Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Mayor of London – the first big electoral test for LAB’
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Mayor of London – the first big electoral test for LAB’s new leader
Six Labour candidates made it onto the party’s shortlist: Diane Abbott, Tessa Jowell, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Gareth Thomas and Christian Wolmar. One will be chosen by ballot of Labour members and affiliates and announced over the same weekend as the party’s Leader and Deputy Leader – the 12th and 13th of September, so there won’t be an opportunity for one decision to influence the other.
0
Comments
Though the movements haven't been major.
Oh you mean the one I mentioned.
Labour MP for Harrow West, on an indistinct ticket save for greater devolution away from city hall to councils.
I strongly suspect Caroline Pidgeon will be the LD candidate if she chooses to stand. I don't believe the likes of Simon Hughes or Ed Davey will put themselves forward. Caroline has done a lot at the GLA especially on transport.
Zak Goldsmith will almost certainly be the Conservative candidate as TWR opines - I do detect a sense of annoyance among some of the Conservative local Government leaders such as Philippa Roe and others that an MP is once again going to be doing two jobs or risking a by-election (and I've not heard Goldsmith say if he will continue as an MP if elected Mayor).
Labour's race is the hardest to call though Tessa Jowell is probably the candidate the Conservatives should be most worried about - she may be able to reach into the suburbs and get a decent share of the vote. In May, the Conservative performance was mixed - one or two remarkable results (Hendon and Sutton & Cheam) countered by some less predictable losses (Ilford North) and the 2014 locals weren't good for the Conservatives overall.
I would say Goldsmith is the Conservatives' best hope of a narrow defeat - the two game-changers might be a Labour schism in the immediate aftermath of a Corbyn victory or the holding of the EU Referendum on the same day as the Mayoral election but I don't consider either very likely.
Am in esteemed company.
Many thanks, Mr Rabbit.
Not that it matters one iota, but why on Earth is he standing?! Does he have a lot of free time on his hands?
Hoping to get on Big Brother next season?
I think he's got trouble written all over him.
I think you're right.
"When the same question, which excluded “don’t knows”, was asked in early June the score was a straight 50/50 divide.
Given a choice between Dame Tessa Jowell and Mr Goldsmith, 57 per cent chose the Labour candidate and 43 per cent opted for the Conservative frontrunner."
That's an enormous difference.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-would-lose-city-hall-contest-with-zac-goldsmith-poll-says-10393127.html
Sheesh.
The big issue he has is Heathrow, particularly if the Government decides - as it surely must - before May 2016 that Heathrow expansion is the only tenable game in town.
If the lists I have seen are anywhere near correct, there are people from across the political spectrum that will stand accused of pretty horrible crimes. The number of possible offenders is staggering. Worse: people who should have known better, seem to have been (implicitly or explicitly) guilty of an enormous cover-up, particularly in the mid 1980s.
If you want a Jowell/Khan double to win the nomination, go to William Hill (combined price 1.17).
If you want a Jowell/Khan double to win the Mayoralty, you can (apparently) get 3.5 on Jowell, at 888Sport, Unibet and 32Red, and get what you can on Betfair for Khan (current 4.6), to give something around evens.
Don't bother backing the Tories, back Goldsmith on betfair and get 3.3.
If you can do well, the Goldsmith or Khan or Jowell triple is 1.2...
From the little we know (because I think a lot is still under the rug) it seems parties were preapred to cover for each other - the establishment cover up at its finest. Or not.
The issue is that there are marginal Conservative constituencies in South West London. And I think that makes it an overtly political, rather than economic, decision.
As a Londoner, I sincerely hope we get Heathrow Expansion, but I fear that the can will be kicked down the road, to the detriment of all.
Given how many incredibly didn't know about Savile, I wouldn't be at all surprised if its many factors larger.
Actually the bookies are a bit slow on this market.
Ladbrokes failed to cut Goldsmith's odds for three hours after he said yes he would run, something like that.
What with the busy weekend for Labour in September, and the small political desks the bookies run, keep an eye out for lagging offers.
What a surprise... Who knew? Who knew?
