I really can't see the Mayoral campaign, or anything in it, having the slightest relevance to the General Election in 2020. People will have long since forgotten it by then. A week is a long time in politics - 200 of them is an eternity.
I think it reminds people labour us a winner, albeit somewhere they should be winning every time, and a vague remembrance of the campaign may linger when people see Khan, who will surely bring it up a lot. When recalled, it might be an effective tool. Remember Liam Byrnes note? What Normal person thought about it, but 5 years on it was the centrepiece of the.cameron strategy.
One effect though it helps the narrative from this point on - the BBC front page has been all about Khan this weekend, the Scottish labour disaster pushed down the pecking order. In England at least oeople will gain the impression labour are doing ok under Corbyn and that might lead some who stayed home thinking they woukd do poorly to co e back.
England has 52m people. London over 8m. Scotland 5m.
I know that's why it leads the narrative, there's nothing sinister about it.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Interesting.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
What celebs do BMW and Apple us to sell their products????
I was going to say I couldn't think of any offhand.
Bond, James Bond...
BMZ Z3 was used in one of the films, just as it was launched on the markets.
I don't think that was the point MattW was making. Brands like BMW and Apple, in common with celebrity-endorsed brands, are seeking to profit from the perceived value of their brand. A brand with less or no perceived value will always feel the need to either be priced lower, or add more features for your buck, in order to compete. So avoiding the biggest brands is a fairly good strategy for getting good value (unless it's something you're going to sell on).
“Too many politicians are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense and a feeling of the need to put together efforts. We have too many part-time Europeans.” Juncker4Britain
The fact, amazingly, people think of who elected them first, is the whole reason the eu needs to slow down or stop its integration mr juncker, because they don't want more hence requiring leaders to be difficult. If they wanted a superstate in reality rather than in theory for so e, their leaders would go for it happily.
Which is why the referendum should really have "Leave" and "EU superstate" on it.
If Remain win, and the EU continues its current path, there are going to be a lot of upset people who expected the status quo.
1) it is used because it works when it is done credibly. This time it wasn't very credible so it didn't work.
2) advertising is far more effective than we like to think, especially on ourselves. If it wasn't, we'd all be buying supermarket own-brands all the time. I hope @Roger writes about this in detail at some point.
3) when two candidates or parties put out rival messages, the public will usually end up believing both. So they may well believe that Sadiq Khan has some murky connections but if they also believe that Zac Goldsmith is an out of touch posho with no ideas how to improve London for the ordinary citizen, they'll probably overlook that.
4) neither Sadiq Khan nor Zac Goldsmith did a very good job of completing the caption competition "I should be next Mayor of London because..." in 15 words or fewer. So the public went on their default settings.
One shouldn't use advertising as shorthand for all marketing activity. PR is just as important, with (groan) social media activity also playing a role. Even more fundamental is the brand positioning that should be set in place before something hits the market.
Well said, only those who know little about the various disciplines assume its about a slogan, logo or advertising.
Elected leaders are making life “difficult” because they spend too much time thinking about what they can get out of EU and kowtowing to public opinion, rather than working on “historic” projects such as the Euro, he said.
“Too many politicians are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense and a feeling of the need to put together efforts. We have too many part-time Europeans.”
Juncker4Britain
The fact, amazingly, people think of who elected them first, is the whole reason the eu needs to slow down or stop its integration mr juncker, because they don't want more hence requiring leaders to be difficult. If they wanted a superstate in reality rather than in theory for so e, their leaders would go for it happily.
Which is why the referendum should really have "Leave" and "EU superstate" on it.
If Remain win, and the EU continues its current path, there are going to be a lot of upset people who expected the status quo.
The leave campaign has been very clear on that point. If people don't take it into account and are later shocked, well, they've only themselves to blame. If they know and don't mind I disagree with them, but at least they know what is coming.
Khan has to become less of a Muslim and more of a Londoner..
If you mean that a person's religion should be a private matter and not be referenced to in their professional life then I agree wholeheartedly. There has, in my view, been far to much fuss made on both sides about Khan's religion and it speaks of a type of identity politics that is corrosive of social cohesion. In fact it is downright malignant.
'Disagree - all candidates should be subject to equal scrutiny. What on earth does 'as a Muslim' mean? Khan wax questioned about his past links and statement - one of which he admitted was racist and apologised for. Fine. He also won and can now prove his moderation and one wishes him well. But no ethnic group should be able to play the ethnic card to close down scrutiny - that has happened too often in the past ten years and is the main reason UKIP has flourished.'
Spot on, OK to question Corbyn,McDonnell & Livingstone about their past associations but off limits to ask the same questions of Khan because he's a Muslim and that would be racist.
I'm generally sceptical of the idea that the London mayoralty has major national significance but if the Labour party really is that London-centric at an internal level then perhaps it will be a significant dynamic.
The final England local authority seat count was as follows: Lab 950 (-18) Con 563 (-47) LD 237 (+31) UKIP 34 (+25) Green 19 (=) Others 81 (-45)
In the final result, the Conservatives were a lot further down in seats than it appeared they would be in the earlier tallies. So in terms of seats, Lab down about 2%, Con down about 8%, measured against the results of previous elections in the same seats, the time of nearly all of those previous contests being the Lab high water mark of 2012.
The BBC has the following local election results prior to Bristol which is counting today.
Labour 1,291 −23
Conservative 828 −46
Liberal Democrat 370 +44
Independent 77 −3
UKIP 58 +26
Residents 39 +8
Green Party 34 +0
Liberal 4 −1
Thanks and apologies. I took that data from the Guardian election tracker which is clearly way out of date. And I suppose that if the people of Bristol are annoyed that their count was delayed until three days after polling ended, they have the consolation of having just voted out the mayor responsible.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
As I posted the other day , these figures have implications for the EU referendum . Online polls which have Leave roughly level are based on UKIP VI figures of 16/17% . This ts clearly too high by 3-5% and goes much of the way to explaining the discrepancy between online and telephone pollsters in EU polling .
The polls you refer to measure general election voting intention, not local election voting intention. The Lib Dems wouldn't win 14% in a general election held today, nor would Resident win Epsom & Ewell.
