If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
So the battle to be PB TOTY 2016 is going to be between Henry G and Tissue Price
Cough ....
Although as the reigning PB TOTY going so far back that OGH had long dreadlocks and JohnO was merely getting mislaid on steam transport, perhaps the time has come to hand on the most treasured of batons ....
I believe Calum is TOTY-Elect (125/1 Labour 0-5 Scottish seats).
A perfectly respectable contribution and certainly a suitable candidate within the pack should I decide to abdicate in favour of a younger candidate ....
Surely the 22nd Amendment applies?
Not to the Scottish hereditary nobility.
I must confess that I was disappointed not to see a JackW manifesto for the impending by-election.
By-election campaigning is so vulgar and a manifesto decidedly tacky.
House of Lords by-election candidates should simply submit their Burke's Peerage entry for perusal and consideration.
Why do you feel the racial quotas is being over-stated? It seems to be crossing a Rubicon to me. People will be legally discriminated against on the basis of race for the first time in this country. What a nasty party Labour has become.
Most large organisations make similar statements about aspiring to have more balance at all levels (gender, ethnic, and so on), and de facto it does mean that other things being equal it's probably an advantage to come from an under-represented group, in the same way as if you're from Tower Hamlets and put in a good application to go to Oxford. Specifically, it's clearly desirable that the police are seen to be a good mix, rather than a predominantly white force - it matters in a way that, say, the ethnic distribution of banking doesn't. Khan has merely said he'd consider quotas for police recruitment if all else failed. As Richard says, it probably doesn't seem a Rubicon to most potential Khan voters, and plato and your good self perhaps don't fall in that category.
That said, I think the election is a toss-up. Labour will still be sorting itself out and Goldsmith has a generally favourable public image of being independent but not bonkers, but London is not natural Tory territory. Really hard to call.
"Khan has merely said he'd consider quotas for police recruitment if all else failed."
That is Bullshit, Nick. Statutory quotas if affirmative action doesn't work is trying a racist policy and making it law if it doesn't work.
We are not in post apartheid South Africa
From Khans website
"I will introduce quotas to make the Met look more like Londoners, vows Sadiq Khan
"So I will be clear: as London Mayor I will introduce affirmative action and get the Met looking more like the London we live in. "
This will be very close. [Controversial opinion, that]. I think the key may be in how closely the Tories can tie Khan to Corbyn. Clearly Sadiq is running away from that. But he did nominate him, and that could prove a millstone.
No-one else can win, surely. But a pro-Heathrow independent would be good, just to see how they do (potentially fairly well). Personally I'd build Boris Island.
Tying Khan to Corbyn may well be a millstone generally, but probably not in London.
Why do you feel the racial quotas is being over-stated? It seems to be crossing a Rubicon to me. People will be legally discriminated against on the basis of race for the first time in this country. What a nasty party Labour has become.
Most large organisations make similar statements about aspiring to have more balance at all levels (gender, ethnic, and so on), and de facto it does mean that other things being equal it's probably an advantage to come from an under-represented group, in the same way as if you're from Tower Hamlets and put in a good application to go to Oxford. Specifically, it's clearly desirable that the police are seen to be a good mix, rather than a predominantly white force - it matters in a way that, say, the ethnic distribution of banking doesn't. Khan has merely said he'd consider quotas for police recruitment if all else failed. As Richard says, it probably doesn't seem a Rubicon to most potential Khan voters, and plato and your good self perhaps don't fall in that category.
It's very telling you can't tell the difference between aspiring to have more balance and enforcing quotas so that it no longer becomes a meritocracy. The former is about making the playing field even, whereas quotas are about making it tilted. Quotas are very loudly saying "even if people from this group is worse in terms of ability, we'll still hire them over better candidates".
The right policy to encourage those from disadvantaged groups is by making sure you're not being biased against them. You can make sure CVs from such groups get a second check if they get rejected. You can go to those communities and encourage them to apply. You can even coach them closely to make sure their intrinsic skills are coming through and aren't being obscured by a lack of polish. But no large commercial organisation would hire the worse candidate just because they were Muslim.
I do not see why police is any different from banking: it's important that people get a fair shot at both.
Perhaps it will not matter to most Khan voters, given that Labour in London seem to support an IRA supporter in the top job, but but the question is whether it matters at the margin where the median voter is.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
So the battle to be PB TOTY 2016 is going to be between Henry G and Tissue Price
Cough ....
Although as the reigning PB TOTY going so far back that OGH had long dreadlocks and JohnO was merely getting mislaid on steam transport, perhaps the time has come to hand on the most treasured of batons ....
I believe Calum is TOTY-Elect (125/1 Labour 0-5 Scottish seats).
A perfectly respectable contribution and certainly a suitable candidate within the pack should I decide to abdicate in favour of a younger candidate ....
Surely the 22nd Amendment applies?
Not to the Scottish hereditary nobility.
I must confess that I was disappointed not to see a JackW manifesto for the impending by-election.
By-election campaigning is so vulgar and a manifesto decidedly tacky.
House of Lords by-election candidates should simply submit their Burke's Peerage entry for perusal and consideration.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
What position of Owen Paterson is even remotely comparable in terms of craziness to printing money for infrastructure?
