Tykojohno.. Of course the Tories are the nasty racist party..and Labour are the "Make the White Folks Angry party...spot the difference.. Abbott is a total fool..
Tykojohno.. Of course the Tories are the nasty racist party..and Labour are the "Make the White Folks Angry party...spot the difference.. Abbott is a total fool..
Richard,wasn't to bothered on her attacking the party line but was bothered that sky news let that woman have air time attacking other people on racism,she's not pure when it comes to that subject.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness.
I have to say the ticket prices don't sound that bad. I am going to see ELO at Nottingham in April and the tickets are £90 a pop. I would generally expect to pay between £60 and £100 for one of the bigger rock acts these days. I know that isn't the sort of concert you were necessarily talking about but still less than £60 a ticket does not sound excessive to me.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness.
Ed was right: there is a cost of living crisis. You are the squeezed middle AICMFP.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness.
I go the proms once or twice a season, and I regard the upper gallery as offering quite good value. You're along way from the arena, but the view is still unrestricted (and there's nothing to stop you taking binoculars). The tickets are roughly one third of the cost of the ones in the stalls.
Quite right, Mr. Nashe, and given the choice that would be my preference too, one is there to listen not watch after all. However, if I booked seats in the "Gods" as she would see it then I would never hear the end of the matter.
Thankfully, my other half is a little more tolerant ... and has a head for heights.
I recall a few years ago ordering two large glasses of white plonk during the interval, and being a little surprised by the negligible amount of change I got from a £20 note. So my advice would be to ensure that she's either fully satiated beforehand, or prepared to wait for refreshment until after the show!
Or you could do what my other half has been known to do and bring your own fine wine carefully secreted in one of those silver drinking flasks......
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness.
I have to say the ticket prices don't sound that bad. I am going to see ELO at Nottingham in April and the tickets are £90 a pop. I would generally expect to pay between £60 and £100 for one of the bigger rock acts these days. I know that isn't the sort of concert you were necessarily talking about but still less than £60 a ticket does not sound excessive to me.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness.
Scrooge McLlama!
Mum and I went to the first day of the ATP Tennis at the O2 in London in November 2014, and tickets for the afternoon session (two matches, best of three sets) were £73 each.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
If I vote at all, I might opt for Siobhan Benita on the grounds that she at least backs Heathrow expansion, as I do. But it's not even clear whether she will be standing, and she hardly made much of an impact last time out.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Yes, unless you have another second preference and believe they may come in the top 2. It's not really AV at all, as too many votes are discarded at the second stage (nearly half of them last time).
By the way, does anyone have any knowledge of possible independent candidates standing? Would there be room for someone, maybe the English Democrats, standing under a banner of "Just get on with building the damn runway, in fact lets build two while we're at it as there's hundreds of thousands of jobs and opportunities for Londoners of all trades and classes in having a world class airport to go with our world class city?"
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Yes, unless you have another second preference and believe they may come in the top 2. It's not really AV at all, as too many votes are discarded at the second stage (nearly half of them last time).
By the way, does anyone have any knowledge of possible independent candidates standing? Would there be room for someone, maybe the English Democrats, standing under a banner of "Just get on with building the damn runway, in fact lets build two while we're at it as there's hundreds of thousands of jobs and opportunities for Londoners of all trades and classes in having a world class airport to go with our world class city?"
This gives some indication of possible independents:
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
Correct. But your point was there is no point putting in a 2nd preference. There is.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness.
I have to say the ticket prices don't sound that bad. I am going to see ELO at Nottingham in April and the tickets are £90 a pop. I would generally expect to pay between £60 and £100 for one of the bigger rock acts these days. I know that isn't the sort of concert you were necessarily talking about but still less than £60 a ticket does not sound excessive to me.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
Correct. But your point was there is no point putting in a 2nd preference. There is.
Where did I say there was no point? I just pointed out the limited parameters for doing so.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
There are vague plans to protect Nottingham by allowing land much further upstream to flood; basically creating a series of floodable areas to take excess water.
Which seems fine, until you live in one of those villages ...
I haven't heard much about that scheme for a couple of years.
As a strong Labour supporter , I sometime shake my head to understand why Labour is against the 3rd runway at Heathrow.
Policies like this should not be made on how many MPs will be hurt by this.
The 3rd runway will create jobs and later the larger Heathrow complex will create more permanent jobs.
I will support Cameron when he makes the U-turn.
Anyone who bought a house in the flight path knew exactly where Heathrow was, as the Airport has been in the same place since 1946.
