Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Sadiq Khan shouldn’t resign as an MP were he to become
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Sadiq Khan shouldn’t resign as an MP were he to become London Mayor
I’ll be frank, I think Jeremy Corbyn is disaster for Labour, with his and his team’s approach to politics there will be no electoral low that Labour won’t plunge under his leadership as evidenced by his poor personal polling.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Try this one on for size. Labour becoming more surreal by the day.....
It's eyes left! Emily Thornberry mocked for boasting she is Lieutenant Colonel in the armed forces despite being a former Human Rights barrister
Labour Shadow Defence Secretary under fire for boasting of honorary rank. Emily Thornberry, 55, was a human rights barrister before entering politics. Claimed she was given honour while working as at military court hearings
Ministry of Defence sources dismissed claim, insisting there is no record
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3392116/It-s-eyes-left-Emily-Thornberry-mocked-boasting-Lieutenant-Colonel-armed-forces-despite-former-Human-Rights-barrister.html#ixzz3wokhnS4t
Does Sadiq Khan have the personal warmth, or at least the personality to become the next Labour Party leader?
So Londoners (except those in his seat) are allowed two representatives in Parliament?
Fast forward to Comrade Corbyn and Citizen Khan.
I think there is a possibility Labour could poll as low as seven million votes in 2020 if there isn't a change in trajectory.
Being an MP should absolutely not be a full time job. The role is to represent the interests of constituents and to scrutinise the government. It's not to be some kind of glorified social worker
And what’s the Rainbow Coalition? Lab, LD’s SNP, assorted Irish all sitting down together? Don’t see it. In particular, I suspect the LD’s will be very wary of entering a coalition again, given the way they were shafted by the Tories.
I think that Khan faces several obstacles. Assuming he is elected Mayor, he may step down as MP. He may fail the reselection for the new boundaries. He may also have annoyed enough of the PLP by nominating Corbyn then not voting for him so he does not get the nominations.
On the other hand he has moderate rather than extreme views and importantly is staying out of the fracas between the shadow cabinet and the Corbynites. If he loses the Mayoralty he may actually be in a stronger position for the leadership!
33/1 is reasonable for a small punt.
The electorate elect an MP knowing that they might be called to serve the government or shadow cabinet. They do not elect an MP for him or her to run London as well.
Either the London mayoralty is worth the salary and is a full-time job, or the salary reduced, or the role abolished. It is obscene, and so was Boris's stance. It's a great argument for the abolition of the mayoralty.
Its a non-job.
Then again, I'm not a Londoner.
"In November 2015, planning documents for the bridge revealed that the public's access to the bridge would be heavily controlled, including tracking visitors' mobile phone signals to guard against overcrowding, an "enhanced" video surveillance system and granting "visitor hosts" limited policing powers under a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, including the right to issue minor fines. The rules of the bridge would prohibit "any exercise other than jogging, playing a musical instrument, taking part in a 'gathering of any kind', giving a speech or address, scattering ashes, releasing a balloon and flying a kite."[23]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Bridge
It's not going to be a 'public space' in any sense of the term.
Actually, to be fair to Boris he has got the London taxpayer to fork out for special advisers so that he can have the time to write his column:
http://metro.co.uk/2012/04/10/boris-johnson-accused-of-cronyism-as-100000-earners-rocket-383413/
The Mayor of London is just one big ego trip, an irrelevant role that costs a fortune to maintain and is pointless. The amount of money we waste on politicians and their sycophantic entourages is hideous.
Supposing that Khan does win and remains an MP. Some questions:
1. Is Khan continuity Corbyn or a replacement for him? He would obviously stand a much better chance if Corbyn stood down voluntarily and backed him as his replacement. If he is up against either Corbyn, or another candidate of the left, it becomes far harder.
2. If Corbyn can be forced out, can the PLP and alternative potential leaders give Khan a free run or would the pressure for them to nominate, say, Benn be overwhelming?
3. Could Khan serve as both Mayor of London and leader of Labour? There's no constitutional reason why not but there may be a lot of practical ones. If he had to stand down, would the mother of all by-elections risk handing London back to the Tories?
Were Khan to become leader, it would reinforce a trend already well underway towards making Labour ever more of a London Party.
Ah, the joys of jetlag and it's back to work for me tomorrow - ho hum...
First, thanks to TSE for a surprisingly objective and well-argued piece. I don't know whether Sadiq Khan will win in May - obviously, an area like East Ham is going to provide plenty of votes IF the local Labour machine can get them out and I doubt we'll see much of Team Goldsmith in the Barking Road. Boris reneged on his commitment not to seek a Westminster seat while serving as London Mayor and overall I would prefer the London Mayor not to be a Westminster MP but if either Zack or Sadiq wish to do both jobs, fair enough. The Mayoral term would end at the 2020 GE so either (or both) might have the question to answer again in four years.
I do agree Labour's internal machinations have provided the Government with plenty of cover and a lack of scrutiny for what has been, since the election, a pretty mediocre performance in a number of areas. The economy, which is perceived to be going okay and the lack of that opposition scrutiny, has given the Conservatives a free ride but that won't last for ever.