Those polls which surveyed for the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections were pretty accurate.
The final Welsh Assembly poll had UKIP at 16% , they actually got 12.5% . Same overestimate .
The problem with that is that the polls didn't take a number for the Abolish The Welsh Assembly Party, who chalked up over 4%.
I think it's reasonable to guess that most of those voters will have been on the right of the spectrum and the same kind of people who think the EU is a load of twaddle.
'It is just as fundamental to political parties though some people don't realise it. It's taken two decades for the Tories to partially clear their image of being 'the nasty party'. Political parties are completely unregulated which is why the reputations of politicians are so low and why so little of what they claim is believed.'
What an excellent piece of insight Roger. I bet this line of political analysis get picked up outside pbCOM because it is so clever, and so intuitively right.
Hi Tyson. Thank you. I was a little surprised when Nick confused the science of advertising with the bluster of market trading.
That huge swathe of red through Perthshire, Angus, Kincardine and Aberdeenshire are the seats I named as potential tory targets yesterday.
The green sections presumably show where the SNP vote increased and the brightest sections are in Glasgow and its environs where they wiped out the last bastions of Labour. The tension between policies that suit those central belt conurbations and rural Scotland are going to be more of an issue for Nicola in this Parliament.
It is a slightly ironic historical footnote that the SNP first grew strong in more right wing rural areas (under Salmond) largely as a result of Tory weakness which created an opportunity in these seats. They moved to total dominance when they were able to exploit Labour weakness in the central belt but the more they achieve that the weaker they may well become in the areas they first broke through. To take an example how long is rural and prosperous Perthshire going to want to be represented by someone as left wing as Pete Wishart?
David, I do not think much can be taken from this , it really needs to be the constituency votes that are shown to show the real picture. What this election has shown is the fallacy of the idiotic idea that SNP supporters give their second vote to Green/Left wing to have more balance. As we saw it cost them the majority and allowed the Tories a big increase in seats, bizarre how easily Scottish people are taken in by propaganda lies.
Dear Dear , Tommy is a serial loser and whinger. No-one will vote for his North Korea vision.
He does have a point in Glasgow though where the SNP won all the FPTP constituencies, they were therefore not going to win any list seats so a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible. In Edinburgh by contrast or the borders where the SNP won fewer constituencies you are correct and SNP 1 and 2 would have been sensible as they could have won more list seats there
"a vote for Solidarity etc there would have been more sensible"
Think about what you are writing. Voting for that bunch of nutters is never sensible.
Also very easy to say after they have won the seats, what if they had not won all of them, nothing is certain till after the vote and as we see not giving the second vote this time has meant they got lots less list seats and NOM.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
I don't like London, but I fear it is. It's a 1/4 of the total population of the British Isles for heaven's sake! (taking the urban conurbation as a whole)
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
Just because the developing world sees its gdp increase that does not mean our gdp will decrease but it does mean the gap will likely erode if their gdp grows faster. As nations like China see their middle class expand their willingness to accept harsher working conditions may also begin to decline too
Take a look at GDP per capita or at real wages or at home ownership or at rising inequality in the developed world and then another look at all those unfunded spending promises.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
Of course there are local variations, but for the first time in years the LDs have had a net gain of seats. Wales is a concern, but enough to encourage the activists.
'Disagree - all candidates should be subject to equal scrutiny. What on earth does 'as a Muslim' mean? Khan wax questioned about his past links and statement - one of which he admitted was racist and apologised for. Fine. He also won and can now prove his moderation and one wishes him well. But no ethnic group should be able to play the ethnic card to close down scrutiny - that has happened too often in the past ten years and is the main reason UKIP has flourished.'
Spot on, OK to question Corbyn,McDonnell & Livingstone about their past associations but off limits to ask the same questions of Khan because he's a Muslim and that would be racist.
Could not agree more with this sentiment.
What I find more reprehensible than any campaign is an individual who uses identity politics to quash legitimate scrutiny, and Khan has done that, quite simply because he could, and he will continue to do so. Indeed, Labour, and the wider Left, have been using this tactic for many decades. It has only been recently that the mask has slipped with the anti-Semitism row, destroying the myth that Labour are the party supporting minorities, or at least a minority they perceive as oppressors rather than victims.
Sadiq Khan was at best an average MP, a distinctly average Minister, and he will be a distinctly average Mayor. I actually think he will be anonymous, but as I said, any criticism of him will be heavily caveated because of what he looks like and what his religion is. That should not be any part of political discourse in 21st century Britain, but depressingly, it is fast becoming the default.
Regarding Corbyn, I don't think it really matters, because no sensible person believes he will get within a million miles of Downing Street, including himself. His mission is to mould the Labour party into his own image. Embracing pragmatism and winning elections is not in Corbyn's DNA.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
I don't like London, but I fear it is. It's a 1/4 of the total population of the British Isles for heaven's sake! (taking the urban conurbation as a whole)
1/4 of the total population of the British Isles? Seriously? 4 times 8 is 32. What are you classing as the "urban conurbation", the whole of the South East of England?
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
Probably so, but it won't matter because Labour should hold anyway. Khan will probably be highly visible in the campaign and the Conservatives will be throwing huge amounts of mud at each other's arguments and credibility in the EURef, so hardly an ideal backdrop. On top of which, those who would vote Con at a GE 'to keep Labour out' have no such incentive at a by-election.
Can't see anything other than a comfortable Lab hold.
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
Probably so, but it won't matter because Labour should hold anyway. Khan will probably be highly visible in the campaign and the Conservatives will be throwing huge amounts of mud at each other's arguments and credibility in the EURef, so hardly an ideal backdrop. On top of which, those who would vote Con at a GE 'to keep Labour out' have no such incentive at a by-election.
Can't see anything other than a comfortable Lab hold.
Indeed. Con get close at times, but that's it and Khan's stock will likely never be higher
'Disagree - all candidates should be subject to equal scrutiny. What on earth does 'as a Muslim' mean? Khan wax questioned about his past links and statement - one of which he admitted was racist and apologised for. Fine. He also won and can now prove his moderation and one wishes him well. But no ethnic group should be able to play the ethnic card to close down scrutiny - that has happened too often in the past ten years and is the main reason UKIP has flourished.'
