On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:24:45 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
the candidate. The Green Party are also likely to refuse to support
him in terms of influencing second preference votes. They are likely
to be crucial in determining the outcome of the election.

Pull the other one. The green party can barely influence their own supporters.

there to what the Labour run Greenwich Council want. That could drain
votes away and cause issues with second preference votes from Green
Party supporters.

Hardly anyone in london gives a monkeys about the greens. 2nd votes I suspect
will probably go all over the shop.

I also think there is a wider malaise with Labour - inevitable after

Perhaps if Labour actually represented anyone other than a small bunch of
out of touch liberals in north london with a bit of ethnic wash over the top
they might be taken seriously again.

Didn't stop Boris winning though did it? Also Labour couldn't oust

The only reason london is labour leaning is the ethnic vote. Take them out
of the equation and its almost as blue as the rest of the country.

--
Spud

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:19:49 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 14/06/2015 12:28, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:40:59 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:
[...]
I agree Mr Goldsmith, if selected, will be a very tough candidate to
beat. I also feel Labour are in grave danger of wrecking their
prospects.

How so Paul?

It seems to be that the "party machine" is opting for MPs who have
track records which can be picked over and then turned against them.
If Kahn wins then the "part time Mayor / part time MP" tactic will be
used mercilessly against him. The fact he wasn't clear about his
intentions prior to the General Election doesn't help. At least Lammy
and Abbott were decent enough to declare before hand and their
electorate could decide what that meant and question them as
candidates for election back in May. I also don't get a sense of
trust from Mr Kahn. There's a sense he'll do whatever is good for him
but not anyone else. Perhaps that "I pulled myself out of the gutter"
type mantra has now turned into "I'll do whatever it takes so long as
I'm OK". The Standard and Mail will make mincemeat of him if he's
the candidate. The Green Party are also likely to refuse to support
him in terms of influencing second preference votes. They are likely
to be crucial in determining the outcome of the election.

I've seen Khan on platforms and find him more substantial than that but I
don't think I disagree with your fundamental conclusion.

I also get a sense that there is no great desire to present something
compelling and different to voters. There's been nothing yet about how
a labour mayor will work with a Conservative majority government.
That's essential if they want to build houses and make transport better.

While I can see the merit in having black candidates I don't think
Diane Abbott or David Lammy have enough experience to run London.
They're both very affable in their way but I get no sense of
competence. Gareth Thomas is a waste of space and doesn't understand
how the current system of London government works.

I couldn't vote for Mr Wolmar as I don't see him as a rounded
candidate and I don't agree with some of his transport stuff either. I
have asked him a fair number of questions via Twitter and he did at
least answer every question. I wasn't convinced by some of the
answers as to the depth of his policy thinking or grasp of the issues.

That leaves Tessa Jowell who perhaps has more of a track record but
doesn't seem very inspiring. I asked her a series of questions via
Twitter in a recent "ask Tessa" session. They were all reasonably
open questions on key topics like policing, fire, transport. I didn't
get an answer to any of my questions. While I accept there may well
have been a lot of questions firing in I would have expected an answer
to one question either during or after the session. If candidates want
to communicate via social media they need to understand that the
*voters* asking the questions expect an answer. Don't use the medium
if you're not going to resource it properly. People might draw a
negative conclusion for your poor use of said medium!! There is also
a risk for Tessa in that she has previously supported expansion at
Heathrow. That can be played back against her. There are also
problems for some of the candidates over their approach to road
crossings over the Thames in SE London. There's vocal opposition
there to what the Labour run Greenwich Council want. That could drain
votes away and cause issues with second preference votes from Green
Party supporters.