Aircrafts are quieter now than it has ever been and getting quieter still.
If the Khan campaign had taken the opposite view then the whole of the next five months would have been dominated by LHR3 with the risk to LAB of turnout being higher in the parts of London most affected which are, in the main, more Tory-orientated.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
Correct. But your point was there is no point putting in a 2nd preference. There is.
Where did I say there was no point? I just pointed out the limited parameters for doing so.
Sorry ! My mistake. You did write "no point if either Zac or Sadiq" was the first pref.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Yes, unless you have another second preference and believe they may come in the top 2. It's not really AV at all, as too many votes are discarded at the second stage (nearly half of them last time).
By the way, does anyone have any knowledge of possible independent candidates standing? Would there be room for someone, maybe the English Democrats, standing under a banner of "Just get on with building the damn runway, in fact lets build two while we're at it as there's hundreds of thousands of jobs and opportunities for Londoners of all trades and classes in having a world class airport to go with our world class city?"
This gives some indication of possible independents:
Not particularly inspiring, and no stridently pro-Heathrow candidate.
There must be millions of Londoners who wouldn't be affected by the noise (planes are getting quieter with each generation anyway), would welcome either a job at the airport or its construction, an expanded range of destinations and frequencies, or just have less hassle when they go on holiday - or am I completely wrong here?
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
And way more people than would be expected here don't understand the system, either not using their second preference, or not casting it for one of the top two candidates.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
Correct. But your point was there is no point putting in a 2nd preference. There is.
Where did I say there was no point? I just pointed out the limited parameters for doing so.
Sorry ! My mistake. You did write "no point if either Zac or Sadiq" was the first pref.
As a strong Labour supporter , I sometime shake my head to understand why Labour is against the 3rd runway at Heathrow.
Policies like this should not be made on how many MPs will be hurt by this.
The 3rd runway will create jobs and later the larger Heathrow complex will create more permanent jobs.
I will support Cameron when he makes the U-turn.
Anyone who bought a house in the flight path knew exactly where Heathrow was, as the Airport has been in the same place since 1946.
Aircrafts are quieter now than it has ever been and getting quieter still.
If the Khan campaign had taken the opposite view then the whole of the next five months would have been dominated by LHR3 with the risk to LAB of turnout being higher in the parts of London most affected which are, in the main, more Tory-orientated.
You are probably correct. Assuming, Cameron does indeed overturn the current policy, should Mayor Khan just issue a statement saying how awful it is and be quietly happy as billions are poured into London.
What does Mayor Goldsmith do ? The same I guess.
We should not forget that Harriet actually supported the third runway. We should have had her as our Leader. Who knows she still might be one day soon !
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
Oh no, how does it work then?
If you voted for Ken then it didn't matter a jot if Boris was your second choice. Not one single Ken voter who voted Boris second choice helped Boris win. Second votes only count when your first choice is eliminated.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
Oh no, how does it work then?
See link: if your candidate is eliminated (IE, Galloway) and your 2nd pref is one of top 2 (clearly Khan and Zac) then that 2nd vote counts. So, my point is correct isn't it. Galloway then Khan still stands for Khan! Right?
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
Oh no, how does it work then?
See link: if your candidate is eliminated (IE, Galloway) and your 2nd pref is one of top 2 (clearly Khan and Zac) then that 2nd vote counts. So, my point is correct isn't it. Galloway then Khan still stands for Khan! Right?
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
Oh no, how does it work then?
See link: if your candidate is eliminated (IE, Galloway) and your 2nd pref is one of top 2 (clearly Khan and Zac) then that 2nd vote counts. So, my point is correct isn't it. Galloway then Khan still stands for Khan! Right?
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
Oh no, how does it work then?
See link: if your candidate is eliminated (IE, Galloway) and your 2nd pref is one of top 2 (clearly Khan and Zac) then that 2nd vote counts. So, my point is correct isn't it. Galloway then Khan still stands for Khan! Right?
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
You have put it far better than me. Your knowledge is also better.
But in our adversarial political system, such decisions will always be controversial. Sometimes the Europeans clearly do it better.
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Currently, I'd predict a Tory lead of about 3-4% in the locals, which should see Sadiq in, and will then give PBTories the vapours because he dares to suggest more non-white people should be policemen.
I would expect the national share to be very similar, certainly not the scale of the GE, I agree on the 3-4% ahead, but I think if they are that far ahead on the vote they'll keep London mayoralty.
I wonder how the second preferences will go in the mayoral vote...