Spot on, OK to question Corbyn,McDonnell & Livingstone about their past associations but off limits to ask the same questions of Khan because he's a Muslim and that would be racist.
Could not agree more with this sentiment.
What I find more reprehensible than any campaign is an individual who uses identity politics to quash legitimate scrutiny, and Khan has done that, quite simply because he could, and he will continue to do so. Indeed, Labour, and the wider Left, have been using this tactic for many decades. It has only been recently that the mask has slipped with the anti-Semitism row, destroying the myth that Labour are the party supporting minorities, or at least a minority they perceive as oppressors rather than victims.
Sadiq Khan was at best an average MP, a distinctly average Minister, and he will be a distinctly average Mayor. I actually think he will be anonymous, but as I said, any criticism of him will be heavily caveated because of what he looks like and what his religion is. That should not be any part of political discourse in 21st century Britain, but depressingly, it is fast becoming the default.
Regarding Corbyn, I don't think it really matters, because no sensible person believes he will get within a million miles of Downing Street, including himself. His mission is to mould the Labour party into his own image. Embracing pragmatism and winning elections is not in Corbyn's DNA.
The picture of the bombed bus and the number of casualties made some of Khans and Corbyns friends happy..it was what they want to happen in the west. These two Labour Politicians call them "Friends"
It was also chosen by the Mail's picture editor. Why so many people find this impossible to comprehend is beyond me.
It was a reasonable representation of the article he'd written.
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
The afternoon thread is on the Tooting by election.
Dang! I was was hoping for a AV thread.
I've got a thread written and will probably use next weekend which discusses the AV referendum and the lessons Leave can learn from it for the EU referendum
Roger on ads - I accept that advertisers try not to lie, but a requirement that ads told a meaningful truth would sweep away a huge section of the advertising that we see. I've just opened a paper to look for an example, and the first ad I see is for a cruise. The headline in big letters is "Introducing Columbus 2nd passenger travels free cruise offers". When I got over the lack of punctuation, I worked out that this appears to mean that if I book a cruise, I can take a friend free. How nice. But then I noticed a tiny, almost invisible, asterisk at the end. I spent some time looking for the footnote, and eventually tracked it down tucked away in a paragraph of microscopic print which is otherwise about call charges. It says "Offer subject to availability and may be withdrawn at any time". So I might get a free partner ticket, but equally I might not.
Isn't this awfully like a political party saying it has an aspiration to transform the NHS or double new housing? People don't believe it, because they're used to there being actual or unspoken small print that renders it potentially meaningless. And aren't people cynical about both, for the same reason?
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
Some examples, Mr Herdson - but you did say "no small number", so you haven`t quite lived up to your claim.
I would look, rather, to places like Manchester, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Winchester, which have seen Lib Dem progress. The fact that the Lib Dems have had a net gaiin of 44 seats so far, suggests that the tide is turning in their favour, even as the Tory tide starts to go out.
A serious Labour politician interested taking power speaks:
“My point was I want Labour to be a big tent, and if we want to form the next government we need to speak to everyone, not just Labour voters, not just our core vote. I have to speak to chief executives, people who voted Conservative last time, Ukip or stayed at home.”
He will be derided and completely ignored by Corbyn Labour.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
Of course there are local variations, but for the first time in years the LDs have had a net gain of seats. Wales is a concern, but enough to encourage the activists.
They did, but from a very low level. The Lib Dems have arrested their decline in places and are just about beginning to rebuild but let's not forget that gains of a few dozen does very little to recover the net loss of 336 councillors in 2012.
Khan is tomhated by some on the right. No matter what he does it will be taken as evidence as his extremism "look see we were right, see". He won't be able to take a shit without someone saying it's proff he support I.S. smh.
From what I understand, Khan vs Goldsmith numbers were broadly the same as the GE last year. I think a more interesting snapshot of Project Corbyn was Bristol. Faced with the choice of another term of the left leaning independent, the public voted in Corbyn's man (and unlike Khan is he a Corbynite) for a massive margin.
I'm generally sceptical of the idea that the London mayoralty has major national significance but if the Labour party really is that London-centric at an internal level then perhaps it will be a significant dynamic.
The significance of Labour's victory in London is that it as achieved in a way that is completely antithetical to the Corbyn Labour strategy. Corbyn Labour asked voters to take side. Sadiq Khan's strategy was to reach out beyond the Labour core.
It's noteworthy that in the Assembly election Labour repeated its previous result. In the mayoral election Khan got the most support that any London mayor has ever had.
Mr Crighton said a limited number of weight categories in MMA meant fighters had to lose more weight than boxers to drop a classification.
He found professional fighters were losing the biggest amount of weight, with one fighter losing 7.4kg - nearly 11% of his body weight - in the 24 hours before a fight*.
Nearly 70% of the professionals he spoke to said they had engaged in water loading, which involves drinking excessive amounts of water to force the body to expel it.
In February this year Dhafir Harris, whose fighting name is Dada 5000, suffered renal failure and two heart attacks during a fight after losing 25% of his body weight. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36205819
How can anybody fight 2 days after that....
* This is wrong as the weigh in is normally 1-2 days before the fight, so they mean 24hrs before the weigh in.
The picture of the bombed bus and the number of casualties made some of Khans and Corbyns friends happy..it was what they want to happen in the west. These two Labour Politicians call them "Friends"
It was also chosen by the Mail's picture editor. Why so many people find this impossible to comprehend is beyond me.
It was a reasonable representation of the article he'd written.
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
Just because the developing world sees its gdp increase that does not mean our gdp will decrease but it does mean the gap will likely erode if their gdp grows faster. As nations like China see their middle class expand their willingness to accept harsher working conditions may also begin to decline too
Take a look at GDP per capita or at real wages or at home ownership or at rising inequality in the developed world and then another look at all those unfunded spending promises.
Well gdp per capita and wages are still a lot higher in the developed world than the developing world and the developing world has even more inequality, the gap is closing but is still there
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
The afternoon thread is on the Tooting by election.
Dang! I was was hoping for a AV thread.
