Well regardless of your personal view and your view of the individuals in question, the only two Alpha++ cities in the world according to the Globalisation and World Cities Research network and most studies are London and New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
I think it is fair to say that as the Mayor has fairly limited tax raising powers and no authority to make laws, his powers are on paper at least rather less than those of Sturgeon or even Carwyn Jones, although they might be comparable to Arlene Foster.
The prestige, on the other hand, is massive, and the opportunity to bend the ear of various senior politicians on London's behalf via informal networks and socialising far greater than the opportunities in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont.
A big hitter could make London into a big office and a springboard to a national role. Johnson, however, hasn't quite managed it and bluntly it's difficult to see Khan succeeding where Johnson failed.
Indeed it is a prestigious role. While London is an Alpha World City, Edinburgh is only a D city ie at the lower tier of cities with evidence of world city formation, alongside Glasgow. Beautiful though Edinburgh is London clearly is the only UK city in the global top tier http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
That is entirely a problem with how the UK is managed and the complete failure of successive UK governments to offer anything other than "more London". The vast majority of countries round the world of any significance, show absolutely none of the single city bias that the UK has.
Even the US has only three Alpha World Cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Japan has Tokyo, France Paris, Italy Milan, Germany Frankfurt and China Hong Kong no other country in the world (bar Singapore, a city state so a separate case) has even one Alpha World City so we are lucky to have one! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
Of course you can as if you rent you are more likely to be unable to afford to get on the housing ladder as your income does not go so far making you more likely to vote Labour for Mansion Taxes etc to punish the rich and redistribute some of their wealth to you and less likely to vote Tory for an inheritance tax cut and so on as you are less likely to benefit from it
No. That is your interpretation. The data doesn't tell you that. I think your hypothesis has some merit, but you can't make that conclusion with that certainty based upon that polling alone. Also, even if your hypothesis was correct, would the effect be immediate, would we see it in 4 years or is it a generational thing.
As I say, a classic error that you see all the time, even in peer reviewed research.
No, it does tell me that ie renters are far more likely to vote Labour than property owners. Until you show me contrary evidence that conclusion stands and for the reasons I set out. It may take a decade or two to show up but the number of renters has already increased by almost 10% over a decade and the number of home owners declined in the same proportion so that is one thing which could help Labour
Again, no you have to prove your hypothesis. As I say, renter more like to vote Labour, or Labour voter more likely to be a rent. We don't know from simply looking at those polling numbers and I would suggest the reality is rather complex.
I have proved my hypothesis with figures from the last election, you have given no figures at all to contradict them so until you do the point that renters are more likely to vote Labour stands
No you haven't proved anything. I have to go out now, but as I have said repeatedly you are making a classical research error. And I say that as somebody who thinks there is probably some validity to your hypothesis.
No, you are just quibbling for the sake of quibbling with no facts to back it up. There is a reason Tory leaders from Disraeli to Thatcher wanted a 'property owning democracy' not a 'renting democracy' that is because property owners want to pay lower taxes on their property and rent owners want higher taxes on property owners which can be redistributed to them, thus they are more likely to vote Labour!
That said, a lead of 34/32% among private renters seems surprisingly good for the Tories
One thing Labour does have going for it, is it's 'gobby' women. Andrew Neil didn't lay a glove on Lucy Powell and not for the first time. He can have as many pieces of paper (his props) in front of him but he struggles when they hit back.
Lisa Nandy was on BBC Northwest and just continually talked over her conservative opponent (a man) of course, so he couldn't without appearing rude, do the same.
I think that the EU referendum will be at least the equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the leadership of Cameron and that, if he were to lose, he would inevitably resign. The consequences for the Conservative Party would be horrendous and are the only conceivable scenario where a Corbyn led Labour Party could get close to gaining power.
My suspicion is that as this becomes obvious and the implications sink in the majority of Tories will follow Cameron's lead, however unhappily. This is one of the reasons I think Remain will win. There is undoubtedly a minority for which this is The Issue on which they will vote regardless of the consequences but not nearly enough. The polling suggests that the views endlessly repeated on this site are highly atypical and that the vast majority of the party thinks Cameron is doing a good or very good job. Ending his Premiership and risking the inmates taking over the Asylum will weigh very heavily with these people.
I think that the overwhelming view now is that Corbyn is a loser. That's the case regardless how the EU referendum goes.
Sunday Times reports moves afoot to put up Dugher as potential leader with others looking at Kier Starmer. Jarvis was on manoeuvers in the Guardian yesterday. All anonymous briefing so far. Put on face of it someone might be persuaded to be the stalking horse after May's meltdown, or, as one person puts it, we need a "suicide bomber" (a bad choice of metaphor).