Is there no bandwagon The Ghost of Ted Heath wont jump on?!
At least they'll decide before the Chilcott report comes out though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11779332/Heathrow-third-runway-would-be-a-huge-mistake-bring-back-Boris-Island.html
"If the Government wants to be long-termist it should go for the truly long- term solution, a four-runway hub, and the logical place is in the Thames estuary. The GDP growth unleashed would dwarf Heathrow, with 50 per cent more routes overall, double the number of domestic routes, to say nothing of the huge scope for much-needed housing and regeneration. That is what the Government should do – to stick with its principled stance, to keep its explicit manifesto promise."
Only other comment is that apparently Siobhan Benita has talked of standing again - she did reasonably as an Independent last time out (beating UKIP and BNP, and only just behind the Lib Dems).
Last time Boris won the first preference vote but Ken closed the gap slightly when the second preferences were countered - given 85% of first preferences went to Boris or Ken there weren't a lot of second preferences left for either candidate.
In a very close contest it might be a factor or it might become one if a clear third place candidate formally endorsed either of the main candidates as the place for second preference votes.
Boris Island is really the only long-term solution.
Jamming up Heathrow even more is plane stupid.
As for Benita, 3.8% doesn't strike me as a great showing, especially given the opportunity she had for picking up the votes of disillusioned Labourites.
History wont judge anyone who authorises LHR3 kindly.
Chelsea are the team to beat, this year.
Quite what Alistair Campbell was thinking of is beyond me. And Andy Burnham introduces Elvis!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8om47yrSZSI
C5 really has turned into the TV version of the Daily Star.
"Giant wind farm scrapped following planning changes
Campaigners feared proposed Nocton Fen wind farm, on land owned by Sir James Dyson, could ruin views of Lincoln cathedral"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11774011/Giant-wind-farm-scrapped-following-planning-changes.html
Interesting piece, Mr. Burt. I do hope ethnic quotas Khan doesn't get it.
FPT: Mr. Charles, although I did reply to a few of his tweets, I was always courteous, even when courtesy required the biting of one's tongue. And he was polite back, making it even more perplexing.
Was that the Hitler one that suggested he survived the bomb because the briefcase was moved? There are so many Nazi progs, they merge into one another. I did enjoy Nazi Megastructures - Hitler really did believe in Big Is Better.
Are you old enough to remember Erich Von Daniken?
Still brings a smile....
We should be investing in tidal power. Give some subsidies to get that technology viable. We have the second highest tidal range in the world. And it is dependable, 24/7/365, unlike solar and wind.
There were loads of those sort of theories - great fun and quite thought provoking. Just think, L. Ron Hubbard created a worldwide religion in a similar vein.
"Could this be a spaceship designed inthe 12th century? No"
'Were the Aztecs the first astronauts? No"
I hope he was entertaining as that makes him sound.
As we know, the pyramids were built by space-faring aliens.
Really good article, TheWhiteRabbit.
Same level of logical reasoning and supporting evidence.
I think the programmes start off ok, but then verge on the ridiculous and comical as time goes on.
I remember watching BBC's 'most annoying' countdown shows a couple of years back, when one of the talking heads said that documentaries are literally nazi programmes and shark docs. It's very true, although the History channel appears to show anything but history these days.
I've never seen Nazi megastructures - though I have seen Hitler in Colour, Hitler's Hidden Drug Habbit (C4) The Nazis: A Warning From History, The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler, and some docs on the Discovery Channel about Hitler's henchmen.
If there is any architecture/art that is a bit other worldly, its ancient Egyptian, for me.
In fact I think the only show I recall in the run to the GE was Charlie's Brooker's 'Election Wipe'.
"Taxpayers are footing the bill for illegal migrants to be driven in private taxis from Dover to London.
The young migrants, who have successfully made their way to the UK from Calais, are being moved by Kent County Council, after the authority reached ‘breaking point’.
The number of asylum-seeking children in the county is said to have almost doubled since March, with the council’s social services department running out of places to house them.