I can't see a coherent anti-Conservative Government at present and unless the SNP cohort is reduced considerably, the 2015 slogan of Labour being in the SNP's pocket could be wheeled out again in 2020. Were the SNP to implode and hand 20-30 seats back to Labour as a result it would be a very different situation. The question might then become what price support for a minority Conservative administration ?
As to the LDs, it depends on what kind of recovery the Party manages next time. No one is keen on going back into Government with the Conservatives and I doubt we would be facing a "liberal conservative" like Cameron but Corbyn is, if anything, less attractive at present. It matters little now - the key for the LDs is to get back into the fight in a number of constituencies.
1) He would have to resign the mayoralty to do so. Assuming he takes over at a low point, there's a guaranteed early defeat for him. He might possibly be a kingmaker, as Labour's most senior and powerful politician, but not the king. However;
2) I genuinely believe that unless Corbyn dies, he's there until 2020. He's too stubborn to resign, too stupid to understand what's happening anyway, and in any case the Labour membership alone voted him in by a thumping margin (49%) so whether the new members stay or go is irrelevant to that question.
The only reason there is no possibility of Labour breaking the record for losing most seats at an election in 2020 is that they don't have 246 seats to start with (the number of seats the Unionists lost in 1906).
So grim, indeed, that perhaps ZG's team should be the one to ask it...
To take one extreme example, the prime minister, in addition to being an MP, is, inter alia:
- the senior minister of the Crown
- a committee member of the G7, G20, EU Council, and various other international bodies
- leader of his/her party
- in practice, his country's senior diplomat
- in practice, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces
MPs have always had leeway to pursue careers outside that of representing their constituency, whether that be ministerial office, writing, or - more controversially - contractual employment from law to directorships to whatever else.
As to your questions, the removal of Corbyn isn't going to be as easy or pretty as the ousting of IDS but more akin to the ousting of Thatcher. The fact that the membership voted for Corbyn (as they did for IDS) as against a minority of MPs (perhaps only 20 - at least IDS had a third though some of those were tactical to knock out Portillo) provides Corbyn with legitimacy of sorts but Margaret Thatcher won three General Elections and that didn't save her.
The question then becomes - IF the PLP is ruthless enough to ditch Corbyn, there has to be a clear alternative leadership candidate who would command the PLP majority - I assume that's Benn rather than Sadiq Khan at this time ? It's possible Benn may be able to pull off the balancing act of moving Labour back toward electability and credibility whilst not only retaining most of the new members but attracting new support.
IF Benn would do that, I believe he would every chance of defeating the post-Cameron candidate in 2020 via an SNP collapse, a small LD revival and a regaining of Labour support in the marginals. That might not main a majority per se but to become largest party would be enough.
Interestingly, I recall Corbyn promising to serve the full 5 years in the summer, implying that he would not serve after 2020. Perhaps he meant before rather than after the election. Mind you, he did also suggest annual leadership contests too!
It's one reason why the Tories did so badly in the Midlands and West Country in 1997.
The strike will go ahead as otherwise the ballot will expire and need re-ballotting.
The ghastly Rifkind epitomised that.
The Germans must be shaking their heads and wondering what they've let themselves in for.
The problem is Corbyn will not see it. He'll blame a media conspiracy and carry on doing the wrong thing, blindly, until the damage is irreversible and Labour are destroyed as a political force.
The problem the EU Referendum provides for the Government is that it needs to be popular in order that Cameron's chosen path (whether agreed by the Cabinet or the Conservative Party or not) finishes up being endorsed by the electorate. "Trust Dave" needs to continue to resonate this year as it did last.
Holding the EU Referendum in or at the start of the mid-term runs the huge risk of said referendum being used by the electorate not as an opportunity to pass judgement on the Government but as a chance to kick an unpopular Government. The result - Cameron loses and his personal credibility and authority is terminally undermined.
So Government policy is predicated on maintaining popularity (and Corbyn helps enormously) so issues such as tax credit cuts, spending on flood defences, the effectiveness of the Syria bombing campaign, are all brushed off in favour of poking fun at Corbyn in the hope it keeps Brand Cameron as flavour of the month up to and through the referendum because if the people trust Dave, they'll follow him into the REMAIN camp.
I do think Khan will become mayor. However, he would not be a good leader. It'll be interesting to see how his views on ethnic quotas in the workplace develop.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
It was only the size of the majorities in rural and suburban seats and the split in the opposition vote that saved them going lower than 165 seats (Labour's lowest since WW2 was 209 in 1983). It wouldn't have taken much more of a swing to have sent them nearer 100 seats (and in some parts of the south they did even worse in 2001).
Is she Walting as an officer?
As we saw with New Labour. With the net result far too many crucial decisions are now 20 years late and still not being made.
Mr. Doethur, indeed, particularly on energy.