I think Boris and Ken got about 40% first preferences last time. The view was that more Lib Dems went with Boris, plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. UKIP, the view is, mainly went for Boris. That pushed Boris over 50%.
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
Please get some elementary lessons on how this works.
Oh no, how does it work then?
See link: if your candidate is eliminated (IE, Galloway) and your 2nd pref is one of top 2 (clearly Khan and Zac) then that 2nd vote counts. So, my point is correct isn't it. Galloway then Khan still stands for Khan! Right?
If Labour get within 10% of the Tories in the National Vote Share in the local elections on that day, then IMO they should win London. Boris only defied the national trend in 2012 because (for whatever reason) he has such more appeal to young people than any other Tory does.
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Yes, unless you have another second preference and believe they may come in the top 2. It's not really AV at all, as too many votes are discarded at the second stage (nearly half of them last time).
By the way, does anyone have any knowledge of possible independent candidates standing? Would there be room for someone, maybe the English Democrats, standing under a banner of "Just get on with building the damn runway, in fact lets build two while we're at it as there's hundreds of thousands of jobs and opportunities for Londoners of all trades and classes in having a world class airport to go with our world class city?"
This gives some indication of possible independents:
Not particularly inspiring, and no stridently pro-Heathrow candidate.
There must be millions of Londoners who wouldn't be affected by the noise (planes are getting quieter with each generation anyway), would welcome either a job at the airport,or in construction, an expanded range of destinations and frequencies, or just have less hassle when they go on holiday - or am I completely wrong here?
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Insurers presumably have a detailed map which they share about where flooding has occurred, and more particularly where they've paid out - is this map available generally?
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
There are vague plans to protect Nottingham by allowing land much further upstream to flood; basically creating a series of floodable areas to take excess water.
Which seems fine, until you live in one of those villages ...
I haven't heard much about that scheme for a couple of years.
But in the scheme of things that, at a macro level, is correct ! What is not correct is we have a new "village" of 500 in a flood plain and to protect that a village of a thousand is put in harm's way.
I guess houses were built on flood plains because that is where there was least planning objections. Sometimes, you cannot blame the politicians.
We need 200,000 houses built every year. All parties agree [ maybe, not UKIP ]. Where do you build them without lawyers getting seriously rich ?
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
Re the flooding in York I heard a businessman say that he should not have been flooded but he agreed with the Environment Agency decision to raise the barrier as it prevented 10,000 more homes being flooded. Very generous comment by him and why is this consequence not featured by the media
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
The flooding in newbuild floodplain developments should be in part compensated by the architects. There should be a diminishing responsibility though - the architects of York Minster (which perhaps has never flooded) shouldn't have felt the same burden as the architects of the new houses on Lower Swamp Lane.
I wonder how Fitalass and family are doing ? Haven't heard from her lately. But I hear parts of West Aberdeen shire is also flooded. I don't know where she lives though.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
There are vague plans to protect Nottingham by allowing land much further upstream to flood; basically creating a series of floodable areas to take excess water.
Which seems fine, until you live in one of those villages ...
I haven't heard much about that scheme for a couple of years.
But in the scheme of things that, at a macro level, is correct ! What is not correct is we have a new "village" of 500 in a flood plain and to protect that a village of a thousand is put in harm's way.
I guess houses were built on flood plains because that is where there was least planning objections. Sometimes, you cannot blame the politicians.
We need 200,000 houses built every year. All parties agree [ maybe, not UKIP ]. Where do you build them without lawyers getting seriously rich ?
The problem in this case being that, AIUI, there has been much more development in 'floodable' areas in Nottingham since the 1947 floods than in the 'old' villages further upstream.
Houses were often built on floodplains for many reasons. One of the major is that our forebears were not stupid. They knew the land that normally flooded, and that which did not. They therefore built on the land that generally did not flood. (*) (As an example, see the overhead photos from ?Gloucester/Cirencester? after the floods a few years back, where the cathedral and old town was left dry). But as demand for housing in those towns grew, the flatter, low-level areas became much more valuable, even if they did have downsides that were 'forgotten'.
Also, bad practice means that even new housing developments on high, unfloodable ground adds to the problem. Hence the localised flooding we see, which are little to do with watercourses. Thank goodness for SuDS!
(*) A notable exception to this is where there were other reasons for building near the water, e.g. wharves and warehouses, along with the attendant housing and peripheries.
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
Correct. But your point was there is no point putting in a 2nd preference. There is.
No, it wasn't.