A taxi driver told the Telegraph that their company had made ‘around seven of eight’ journeys from Dover to London in the past week, with a bill reaching almost £1,200."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/migrants-taken-from-dover-to-london-by-taxi-at-the-expense-of-the-taxpayer-10434230.html
Mr. Isam, crazy. We should stop hurling money at those not proven to be asylum seekers, close the tunnel until it's secured and alter the law to encourage illegal immigrants to shop those who unlawfully employ them.
I suspect none of that will happen.
There's a glut of atomic bomb docus on now.
I do wish they'd made Teal'c PI into a real series.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-final-report-economy-impacts
The comments on exaggeration by media and their overall conclusions are interesting.
If you have anything material to add I'd be interested to hear it. :-)
I'm working with Zac on this.
Border staff stopped carrying out checks despite flights arriving from 'high-risk' countries.
Inspectors were told that bosses at Terminal 5 were more focussed on 'managing queues' which meant there was often no customs checks at all.
The revelations about border controls at Britain's biggest airport comes amid fresh criticism of the government's immigration policy.
Ministers today announced a crackdown on landlords who rent properties to illegal immigrants, and yesterday launched a consultation on cutting payments given to failed asylum families.
While the focus in recent days has been on Channel Tunnel and ferry ports, a report into controls at Heathrow will also raise fresh questions about how stringent checks are."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3183849/Customs-checks-abandoned-Heathrow-Termianl-5-busy-times-help-cut-queues-inspectors-warn.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46qKHq7REI4
Space documentaries are quite popular as well.
Btw, I'm watching one of your favourites - Millionaire Matchmaker right now
Let's work out the rough costs to the British economy from that, shall we.
Firstly, it will mean that rail services between London and Paris stop. They carry more than 70% of passenger traffic between the UK and France. Because of the nature of "slots" at airports, flights would be slow to respond. Eurostar would almost certainly be able to claim £10s or £100s of millions in damages from the UK government as it would need to refund customers, and their costs would continue unabated.
Secondly, freight traffic would be severely disrupted. More than £800m a week of British exports leave via the tunnel. And while boats could take up some of the slack, there isn't a huge amount of spare ferry capacity right now. To replace the tunnel would require dozens of new ferries to be brought on stream (bought from other operators, not so easy, or contracted to be built, which is a four-to-five year process), and ports that have been mothballed would need to be brought back on-line. Of course, doing all this would massively increase the likelihood that people would be able to get into the UK by ship, as we wouldn't have security measures in place.
The two most important pieces of infrastructure in the UK are the Channel Tunnel and Heathrow Airport. Closing either of them to stop 150 migrants a day shows a total absence of economic common sense. It would cost tens of thousands of jobs, and would incur massive legal liabilities on the government and taxpayers.
If you want to stop illegal immigration, beef up security at the tunnel and impose proper fines on firms who employ illegal workers. (It's absurd that fines in the UK are one tenth of the level of those on the continent.)
But don't inflict massive damage on British industry by closing the major artery for British exports.
We've seen hackers get in to take control of cars (brakes, at least), and the online kettle* that could be hacked.
*Who the hell wanted an online kettle?
Technology's fantastic but that doesn't mean it can't be overused, and open us up to needless security risks.
Eurostar should not be able to claim anything, as it's failing to keep its own site secure and risking the UK's national security. Haulage firms are a different matter.
The difference is that illegal immigrants can't get jobs there, don't get accommodation there, and don't get £37/week allowance.
Change the incentives, and the illegal immigrants will go somewhere else.
Among people I've spoken to in other countries, the US is #1 and the UK #2 in the "everything will be better there. don't ask how, it will" stakes.
If we restrict their ability to do what we promised them, they will be able to to sue us for hundreds of millions of pounds.
*disclaimer: I have no idea whether this is possible or not.
What level of increase in unemployment or increase in taxes are you willing to accept to cut the number of illegal immigrants a day from - say - 150 to 50? 10,000 unemployed and £1bn in extra taxes?
In any event, we agree on altering the law to discourage migration and penalise those who employ illegal labour. And, I suspect, that the current response from the government is nowhere near good enough.
Edited extra bit:
Mr. 1000, I'd first want to calculate the cost of 55,000 illegal immigrants, both financial and security.