It's always easiest to do nothing. My view is that, barring absolute catastrophe for Labour in local elections, Corbyn is likely to lead them to defeat in 2020, with the party losing another dozen or so seats.
A by-election loss to UKIP would also topple Corbyn too in my view
Yep, that seems likely (if it were to happen). I don't personally buy the argument that trying to topple Corbyn will simply result in him either being re-elected or another, younger, hard left MP being made leader. A lot can happen in a leadership campaign and there's plenty of moderate, ex-Labour members now who could sign up for the £3 quid vote to save their party from defeat in 2020. It has to be worth a punt, especially if polling starts to show that many Lab MPs will lose their seats (very focusing of the mind).
A factor will be how many of the Corbynista who joined in the summer actually renew membership next summer.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
Irrespective of what you think of SLAB's new housing policy - this presentation of it left me feeling nauseous after a couple of viewings - with the screen moving in multiple directions:
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
Maybe the clue is in the "with the exception of France"?
Well regardless of your personal view and your view of the individuals in question, the only two Alpha++ cities in the world according to the Globalisation and World Cities Research network and most studies are London and New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
I think it is fair to say that as the Mayor has fairly limited tax raising powers and no authority to make laws, his powers are on paper at least rather less than those of Sturgeon or even Carwyn Jones, although they might be comparable to Arlene Foster.
The prestige, on the other hand, is massive, and the opportunity to bend the ear of various senior politicians on London's behalf via informal networks and socialising far greater than the opportunities in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont.
A big hitter could make London into a big office and a springboard to a national role. Johnson, however, hasn't quite managed it and bluntly it's difficult to see Khan succeeding where Johnson failed.
Indeed it is a prestigious role. While London is an Alpha World City, Edinburgh is only a D city ie at the lower tier of cities with evidence of world city formation, alongside Glasgow. Beautiful though Edinburgh is London clearly is the only UK city in the global top tier http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
That is entirely a problem with how the UK is managed and the complete failure of successive UK governments to offer anything other than "more London". The vast majority of countries round the world of any significance, show absolutely none of the single city bias that the UK has.
Even the US has only three Alpha World Cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Japan has Tokyo, France Paris, Italy Milan, Germany Frankfurt and China Hong Kong no other country in the world (bar Singapore, a city state so a separate case) has even one Alpha World City so we are lucky to have one! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
Maybe the clue is in the "with the exception of France"?
That had occurred to me - but still a pretty thin rationale. Let the French waste their money!
Good morning all. I'd argue that Corbyn is even narrower than 'London'. He's Islington writ large. I hadn't appreciated how odd Islington was - someone mentioned some figures a few weeks ago, after fact checking they appear to be solid.
Islington has the lowest car ownership in London. One of the highest proportion of renters (68%) of which 44% are in social housing. It's not as diverse as some other parts of London (74% white - though a fifth of those are not British). I could go on.
There's nothing wrong with being different, it's just that Corbyn has swum in the Islington sea since 1983; that has to have coloured his world view.
Which is why Corbyn's best chance of winning is for the UK to become like London ie a majority are renters not home owners and rely on public transport, as people take longer to get on the housing ladder that is one thing which could help Corbyn a little
The Tories' Generation Rent problem is real but I don't think it will be in time to save Corbyn. By 2030 it may be decisive.
It may be that rather than trying to promote home ownership the Tories would do better simply to try to appeal more to those who rent.
Cameron's desire to flatten a load of grimy council estates and replace them with something more reflective of the general housing blend in the country is correct on so many levels - social, political and electoral.
What is frequently missed in discussions about "Generation Rent" is that they are also "Generation Inherit".
In fact if I recall correctly even Redwood in 97 wasn't proposing we Leave.
It was all anti Maastricht at that stage, which Redwood and IDS certainly were
Absolutely. Being against Maastricht or against the Euro (which we are not in) is one thing. Being against the EU and proposing leaving it altogether is another thing completely.
It is interesting that so many are proposing leaving altogether but until Cameron proposed an in/out referendum no leadership contenders had actually done that.
I think just having this referendum has somewhat moved the Overton window.
Yep, that seems likely (if it were to happen). I don't personally buy the argument that trying to topple Corbyn will simply result in him either being re-elected or another, younger, hard left MP being made leader. A lot can happen in a leadership campaign and there's plenty of moderate, ex-Labour members now who could sign up for the £3 quid vote to save their party from defeat in 2020. It has to be worth a punt, especially if polling starts to show that many Lab MPs will lose their seats (very focusing of the mind).
A factor will be how many of the Corbynista who joined in the summer actually renew membership next summer.