To quote [my emphasis]: "there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac"
He's probably overstating slightly, but there is a very low probability that the two candidates in round 2 won't be Sadiq and Zac.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Ha, Easier to start again than try and sort out the messed up quotes!
That was my thinking too, I can only guess that those who are anti-runway are very much opposed and will vote accordingly, whereas those in favour aren't likely to see it as a vote-swinging issue.
The decision by the government a couple of weeks back to postpone the decision looked very politically convenient, so it will end up being be the elephant in the room of the mayoral campaign. It really should be front and centre.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Certainly, all the canvassing I do agree with that. No to 3rd doesn't work in Tooting for example and not much interest in Battersea.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Agreed. Also all neighbouring constituencies will not necessarily be opposed. I bet Feltham and Southall residents who work in Heathrow will be quite happy with the expansion. It is the airport which provides their and their children's bread.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
Re the flooding in York I heard a businessman say that he should not have been flooded but he agreed with the Environment Agency decision to raise the barrier as it prevented 10,000 more homes being flooded. Very generous comment by him and why is this consequence not featured by the media
They said on t'radio that the barriers were lifted due to failure of pumps. If I heard that correctly, it would be interesting to know where the pumps were pumping to and from. But water management is very complex even in 'simple' cases ...
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
If with you Mr Dixie - Tooting is on the up!
My niece is about to move there. Although she's a staunch Labour voter I can't imagine that she'd live anywhere that wasn't solidly Tory.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Is that the reason why we are going to have 600 seats ? It is called Gerrymandering.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
Went through part of it a few months ago - looked like a shithole to me.
I don't see it going Conservative unless Labour completely implode.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness."
By the time I have added in the train to the Smoke, a hotel for the night (last train back tends to be tight unless wanting to ruin a lovely evening on the midnight milk train) dinner and a little light shopping the ticket for the Ballet at the ROH for Dr and Mrs Fox is only a minor part of the bill. Go the whole hog and get a decent seat.
The purpose is to build up enough points to be permitted a weekend away at an airshow or similar. The key is to book the latter while the glow of the first still persists!
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
Went through part of it a few months ago - looked like a shithole to me.
I don't see it going Conservative unless Labour completely implode.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
Went through part of it a few months ago - looked like a shithole to me.
I don't see it going Conservative unless Labour completely implode.
it is only the centre, Earslfield and Wandsworth Common are part of Tooting. Very middle class.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Ha, Easier to start again than try and sort out the messed up quotes!
That was my thinking too, I can only guess that those who are anti-runway are very much opposed and will vote accordingly, whereas those in favour aren't likely to see it as a vote-swinging issue.
The decision by the government a couple of weeks back to postpone the decision looked very politically convenient, so it will end up being be the elephant in the room of the mayoral campaign. It really should be front and centre.
Politically convenient, yes, but also legally necessary.
As I've been saying for years, the government really needs to sort out the abuse of judicial review by well funded pressure groups. Since they haven't, the additional environmental studies were necessary to avoid litigation (it probably won't avoid the court case in any event, but it will demonstrate that they have done everything reasonable).
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
Parts of York right now. Villages in the Trent Valley back in 2000 which were flooded for the first time in history because of the building - both housing estates and industrial estates on the floodplains around Carlton.
There are cases like this all over the place. Those are two I am immediately aware of without even looking them up.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Is that the reason why we are going to have 600 seats ? It is called Gerrymandering.
The Boundary Commission is non party-political and it's up to them although, of course, the political parties will try to influence the outcome.
Basically, there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac. And if your first preference is for someone else, then you should only use your second preference to indicate whether you'd prefer Sadiq or Zac.
It's not really proper AV at all!
Of course, there is a point in indicating your 2nd , 3rd preferences. A Green voter could put Sadiq as his 2nd pref [ or whomsoever ] . Likewise a kipper could give the Tories his / her 2nd pref.
That way all votes ultimately count.
You don't get to indicate a third preference: 1,2 only.
Correct. But your point was there is no point putting in a 2nd preference. There is.
No, it wasn't.
To quote [my emphasis]: "there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac"
He's probably overstating slightly, but there is a very low probability that the two candidates in round 2 won't be Sadiq and Zac.
I already said, "Sorry !", perhaps to the wrong person !
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Is that the reason why we are going to have 600 seats ? It is called Gerrymandering.
It was in the manifesto of the winning party. The government has a mandate to reduce the number of MPs.
