Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London might be a Labour city but it has only won the mayor
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London might be a Labour city but it has only won the mayoralty once
One of the biggest UK political battles and what will certainly be a big political betting event will be next year’s race for the London will between Zac Goldsmith for the Blues and Sadiq Khan for the Reds.
0
Comments
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12475/10054104/red-bull-owner-dietrich-mateschitz-rules-out-using-renault-engines-in-2016
And the less said the better about Saqid and his racial quotas.
It's likely to be more nuanced than this, with religion and national ancestry having some bearing on just how open the different parts of the 'Asian' community are to Khan.
"A big unknown is what’ll happen to the UKIP vote"
They'll vote for Goldsmith to stop Khan.
I would also disagree that it is "Asian" communities generally that will go to Sadiq... it is Muslim communities specifically I would think...lumping them all in together is a bit... well
In my constituency, Hx and Upmnister, UKIP canvassing pre GE15 found quite big support in the Indian community in Emerson Park, I wouldn't think that was the case in the Islamic States of Tower Hamlets and Newham
Heathrow is of course a major wildcard in this: those voters for whom this is the principal issue are more likely to be convinced by Zac's position than Sadiq's, because Sadiq's opposition to Heathrow expansion looks purely opportunistic. On the other hand, if and when the government announces that it accepts the Davies recommendation, the intensity of the row is going to eclipse anything we've seen since 2010, and that introduces some considerable unpredictability because of the political fallout.
I think the odds on the first round leader NOT winning are probably longer than most people expect; a large number of voters just don't realise how this works. IIRC, under half of all voters who went with a candidate other than Boris or Ken as a 1st pref actually used a 2nd pref to vote for Boris or Ken in 2012. They either didn't bother or picked another no-hoper.
I don't have a stat to back this up, but I believe it is very rare for 2nd prefs to overturn the 1st round leader with this system. I can recall a Doncaster Mayoral vote and Prescott losing a PCC election. It's going to have to be very, very close in the first round for it to happen.
If someone independent and willing to recognise the urgency and importance of Heathrow expansion to London and indeed to the UK generally was standing I would be seriously tempted. As Mike says party loyalty is less important for the Mayoralty but no one should underestimate how much organisation is going to be necessary to get a campaign running. I reckon if we haven't had such a candidate come forward by the end of this month it will be too late.
England's spinners are 195-1. For a third innings on a live pitch, that's just not good enough.
Having kids changed my view on this as I've suddenly become much more aware of vehicle fumes and more sympathetic to trying to reduce them.
Vatican’s bill for sainthood is €750,000, corruption book reveals http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4603857.ece
Incidentally, Gatwick is in some considerable trouble locally. They changed the flight patterns a couple of years ago, without telling anyone, and then for some incomprehensible reason lied to residents and MPs, claiming that they hadn't changed anything. The effect of the changes was to greatly narrow the approach routes, so some residents in places like Crowborough are experiencing horrendous disturbance, which (unlike at Heathrow) continues all night. People affected are very, very angry. Belatedly, Gatwick seems to have woken up to the PR disaster and have commissioned consultants to try to sort out the mess.
That said I want Peter Whittle to do well
http://imgur.com/p7INg8L
This is what I said about them:
"Livingstone went into the London Mayoral and Assembly elections in 2012 carrying a commanding lead in London-only voting intention polls – something like 16%. Whilst a significant number of Londoners used the opportunity to vote Green, or for one of London’s independents, Labour still recorded a strong result in the assembly elections. Livingstone, as we know, missed out.
The data suggests that Johnson’s victory was all the more remarkable. Livingstone failed to capture the votes of people who were not only prepared to vote Labour – and would do so in 2015 – but actually voted Labour that day in 2012, just on a different ballot paper. The above suggests that Livingstone missed out on 5% or so of votes which would have seen him over the line (the allocation of 2nd preferences being marginally in Livingstone’s favour).
Polling at the time showed this effect was contributed to by both the relative popularity of Boris (and satisfaction with the job he was doing as Mayor) and the unpopularity of Livingstone, even among Labour voters. Forced choice questions put Johnson consistently ahead even as the Conservatives trailed miserably in the polls.