There has been much wondering what the moderate PLP can do to change the course of events, with most saying they need a clearly articulated raison d'être. Surely the simplest, most obvious and easiest course of action to them is to spend more time in their constituencies shoring up their personal support within the constituency party and making sure their guys turn up for key meetings. Lord knows they have nothing else to do - they are not influencing the shadow cabinet and are not offering loyal opposition.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
One thing Labour does have going for it, is it's 'gobby' women. Andrew Neil didn't lay a glove on Lucy Powell and not for the first time. He can have as many pieces of paper (his props) in front of him but he struggles when they hit back.
Lisa Nandy was on BBC Northwest and just continually talked over her conservative opponent (a man) of course, so he couldn't without appearing rude, do the same.
On the R5 phone in on Thursday there were 4 segments of callers and three of them were completely dominated by such a gobby woman talking over everyone else and utterly convinced that Corbyn was the best thing since hand formed organic ciabattas.
Well regardless of your personal view and your view of the individuals in question, the only two Alpha++ cities in the world according to the Globalisation and World Cities Research network and most studies are London and New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
I think it is fair to say that as the Mayor has fairly limited tax raising powers and no authority to make laws, his powers are on paper at least rather less than those of Sturgeon or even Carwyn Jones, although they might be comparable to Arlene Foster.
The prestige, on the other hand, is massive, and the opportunity to bend the ear of various senior politicians on London's behalf via informal networks and socialising far greater than the opportunities in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont.
A big hitter could make London into a big office and a springboard to a national role. Johnson, however, hasn't quite managed it and bluntly it's difficult to see Khan succeeding where Johnson failed.
Indeed it is a prestigious role. While London is an Alpha World City, Edinburgh is only a D city ie at the lower tier of cities with evidence of world city formation, alongside Glasgow. Beautiful though Edinburgh is London clearly is the only UK city in the global top tier http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
That is entirely a problem with how the UK is managed and the complete failure of successive UK governments to offer anything other than "more London". The vast majority of countries round the world of any significance, show absolutely none of the single city bias that the UK has.
Even the US has only three Alpha World Cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Japan has Tokyo, France Paris, Italy Milan, Germany Frankfurt and China Hong Kong no other country in the world (bar Singapore, a city state so a separate case) has even one Alpha World City so we are lucky to have one! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
Elements of the list look to be a joke - metrics gone mad without adult review and supervision. How on earth are Amman and Nicosia listed alongside Birmingham, and above Baltimore or Bristol? Really???
Another one with his head up his orifice, what about their army of placemen and hangers on. neither want to upset the applecart as they are just cheeks of the same money grubbing arse.
Out of interest, Malcolm, do you think that the boundary between England and Scotland is in the right place (it was a good deal further south in times gone by)?
Innocent , no beef either way. I suspect that some parts just south of the border would also like to be out of the clutches of London control though. Neither Scotland or Northern England will ever prosper whilst London sucks the life blood out of them and stunts their growth and initiative. In days gone by they did try to share things , have some autonomy but London under the current effete elite is just sucking the rest dry.
I'd agree with that. However, the notion (not explicitly stated and perhaps not what you meant), that some parts of northern England would rather be in Scotland is as fanciful as the idea put forward by some last year that the Borders would opt to stay in the UK had Scotland voted Yes. For all the resentment at London, England is England.
David, I specifically never mentioned them being part of Scotland but believe they could do better on their own and linked with an independent Scotland. Unless there is a full federal system , they will continue to decline and become holiday spots for southern retirees.
I partially agree. That, and rebalancing the current lopsided devolution arrangements are two reasons why I favour a federal solution for the UK. Morris Dancer, of course, believes I should be shot out of a space trebuchet or something for such thoughts.
More local government? Don't make me laugh. Just because malc talks out of his arse is no reason for everyone else to. How is Sunderland for an example in 'decline' ? It makes more cars than Italy. Derby is happily turning out Toyota's. Newcastle is the proud home of HMRC isn't it? Etc etc. Malc talks crap because it suits his purpose to talk crap. We do not have to believe him. We already have the beginnings of a northern powerhouse and of course HS2 to link us all, except of course the nutjobs have to have something to squeal about.
HS2 won't do much for the South West.
The extra powers for Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire Plus and so on are welcome but neither answer the West Lothian Question nor provide any great scope for policy initiative: it's more about administration and efficiency than serious power transfer.
'Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?'
Are you having a laugh or have just conveniently forgotten that it was their stated aim to wipe out Israel ?
They are still entitled to share our fears of being left defenceless. After all, Israel already has the weapons!