Anyway, Labour don't lose from enlarging the constituencies as much as they do from equalisation. The notional majority in a 650 Parliament would still be around 30-40 with equal boundaries compared to 14 at the moment. Equalisation is not gerrymandering, in fact it was Labour who let it slide for so long because they knew de-urbanisation of eligible favoured them. We haven't had new boundaries since 2005, by 2020 it will have been 15 years, are you really trying to pretend that there hasn't been any movement of eligible people in the last 15 years?
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
Parts of York right now. Villages in the Trent Valley back in 2000 which were flooded for the first time in history because of the building - both housing estates and industrial estates on the floodplains around Carlton.
There are cases like this all over the place. Those are two I am immediately aware of without even looking them up.
And these areas had 'never previously flooded' ?
(I'm teaching a grandmother to suck eggs, but it's important to differentiate between localised flooding and riverine flooding.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Ha, Easier to start again than try and sort out the messed up quotes!
That was my thinking too, I can only guess that those who are anti-runway are very much opposed and will vote accordingly, whereas those in favour aren't likely to see it as a vote-swinging issue.
The decision by the government a couple of weeks back to postpone the decision looked very politically convenient, so it will end up being be the elephant in the room of the mayoral campaign. It really should be front and centre.
Politically convenient, yes, but also legally necessary.
As I've been saying for years, the government really needs to sort out the abuse of judicial review by well funded pressure groups. Since they haven't, the additional environmental studies were necessary to avoid litigation (it probably won't avoid the court case in any event, but it will demonstrate that they have done everything reasonable).
Although Zac says he didn't want teh answer to be kicked past the Mayoral election. he wanted a 'no' now.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
There are vague plans to protect Nottingham by allowing land much further upstream to flood; basically creating a series of floodable areas to take excess water.
Which seems fine, until you live in one of those villages ...
I haven't heard much about that scheme for a couple of years.
But in the scheme of things that, at a macro level, is correct ! What is not correct is we have a new "village" of 500 in a flood plain and to protect that a village of a thousand is put in harm's way.
I guess houses were built on flood plains because that is where there was least planning objections. Sometimes, you cannot blame the politicians.
We need 200,000 houses built every year. All parties agree [ maybe, not UKIP ]. Where do you build them without lawyers getting seriously rich ?
The problem in this case being that, AIUI, there has been much more development in 'floodable' areas in Nottingham since the 1947 floods than in the 'old' villages further upstream.
Houses were often built on floodplains for many reasons. One of the major is that our forebears were not stupid. They knew the land that normally flooded, and that which did not. They therefore built on the land that generally did not flood. (*) (As an example, see the overhead photos from ?Gloucester/Cirencester? after the floods a few years back, where the cathedral and old town was left dry). But as demand for housing in those towns grew, the flatter, low-level areas became much more valuable, even if they did have downsides that were 'forgotten'.
Also, bad practice means that even new housing developments on high, unfloodable ground adds to the problem. Hence the localised flooding we see, which are little to do with watercourses. Thank goodness for SuDS!
(*) A notable exception to this is where there were other reasons for building near the water, e.g. wharves and warehouses, along with the attendant housing and peripheries.
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Ha, Easier to start again than try and sort out the messed up quotes!
That was my thinking too, I can only guess that those who are anti-runway are very much opposed and will vote accordingly, whereas those in favour aren't likely to see it as a vote-swinging issue.
The decision by the government a couple of weeks back to postpone the decision looked very politically convenient, so it will end up being be the elephant in the room of the mayoral campaign. It really should be front and centre.
Politically convenient, yes, but also legally necessary.
As I've been saying for years, the government really needs to sort out the abuse of judicial review by well funded pressure groups. Since they haven't, the additional environmental studies were necessary to avoid litigation (it probably won't avoid the court case in any event, but it will demonstrate that they have done everything reasonable).
Although Zac says he didn't want teh answer to be kicked past the Mayoral election. he wanted a 'no' now.
Politically convenient for the government, not for Zac. (Although he gets to maintain his principled opposition and doesn't have to keep his promise to resign)
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Or floating houses, as seen on a recent Grand Designs (and very popular in the low countries). But all these are *very* expensive. Perhaps it's best to floodproof houses as much as possible instead.
Although Zac says he didn't want teh answer to be kicked past the Mayoral election. he wanted a 'no' now.
Politically convenient for the government, not for Zac. (Although he gets to maintain his principled opposition and doesn't have to keep his promise to resign)
And it is why Zac has to win Mayoralty. If he doesn't, the Tory fall out in London if Dave says yes to 3rd runway will damage a bit when Zac leaves the party.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Is that the reason why we are going to have 600 seats ? It is called Gerrymandering.