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
The Tories elected IDS when they were trying something, anything, to defeat Tony Blair. They don't need to do anything right now other than elect Continuity Cameron, the steady-as-she-goes candidate. Paterson is not that person.
Am I right in thinking you could vote for the Tory mayoral candidate for £1 and that 9000 bothered to do so? The Tories' strength appears to be apathy and friends with big pockets. Maybe that's the route to success in modern politics. Radical activists are a pain in the a*se, better to have a few pragmatic rich donors who (hopefully) won't cause too many problems.
I'm one of the those who paid £1 to vote for Zac as Mayoral Candidate.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
What position of Owen Paterson is even remotely comparable in terms of craziness to printing money for infrastructure?
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
I have doubts about the electoral ability of someone outwitted by badgers.
Why do you feel the racial quotas is being over-stated? It seems to be crossing a Rubicon to me. People will be legally discriminated against on the basis of race for the first time in this country. What a nasty party Labour has become.
Most large organisations make similar statements about aspiring to have more balance at all levels (gender, ethnic, and so on), and de facto it does mean that other things being equal it's probably an advantage to come from an under-represented group, in the same way as if you're from Tower Hamlets and put in a good application to go to Oxford. Specifically, it's clearly desirable that the police are seen to be a good mix, rather than a predominantly white force - it matters in a way that, say, the ethnic distribution of banking doesn't. Khan has merely said he'd consider quotas for police recruitment if all else failed. As Richard says, it probably doesn't seem a Rubicon to most potential Khan voters, and plato and your good self perhaps don't fall in that category.
That said, I think the election is a toss-up. Labour will still be sorting itself out and Goldsmith has a generally favourable public image of being independent but not bonkers, but London is not natural Tory territory. Really hard to call.
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
The Mayoral election is Labour's to lose. But they are capable of losing it.
Neither Sadiq Khan nor Zac Goldsmith looks like an amazing candidate to me, though both are capable enough. Sadiq Khan is likely to have both a stronger attraction factor than Zac Goldsmith and a stronger repulsion factor than the Conservative. My expectation is that he will also have the better electoral machine, especially if he can get those Corbynistas doing more than just tweeting. How vigorously will Boris Johnson help his old school chum?
Will Jeremy Corbyn himself affect the race (positively or negatively)? Maybe. The unpopularity of government didn't stop Boris Johnson being re-elected in 2012 and the popularity of Tony Blair didn't stop Ken Livingstone getting elected in 2000 ahead of the official Labour candidate, but both had far bigger profiles at those dates than either of those two do now. Politics has been mildly hysterical for the last month or so. Surely it will calm down a bit in the coming months. Ultimately I expect the London public to elect their preferred mayor rather than pass judgement on the Labour leader in this election.
Taken as a whole (ignoring other candidates), I would currently price it at 4/7 Khan, 7/4 Goldsmith.
Khan will be a divisive figure, and a lot depends on turnout across different demographics. Zac is a Trustifarian on an extended gap year. I hope they both lose.
Goldsmith is an incredibly fortunate individual who could simply kick back on a 300 foot yacht somewhere, but chooses instead to do something worthwhile. All credit to him for that.
He is marginally less repulsive than his father, I agree. But what has he ever done to justify his existance? He slipped comfortably from some genteel greenism to a safe west London seat. Just the old parasitic aristocracy revived for a new generation.
I am glad that I am not a Londoner having to choose between these two pisspoor candidates.
They don't have to choose between them, there will be any number of other candidates to choose from. If people end up seeing it, as they undoubedlty will, as a fight between Tory and Labour and thus their two candidates, that is the fault of the public for not being willing to try something different and enabling someone else or another party a chance, and they will get the mayor they deserve.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
What position of Owen Paterson is even remotely comparable in terms of craziness to printing money for infrastructure?
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
I have doubts about the electoral ability of someone outwitted by badgers.
Why do you feel the racial quotas is being over-stated? It seems to be crossing a Rubicon to me. People will be legally discriminated against on the basis of race for the first time in this country. What a nasty party Labour has become.
Most large organisations make similar statements about aspiring to have more balance at all levels (gender, ethnic, and so on), and de facto it does mean that other things being equal it's probably an advantage to come from an under-represented group, in the same way as if you're from Tower Hamlets and put in a good application to go to Oxford. Specifically, it's clearly desirable that the police are seen to be a good mix, rather than a predominantly white force - it matters in a way that, say, the ethnic distribution of banking doesn't. Khan has merely said he'd consider quotas for police recruitment if all else failed. As Richard says, it probably doesn't seem a Rubicon to most potential Khan voters, and plato and your good self perhaps don't fall in that category.
That said, I think the election is a toss-up. Labour will still be sorting itself out and Goldsmith has a generally favourable public image of being independent but not bonkers, but London is not natural Tory territory. Really hard to call.
I have been doing some talks on Values/Leadership and Diversity at work and so have had to think about what diversity actually means.