So what? We can and should stop them from getting the weapons. It is not in our interests to let Iran get these weapons and it is our governments job to look after our interests. That they may have fears is not our concern it is theirs.
In fact if I recall correctly even Redwood in 97 wasn't proposing we Leave.
It was all anti Maastricht at that stage, which Redwood and IDS certainly were
Absolutely. Being against Maastricht or against the Euro (which we are not in) is one thing. Being against the EU and proposing leaving it altogether is another thing completely.
It is interesting that so many are proposing leaving altogether but until Cameron proposed an in/out referendum no leadership contenders had actually done that.
I think just having this referendum has somewhat moved the Overton window.
Indeed though I think most simply wanted to return to a Common Market relationship at best
MG As usual you make the wrong assumptions..You are the one who is always referring to so called Vulture companies..and pour scorn upon them.. yet you happily work for one..I personally don't give a shit how the companies I work for make their money as long as they pay my exorbitant invoices on time..and keep on employing lots of people.
You absolute balloon, I have never ever mentioned "vulture companies" in my life. I have mentioned public servants and politicians being similar but never any companies.
London's mayors have had a direct practical impact on transport policy. I don't think we'd have the congestion charge without a directly elected mayor, possibly not Boris-bikes either.
They have similar bikes in Bangkok. No, not SeanT’s sort.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
I guess you get into trouble with your significant other on a regular basis then. It's all about expectations.
Well regardless of your personal view and your view of the individuals in question, the only two Alpha++ cities in the world according to the Globalisation and World Cities Research network and most studies are London and New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
I think it is fair to say that as the Mayor has fairly limited tax raising powers and no authority to make laws, his powers are on paper at least rather less than those of Sturgeon or even Carwyn Jones, although they might be comparable to Arlene Foster.
The prestige, on the other hand, is massive, and the opportunity to bend the ear of various senior politicians on London's behalf via informal networks and socialising far greater than the opportunities in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont.
A big hitter could make London into a big office and a springboard to a national role. Johnson, however, hasn't quite managed it and bluntly it's difficult to see Khan succeeding where Johnson failed.
Indeed it is a prestigious role. While London is an Alpha World City, Edinburgh is only a D city ie at the lower tier of cities with evidence of world city formation, alongside Glasgow. Beautiful though Edinburgh is London clearly is the only UK city in the global top tier http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
That is entirely a problem with how the UK is managed and the complete failure of successive UK governments to offer anything other than "more London". The vast majority of countries round the world of any significance, show absolutely none of the single city bias that the UK has.
Even the US has only three Alpha World Cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Japan has Tokyo, France Paris, Italy Milan, Germany Frankfurt and China Hong Kong no other country in the world (bar Singapore, a city state so a separate case) has even one Alpha World City so we are lucky to have one! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
Elements of the list look to be a joke - metrics gone mad without adult review and supervision. How on earth are Amman and Nicosia listed alongside Birmingham, and above Baltimore or Bristol? Really???
Didn't look at it to be honest. These lists are inherently absurd and meaningless.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
Well said.
And even if we didn't wish to abandon nuclear weapons, there are surely better options than a £100 billion off the shelf pig in a poke that not a single other nation on earth has decided to stump up for. The whole world is having collective diarrhoea over North Korea's nuclear arsenal, that seems to be working ok as a deterrent, are we, the world's second biggest arms exporter, not able to do better than North Korea? Can we not come up with something cheap, cheerful, efficient, and home-grown?
Good morning all. I'd argue that Corbyn is even narrower than 'London'. He's Islington writ large. I hadn't appreciated how odd Islington was - someone mentioned some figures a few weeks ago, after fact checking they appear to be solid.
Islington has the lowest car ownership in London. One of the highest proportion of renters (68%) of which 44% are in social housing. It's not as diverse as some other parts of London (74% white - though a fifth of those are not British). I could go on.
There's nothing wrong with being different, it's just that Corbyn has swum in the Islington sea since 1983; that has to have coloured his world view.
Which is why Corbyn's best chance of winning is for the UK to become like London ie a majority are renters not home owners and rely on public transport, as people take longer to get on the housing ladder that is one thing which could help Corbyn a little
The Tories' Generation Rent problem is real but I don't think it will be in time to save Corbyn. By 2030 it may be decisive.
It may be that rather than trying to promote home ownership the Tories would do better simply to try to appeal more to those who rent.
Cameron's desire to flatten a load of grimy council estates and replace them with something more reflective of the general housing blend in the country is correct on so many levels - social, political and electoral.
What is frequently missed in discussions about "Generation Rent" is that they are also "Generation Inherit".