I've got a thread written and will probably use next weekend which discusses the AV referendum and the lessons Leave can learn from it for the EU referendum
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
I don't like London, but I fear it is. It's a 1/4 of the total population of the British Isles for heaven's sake! (taking the urban conurbation as a whole)
Even Greater London is only 12% of the UK population. And that includes places like Orpington. Certainly not 25%.
Really, how much passion did he display? How much desire for the job did voters see from him? Mr Goldsmith never looked like he cared much if he became mayor, much less about what he would do with the job if he got it. (Mr Khan, by contrast, looked like he wanted it a bit too much, willing to say anything to anyone to get it.)
Then there were the basic failings of candidacy. Mr Goldsmith didn't know much about Tube stops. Or football grounds. Or how to hold a pint. Or the names of the Bollywood films he claimed he liked. These are all minor things, not enough in isolation to swing a result. But together they suggest a candidate who couldn't be bothered to do the basics of familiarising himself with the place he aspired to represent or his appeal to its people.
The picture of the bombed bus and the number of casualties made some of Khans and Corbyns friends happy..it was what they want to happen in the west. These two Labour Politicians call them "Friends"
It was also chosen by the Mail's picture editor. Why so many people find this impossible to comprehend is beyond me.
It was a reasonable representation of the article he'd written.
And he could have objected.
I have a feeling, like the headline, often the authors don't see it before publication. It isn't the first time politicians have written a piece and then found a headline that doesn't represent their view at the top of the page.
With regard to the question of whether the UK’s opt-out from the jurisdiction of the EPPO will be rendered ineffective owing to the ability of the EPPO to initiate the issue of an EAW and secure its execution in the UK, it is quite clear that it would.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
I don't like London, but I fear it is. It's a 1/4 of the total population of the British Isles for heaven's sake! (taking the urban conurbation as a whole)
1/4 of the total population of the British Isles? Seriously? 4 times 8 is 32. What are you classing as the "urban conurbation", the whole of the South East of England?
The London Metropolitan area (defined as the Greater London built up area plus commuter belt) was estimated at just over 14 million in 2014 by Eurostat. That is not the whole of SE England, just the population of London and the commuter belt.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan is tomhated by some on the right. No matter what he does it will be taken as evidence as his extremism "look see we were right, see". He won't be able to take a shit without someone saying it's proff he support I.S. smh.
They would be very stupid to continue. This man is clearly not an ISIS supporter or a fundamentalist:
TSE's lead article is a damn sight better one than another attempt at AV.
Long may the time be until when the Tories realise that the AV actually helps them.
But, Tories should be careful what they wish for.
In a federal UK, with Westminster also holding court as an English parliament, the Government of England would tend to the centre-right most of the time.
If we had PR in GE2015 we'd have most likely had a Con minority with UKIP support or Con-UKIP coalition.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
A little poorer? We would be in deep economic trouble. There proper argument is that London should not be as hugely important to the UK economy as it is.
Khan is tomhated by some on the right. No matter what he does it will be taken as evidence as his extremism "look see we were right, see". He won't be able to take a shit without someone saying it's proff he support I.S. smh.
He's only been in the job a day and you're casting him as a victim.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan was not Ken and did not run a Ken-like campaign. As a result, he got the same vote as Labour got in the GLA election. Something that Ken failed to do.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out -........
Some examples, Mr Herdson - but you did say "no small number", so you haven`t quite lived up to your claim.
I would look, rather, to places like Manchester, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Winchester, which have seen Lib Dem progress. The fact that the Lib Dems have had a net gaiin of 44 seats so far, suggests that the tide is turning in their favour, even as the Tory tide starts to go out.
Overall, outside of Scotland this was a bad set of results for the Conservtaives +1 Scotland, -1 Wales, -1Eng cllrs and -1 London, a -2 assessment for Conservatives. But the question raised was about Lib Dem progress which in truth is probably a bit less worse than Conservatives, but if LDs feel good about it, why persuade them otherwise? Yes LDs gained back 44 english councillors, but only part of the circa 280 they lost in same elections in 2012. Holds the line in Scotland albeit benefiting from SLAB's near demise, but overtaken by Greens. Down to 1 in London Assembly, over taken by UKIP and also behind Greens. Down to 1 AM in Wales and AFAIK lose party status in Welsh Assembly. Overall +1 for English councillors but -1 for London and -1 Wales. Overall a -1 Lib Dems.
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
The afternoon thread is on the Tooting by election.
Dang! I was was hoping for a AV thread.
I've got a thread written and will probably use next weekend which discusses the AV referendum and the lessons Leave can learn from it for the EU referendum
AV is (despite its rejection by the referendum) now part of the political scene, with the mayors and PPC elected by a truncated AV that favours the big parties.
I am increasingly a convert to the constituency/list system used in Scotland and Wales. I would like to see it at Westminster.
“Too many politicians are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense and a feeling of the need to put together efforts. We have too many part-time Europeans.” Juncker4Britain
The fact, amazingly, people think of who elected them first, is the whole reason the eu needs to slow down or stop its integration mr juncker, because they don't want more hence requiring leaders to be difficult. If they wanted a superstate in reality rather than in theory for so e, their leaders would go for it happily.
Which is why the referendum should really have "Leave" and "EU superstate" on it.
If Remain win, and the EU continues its current path, there are going to be a lot of upset people who expected the status quo.
Those voting Remain should be under no illusions.
But, I think there are (in fact, I know there are) a good sized number of people who really want to vote Leave but feel they have no choice but to vote Remain, or abstain.
I disagree, and am trying to work on few friends of mine in that category, but in a close race it could be decisive.
' A bit more hope and a little less fear please. '
No chance of that.
Politics is now a zero sum game, namely "take it from them and give it to me".
If you want hope then there needs to be enough increasing wealth creation to allow everyone to become richer and happier.
And in a globalised world economy where we're competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that isn't going to happen.
Just because the developing world sees its gdp increase that does not mean our gdp will decrease but it does mean the gap will likely erode if their gdp grows faster. As nations like China see their middle class expand their willingness to accept harsher working conditions may also begin to decline too
Take a look at GDP per capita or at real wages or at home ownership or at rising inequality in the developed world and then another look at all those unfunded spending promises.