One of the problems with your approach: skin colour, sexuality, gender etc is that it is focusing on the wrong thing. What you want - and need - in any organisation is a diversity of perspectives overlaid over strong core values (integrity etc). The fact that people come from different backgrounds, cultures, speak different languages, have different life experiences, come from a different class will often give people different and valuable perspectives and that is what you want to tap into.
But to concentrate on the package it comes wrapped up in is to confuse the wrapping with the content. White people have lots of different perspectives. Black middle class lawyers with a public school education probably share very similar perspectives to white middle class lawyers with a public school education. By focusing on skin colour only (to take an example) you miss the very different perspectives available amongst a group with one characteristic and overlook the similarities between people with different characteristics while congratulating yourself on your supposed diversity.
It's the diversity of perspectives which matter not the packaging they come in.
Ignoring this is one reason why Labour - for all its supposed commitment to diversity - sounds so samey and seems so intolerant of anyone not coming out with the same received opinion.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
So the battle to be PB TOTY 2016 is going to be between Henry G and Tissue Price
Cough ....
Although as the reigning PB TOTY going so far back that OGH had long dreadlocks and JohnO was merely getting mislaid on steam transport, perhaps the time has come to hand on the most treasured of batons ....
I believe Calum is TOTY-Elect (125/1 Labour 0-5 Scottish seats).
A perfectly respectable contribution and certainly a suitable candidate within the pack should I decide to abdicate in favour of a younger candidate ....
Surely the 22nd Amendment applies?
Not to the Scottish hereditary nobility.
I must confess that I was disappointed not to see a JackW manifesto for the impending by-election.
By-election campaigning is so vulgar and a manifesto decidedly tacky.
House of Lords by-election candidates should simply submit their Burke's Peerage entry for perusal and consideration.
Likes: pies Dislikes: campaigning
Almost a four word manifesto winner if one was grubby enough to indulge in such profanity.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
What position of Owen Paterson is even remotely comparable in terms of craziness to printing money for infrastructure?
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
I have doubts about the electoral ability of someone outwitted by badgers.
You mean a policy needed to be adapted to cope with "the vagaries of the weather and disease and breeding patterns", which was the crux of his comment. But apparently politicians aren't allowed to make jokes...
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
What position of Owen Paterson is even remotely comparable in terms of craziness to printing money for infrastructure?
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
I have doubts about the electoral ability of someone outwitted by badgers.
Mr. Eagles, like Scipio, Flaminius, Sempronius, Minucius Rufus, Marcellus, Varro and Paullus?
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
I think that underestimates the voters. People are worried about the number of immigrants and the impact on services. Some are also concerned about cultural aspects, others not. But there's pretty wide acceptance of the fact that minority ethnic groups are seriously under-represented in some areas, and that it's a bad thing if the police in particular *appear* not to want many of them. It's perfectly possible to think that we should have stricter limits on immigration without thinking that it's unimportant if our existing immigrants feel excluded.
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
Talking of London, and race, and policing, and all that stuff:
For anyone who hasn't seen it, David Cohen's series of detailed articles about the Angell Estate in Brixton, which the Evening Standard have been running this week, is compelling reading, and exceptionally good journalism. The first article is here:
Dair.. nothing misogynistic about it... the girl freely sent her pics around the welsh rugby circuit.. What do you mean by "your likes"....are all Sots prats these days.. never used to be like that when I lived up there...
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
What position of Owen Paterson is even remotely comparable in terms of craziness to printing money for infrastructure?
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
I have doubts about the electoral ability of someone outwitted by badgers.
You mean a policy needed to be adapted to cope with "the vagaries of the weather and disease and breeding patterns", which was the crux of his comment. But apparently politicians aren't allowed to make jokes...
I like Owen Paterson he evaluated all the evidence and was a supporter of GM foods.
As someone who canvassed for the Tories in a marginal, MarqueeMark is right we need a continuity Cameron. Owen Paterson isn't that
Charlotte Church is superb value. Rail must be nationalised because the nationalised systems in France and Japan were the best in the world.
Errr. In Japan it was privatised in 1987 and is good. In France it is a textbook example of the need to keep Trades Unions on a short leash.
Not only that but she claimed with a straight face that trains were become an elitist mode of travel restricting mobility after it was already repeatedly pointed out that passenger numbers now are double what they were under British Rail. Utter moron.
If the choice in 2020 is between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Paterson, emigration becomes a serious option. I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't be that stupid except:
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
The Tories elected IDS when they were trying something, anything, to defeat Tony Blair. They don't need to do anything right now other than elect Continuity Cameron, the steady-as-she-goes candidate. Paterson is not that person.
No, the Tories elected IDS when they were trying to defeat (1) Ken Clarke and (2) Michael Portillo. Tony Blair didn't come into it.
They didn't even bother standing candidates in most of the Scottish by-elections yesterday. They are effectively extinct in Scotland**.
**Or "The collection of cities, towns and hamlets of North Britain" if your Labour inclined.
You would hardly know there were by-elections in Scotland yesterday, surprised we were not regaled by details of the Labour surge. Frothers on here are slipping
Mr. Eagles, like Scipio, Flaminius, Sempronius, Minucius Rufus, Marcellus, Varro and Paullus?
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
Minor defeats.