Yes but most of them won't inherit until their fifties or sixties and most won't now be able to buy until their forties at the present rate and then principally as a couple with their partners who will also need to be earning
'Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?'
Are you having a laugh or have just conveniently forgotten that it was their stated aim to wipe out Israel ?
They are still entitled to share our fears of being left defenceless. After all, Israel already has the weapons!
So what? We can and should stop them from getting the weapons. It is not in our interests to let Iran get these weapons and it is our governments job to look after our interests. That they may have fears is not our concern it is theirs.
Well at least you are open and honest about the policy of humbug and hypocrisy! The same cannot be said of our own political leaders - in all parties. Having said that I am not sure that the policy of 'we don't give a toss about anybody other than ourselves' would reap rich dividends in the long run - though many might see it as the natural extension of Thatcherite Tory principles to international affairs..
In fact if I recall correctly even Redwood in 97 wasn't proposing we Leave.
It was all anti Maastricht at that stage, which Redwood and IDS certainly were
Absolutely. Being against Maastricht or against the Euro (which we are not in) is one thing. Being against the EU and proposing leaving it altogether is another thing completely.
It is interesting that so many are proposing leaving altogether but until Cameron proposed an in/out referendum no leadership contenders had actually done that.
I think just having this referendum has somewhat moved the Overton window.
Indeed though I think most simply wanted to return to a Common Market relationship at best
But nobody in 2005 proposed leaving. Not Fox or Davis or any of the other long standing MPs who are now doing so. Between then and now there has been Lisbon but I don't think that changed thongs enough to explain this dichotomy.
Irrespective of what you think of SLAB's new housing policy - this presentation of it left me feeling nauseous after a couple of viewings - with the screen moving in multiple directions:
'Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?'
Are you having a laugh or have just conveniently forgotten that it was their stated aim to wipe out Israel ?
They are still entitled to share our fears of being left defenceless. After all, Israel already has the weapons!
So what? We can and should stop them from getting the weapons. It is not in our interests to let Iran get these weapons and it is our governments job to look after our interests. That they may have fears is not our concern it is theirs.
Well at least you are open and honest about the policy of humbug and hypocrisy! The same cannot be said of our own political leaders - in all parties.
Of course it is hypocrisy and why should we care? If the shoe was on the other foot Iran would be trying to stop us from getting these weapons.
Though gee whiz politicians speak politically about it. There's a shock hold the front page.
Well regardless of your personal view and your view of the individuals in question, the only two Alpha++ cities in the world according to the Globalisation and World Cities Research network and most studies are London and New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
I think it is fair to say that as the Mayor has fairly limited tax raising powers and no authority to make laws, his powers are on paper at least rather less than those of Sturgeon or even Carwyn Jones, although they might be comparable to Arlene Foster.
The prestige, on the other hand, is massive, and the opportunity to bend the ear of various senior politicians on London's behalf via informal networks and socialising far greater than the opportunities in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont.
A big hitter could make London into a big office and a springboard to a national role. Johnson, however, hasn't quite managed it and bluntly it's difficult to see Khan succeeding where Johnson failed.
Indeed it is a prestigious role. While London is an Alpha World City, Edinburgh is only a D city ie at the lower tier of cities with evidence of world city formation, alongside Glasgow. Beautiful though Edinburgh is London clearly is the only UK city in the global top tier http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
That is entirely a problem with how the UK is managed and the complete failure of successive UK governments to offer anything other than "more London". The vast majority of countries round the world of any significance, show absolutely none of the single city bias that the UK has.
Even the US has only three Alpha World Cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Japan has Tokyo, France Paris, Italy Milan, Germany Frankfurt and China Hong Kong no other country in the world (bar Singapore, a city state so a separate case) has even one Alpha World City so we are lucky to have one! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
Thankyou for that, some interesting changes there in the A+ or higher group, Chicago, LA and Milan and Frankfurt out, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai and Sydney in. Though my original point about NYC and London being the only two at the top of the tree remains
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
If you're part of a military alliance which is committed to using nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, you're a nuclear power. There's a perfectly valid argument that any individual member of that alliance can decide that there are better uses to which its own defence expenditure can be put than purchasing a handful of nuclear weapons.
What would be "humbug and hypocrisy" would be to renounce nuclear weapons as immoral, while expecting the USA to use, or threaten to use, them on your behalf.
Of course you can as if you rent you are more likely to be unable to afford to get on the housing ladder as your income does not go so far making you more likely to vote Labour for Mansion Taxes etc to punish the rich and redistribute some of their wealth to you and less likely to vote Tory for an inheritance tax cut and so on as you are less likely to benefit from it
No. That is your interpretation. The data doesn't tell you that. I think your hypothesis has some merit, but you can't make that conclusion with that certainty based upon that polling alone. Also, even if your hypothesis was correct, would the effect be immediate, would we see it in 4 years or is it a generational thing.