Well gdp per capita and wages are still a lot higher in the developed world than the developing world and the developing world has even more inequality, the gap is closing but is still there
My point is that gdp per capita growth is nowhere near enough to fund all the promises the politicians have made.
So to fund some of them others will have to lose out - the 'take it from them and give it to me' endgame.
Meanwhile real wages and home ownership have been stagnant for a decade.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan was not Ken and did not run a Ken-like campaign. As a result, he got the same vote as Labour got in the GLA election. Something that Ken failed to do.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan was not Ken and did not run a Ken-like campaign. As a result, he got the same vote as Labour got in the GLA election. Something that Ken failed to do.
Essentially, I agree. Additionally Zac was no where near a good candidate to sway any middle ground voters that he would be a good mayor. That's why the Tories need someone like Karren Brady to run next time, hopefully she can be convinced.
Very good figures for the Lib Dems. Not so much for UKIP.
The Lib Dems made net gains despite being 2% down on 2012. Presumably due to Lab being 5% down.
Very poor Tory return in net seats given an increase in NEV on 2012 and declines for Lab and LD.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
Some examples, Mr Herdson - but you did say "no small number", so you haven`t quite lived up to your claim.
I would look, rather, to places like Manchester, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Winchester, which have seen Lib Dem progress. The fact that the Lib Dems have had a net gaiin of 44 seats so far, suggests that the tide is turning in their favour, even as the Tory tide starts to go out.
I stand by my comment from yesterday's thread that "considering the current Westminster VI as against that of 2012, they did well to record net gains at all. In that, Farron can be happy – but only really in that."
Fact is that the Lib Dems' progress is at best patchy. Sure, you can look at the places you made gains and feel good. On the other hand, you've just finished fifth in Scotland and on the London Assembly, were reduced to one seat in Wales and lost your deposit for the London mayoralty. It's basically bumping along the bottom.
The picture of the bombed bus and the number of casualties made some of Khans and Corbyns friends happy..it was what they want to happen in the west. These two Labour Politicians call them "Friends"
It was also chosen by the Mail's picture editor. Why so many people find this impossible to comprehend is beyond me.
It was a reasonable representation of the article he'd written.
And he could have objected.
I have a feeling, like the headline, often the authors don't see it before publication. It isn't the first time politicians have written a piece and then found a headline that doesn't represent their view at the top of the page.
It was in the first edition that came out before midnight. He could have objected and asked for it to be changed for the second edition. He could just have let it be known immediately and publicly that he thought the picture and the headline were inappropriate. He didn't.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
I don't like London, but I fear it is. It's a 1/4 of the total population of the British Isles for heaven's sake! (taking the urban conurbation as a whole)
1/4 of the total population of the British Isles? Seriously? 4 times 8 is 32. What are you classing as the "urban conurbation", the whole of the South East of England?
The London Metropolitan area (defined as the Greater London built up area plus commuter belt) was estimated at just over 14 million in 2014 by Eurostat. That is not the whole of SE England, just the population of London and the commuter belt.
I see that in the Sunday Times we have a good kick-off for the Remain "grid" this week:
Big speech from Cameron tomorrow. Gordon Brown laying down the case on Wednesday. And an "independent" Bank of England forecast by Carney (on interest rates v. inflation if we Leave v. we Stay) too A few big firms and CEOs reinforcing the message as well
All entirely predictable, but very well-organised.
I hope Leave have a few tricks of their own up their sleeve.
I broadly agree with TSE's article, although @MaxPB is also right to point out that Zac was on the wrong side of the argument for many Tories and others who might have voted for him. How much of the problem was Zac himself and how much those advising on the campaign is hard to say.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan was not Ken and did not run a Ken-like campaign. As a result, he got the same vote as Labour got in the GLA election. Something that Ken failed to do.
Essentially, I agree. Additionally Zac was no where near a good candidate to sway any middle ground voters that he would be a good mayor. That's why the Tories need someone like Karren Brady to run next time, hopefully she can be convinced.
And a Ken campaign is the same as a Corbyn campaign: choose sides, no outreach, no going beyond the comfort zone.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
A little poorer? We would be in deep economic trouble. There proper argument is that London should not be as hugely important to the UK economy as it is.
London generates 22% of the UK GDP, and has more than 22% of the population, if London vanished in a puff of smoke, GDP per capita would increase.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan was not Ken and did not run a Ken-like campaign. As a result, he got the same vote as Labour got in the GLA election. Something that Ken failed to do.
Essentially, I agree. Additionally Zac was no where near a good candidate to sway any middle ground voters that he would be a good mayor. That's why the Tories need someone like Karren Brady to run next time, hopefully she can be convinced.
I can fully understand why many good candidates didn't want to run in Boris' wake.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
I don't like London, but I fear it is. It's a 1/4 of the total population of the British Isles for heaven's sake! (taking the urban conurbation as a whole)
1/4 of the total population of the British Isles? Seriously? 4 times 8 is 32. What are you classing as the "urban conurbation", the whole of the South East of England?
The London Metropolitan area (defined as the Greater London built up area plus commuter belt) was estimated at just over 14 million in 2014 by Eurostat. That is not the whole of SE England, just the population of London and the commuter belt.
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
The afternoon thread is on the Tooting by election.
Dang! I was was hoping for a AV thread.
I've got a thread written and will probably use next weekend which discusses the AV referendum and the lessons Leave can learn from it for the EU referendum
AV is (despite its rejection by the referendum) now part of the political scene, with the mayors and PPC elected by a truncated AV that favours the big parties.
I am increasingly a convert to the constituency/list system used in Scotland and Wales. I would like to see it at Westminster.
The Welsh system would be a lot better if the split were 1:1 rather than 2:1 between constituencies and list seats.
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
The afternoon thread is on the Tooting by election.
Dang! I was was hoping for a AV thread.
I've got a thread written and will probably use next weekend which discusses the AV referendum and the lessons Leave can learn from it for the EU referendum
AV is (despite its rejection by the referendum) now part of the political scene, with the mayors and PPC elected by a truncated AV that favours the big parties.