For a proper ass whooping of Romans see the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
Mr. Eagles, like Scipio, Flaminius, Sempronius, Minucius Rufus, Marcellus, Varro and Paullus?
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
Minor defeats.
For a proper ass whooping of Romans see the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
Open ended support to SSI would have just involved pumping cash at very high risk for practically zip reward into SSI's incredibly shaky balance sheet. It'd have been a bailout of Thai banks moreso than anything else.
Charlotte Church is superb value. Rail must be nationalised because the nationalised systems in France and Japan were the best in the world.
Errr. In Japan it was privatised in 1987 and is good. In France it is a textbook example of the need to keep Trades Unions on a short leash.
Not only that but she claimed with a straight face that trains were become an elitist mode of travel restricting mobility after it was already repeatedly pointed out that passenger numbers now are double what they were under British Rail. Utter moron.
Just becuase one is an excellent singer and a pretty face (ie a sleb) doesn’t mean one will be possessed of any sense.
There are better candidates for that. Gove or Hammond for starters.
Wrongly positioned. Paterson is putting in the heavy lifting now, and he's actually doing a very good job of it.
Charity bet of £25?
Owen Paterson will not be Dave's successor.
I'm already on at around 100/1!
Of course he's a long shot - for a starter, for the bet to come in requires an Out vote.
But if there is an Out vote, the whole field will be shaken up and it won't be a Continuity Cameron candidate. It probably won't even be an existing Cabinet member, or at least not a prominent one.
“On the basis of the limited business case it was given, the government has no confidence that this is a realistic proposal for taxpayers to support,” it said. “In addition, it would be illegal and in breach of state aid rules. The company has never made a profit and the board’s proposal would do nothing to address the huge debts outstanding to local suppliers and other parties.”
Open ended support to SSI would have just involved pumping cash at very high risk for practically zip reward into SSI's incredibly shaky balance sheet. It'd have been a bailout of Thai banks moreso than anything else.
There are better candidates for that. Gove or Hammond for starters.
Wrongly positioned. Paterson is putting in the heavy lifting now, and he's actually doing a very good job of it.
Charity bet of £25?
Owen Paterson will not be Dave's successor.
Quite simply because he is Owen Paterson - he isn't an electable leader. He is trying to set himself up as a Warwick figure. But I still can't see him having that much influence.
Mr. Eagles, like Scipio, Flaminius, Sempronius, Minucius Rufus, Marcellus, Varro and Paullus?
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
Minor defeats.
For a proper ass whooping of Romans see the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
I think that underestimates the voters. People are worried about the number of immigrants and the impact on services. Some are also concerned about cultural aspects, others not. But there's pretty wide acceptance of the fact that minority ethnic groups are seriously under-represented in some areas, and that it's a bad thing if the police in particular *appear* not to want many of them. It's perfectly possible to think that we should have stricter limits on immigration without thinking that it's unimportant if our existing immigrants feel excluded.
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
I think we may just have to differ on this one. I've no problem with - indeed, would support - efforts to improve inclusivity both in recruitment and retention of under-represented groups providing that the candidates meet the quality threshold. In principle, it is good that a police force (and, for that matter, other public services), are reflective of the country at large. However, that is a secondary consideration to (1) capability in conduct and (2) fairness in recruitment. I believe the public will react far more strongly than you think if what is essentially a racist policy is implemented.
Even if I'm wrong, I worry about the underlying resentment and alienation that many feel towards these sort of policy - and toward authority in general - which may at some point explode, either politically or in terms of actual violence.
There are better candidates for that. Gove or Hammond for starters.
Wrongly positioned. Paterson is putting in the heavy lifting now, and he's actually doing a very good job of it.
Charity bet of £25?
Owen Paterson will not be Dave's successor.
I'm already on at around 100/1!
Of course he's a long shot - for a starter, for the bet to come in requires an Out vote.
But if there is an Out vote, the whole field will be shaken up and it won't be a Continuity Cameron candidate. It probably won't even be an existing Cabinet member, or at least not a prominent one.
As per Scotland, the bet may still well be live if the OUT side suffers a very close defeat too. These gambit bets are frequently brilliant value.
Mr. Eagles, like Scipio, Flaminius, Sempronius, Minucius Rufus, Marcellus, Varro and Paullus?
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
Minor defeats.
For a proper ass whooping of Romans see the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
Cannae was a minor defeat!?
Yes. Because the Romans won the war.
Out of interest, how would you class defeats where the final outcome of the war was a stalemate, minor or major?
"I'd like to thank you for all of your help and support over the last few months. It has been an energetic campaign and I'm grateful for the many opportunities I’ve had to talk to people from right across the capital about their priorities.
I'd particularly like to pay tribute to fellow candidates Stephen Greenhalgh, Andrew Boff AM and Syed Kamall MEP. I have seen first hand that they are all dedicated and hard-working public servants who entered this race because they care about our city as much as I do. I have learnt from them and I look forward to campaigning with them to keep City Hall Conservative. "
#Breaking Thai firm SSI, owner of the Redcar steelworks, is to go into liquidation, sources told the Press Association.
BBC don't have an article yet but say SSI UK. So is it the Thai parent company or just a UK sub-division?