As I say, a classic error that you see all the time, even in peer reviewed research.
No, it does tell me that ie renters are far more likely to vote Labour than property owners. Until you show me contrary evidence that conclusion stands and for the reasons I set out. It may take a decade or two to show up but the number of renters has already increased by almost 10% over a decade and the number of home owners declined in the same proportion so that is one thing which could help Labour
Again, no you have to prove your hypothesis. As I say, renter more like to vote Labour, or Labour voter more likely to be a rent. We don't know from simply looking at those polling numbers and I would suggest the reality is rather complex.
I have proved my hypothesis with figures from the last election, you have given no figures at all to contradict them so until you do the point that renters are more likely to vote Labour stands
No you haven't proved anything. I have to go out now, but as I have said repeatedly you are making a classical research error. And I say that as somebody who thinks there is probably some validity to your hypothesis.
No, you are just quibbling for the sake of quibbling with no facts to back it up. There is a reason Tory leaders from Disraeli to Thatcher wanted a 'property owning democracy' not a 'renting democracy' that is because property owners want to pay lower taxes on their property and rent owners want higher taxes on property owners which can be redistributed to them, thus they are more likely to vote Labour!
That said, a lead of 34/32% among private renters seems surprisingly good for the Tories
It could have been worse although those figures are still closer than the Tories won by overall
In fact if I recall correctly even Redwood in 97 wasn't proposing we Leave.
It was all anti Maastricht at that stage, which Redwood and IDS certainly were
Absolutely. Being against Maastricht or against the Euro (which we are not in) is one thing. Being against the EU and proposing leaving it altogether is another thing completely.
It is interesting that so many are proposing leaving altogether but until Cameron proposed an in/out referendum no leadership contenders had actually done that.
I think just having this referendum has somewhat moved the Overton window.
Indeed though I think most simply wanted to return to a Common Market relationship at best
But nobody in 2005 proposed leaving. Not Fox or Davis or any of the other long standing MPs who are now doing so. Between then and now there has been Lisbon but I don't think that changed thongs enough to explain this dichotomy.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
If you're part of a military alliance which is committed to using nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, you're a nuclear power. There's a perfectly valid argument that any individual member of that alliance can decide that there are better uses to which its own defence expenditure can be put than purchasing a handful of nuclear weapons.
What would be "humbug and hypocrisy" would be to renounce nuclear weapons as immoral, while expecting the USA to use, or threaten to use, them on your behalf.
On that basis you appear to be implying that those other states, currently under the US umbrella , are in fact nuclear powers?
Good morning all. I'd argue that Corbyn is even narrower than 'London'. He's Islington writ large. I hadn't appreciated how odd Islington was - someone mentioned some figures a few weeks ago, after fact checking they appear to be solid.
Islington has the lowest car ownership in London. One of the highest proportion of renters (68%) of which 44% are in social housing. It's not as diverse as some other parts of London (74% white - though a fifth of those are not British). I could go on.
There's nothing wrong with being different, it's just that Corbyn has swum in the Islington sea since 1983; that has to have coloured his world view.
Which is why Corbyn's best chance of winning is for the UK to become like London ie a majority are renters not home owners and rely on public transport, as people take longer to get on the housing ladder that is one thing which could help Corbyn a little
The Tories' Generation Rent problem is real but I don't think it will be in time to save Corbyn. By 2030 it may be decisive.
It may be that rather than trying to promote home ownership the Tories would do better simply to try to appeal more to those who rent.
Cameron's desire to flatten a load of grimy council estates and replace them with something more reflective of the general housing blend in the country is correct on so many levels - social, political and electoral.
What is frequently missed in discussions about "Generation Rent" is that they are also "Generation Inherit".
So when they are in their late 60s or 70s they might inherit a property, assuming that the parents haven't cashed in with an Equity Release scheme.
Equity Release itself will become and more and more necessary part of retirement planning while pensions fail to deliver a fraction of the Boomers' Final Salary bonanzas on top of being the main beneficiaries of the doomed State Pension Ponzi Scheme.
Most of Gen X got on the housing laddder, so while they will lack a pension they will benefit from the inheritance and their own property. but Gen Y will have no pension, lower ownership chnaces and a very high likelihood that Gen X will be heavily into Equity Release when they see the reality of their pensions.
Good morning all. I'd argue that Corbyn is even narrower than 'London'. He's Islington writ large. I hadn't appreciated how odd Islington was - someone mentioned some figures a few weeks ago, after fact checking they appear to be solid.