Few people would consider the above history lesson controversial, but it does not appear to have been properly factored in to how people view the upcoming 2016 contest. Sadiq Khan does not have the baggage among Labour voters that Livingstone did, nor does Goldsmith having the seemingly inexplicable personal support of Johnson. Neither does he have the track record that Johnson had in 2012 of four years in post – his political career has barely begun.
Equally some of that polling support Livingstone enjoyed has been hardened into a general election result which saw Labour make a healthy four gains from the Conservatives, as well as a strong set of Assembly results in 2012 to add into the mix.
Goldsmith will need to work hard to create an advantage to rival that of his predecessor as Conservative candidate. The opportunities are out there for him to exploit, but they are not yet in hand.
Khan will almost certainly have about the same advantage in voting intention to Livingstone – but I wouldn’t bet on him missing the opportunity as much as his predecessor."
Most people still don't know what TTIP is - but they will.
Whilst personally disgusted by Khan's ethnic quotas, unless that gets more coverage it won't sink in and affect the vote (to his disadvantage).
You don't need to login a 2nd time to get rid of the vertical bar - just refresh the page.
The vertical bar is caused by vanilla reloading the whole page inside its section of the page when you login.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/661850149333901312
Incidentally I have worked for Gatwick as a consultant, looking at future flight paths and the noise implications. Sorry to hear that they've dropped such an avoidable clanger.
Knowing them, I'd view it as cock-up followed by panicked arse-covering, rather than a conspiracy.
But I accept there might be a new cohort also shaping the equation (but it would reinforce the point being made, if anything).
Oh hold on 'She added: "I knew she drank vodka, but I didn’t know exactly how much." ' barely mentioned...
"From a personal point of view 1.Ease of movement 2. Ease of working 3. Ease of living 4.Knowing that all European countries have common standards so unlike Turkey or Egypt (For example) I know I won't get poisoned by drinking the water 5. A feeling of community and shared values 6. All the individual cultural quirks of dozens of diverse and brilliant countries 7. A wonderful mix of nationalities and languages working in dozens of glorious cities etc
I have a horrible feeling that too many here just don't go away enough to see and enjoy those delights"
I share all these. Having lived abroad, with Italian as my mother tongue & 3 other languages & not English at all, I resent the idea that those who are sceptical about the EU's current political, organizational state & its current trajectory are somehow ignorant or dismissive of the delights you describe.
So:
1. Ease of movement. Yes - a good thing, generally. But not without costs. It's what those costs are, whether they outweigh the good, on whom they fall and how they can be mitigated which needs addressing. People from the UK and Ireland travelled round Europe before 1973 and it was really rather easy. I know because I spent much of my young life on trains travelling between all the members of my family in Europe.
2. Ease of working. Yes. See also 1.
3. Ease of living. Not sure what you mean by this. What has the EU to do with this? What makes it easy to live in another country is a desire to integrate fully into it and speak the language.
4. In theory, yes. In practice, no. Italy was in the EU when in the 1970's Naples had real problems with its water supply - the water came out brown from the taps and you had to let it run for quite a while before using it. Huge fun for us children. Less so for my mother, I imagine. The EU has done sod all to lessen the corruption and control by criminal gangs such as the Mafia. If you think the treatment of rubbish in Campania is of the same standard as in Camden, you need your head examining.
5. Shared European values existed before the EU and will exist after it is long gone. I worry that the EU's rather reductive view of what it means to be European will be more likely to damage European values. Values don't come from bureaucrats and they are not imposed by diktats.
7. Agreed - but just repeats 1 & 2.
I think one of the glories of Europe is the immense variety within its countries, the fact that when you are in Naples you are there and could not think that you were in any other city, that it is as different to Venice as Barrow is to Munich. I hate the flattening out of differences, such as you see in many English cities where the high streets are all the same, and I think that the desire for uniformity, for tidiness by bureaucrats needs to be resisted.