(Not an expert on this company at all genuinely confused)
The BBC currently have an article about the Thai company filing in Thailand for what is effectively adminsitration, rather than liquidation.
However their new alert quite clearly states that "SSI UK, owners of the mothballed Redcar steelworks where 1,700 jobs are at stake, goes into liquidation".
Those two things are, of course, not inconsistent.
There are better candidates for that. Gove or Hammond for starters.
Wrongly positioned. Paterson is putting in the heavy lifting now, and he's actually doing a very good job of it.
Charity bet of £25?
Owen Paterson will not be Dave's successor.
I'm already on at around 100/1!
Of course he's a long shot - for a starter, for the bet to come in requires an Out vote.
But if there is an Out vote, the whole field will be shaken up and it won't be a Continuity Cameron candidate. It probably won't even be an existing Cabinet member, or at least not a prominent one.
But it has to be a shock Out vote, too. A good chunk of the Out price is the possibility that Cameron will reluctantly recommend it. Still, 80/1 is very decent, even if just for the chance that he ends up being a token opponent to someone.
Sorry Don, this article reads like Sadiq Khan propaganda. You have left out his horrible links with extremists, his divisive racial profiling for jobs "British Jobs for Brown People" or something to that effect. Where I would have seriously looked at voting for Jowell against Goldsmith (as would many Tories who see him as a TINO and more like a wealthy Lib Dem) I could never see myself voting for Khan all but a few circumstances.
Sadiq Khan won't be mayor, he doesn't reach across the divide like Ken and Boris. My parents voted for Ken in 2000 and 2004 and both are staunchly centre-right. I can't see them voting for Khan, but they would have considered Jowell.
Khan is the wrong candidate for London, he is Old Labour in a New Labour city, Zac looks much more like New Labour than Khan.
I appreciate Zac's election is probably little surprise but a tad amusing we don't have a thread on it but rather on Labour's candidate right now.
This was posted at 0300 this morning.
There will be many Tory threads in the coming days and Friday morning's are generally for Don Brind's slot as Saturdays are for David Herdson.
It's not a dig at you but breaking news frequently sees a new thread replace a scheduled thread.
I'm not having a go at your publishing choices, hence the word amusing rather than bias. The fact that Zac's election is so unsurprising that there's been no need to replace this thread with a new one over nine hours and nearly four hundred posts after this one was posted says more about the competition Zac hasn't faced to get elected than it does about your publishing choices.
They didn't even bother standing candidates in most of the Scottish by-elections yesterday. They are effectively extinct in Scotland**.
**Or "The collection of cities, towns and hamlets of North Britain" if your Labour inclined.
You would hardly know there were by-elections in Scotland yesterday, surprised we were not regaled by details of the Labour surge. Frothers on here are slipping
Mr. Eagles, like Scipio, Flaminius, Sempronius, Minucius Rufus, Marcellus, Varro and Paullus?
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
Minor defeats.
For a proper ass whooping of Romans see the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
That's debatable. Varus lost around 20,000 men in the forests; Varro lost upwards of 50,000 at Cannae. Teutoberg checked Roman ambitions in Germany; Cannae represented an existential threat to the entire Empire. Also, the forests were a natural environment for an ambush (particularly when led by an idiot); the open fields played far more to Rome's military tactical advantages.
Dair.. nothing misogynistic about it... the girl freely sent her pics around the welsh rugby circuit.. What do you mean by "your likes"....are all Sots prats these days.. never used to be like that when I lived up there...
Criticising a woman because she has an active (and in this case apparently very successful) sex life is absolutely misogyny, it is designed to denigrate and demean women. It has no other purpose.
There are better candidates for that. Gove or Hammond for starters.
Wrongly positioned. Paterson is putting in the heavy lifting now, and he's actually doing a very good job of it.
Charity bet of £25?
Owen Paterson will not be Dave's successor.
I'm already on at around 100/1!
Of course he's a long shot - for a starter, for the bet to come in requires an Out vote.
But if there is an Out vote, the whole field will be shaken up and it won't be a Continuity Cameron candidate. It probably won't even be an existing Cabinet member, or at least not a prominent one.
Surely Boris is the leading candidate in any case where we leave. If Osborne sees where the wind is going and recommends "Leave" then he will also be in the right place at the right time.
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
I think that underestimates the voters. People are worried about the number of immigrants and the impact on services. Some are also concerned about cultural aspects, others not. But there's pretty wide acceptance of the fact that minority ethnic groups are seriously under-represented in some areas, and that it's a bad thing if the police in particular *appear* not to want many of them. It's perfectly possible to think that we should have stricter limits on immigration without thinking that it's unimportant if our existing immigrants feel excluded.
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
Class not ethnic background is the great unmentionable in Britain. It is the working classes - of whichever ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender etc - who are under-represented and losing out. All the diversity programmes, quotas and other informal tools all dance around this and avoid it because it's seen as far too difficult.
And the obsession with mathematical representation is plain daft. I don't need my doctor to be representative of me. I need him or her to be skilled and empathetic. Ditto re the police etc. My son - who happens to be gay - hates being labelled as that as if that's the only thing that defines him, as if it should be assumed that he has more in common with other gay people purely because of that and not a whole load of other people whom he likes, shares interests with etc. And you can say that about any other category of people.