Islington has the lowest car ownership in London. One of the highest proportion of renters (68%) of which 44% are in social housing. It's not as diverse as some other parts of London (74% white - though a fifth of those are not British). I could go on.
There's nothing wrong with being different, it's just that Corbyn has swum in the Islington sea since 1983; that has to have coloured his world view.
Which is why Corbyn's best chance of winning is for the UK to become like London ie a majority are renters not home owners and rely on public transport, as people take longer to get on the housing ladder that is one thing which could help Corbyn a little
The Tories' Generation Rent problem is real but I don't think it will be in time to save Corbyn. By 2030 it may be decisive.
It may be that rather than trying to promote home ownership the Tories would do better simply to try to appeal more to those who rent.
Cameron's desire to flatten a load of grimy council estates and replace them with something more reflective of the general housing blend in the country is correct on so many levels - social, political and electoral.
What is frequently missed in discussions about "Generation Rent" is that they are also "Generation Inherit".
So when they are in their late 60s or 70s they might inherit a property, assuming that the parents haven't cashed in with an Equity Release scheme.
Equity Release itself will become and more and more necessary part of retirement planning while pensions fail to deliver a fraction of the Boomers' Final Salary bonanzas on top of being the main beneficiaries of the doomed State Pension Ponzi Scheme.
Most of Gen X got on the housing laddder, so while they will lack a pension they will benefit from the inheritance and their own property. but Gen Y will have no pension, lower ownership chnaces and a very high likelihood that Gen X will be heavily into Equity Release when they see the reality of their pensions.
Rent in the part of London I first rented in nearly thirty years ago is no more expensive now than it was then (inflation adjusted).
The fact that people bleat incessantly, doesn't mean they have a point.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others. The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
If you're part of a military alliance which is committed to using nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, you're a nuclear power. There's a perfectly valid argument that any individual member of that alliance can decide that there are better uses to which its own defence expenditure can be put than purchasing a handful of nuclear weapons.
What would be "humbug and hypocrisy" would be to renounce nuclear weapons as immoral, while expecting the USA to use, or threaten to use, them on your behalf.
On that basis you appear to be implying that those other states, currently under the US umbrella , are in fact nuclear powers?
You may not be aware that in the recent past, as part of the nuclear alert, aircraft from "non-nuclear" NATO states sat on alert with US nukes attached. The idea was that in the event of a NATO ordered nuclear strike, the US ground crew "owning" the nuke would handover and step back.
I remember talking to a very old American pilot who remembered encountering the man who shot him down in WWII on a post war flight line (late 50s I think). The German guy was wearing his Tin Tie (though the version with the bad bit removed) - while sitting in a plane with an American nuke hanging under it. They had quite a chat....
Yep, that seems likely (if it were to happen). I don't personally buy the argument that trying to topple Corbyn will simply result in him either being re-elected or another, younger, hard left MP being made leader. A lot can happen in a leadership campaign and there's plenty of moderate, ex-Labour members now who could sign up for the £3 quid vote to save their party from defeat in 2020. It has to be worth a punt, especially if polling starts to show that many Lab MPs will lose their seats (very focusing of the mind).
A factor will be how many of the Corbynista who joined in the summer actually renew membership next summer.
There has been much wondering what the moderate PLP can do to change the course of events, with most saying they need a clearly articulated raison d'être. Surely the simplest, most obvious and easiest course of action to them is to spend more time in their constituencies shoring up their personal support within the constituency party and making sure their guys turn up for key meetings. Lord knows they have nothing else to do - they are not influencing the shadow cabinet and are not offering loyal opposition.
Is there any evidence any of them are doing this?
My MP is working hard to stay in touch with his membership.
Well regardless of your personal view and your view of the individuals in question, the only two Alpha++ cities in the world according to the Globalisation and World Cities Research network and most studies are London and New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
I think it is fair to say that as the Mayor has fairly limited tax raising powers and no authority to make laws, his powers are on paper at least rather less than those of Sturgeon or even Carwyn Jones, although they might be comparable to Arlene Foster.
The prestige, on the other hand, is massive, and the opportunity to bend the ear of various senior politicians on London's behalf via informal networks and socialising far greater than the opportunities in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont.
A big hitter could make London into a big office and a springboard to a national role. Johnson, however, hasn't quite managed it and bluntly it's difficult to see Khan succeeding where Johnson failed.
Indeed it is a prestigious role. While London is an Alpha World City, Edinburgh is only a D city ie at the lower tier of cities with evidence of world city formation, alongside Glasgow. Beautiful though Edinburgh is London clearly is the only UK city in the global top tier http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
That is entirely a problem with how the UK is managed and the complete failure of successive UK governments to offer anything other than "more London". The vast majority of countries round the world of any significance, show absolutely none of the single city bias that the UK has.