I am increasingly a convert to the constituency/list system used in Scotland and Wales. I would like to see it at Westminster.
The Welsh system would be a lot better if the split were 1:1 rather than 2:1 between constituencies and list seats.
But list system sucks, how do you get rid of the guy at the top of the list, it fails the basic "chuck the buggers out" test.
Muslim politicians shouldn't get a free pass on their past just because they're muslim, which seems to be the tone of the criticism. Were any of Zac's attack lines untrue? There is absolutely nothing wrong in principle in holding Khan to account for past comments, actions and knowing associations.
No, but if you condemn Sadiq Khan, but not Zac Goldsmith, for associating with the same cleric, you are exploiting sectarianism and racism for gain.
It's like the people in the States who demanded that Obama show his birth cert for the gall of claiming he was born in America as part of his scheme to unlawfully and by deceit seize power over the white man, but who are fine with Ted Cruz definitely not being born in the USA.
Have to disagree with you TSE. London is not the country and the results were literally in line with the party shares in London which just shows that both candidates were deeply unimpressive.
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
Khan was not Ken and did not run a Ken-like campaign. As a result, he got the same vote as Labour got in the GLA election. Something that Ken failed to do.
Essentially, I agree. Additionally Zac was no where near a good candidate to sway any middle ground voters that he would be a good mayor. That's why the Tories need someone like Karren Brady to run next time, hopefully she can be convinced.
It doesn't matter who the Conservatives have as candidate next time as they wont win.
To win in London the Conservatives need one or both of these:
1) A deeply unpopular Labour government (2008) 2) A successful incumbent against a dreadful Labour candidate (2012)
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
A little poorer? We would be in deep economic trouble. There proper argument is that London should not be as hugely important to the UK economy as it is.
The last 30 years has seen the UK economy reshaped round London with massively disproportionate disburesment of public funds on London focused projects and current account spending on the basis it was good for the UK as a whole but then the rest of the country castigated for not being as economically productive as London.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
A little poorer? We would be in deep economic trouble. There proper argument is that London should not be as hugely important to the UK economy as it is.
London generates 22% of the UK GDP, and has more than 22% of the population, if London vanished in a puff of smoke, GDP per capita would increase.
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
The afternoon thread is on the Tooting by election.
Dang! I was was hoping for a AV thread.
I've got a thread written and will probably use next weekend which discusses the AV referendum and the lessons Leave can learn from it for the EU referendum
AV is (despite its rejection by the referendum) now part of the political scene, with the mayors and PPC elected by a truncated AV that favours the big parties.
I am increasingly a convert to the constituency/list system used in Scotland and Wales. I would like to see it at Westminster.
The Welsh system would be a lot better if the split were 1:1 rather than 2:1 between constituencies and list seats.
But list system sucks, how do you get rid of the guy at the top of the list, it fails the basic "chuck the buggers out" test.
It should be an open list (or, my preference, open list plus).
But either way, the public should be able to vote for the candidates on the lists and the order that they're elected in should be determined by their individual votes.
I see that in the Sunday Times we have a good kick-off for the Remain "grid" this week:
Big speech from Cameron tomorrow. Gordon Brown laying down the case on Wednesday. And an "independent" Bank of England forecast by Carney (on interest rates v. inflation if we Leave v. we Stay) too A few big firms and CEOs reinforcing the message as well
All entirely predictable, but very well-organised.
I hope Leave have a few tricks of their own up their sleeve.
It's like the people in the States who demanded that Obama show his birth cert for the gall of claiming he was born in America as part of his scheme to unlawfully and by deceit seize power over the white man, but who are fine with Ted Cruz definitely not being born in the USA.
No its not. Obama mostly didn't come in for that attack until he was the nominee, when he was relentlessly attacked for it in the general campaign. Ted Cruz was never close to being the nominee, and so the democrats concentrated their fire elsewhere, had Cruz been nominated you can be that part of his history would have been subject to the closest scrutiny both legitimate, and by nutters. Besides, people have a far more visceral attack on Cruz available, that he is a dangerous idiot.
Muslim politicians shouldn't get a free pass on their past just because they're muslim, which seems to be the tone of the criticism. Were any of Zac's attack lines untrue? There is absolutely nothing wrong in principle in holding Khan to account for past comments, actions and knowing associations.
No, but if you condemn Sadiq Khan, but not Zac Goldsmith, for associating with the same cleric, you are exploiting sectarianism and racism for gain.
It's like the people in the States who demanded that Obama show his birth cert for the gall of claiming he was born in America as part of his scheme to unlawfully and by deceit seize power over the white man, but who are fine with Ted Cruz definitely not being born in the USA.
Broadly, I'd agree with that though it does depend also on why they were associating and what was being said when they were.
FWIW, I've been much less fine with Cruz's eligibility than with Obama's.
Roger on ads - I accept that advertisers try not to lie, but a requirement that ads told a meaningful truth would sweep away a huge section of the advertising that we see. I've just opened a paper to look for an example, and the first ad I see is for a cruise. The headline in big letters is "Introducing Columbus 2nd passenger travels free cruise offers". When I got over the lack of punctuation, I worked out that this appears to mean that if I book a cruise, I can take a friend free. How nice. But then I noticed a tiny, almost invisible, asterisk at the end. I spent some time looking for the footnote, and eventually tracked it down tucked away in a paragraph of microscopic print which is otherwise about call charges. It says "Offer subject to availability and may be withdrawn at any time". So I might get a free partner ticket, but equally I might not.
Isn't this awfully like a political party saying it has an aspiration to transform the NHS or double new housing? People don't believe it, because they're used to there being actual or unspoken small print that renders it potentially meaningless. And aren't people cynical about both, for the same reason?
Ha! I bet the sun was shining and it had blue skies too! It was probably a compulsory disclaimer but I don't know much about the rules on press ads. For commercials the evidence you need to back up a claim has to be watertight. Any disclaimer like the one you describe has to be on screen for a ridiculous length of time and at a size that a blind man can read!
In the US they just need a signature from the client and the agency representative and if any claim is false or a disclaimer can't be read the signatories are held personally responsible and can be sued.
I think the LD share was down in mostly no hope areas from a low base to an even lower base but up sometimes substantially so in areas where their results were already good for example Cheltenham and Watford .