People are infinitely interesting and varied. Labelling them by one characteristic and basing your behaviours and policy around that flattens and eliminates variety, the variety of people, rather than the deadliness of taxonomy.
As someone who canvassed for the Tories in a marginal, MarqueeMark is right we need a continuity Cameron. Owen Paterson isn't that
No, he isn't. He's the 'Oh hell, the voters chose Out, and someone's now going to have to implement it' candidate.
He could also be 'Oh hell, us Conservatives all backed Out and the UK chose In based on a renegotiation deal that is unravelling from what we were told' candidate.
Dair... point out the criticism... her efforts were very much appreciated..and I don't even support Welsh Rugby...I suggested she should point her obvious talents at the sporting sector..not current affairs.... Like I said.. are all Scots prats these days.. never used to be like that when I lived there
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
I think that underestimates the voters. People are worried about the number of immigrants and the impact on services. Some are also concerned about cultural aspects, others not. But there's pretty wide acceptance of the fact that minority ethnic groups are seriously under-represented in some areas, and that it's a bad thing if the police in particular *appear* not to want many of them. It's perfectly possible to think that we should have stricter limits on immigration without thinking that it's unimportant if our existing immigrants feel excluded.
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
Class not ethnic background is the great unmentionable in Britain. It is the working classes - of whichever ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender etc - who are under-represented and losing out. All the diversity programmes, quotas and other informal tools all dance around this and avoid it because it's seen as far too difficult.
And the obsession with mathematical representation is plain daft. I don't need my doctor to be representative of me. I need him or her to be skilled and empathetic. Ditto re the police etc. My son - who happens to be gay - hates being labelled as that as if that's the only thing that defines him, as if it should be assumed that he has more in common with other gay people purely because of that and not a whole load of other people whom he likes, shares interests with etc. And you can say that about any other category of people.
People are infinitely interesting and varied. Labelling them by one characteristic and basing your behaviours and policy around that flattens and eliminates variety, the variety of people, rather than the deadliness of taxonomy.
According to the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests, 16 SNP MPs list property interests from which most receive rental income....
"*Michelle Thomson(Edinburgh West).
Two residential properties in Edinburgh, one in Falkirk, one on the Isle of Bute, one in East Calder, one in Stirling, one in Dollar, a half share of a property in Edinburgh and a quarter share of a property in Edinburgh (i/ii)."
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
I think that underestimates the voters. People are worried about the number of immigrants and the impact on services. Some are also concerned about cultural aspects, others not. But there's pretty wide acceptance of the fact that minority ethnic groups are seriously under-represented in some areas, and that it's a bad thing if the police in particular *appear* not to want many of them. It's perfectly possible to think that we should have stricter limits on immigration without thinking that it's unimportant if our existing immigrants feel excluded.
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
Class not ethnic background is the great unmentionable in Britain. It is the working classes - of whichever ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender etc - who are under-represented and losing out. All the diversity programmes, quotas and other informal tools all dance around this and avoid it because it's seen as far too difficult.
And the obsession with mathematical representation is plain daft. I don't need my doctor to be representative of me. I need him or her to be skilled and empathetic. Ditto re the police etc. My son - who happens to be gay - hates being labelled as that as if that's the only thing that defines him, as if it should be assumed that he has more in common with other gay people purely because of that and not a whole load of other people whom he likes, shares interests with etc. And you can say that about any other category of people.
People are infinitely interesting and varied. Labelling them by one characteristic and basing your behaviours and policy around that flattens and eliminates variety, the variety of people, rather than the deadliness of taxonomy.
Another great post. The do gooders are incredibly condescending
Why should people be defined by xyz and made to fit that stereotype?
White boys are the ones that are getting special classes for them in London schools now, because for years the establishment has cast them aside in favour of their latest identity obsession
In contrast to most of my fellow PB Tories (and, interestingly, Southam), I think Sadiq Khan is a strong candidate for Labour. The ethnic quotas line is being over-stated IMO, and on lots of other issues Khan is saying some pretty sensible things. He's doing a savvy job getting the right sort of coverage in the key media such as the Evening Standard, and I don't think he'll scare the horses. He's probably a less divisive figure than Ken Livingstone.
Having said that, Zac is also a strong candidate and a canny campaigner, and he will be able to reach voters outside the core Conservative vote. With Labour nationally in disarray, this is going to be a fascinating and close contest.
Since being chosen as the mayoral candidate Khan has done a very good job and is clearly seeking to distance himself from Corbyn. But he has baggage. And in London identity politics are probably more entrenched than anywhere else in England. Contrary to statements on here, the most likely people to vote will be white, of advancing years and living in the outer boroughs. Lynton Crosby is a master at ringing their bells and Khan has given him plenty of ammunition. That, plus semi-detachment from the Tories, should see Goldsmith home comfortably.
No number for Tories but they were a clear second in 2012 and now Labour are. Currently doing the second round count. No idea on other numbers but looking like SNP HOLD.
