one with the leader closer to the centre wins.
Cam beats Miliband Cam beats Brown Blair beats Howard Blair beats Hague Blair beats Major (NB this one they are both centre - Blair wins for other well known reasons) Major beats Kinnock
Thatcher arguably a bit different but certainly not further from the centre than Kinnock or Foot.
What's that, 202? So 30 left? And a very tight field...
Ben Bradshaw should be much higher. He holds the only Labour seat west of Bristol. Indeed, outside Bristol, in the whole southwest of England. And in a historic medieval city that was historically Tory up until the 1990s. He comfortably held on this year.
He clearly has something to teach the rest of the party.
So it's the usual story - pick the centre ground candidate and Lab will be guaranteed to win.
This didn't work so well for the Lib Dems in the last election, did it?
Not sure what relevance the LDs have.
GEs are primarily a battle between Con and Lab - and you only need to look at the results of the last 35 years - every single time the one with the leader closer to the centre wins.
Cam beats Miliband Cam beats Brown Blair beats Howard Blair beats Hague Blair beats Major (NB this one they are both centre - Blair wins for other well known reasons) Major beats Kinnock
Thatcher arguably a bit different but certainly not further from the centre than Kinnock or Foot.
So the rule holds back to 1979!
Actually, the polls showed people considered Miliband closer to the centre than Cameron. You're using circular logic here (you seem to be arguing that a politician winning by that very fact itself means they were the most "centrist").
And the point about the Lib Dems is that they were about as centrist as could be in this election, and were advocating a platform which sounds identical to the one Kendall is advocating (largely accepting the Tories' views on the economy and public services, but also being pro-Europe and pro-immigration) and they got a historic routing.
EDIT: I think there may even have been some polls in 1987 which showed people placed Kinnock closer to the centre than Thatcher? Not 100% sure though.
What's that, 202? So 30 left? And a very tight field...
Ben Bradshaw should be much higher. He holds the only Labour seat west of Bristol. Indeed, outside Bristol, in the whole southwest of England. And in a historic medieval city that was historically Tory up until the 1990s. He comfortably held on this year.
He clearly has something to teach the rest of the party.
Bradshaw is a good candidate.
Did 25 MPs really vote for Angela Eagle? That's well over 10% of the Parliamentary party that are simply thinking about party politics - Eagle (and her sister) has about as much electoral appeal as a nasty patch of damp.
Miss Ali (who's sensible enough) finishing up last must surely create a pause for thought too.
Tsipiras is trying to separate the Europeans from the IMF, by trying to make out the Europeans are American stooges if they fail to ditch the IMF and support Greece.
I am not convinced by the brilliance of this plan.
Someday, alevai, we need not speak of Mr Tspiras. Someday he will hold court to many of his friends about the whole word betrayed Greece and it wasn't his fault, and the politicians will nod, smile at the crazy white-haired man and go back to work. Someday Yannis will return to academia and preach Marxist economics to the rebel children of the wealthy, whilst the studious working-class avoid his lectures like the plague. Someday, Niccolo, someday...
Comments
QuestionPropagandise Morehttps://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/oldest-presidential-nominees/
Reagan is number 4......(Dole & McCain 1 & 2)
Which probably explains why @LuckyGuy wants him as President of the US.
Surely the Yanks are sick to the back teeth of these two families now?
DTWNBPOTUSA ?????
57% of GOP voters have an unfavorable view of him. Imagine what that figure is like when you include the rest of the electorate!
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php
Of course, his father's figure is probably more reliable than his own...
..but who wouldn't want that hilarious toupe comb over to be subject to the vagaries of outdoor state visits.....
He signed out with ill health a few weeks ago didn't he?
I also note PB aren't singing the virtues of Hodges' endorsement of Yvette Cooper, instead of Kendall (who is liked by a lot of the Tories on here).
The GOP has track record in this department though. Pat 'abortion and gays caused 911' Robertson ran a decent early campaign in 1988, coming second in Iowa and beating George Bush, despite his repeated predictions of apocalypse. If a guy like that can come 2nd in Iowa anything can happen!
I agree though, the moment I heard Trump saying that americans are stupid on his announcement speech, that guy might not even win Wyoming against any democrat, it reminded me of these parodies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G33zWBjkpcs
But it's good entertainment, since the Republicans were always going to lose in 2016 at least they can now lose in style.
Cos YouGov's London polls did soooooooooo well during the election didn't they?
Why are we paying any attention to these jokers?
If he'd taken his dad's money and invested it in an S&P500 tracker (with dividends reinvested), he'd have done 3x better.
How's that?
However the debates with Trump would probably be more lively than the debates with Robertson:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?65-1/republican-candidates-debate
When he talks about the country going to hell under its probably Kenyan, probably Muslim President, it’s hard not to hear the clink of scotch glasses and the rustle of white hoods. But he’s good box office in early campaign days when the press is otherwise stuck with candidates munching on funnel cake at state fairs.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9547442/crazy-runs-for-president-dont-look-so-mad-when-you-see-what-happens-next/
Anthony Baxter @antbaxter 60m60 minutes ago
Donald #Trump running for President? This is how how he treated 90 year old Molly in #Scotland: @ADGmovie
Labour Deputy Leadership noms:
@tom_watson 59
@CarolineFlintMP 41
@stellacreasy 28
@BenPBradshaw 25
@angelaeagle 25
@rushanaraali 24
What's that, 202? So 30 left? And a very tight field...
BBC: Devolution call by South East councils
But many of the activists will prefer more core vote candidates.
It's always the same - in both Lab and Con.
And of course much, much, much more importantly Lab members will face the same dilemma for Lab leader.
That's a novel strategy to get them coming back from Washington!
"Gosh"
tick tock....
GEs are primarily a battle between Con and Lab - and you only need to look at the results of the last 35 years - every single time the one with the leader closer to the centre wins.
Cam beats Miliband
Cam beats Brown
Blair beats Howard
Blair beats Hague
Blair beats Major (NB this one they are both centre - Blair wins for other well known reasons)
Major beats Kinnock
Thatcher arguably a bit different but certainly not further from the centre than Kinnock or Foot.
So the rule holds back to 1979!
He clearly has something to teach the rest of the party.
And the point about the Lib Dems is that they were about as centrist as could be in this election, and were advocating a platform which sounds identical to the one Kendall is advocating (largely accepting the Tories' views on the economy and public services, but also being pro-Europe and pro-immigration) and they got a historic routing.
EDIT: I think there may even have been some polls in 1987 which showed people placed Kinnock closer to the centre than Thatcher? Not 100% sure though.
New Thread
Did 25 MPs really vote for Angela Eagle? That's well over 10% of the Parliamentary party that are simply thinking about party politics - Eagle (and her sister) has about as much electoral appeal as a nasty patch of damp.
Miss Ali (who's sensible enough) finishing up last must surely create a pause for thought too.