That's probably true but no small number of the areas where the Lib Dems have gone from low to lower were ones that they were being elected in pre-2010.
For example, Mr Herdson?
One local to me is Baildon. The seat had always been a Lib Dem/Con contest. By 2008, the Conservatives had the upper hand, with two of the three seats but the other was held by a Lib Dem with a strong personal vote.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
Some examples, Mr Herdson - but you did say "no small number", so you haven`t quite lived up to your claim.
I would look, rather, to places like Manchester, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Winchester, which have seen Lib Dem progress. The fact that the Lib Dems have had a net gaiin of 44 seats so far, suggests that the tide is turning in their favour, even as the Tory tide starts to go out.
I stand by my comment from yesterday's thread that "considering the current Westminster VI as against that of 2012, they did well to record net gains at all. In that, Farron can be happy – but only really in that."
Fact is that the Lib Dems' progress is at best patchy. Sure, you can look at the places you made gains and feel good. On the other hand, you've just finished fifth in Scotland and on the London Assembly, were reduced to one seat in Wales and lost your deposit for the London mayoralty. It's basically bumping along the bottom.
Bumping along the bottom is better than sinking further.
And we thought that the LibDems were sinking further before the elections.
What the LibDems would like is a few byelections in Conservative constituencies where they finished second in 2015.
I see that in the Sunday Times we have a good kick-off for the Remain "grid" this week:
Big speech from Cameron tomorrow. Gordon Brown laying down the case on Wednesday. And an "independent" Bank of England forecast by Carney (on interest rates v. inflation if we Leave v. we Stay) too A few big firms and CEOs reinforcing the message as well
All entirely predictable, but very well-organised.
I hope Leave have a few tricks of their own up their sleeve.
I see that in the Sunday Times we have a good kick-off for the Remain "grid" this week:
Big speech from Cameron tomorrow. Gordon Brown laying down the case on Wednesday. And an "independent" Bank of England forecast by Carney (on interest rates v. inflation if we Leave v. we Stay) too A few big firms and CEOs reinforcing the message as well
All entirely predictable, but very well-organised.
I hope Leave have a few tricks of their own up their sleeve.
Same old, same old.
The Times comment system Livefyre is bust again today - I'll wait for them to fix it before reading it. The comments are usually much more interesting than the articles.
Mr. Surbiton, are you not counting London in England?
London is the heart and brain and the other organs of Britain. London exists because it does, for millennia.
Piffle, Mr. Surbiton. If London were, God forbid, to be nuked the rest of us would still be here. A little poorer, for sure, but we would still be here, and probably better governed.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
A little poorer? We would be in deep economic trouble. There proper argument is that London should not be as hugely important to the UK economy as it is.
London generates 22% of the UK GDP, and has more than 22% of the population, if London vanished in a puff of smoke, GDP per capita would increase.
Comments
Which is why the referendum should really have "Leave" and "EU superstate" on it.
If Remain win, and the EU continues its current path, there are going to be a lot of upset people who expected the status quo.
Which is why the referendum should really have "Leave" and "EU superstate" on it.
If Remain win, and the EU continues its current path, there are going to be a lot of upset people who expected the status quo.
The leave campaign has been very clear on that point. If people don't take it into account and are later shocked, well, they've only themselves to blame. If they know and don't mind I disagree with them, but at least they know what is coming.
'Disagree - all candidates should be subject to equal scrutiny. What on earth does 'as a Muslim' mean? Khan wax questioned about his past links and statement - one of which he admitted was racist and apologised for. Fine. He also won and can now prove his moderation and one wishes him well. But no ethnic group should be able to play the ethnic card to close down scrutiny - that has happened too often in the past ten years and is the main reason UKIP has flourished.'
Spot on, OK to question Corbyn,McDonnell & Livingstone about their past associations but off limits to ask the same questions of Khan because he's a Muslim and that would be racist.
Presumably you mean "Trump like" to refer to his hairpiece being like a Tribble?
Long may the time be until when the Tories realise that the AV actually helps them.
I think it's reasonable to guess that most of those voters will have been on the right of the spectrum and the same kind of people who think the EU is a load of twaddle.
In 2008 (i.e. the last election before Labour was kicked out - there were no metro elections in 2009), the Lib Dems polled 3122 votes to win by a majority of 892.
Their councillor stood down in 2012 and they lost the seat to the Conservatives by 212 votes, polling 1632 votes.
This year, despite their former councillor coming out of retirement to recontest, they polled 866 to finish third behind Labour.
I could give similar examples from Wakefield (e.g. Horbury & South Ossett). I don't know the bigger picture in detail but you only have to look at where the Lib Dems finished at the 2015 GE in the seats they lost in 2010 to get a good idea of the trend.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-08/malcolm-turnbull-announces-federal-election-live-blog/7391958
It is in the Tory party's best interests to lose the forthcoming Tooting by-election. Discuss.
Please don't get me wrong, I was born and grew-up in London and in many ways I still love the place, but it is not the "heart and brain" of England let alone Britain.
What I find more reprehensible than any campaign is an individual who uses identity politics to quash legitimate scrutiny, and Khan has done that, quite simply because he could, and he will continue to do so. Indeed, Labour, and the wider Left, have been using this tactic for many decades. It has only been recently that the mask has slipped with the anti-Semitism row, destroying the myth that Labour are the party supporting minorities, or at least a minority they perceive as oppressors rather than victims.
Sadiq Khan was at best an average MP, a distinctly average Minister, and he will be a distinctly average Mayor. I actually think he will be anonymous, but as I said, any criticism of him will be heavily caveated because of what he looks like and what his religion is. That should not be any part of political discourse in 21st century Britain, but depressingly, it is fast becoming the default.
Regarding Corbyn, I don't think it really matters, because no sensible person believes he will get within a million miles of Downing Street, including himself. His mission is to mould the Labour party into his own image. Embracing pragmatism and winning elections is not in Corbyn's DNA.
Can't see anything other than a comfortable Lab hold.