Even the US has only three Alpha World Cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Japan has Tokyo, France Paris, Italy Milan, Germany Frankfurt and China Hong Kong no other country in the world (bar Singapore, a city state so a separate case) has even one Alpha World City so we are lucky to have one! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
Thankyou for that, some interesting changes there in the A+ or higher group, Chicago, LA and Milan and Frankfurt out, Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai and Sydney in. Though my original point about NYC and London being the only two at the top of the tree remains
The idea that Frankfurt was ever an A+ city is laughable. There are only two German cities that could aspire to being A+: Berlin and Munich
Comments
Latest (2012) list has only two A++ cities in the world - London and New York. I think that's probably right.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html
One thing Labour does have going for it, is it's 'gobby' women. Andrew Neil didn't lay a glove on Lucy Powell and not for the first time. He can have as many pieces of paper (his props) in front of him but he struggles when they hit back.
Lisa Nandy was on BBC Northwest and just continually talked over her conservative opponent (a man) of course, so he couldn't without appearing rude, do the same.
A factor will be how many of the Corbynista who joined in the summer actually renew membership next summer.
I cannot quite understand why a policy of nuclear disarmament appears to be electorally so damaging. With the exception of France the rest of Europe is perfectly content to shelter under the US umbrella and their citizens seem generally content with that position. Why is it seen as so extreme and unthinkable for us to contemplate doing the same thing? I sometimes think that Labour leaders might be advised to spend time reminding the British people of the long list of states that have foregone these terrible weapons – it actually might be quite effective and cause many to pause for thought – ie the Scandinavian countries – Germany – Italy – the Benelux countries – Spain – Portugal – Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Poland – Switzerland and others.
The sheer humbug and hypocrisy of our stance is a separate issue – we insist that such weapons are essential for our defence and yet seek to deny them to other countries. Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?
http://immersive.sh/scottishlabour/3255hM3O_c
At least there's no mention of the Mansion Tax on the South East being used to help fund the scheme - unless Sadiq can be persuaded to implement it !!
'Surely the people of Iran are entitled to share our fears?'
Are you having a laugh or have just conveniently forgotten that it was their stated aim to wipe out Israel ?
What is frequently missed in discussions about "Generation Rent" is that they are also "Generation Inherit".
It is interesting that so many are proposing leaving altogether but until Cameron proposed an in/out referendum no leadership contenders had actually done that.
I think just having this referendum has somewhat moved the Overton window.
Is there any evidence any of them are doing this?
That new Labour Party policy on who should have nuclear weapons:
UK ✖
Israel ✖
North Korea ✔
Iran ✔
2020 election victory is in the bag
The extra powers for Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire Plus and so on are welcome but neither answer the West Lothian Question nor provide any great scope for policy initiative: it's more about administration and efficiency than serious power transfer.
New Thread New Thread
And even if we didn't wish to abandon nuclear weapons, there are surely better options than a £100 billion off the shelf pig in a poke that not a single other nation on earth has decided to stump up for. The whole world is having collective diarrhoea over North Korea's nuclear arsenal, that seems to be working ok as a deterrent, are we, the world's second biggest arms exporter, not able to do better than North Korea? Can we not come up with something cheap, cheerful, efficient, and home-grown?
Having said that I am not sure that the policy of 'we don't give a toss about anybody other than ourselves' would reap rich dividends in the long run - though many might see it as the natural extension of Thatcherite Tory principles to international affairs..
Though gee whiz politicians speak politically about it. There's a shock hold the front page.
What would be "humbug and hypocrisy" would be to renounce nuclear weapons as immoral, while expecting the USA to use, or threaten to use, them on your behalf.
Equity Release itself will become and more and more necessary part of retirement planning while pensions fail to deliver a fraction of the Boomers' Final Salary bonanzas on top of being the main beneficiaries of the doomed State Pension Ponzi Scheme.
Most of Gen X got on the housing laddder, so while they will lack a pension they will benefit from the inheritance and their own property. but Gen Y will have no pension, lower ownership chnaces and a very high likelihood that Gen X will be heavily into Equity Release when they see the reality of their pensions.
The fact that people bleat incessantly, doesn't mean they have a point.
Property=21st century pension.
I remember talking to a very old American pilot who remembered encountering the man who shot him down in WWII on a post war flight line (late 50s I think). The German guy was wearing his Tin Tie (though the version with the bad bit removed) - while sitting in a plane with an American nuke hanging under it. They had quite a chat....
I'm in Islington North.