I agree though that removing Corbyn against his will, will be mightily difficult and produce divisions that will be bitter and long-lasting. That's one reason why I think TSE has a point: Khan could be a compromise candidate in a way that Benn never can after his Syria speech. But as you say, could the PLP accept that, because the membership won't accept Benn.
As I've said before, the two stats which will drive the dynamic of this parliament are that less than 10% of the PLP backed Corbyn for himself, while 60% of Labour's electorate did. While those two figures remain so far apart, the only result can be stalemate and skirmishing.
He is obsessed with going out on a high, a wave of glory and is kicking all sorts of cans down the road.
The rest of the UK think London is a different country anyway.
"He'll blame a media conspiracy."
Look at the SWP's reaction to being ignored/ridiculed - that's the Jezzarite view.
It's the Tory press and media. If we could ban dissenting voices. the populace would rise as one and oust the fascists (which in their view currently represents 95% of the population).
Self-awareness ... nil.
I'm not disputing they did badly in London too. I'm just explaining that they were seen as very pro-London and it hurt them badly in areas where they should still have held on.
Cameron is ruing the day he committed to a referendum, he knows it has become a personal vote on his credibility and legacy,
The rest of the Cabinet (with the exception of Osborne) are irrelevant. I mean, what is the point of Hammond as Foreign Secretary ? He's the most ineffective holder of the job I can remember.
Nigel Farage is a pretty insubstantial figure but his crowning achievement will be forcing Cameron into committing to an EU Referendum because of the electoral threat he seemed to pose. Had Ed Miliband been a better politician (not difficult) and signed up to the Referendum earlier (2010), the political scene today might look very different.
'Why don't you turn the M25 into a moat, declare independence and then we can all piss off?'
Fair play, it got a huge laugh and a round of applause.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Since May when I've made points like that the Tories have thumbed their noses and said "yeah but we won", so immature.
They spent 5 years blaming Brown, there was some veracity in that, now let's see what they do without the human shield of Clegg. If you read the Telegraph link I've put up it seems the pressure being applied to the Eurosceptics is evidence of your point, govt is run by Cameron and Osborne for Cameron and Osborne. Your point about Mandelson, and his obvious influence with Blair, is succinct.
He has painted himself into a corner, usually by now the pb Tories are circling me like hyenas, they know their man has messed up.
Naturally, there's a generational and cultural divergence between those views and the children of the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure what the perjorative term "Islington" means in this context - I suppose it's a reference to a mindset that comes from a wholly different upbringing to that of the Thatcher generation, an upbringing devoid of privation or threat based on a different view of the world and Britain's place in that world, more internationalist and egalitarian undoubtedly.
As I'm part of that generation, it's a view I understand but I'm not blind to its faults.
I thought it was every man's raison d'être to go to White Hart Lane
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3392116/It-s-eyes-left-Emily-Thornberry-mocked-boasting-Lieutenant-Colonel-armed-forces-despite-former-Human-Rights-barrister.html#ixzz3wokhnS4t
Have a look at the numbers for Orpington for 1997. In the former,had the increase in the Labour vote gone to the Liberal Democrat, the Conservatives would have lost the seat.
On your other response, I have no involvement in education so I'm not aware of the changes that have occurred though it did seem from OGH's comments in the last Parliament that Gove was very unpopular and his replacement in a reshuffle was seen as political damage limitation.
The other reason I think she shouldn't be sacked is because she should never have been appointed in the first place. But that's merely a routine detail.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
Either way, if I were the BMA, I'd want nothing to do with them. It makes it a political dispute.
On the other hand, if I want to walk on a crowded pavement and be pestered by people trying to sell me everything from sex to life insurance while surrounded by people of all creeds and colours, there's very little difference between East Ham High Street and the Las Vegas Strip.
Just another brief holiday anecdote - we went to Palm Springs for New Year. More Canadians (some 450,000) visit the Coachella Valley in December and January than Americans. Palm Springs International Airport is replete with flights from Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and the like (please can someone organise a direct flight from London ??!!).
1) After a while the massive (multi-million) pound maintenance budget will become a burden on the public purse. They say they've got a fund too prevent this, but I personally doubt it's long-term efficacy. The projected maintenance costs alone should be a large warning siren.
2) Central London is hardly lacking cross-river bridges.
3) Form versus function. It's not going to be a proper transport link - e.g. not for cyclists and it is closed much of the time and can be closed for functions; it is not a proper 'park'; and there are plenty of other places where pedestrian / cycle bridges in London might serve better, e.g. further downstream.
It's a messy jack-of-all-trades project that is master of none, and with no definable need.
It's a spectacularly lovely place, but so far from anywhere I'm quite surprised foreigners want to work up there, even for a season. As I found, the nearest A&E was a three-hour drive away ...
(*) That wasn't the reason I went up there, but it was the effect.
Yes, Gove's move was damage limitation. Indeed, it was to get that point across that I returned to PB in the first place.
There is a certain arrogance to London-centrism, but I run across similar politics here in Leics. We are a red city, with blue county (and some orange councils).