Argyle & Bute 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote_99/during/index.stm
Only the home page works, the scripts powering the individual results page are broken
Argyle & Bute 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2003/scottish_parliament/html/16.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/vote_2003/interactive_map/html/default.stm
Interactive map needs version of Flash so old it can't detect the current version of Flash I have
Argyle & Bute 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2007/scottish_parliment/html/16.stm
Page now partly broken
Argyle & Bute 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/constituency/html/36074.stm
Non-responsive site design
Argyle & Bute 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/scotland-constituencies/S16000083
Fully responsive
Isn't this awfully like a political party saying it has an aspiration to transform the NHS or double new housing? People don't believe it, because they're used to there being actual or unspoken small print that renders it potentially meaningless. And aren't people cynical about both, for the same reason?
Where would England be without Joe Root?
I would look, rather, to places like Manchester, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Winchester, which have seen Lib Dem progress. The fact that the Lib Dems have had a net gaiin of 44 seats so far, suggests that the tide is turning in their favour, even as the Tory tide starts to go out.
“My point was I want Labour to be a big tent, and if we want to form the next government we need to speak to everyone, not just Labour voters, not just our core vote. I have to speak to chief executives, people who voted Conservative last time, Ukip or stayed at home.”
He will be derided and completely ignored by Corbyn Labour.
It's noteworthy that in the Assembly election Labour repeated its previous result. In the mayoral election Khan got the most support that any London mayor has ever had.
He found professional fighters were losing the biggest amount of weight, with one fighter losing 7.4kg - nearly 11% of his body weight - in the 24 hours before a fight*.
Nearly 70% of the professionals he spoke to said they had engaged in water loading, which involves drinking excessive amounts of water to force the body to expel it.
In February this year Dhafir Harris, whose fighting name is Dada 5000, suffered renal failure and two heart attacks during a fight after losing 25% of his body weight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36205819
How can anybody fight 2 days after that....
* This is wrong as the weigh in is normally 1-2 days before the fight, so they mean 24hrs before the weigh in.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/668062/EU-referendum-Brexit-warning-Brussels-Britain-UK-democracy-European-Prosecutor
The legal opinion of Jonathan Fisher can be found here:
http://www.tfa.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OpinionJonathanFisher-QC.7.10.pdf
Looks like the opt-out is not quite an opt-out...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt
We needed a better candidate, one who can speak to ordinary Londoners not just a few wealthy West Londoners in Richmond and Twickenham. He was also in the wrong side of the argument for too many traditional Tories, anti-Heathrow, anti-Uber, anti-business. Khan may have taken all of the same positions but he wasn't fighting for the Tory party. There were too many examples of long time Tory voters just not bothering to campaign for Zac or even vote for him to dismiss as anecdotal for me, the most common reason was that "why is he in the Tory party if he's so anti-business".
https://www.asian-voice.com/var/ezdemo_site/storage/images/asian-voice/volumes/2015/19-september-2015/sadiq-khan-becomes-labour's-choice-for-london-mayor/sadiq-wife/287742-1-eng-GB/sadiq-wife.jpg
In a federal UK, with Westminster also holding court as an English parliament, the Government of England would tend to the centre-right most of the time.
If we had PR in GE2015 we'd have most likely had a Con minority with UKIP support or Con-UKIP coalition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/07/0805-MATT-GALLERY-WEB-P1-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png
But the question raised was about Lib Dem progress which in truth is probably a bit less worse than Conservatives, but if LDs feel good about it, why persuade them otherwise?
Yes LDs gained back 44 english councillors, but only part of the circa 280 they lost in same elections in 2012.
Holds the line in Scotland albeit benefiting from SLAB's near demise, but overtaken by Greens.
Down to 1 in London Assembly, over taken by UKIP and also behind Greens.
Down to 1 AM in Wales and AFAIK lose party status in Welsh Assembly.
Overall +1 for English councillors but -1 for London and -1 Wales. Overall a -1 Lib Dems.
Lab 33%
Con 32%
LD 14%
UKIP 12%
Peak Corbyn, probably.
I am increasingly a convert to the constituency/list system used in Scotland and Wales. I would like to see it at Westminster.
But, I think there are (in fact, I know there are) a good sized number of people who really want to vote Leave but feel they have no choice but to vote Remain, or abstain.
I disagree, and am trying to work on few friends of mine in that category, but in a close race it could be decisive.
So to fund some of them others will have to lose out - the 'take it from them and give it to me' endgame.
Meanwhile real wages and home ownership have been stagnant for a decade.
Fact is that the Lib Dems' progress is at best patchy. Sure, you can look at the places you made gains and feel good. On the other hand, you've just finished fifth in Scotland and on the London Assembly, were reduced to one seat in Wales and lost your deposit for the London mayoralty. It's basically bumping along the bottom.
Big speech from Cameron tomorrow.
Gordon Brown laying down the case on Wednesday.
And an "independent" Bank of England forecast by Carney (on interest rates v. inflation if we Leave v. we Stay) too
A few big firms and CEOs reinforcing the message as well
All entirely predictable, but very well-organised.
I hope Leave have a few tricks of their own up their sleeve.
It's like the people in the States who demanded that Obama show his birth cert for the gall of claiming he was born in America as part of his scheme to unlawfully and by deceit seize power over the white man, but who are fine with Ted Cruz definitely not being born in the USA.
To win in London the Conservatives need one or both of these:
1) A deeply unpopular Labour government (2008)
2) A successful incumbent against a dreadful Labour candidate (2012)
The OECD data (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ) has London with significantly higher GDP per capita than the UK as a whole.
But either way, the public should be able to vote for the candidates on the lists and the order that they're elected in should be determined by their individual votes.
FWIW, I've been much less fine with Cruz's eligibility than with Obama's.
In the US they just need a signature from the client and the agency representative and if any claim is false or a disclaimer can't be read the signatories are held personally responsible and can be sued.
And we thought that the LibDems were sinking further before the elections.
What the LibDems would like is a few byelections in Conservative constituencies where they finished second in 2015.
Greater London's population is 8.3m (according to Google). Which is about 13% of the UK population.
LD 1126
Con 533
Lab 344
UKIP 315
Green 66
TUSC 27
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-248d9ac7-9784-4769-936a-8d3b435857a8