It was in the manifesto of the winning party. The government has a mandate to reduce the number of MPs.
Anyway, Labour don't lose from enlarging the constituencies as much as they do from equalisation. The notional majority in a 650 Parliament would still be around 30-40 with equal boundaries compared to 14 at the moment. Equalisation is not gerrymandering, in fact it was Labour who let it slide for so long because they knew de-urbanisation of eligible favoured them. We haven't had new boundaries since 2005, by 2020 it will have been 15 years, are you really trying to pretend that there hasn't been any movement of eligible people in the last 15 years?
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
In Bangladesh houses are built on raised earth foundations, and in parts of SE Asia on stilts. Very sensible people these foreign johnnies.
When 50% of the land is flooded, don't be surprised people work it out. Also, channels are dug around the houses to raise the level with the earth dug up.
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
Certainly, all the canvassing I do agree with that. No to 3rd doesn't work in Tooting for example and not much interest in Battersea.
Agreed. The areas I know best politically are Islington (couldn't care less where they build it) and Ealing (mildly in favour).
Incidentally, flew back to Gatwick from the US this morning to find that the entire link to London was inoperative due to engineering works - we had to take a train meandering over the countryside, 90 minutes' travel in all. Didn't persuade me that they are ready for another runway.
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Or floating houses, as seen on a recent Grand Designs (and very popular in the low countries). But all these are *very* expensive. Perhaps it's best to floodproof houses as much as possible instead.
I am not an architect but a few "pillars" would not be that expensive. £5k, £10k - I don't know. But the space is not wasted. A concrete floor [ garage ]. recreational rooms etc. can be made out of them.
Certainly, all the canvassing I do agree with that. No to 3rd doesn't work in Tooting for example and not much interest in Battersea.
Agreed. The areas I know best politically are Islington (couldn't care less where they build it) and Ealing (mildly in favour).
Incidentally, flew back to Gatwick from the US this morning to find that the entire link to London was inoperative due to engineering works - we had to take a train meandering over the countryside, 90 minutes' travel in all. Didn't persuade me that they are ready for another runway.
Good point. They are upgrading line though. From 2018 trains from London Bridge to Gatwick in 28 minutes! But that is 2 years time. No help to you at the moment.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness."
By the time I have added in the train to the Smoke, a hotel for the night (last train back tends to be tight unless wanting to ruin a lovely evening on the midnight milk train) dinner and a little light shopping the ticket for the Ballet at the ROH for Dr and Mrs Fox is only a minor part of the bill. Go the whole hog and get a decent seat.
The purpose is to build up enough points to be permitted a weekend away at an airshow or similar. The key is to book the latter while the glow of the first still persists!
She has already given me permission to go to Duxford in July, including an overnight stop (two nights if I want). Perhaps she has read your playbook and was looking to build up points with me.
Nonetheless, I still think £300 for an evening out excessive.
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness."
By the time I have added in the train to the Smoke, a hotel for the night (last train back tends to be tight unless wanting to ruin a lovely evening on the midnight milk train) dinner and a little light shopping the ticket for the Ballet at the ROH for Dr and Mrs Fox is only a minor part of the bill. Go the whole hog and get a decent seat.
The purpose is to build up enough points to be permitted a weekend away at an airshow or similar. The key is to book the latter while the glow of the first still persists!
She has already given me permission to go to Duxford in July, including an overnight stop (two nights if I want). Perhaps she has read your playbook and was looking to build up points with me.
Nonetheless, I still think £300 for an evening out excessive.
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
Certainly, all the canvassing I do agree with that. No to 3rd doesn't work in Tooting for example and not much interest in Battersea.
Agreed. The areas I know best politically are Islington (couldn't care less where they build it) and Ealing (mildly in favour).
Incidentally, flew back to Gatwick from the US this morning to find that the entire link to London was inoperative due to engineering works - we had to take a train meandering over the countryside, 90 minutes' travel in all. Didn't persuade me that they are ready for another runway.
While Southern and Network Rail haven't exactly covered themselves in glory the last 12 months, I don't think they can be criticised for doing major engineering works over Christmas. If the works at Purley are not complete by Monday morning then there will be hell to pay!
Certainly, all the canvassing I do agree with that. No to 3rd doesn't work in Tooting for example and not much interest in Battersea.
Agreed. The areas I know best politically are Islington (couldn't care less where they build it) and Ealing (mildly in favour).