Stirling East
SNP 1311 Lab 1094 Con 343 Green 152
SNP HOLD on the third round of counting SNP 1388 Lab 1272
Nick, on the broader issue, do you not realise how bad it will look for Labour to have as their most prominent elected politician someone implementing laws based on racially disadvantaging the white population, when concern over immigration is at its highest ever recorded by Mori?
I think that underestimates the voters. People are worried about the number of immigrants and the impact on services. Some are also concerned about cultural aspects, others not. But there's pretty wide acceptance of the fact that minority ethnic groups are seriously under-represented in some areas, and that it's a bad thing if the police in particular *appear* not to want many of them. It's perfectly possible to think that we should have stricter limits on immigration without thinking that it's unimportant if our existing immigrants feel excluded.
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
It's such a left-wing Labour mentality you are displaying here. "We are struggling to address the root causes of the problem, so we will just legally compel the symptoms to disappear." When you haven't actually addressed the problem, a sledgehammer solution just causes other negative consequences elsewhere. If ethnic minority candidates tend to be less skilled than others, than just forcing more into important positions will just cause a deterioration in quality.
A similar attitude is seen in the left wing response to the housing crisis. "Housing costs are too high, we're struggling to improve supply quickly enough and we are ideologically against addressing demand, so let's just legally mandate rents to be set". Except of course, the mismatch of supply and demand is still there, so you end up with huge waiting lists and a bigger problem.
From the look of it, the Green vote split with a slight favour to the SNP but the Tory vote basically dropped out without a further preference. Less than half the Tory vote transferred to Labour the rest preferring not to register a second preference.
That is a distinct warning sign for anyone expecting tactical voting to help the Loyalist parties in the 2016 Holyrood vote.
Comments
1) Labour has just elected Jeremy Corbyn, proving that political parties can go out of their minds; and
2) The Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as recently as 2001, showing that political insanity is not confined to Labour.
House of Lords by-election candidates should simply submit their Burke's Peerage entry for perusal and consideration.
That is Bullshit, Nick. Statutory quotas if affirmative action doesn't work is trying a racist policy and making it law if it doesn't work.
We are not in post apartheid South Africa
From Khans website
"I will introduce quotas to make the Met look more like Londoners, vows Sadiq Khan
"So I will be clear: as London Mayor I will introduce affirmative action and get the Met looking more like the London we live in. "
http://www.sadiq.london/i_will_introduce_quotas_to_make_the_met_look_more_like_londoners_vows_sadiq_khan
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/10/02/five-reasons-why-zac-goldsmith-will-be-difficult-for-labour-
The right policy to encourage those from disadvantaged groups is by making sure you're not being biased against them. You can make sure CVs from such groups get a second check if they get rejected. You can go to those communities and encourage them to apply. You can even coach them closely to make sure their intrinsic skills are coming through and aren't being obscured by a lack of polish. But no large commercial organisation would hire the worse candidate just because they were Muslim.
I do not see why police is any different from banking: it's important that people get a fair shot at both.
Perhaps it will not matter to most Khan voters, given that Labour in London seem to support an IRA supporter in the top job, but but the question is whether it matters at the margin where the median voter is.
Dislikes: campaigning
You would probably have said something similar about Margaret Thatcher had you been about in the 1970s.
**Or "The collection of cities, towns and hamlets of North Britain" if your Labour inclined.
Edited extra bit: forgive the tautological nonsense, was distracted by the telephone.
Rightly or wrongly, is this trend significant enough to have an effect on London 2016?
One of the problems with your approach: skin colour, sexuality, gender etc is that it is focusing on the wrong thing. What you want - and need - in any organisation is a diversity of perspectives overlaid over strong core values (integrity etc). The fact that people come from different backgrounds, cultures, speak different languages, have different life experiences, come from a different class will often give people different and valuable perspectives and that is what you want to tap into.
But to concentrate on the package it comes wrapped up in is to confuse the wrapping with the content. White people have lots of different perspectives. Black middle class lawyers with a public school education probably share very similar perspectives to white middle class lawyers with a public school education. By focusing on skin colour only (to take an example) you miss the very different perspectives available amongst a group with one characteristic and overlook the similarities between people with different characteristics while congratulating yourself on your supposed diversity.
It's the diversity of perspectives which matter not the packaging they come in.
Ignoring this is one reason why Labour - for all its supposed commitment to diversity - sounds so samey and seems so intolerant of anyone not coming out with the same received opinion.
Some Friday rugby entertainment. Not for the squeamish England fan.
Not unexpected from your likes.
[As an aside, I do think Marcellus, Nero and, especially, Quintus Fabius Maximus don't get quite the recognition they deserve. Who can fail to be impressed by the Cunctator's cunning?].
As JEO says, there are plenty of efforts one can make before moving to quotas (though some of those he suggests do constitute preferential treatment too), but they don't always work. We've had exactly this discussion about all-women's shortlists (and Cameron's A-list, an informal way of achieving the same thing). Nobody is exactly keen on them, but they transformed Parliament in a way that lots of projects to encourage women didn't.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, David Cohen's series of detailed articles about the Angell Estate in Brixton, which the Evening Standard have been running this week, is compelling reading, and exceptionally good journalism. The first article is here:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/special-investigation-the-standard-launches-a-hardhitting-series-on-life-on-notorious-brixton-a2956876.html
As someone who canvassed for the Tories in a marginal, MarqueeMark is right we need a continuity Cameron. Owen Paterson isn't that
For a proper ass whooping of Romans see the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.