Vive la difference!
Theodore Dalrymple:
"The other day I found myself somewhere in which the nearest pub was the only place within easy reach in which to have dinner. It was in suburban Tudor style, and the first thing one noticed on entering were the flashing lights of fruit machines, closely followed by the numerous large flat screens disposed in such a way that it was almost impossible to escape them. It was if one had an absolute duty to watch, and as if a malign state had installed them with cameras in order to check that one was being amused.
There was a small mercy, however: at least all the screens were showing the same thing - a football match, football being now a 24-hour activity. I have been in pubs of many screens in which each showed something different and one felt that one's brain was being put through a food mixer."
http://www.salisburyreview.com/Tony_blogs/fat.html
http://youtu.be/EhyrjbvDHT8
Minor parties do badly even in the first round. The mayoralty race itself encourages a "squeeze", clearly. (Perhaps a lesson in AV would help.)
Transfers in the second round show a relatively small differential. I haven't calculated what proportion even give a second preference, may check this later.
I reckon you're money's safe Shadsy.
As shadsy notes, too many voters don't understand the system and will either not cast a second vote or will cast an entirely pointless second vote. First preferences will probably determine this and first preferences will probably favour the Labour candidate in a city that is firmly trending towards Labour at present, given the lack of strong personality to overcome that general trend.
EDIT: The concentration probably allowed them to reduce the noise contours, but at the expense of the unlucky few in the middle!
People are allowed the freedom to step out of their usual political loyalties and have a bit of fun.
OE WUC Zac does not have enough FY quotient to swing it IMO. No matter how many right-on self-funded magazines he presided over.
The Pepsi max element is just DM clickbait.
I'm not sure that's happened before with regard to transfers, when people like @isam suggest ignoring the system and voting for Zac over Sadiq on the first vote the value of the bet quickly disappears.
Unfortunately I had a meeting rescheduled for tomorrow so won't be there, that's good reason to expect a fantastic day's cricket!
Caffeine needs to be taken seriously. I love my coffee but restrict my caffeine intake (at a high but not too high level).
http://www.londonelects.org.uk/download/file/fid/512
Nearly 20% of voters only voted for one candidate.
Note that Siobhan Benita, Carlos Cortliglia, Jenny Jones, Brian Paddick and Lawrence Webb all received more second preference votes than first preference votes. In a system where only the top two get to have second preference votes count for them and in a race where it was abundantly clear from a long way out that the top two were going to be Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, this shows an awful lot of voter ignorance.
It's also worth noting that Ken Livingstone was more transfer-friendly than Boris Johnson. Something to ponder, I'd say.
Failing that, you could spoil your ballot. Or write-in 'Morris Dancer'.
[I am aware write-ins don't count in the UK, but as I've already received a write-in to be Governor of California, I thought I might add to my democratic portfolio].
(I'm not sure, incidentally, that this, or putting a no-hoper as a second pref, necessarily indicates ignorance of how the system works: it might simply be voters honestly giving their first and second prefs, which is after all the question asked).
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/657651.html
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/661862352661438464
Edit: Got the bugger! One more to go
Anyway, I'm posting from Firefox; although I usually browse with Safari (Yosemite), posting doesn't work there.
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-11-04/edinbridge-bonfire-guy-set-to-be-sepp-blatter/
England 2.48 / 2.52
Draw 23 / 25
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/cricket/event?id=27539568
I read all the Airport Commission's report, and they generally did a good job (you could argue that their remit was wrong, but that's a different matter).
If you don't like the idea of the government / ISPs snooping on you anyway, I suggest signing up for a service anyway. It is good for your own privacy, part of general online security strategy (especially when out and about connecting to public wifi) and Brucie bonus of if for instance you like your US telly lets you watch the episodes hosted on the official sites.
Note:- The spooks can still tap into these secure connections, but that isn't what this new law is about.
Edited extra bit: that is to say, the measures aren't as obnoxious as before
I, of course, am as obnoxious as ever.
Perhaps in order to save time just copy her Westminster address into all emails.
Good start.