Incidentally, flew back to Gatwick from the US this morning to find that the entire link to London was inoperative due to engineering works - we had to take a train meandering over the countryside, 90 minutes' travel in all. Didn't persuade me that they are ready for another runway.
Nick, you know the party decision makers better than me. Why are we against ? It will create jobs, both temporary and permanent. Otherwise, Amsterdam will become the main hub. Already Dublin 2 has taken away many of the Northern Irish business.
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Or floating houses, as seen on a recent Grand Designs (and very popular in the low countries). But all these are *very* expensive. Perhaps it's best to floodproof houses as much as possible instead.
I am not an architect but a few "pillars" would not be that expensive. £5k, £10k - I don't know. But the space is not wasted. A concrete floor [ garage ]. recreational rooms etc. can be made out of them.
I'd like to see how that fits in with disability access legislation.
But seriously, 'a few pillars' would add a lot to the cost. Remember that the pillars need to be capable of withstanding impact (e.g. errant drivers) and fire. If you want the house to be the same usable size, then you are talking about adding another floor as well.
It's doable (there are houses above garages here in my new-build village), but they're not as popular and more complex. In some ways it's sad, but we Brits are rather wedded to the concept of detached house with separate garage and garden.
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Or floating houses, as seen on a recent Grand Designs (and very popular in the low countries). But all these are *very* expensive. Perhaps it's best to floodproof houses as much as possible instead.
I have seen on some modern estates a selection of "town house" style houses where the garage is the ground floor and then living is on floors 2/3/4 on built directly on top
It would seem very sensible to be looking into a lot more of these ideas when new builds in areas with high probabilities of flooding are under planning proposals.
Although Zac says he didn't want teh answer to be kicked past the Mayoral election. he wanted a 'no' now.
Politically convenient for the government, not for Zac. (Although he gets to maintain his principled opposition and doesn't have to keep his promise to resign)
And it is why Zac has to win Mayoralty. If he doesn't, the Tory fall out in London if Dave says yes to 3rd runway will damage a bit when Zac leaves the party.
Why should Zac leave the party ? He will resign his seat and contest the ensuing by-election. After all, he will be keeping his promise.
Comments
Abbott is a total fool..
Lots of opinions that Zac will pick up Green 2nd preferences. I don't agree as half of them are mad Trots.
If Galloway picks up,say 7%, it doesn't matter. It matters who they have as 2nd preference. So, if George splits the left vote, it won't matter if they all vote Khan as 2nd pref. Using this voting system makes it hard to measure opinion polls with the outcome.
Getting out the vote will be more vital in my opinion than getting voters to switch sides.
184k transfer votes were counted, against 347k votes cast for candidates eliminated after the first round. The winning margin was 62k votes!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election,_2012
Mum and I went to the first day of the ATP Tennis at the O2 in London in November 2014, and tickets for the afternoon session (two matches, best of three sets) were £73 each.
It's not really proper AV at all!
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
Is there anyone out there that would be a worthy Mayor?
That way all votes ultimately count.
BTW, we went to Bath for the day yesterday ! Good weather too.
Policies like this should not be made on how many MPs will be hurt by this.
The 3rd runway will create jobs and later the larger Heathrow complex will create more permanent jobs.
I will support Cameron when he makes the U-turn.
Anyone who bought a house in the flight path knew exactly where Heathrow was, as the Airport has been in the same place since 1946.
Aircrafts are quieter now than it has ever been and getting quieter still.
(sorry couldn't resist)
Which seems fine, until you live in one of those villages ...
I haven't heard much about that scheme for a couple of years.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
There must be millions of Londoners who wouldn't be affected by the noise (planes are getting quieter with each generation anyway), would welcome either a job at the airport or its construction, an expanded range of destinations and frequencies, or just have less hassle when they go on holiday - or am I completely wrong here?
What does Mayor Goldsmith do ? The same I guess.
We should not forget that Harriet actually supported the third runway. We should have had her as our Leader. Who knows she still might be one day soon !
"plus of course some Labour gave Boris 2nd preference, not realising that it will hurt their man. "
This is simply not true as no-one who put Labour first choice would have had their second choice counted.
But in our adversarial political system, such decisions will always be controversial. Sometimes the Europeans clearly do it better.
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
I guess houses were built on flood plains because that is where there was least planning objections. Sometimes, you cannot blame the politicians.
We need 200,000 houses built every year. All parties agree [ maybe, not UKIP ]. Where do you build them without lawyers getting seriously rich ?