There will be many Tory threads in the coming days and Friday morning's are generally for Don Brind's slot as Saturdays are for David Herdson.
I read she claimed that climate change was responsible for the rise of ISIS.....??????
Owen Paterson will not be Dave's successor.
This is probably the correct line from the Gov't.
Open ended support to SSI would have just involved pumping cash at very high risk for practically zip reward into SSI's incredibly shaky balance sheet. It'd have been a bailout of Thai banks moreso than anything else.
Looks more like administration than liquidation, per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
Wikipedia's not perfect, but the estimate is at least two and a half times more at Cannae, maybe close to five times more.
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, Mr. Eagles can be a bit of a tinker.
Of course he's a long shot - for a starter, for the bet to come in requires an Out vote.
But if there is an Out vote, the whole field will be shaken up and it won't be a Continuity Cameron candidate. It probably won't even be an existing Cabinet member, or at least not a prominent one.
Even if I'm wrong, I worry about the underlying resentment and alienation that many feel towards these sort of policy - and toward authority in general - which may at some point explode, either politically or in terms of actual violence.
(Not an expert on this company at all genuinely confused)
"I'd like to thank you for all of your help and support over the last few months. It has been an energetic campaign and I'm grateful for the many opportunities I’ve had to talk to people from right across the capital about their priorities.
I'd particularly like to pay tribute to fellow candidates Stephen Greenhalgh, Andrew Boff AM and Syed Kamall MEP. I have seen first hand that they are all dedicated and hard-working public servants who entered this race because they care about our city as much as I do. I have learnt from them and I look forward to campaigning with them to keep City Hall Conservative. "
http://www.backzac2016.com/
"Some Friday rugby entertainment. Not for the squeamish England fan."
Very funny.
However their new alert quite clearly states that "SSI UK, owners of the mothballed Redcar steelworks where 1,700 jobs are at stake, goes into liquidation".
Those two things are, of course, not inconsistent.
Sadiq Khan won't be mayor, he doesn't reach across the divide like Ken and Boris. My parents voted for Ken in 2000 and 2004 and both are staunchly centre-right. I can't see them voting for Khan, but they would have considered Jowell.
Khan is the wrong candidate for London, he is Old Labour in a New Labour city, Zac looks much more like New Labour than Khan.
I'm not having a go at your publishing choices, hence the word amusing rather than bias. The fact that Zac's election is so unsurprising that there's been no need to replace this thread with a new one over nine hours and nearly four hundred posts after this one was posted says more about the competition Zac hasn't faced to get elected than it does about your publishing choices.
Hope that makes sense.
And the obsession with mathematical representation is plain daft. I don't need my doctor to be representative of me. I need him or her to be skilled and empathetic. Ditto re the police etc. My son - who happens to be gay - hates being labelled as that as if that's the only thing that defines him, as if it should be assumed that he has more in common with other gay people purely because of that and not a whole load of other people whom he likes, shares interests with etc. And you can say that about any other category of people.
People are infinitely interesting and varied. Labelling them by one characteristic and basing your behaviours and policy around that flattens and eliminates variety, the variety of people, rather than the deadliness of taxonomy.
"Zac and Sad"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political_news/13798632.SNP_MPs__property_portfolio/
According to the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests, 16 SNP MPs list property interests from which most receive rental income....
"*Michelle Thomson(Edinburgh West).
Two residential properties in Edinburgh, one in Falkirk, one on the Isle of Bute, one in East Calder, one in Stirling, one in Dollar, a half share of a property in Edinburgh and a quarter share of a property in Edinburgh (i/ii)."
Why should people be defined by xyz and made to fit that stereotype?
White boys are the ones that are getting special classes for them in London schools now, because for years the establishment has cast them aside in favour of their latest identity obsession
Linlithgow
SNP 2049
Lab 1087
No number for Tories but they were a clear second in 2012 and now Labour are. Currently doing the second round count. No idea on other numbers but looking like SNP HOLD.
Stirling East
SNP 1311
Lab 1094
Con 343
Green 152
SNP HOLD on the third round of counting SNP 1388 Lab 1272
A similar attitude is seen in the left wing response to the housing crisis. "Housing costs are too high, we're struggling to improve supply quickly enough and we are ideologically against addressing demand, so let's just legally mandate rents to be set". Except of course, the mismatch of supply and demand is still there, so you end up with huge waiting lists and a bigger problem.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/649910665927389184
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/649910355544641537
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/649911043737657345
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/649911440892129280
SNP Held Irvine Valley and Glenrothes.
These are new results just out.
From the look of it, the Green vote split with a slight favour to the SNP but the Tory vote basically dropped out without a further preference. Less than half the Tory vote transferred to Labour the rest preferring not to register a second preference.
That is a distinct warning sign for anyone expecting tactical voting to help the Loyalist parties in the 2016 Holyrood vote.