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Houses were often built on floodplains for many reasons. One of the major is that our forebears were not stupid. They knew the land that normally flooded, and that which did not. They therefore built on the land that generally did not flood. (*) (As an example, see the overhead photos from ?Gloucester/Cirencester? after the floods a few years back, where the cathedral and old town was left dry). But as demand for housing in those towns grew, the flatter, low-level areas became much more valuable, even if they did have downsides that were 'forgotten'.
Also, bad practice means that even new housing developments on high, unfloodable ground adds to the problem. Hence the localised flooding we see, which are little to do with watercourses. Thank goodness for SuDS!
(*) A notable exception to this is where there were other reasons for building near the water, e.g. wharves and warehouses, along with the attendant housing and peripheries.
To quote [my emphasis]: "there's no point indicating a second preference if your first preference is for either Sadiq or Zac"
He's probably overstating slightly, but there is a very low probability that the two candidates in round 2 won't be Sadiq and Zac.
That was my thinking too, I can only guess that those who are anti-runway are very much opposed and will vote accordingly, whereas those in favour aren't likely to see it as a vote-swinging issue.
The decision by the government a couple of weeks back to postpone the decision looked very politically convenient, so it will end up being be the elephant in the room of the mayoral campaign. It really should be front and centre.
I am, as such, puzzled why McDonnell is opposed.
My niece is about to move there. Although she's a staunch Labour voter I can't imagine that she'd live anywhere that wasn't solidly Tory.
I don't see it going Conservative unless Labour completely implode.
"O/T Prices are insane!
Herself declared a wish to go to a particular concert at the Royal Albert Hall in March. I have just booked the tickets in accordance with her standard wish for "nice" seats, not the best but "nice". One hundred and seventeen pounds those two tickets have cost me! Add on the rail fares plus taxis, a bite to eat and a few little drinkies here and there and I am not going to see much change, if any, out of £300. Three hundred fecking quid to take my wife out for the evening! Utter madness."
By the time I have added in the train to the Smoke, a hotel for the night (last train back tends to be tight unless wanting to ruin a lovely evening on the midnight milk train) dinner and a little light shopping the ticket for the Ballet at the ROH for Dr and Mrs Fox is only a minor part of the bill. Go the whole hog and get a decent seat.
The purpose is to build up enough points to be permitted a weekend away at an airshow or similar. The key is to book the latter while the glow of the first still persists!
As I've been saying for years, the government really needs to sort out the abuse of judicial review by well funded pressure groups. Since they haven't, the additional environmental studies were necessary to avoid litigation (it probably won't avoid the court case in any event, but it will demonstrate that they have done everything reasonable).
There are cases like this all over the place. Those are two I am immediately aware of without even looking them up.
Anyway, Labour don't lose from enlarging the constituencies as much as they do from equalisation. The notional majority in a 650 Parliament would still be around 30-40 with equal boundaries compared to 14 at the moment. Equalisation is not gerrymandering, in fact it was Labour who let it slide for so long because they knew de-urbanisation of eligible favoured them. We haven't had new boundaries since 2005, by 2020 it will have been 15 years, are you really trying to pretend that there hasn't been any movement of eligible people in the last 15 years?
(I'm teaching a grandmother to suck eggs, but it's important to differentiate between localised flooding and riverine flooding.
And it is why Zac has to win Mayoralty. If he doesn't, the Tory fall out in London if Dave says yes to 3rd runway will damage a bit when Zac leaves the party.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Incidentally, flew back to Gatwick from the US this morning to find that the entire link to London was inoperative due to engineering works - we had to take a train meandering over the countryside, 90 minutes' travel in all. Didn't persuade me that they are ready for another runway.
Nonetheless, I still think £300 for an evening out excessive.
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
But seriously, 'a few pillars' would add a lot to the cost. Remember that the pillars need to be capable of withstanding impact (e.g. errant drivers) and fire. If you want the house to be the same usable size, then you are talking about adding another floor as well.
It's doable (there are houses above garages here in my new-build village), but they're not as popular and more complex. In some ways it's sad, but we Brits are rather wedded to the concept of detached house with separate garage and garden.
e.g. http://imganuncios.mitula.net/4_bedroom_town_house_for_sale_in_leigh_wn7_2250090433118142429.jpg
It would seem very sensible to be looking into a lot more of these ideas when new builds in areas with high probabilities of flooding are under planning proposals.
Why should Zac leave the party ? He will resign his seat and contest the ensuing by-election. After all, he will be keeping his promise.