I also think there is a wider malaise with Labour - inevitable after
the gen election defeat - but that is likely to cast a shadow over the
Mayoral election process. There are so many MPs and ex MPs yattering
away denying what they were campaigning on a few weeks ago then you're
left wondering if any of them have any principles left. I'm a boring
old fart who likes politicians with conviction rather than flexible
"blow in the wind" do anything to win people. People with convictions
tend to be able to defend them and debate them which allows people
like me to make a judgement. The current way of doing things in
politics feels like a massive con trick (regardless of party). If
they didn't believe in the policies put forward for the General
Election how can voters know they believe in what they're put forward
for the Mayoral Election?


I suspect Zac would easily beat Dame Tessa or Sadiq Khan. But perhaps
Labour will choose dark horse charismatic 'transport expert' Christian
Wolmar who has, to my surprise (just) made it on to the shortlist.

There's zero chance of Wolmar getting the Labour nomination, really.

I like Tessa Jowell a lot, she's a very competent operator, and knows
London very well.

London as a whole is Labour leaning, and I think Zac Goldsmith might
just come across as another Tory posh boy. Of course, there's a lot more
to him than that - but he's yet another from the old school gang.

Didn't stop Boris winning though did it? Also Labour couldn't oust
the Tories in several outer London seats like Hendon, Golders Green
etc. They also dealt a catastropic blow to the Lib Dems in SW London.
We know Zac's stance on Heathrow and that's likely to play very well
in several boroughs out west. Failure to win in outer London will
kill Labour's chances.

There needs to be a right old scrap for the Mayoral Election and I
don't yet see how that's going to play with the current range of
potential candidates. London deserves to have a robust debate about
its future direction so voters get a choice. I also think it's a
shame that there are no attractive Mayoral candidates from the ranks
of London Assembly members. They at least know what the issues are!

A very compelling analysis I find it hard to pick holes in. And I'm a
Liberal Democrat!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:19:49 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

There is also
a risk for Tessa in that she has previously supported expansion at
Heathrow. That can be played back against her. There are also
problems for some of the candidates over their approach to road
crossings over the Thames in SE London. There's vocal opposition
there to what the Labour run Greenwich Council want. That could drain
votes away and cause issues with second preference votes from Green
Party supporters.

Didn't stop Boris winning though did it? Also Labour couldn't oust
the Tories in several outer London seats like Hendon, Golders Green
etc. They also dealt a catastropic blow to the Lib Dems in SW London.
We know Zac's stance on Heathrow and that's likely to play very well
in several boroughs out west. Failure to win in outer London will
kill Labour's chances.

While there are certainly many vociferous opponents of Heathrow
expansion in West London, opinion polls have shown the majority support
it so I don't think being anti-Heathrow is the advantage you seem to
think it will be.

Peter Smyth

On 15/06/2015 00:24, Paul Corfield wrote:

I don't think
Diane Abbott or David Lammy have enough experience to run London.
They're both very affable in their way but I get no sense of
competence.

At risk of sounding slightly middle-market tabloid newspaper, do many
people actually think Abbott would be an electable candidate?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/06/2015 00:24, Paul Corfield wrote:

I don't think
Diane Abbott or David Lammy have enough experience to run London.
They're both very affable in their way but I get no sense of
competence.

At risk of sounding slightly middle-market tabloid newspaper, do many
people actually think Abbott would be an electable candidate?

Not London-wide. I think her appeal would be limited to some inner London
boroughs. She may have been brought up in Harrow, be a Cambridge history
graduate, and sent her son to the private City of London School, but her
politics are more Hackney than Harrow today.

On 2015\06\14 09:56, Recliner wrote:

He's also rather good at getting things named after himself. Ken spent many
years promoting public transport in London, whereas Boris had no previous
interest in it before becoming mayor, and will probably lose all interest
in it in a year's time. But we have the Boris Bus, Boris Bike, and would-be
Boris Island, but no Ken Fare, Ken Train, Ken Card, Ken Tram, etc.

There is a South Ken and a High Street Ken though.

On 2015\06\14 20:28, wrote:
In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

Of course if you want to invite sponsorship, you don't think up a
catchy generic name - the sponsor wants it to be theirs.

That worked so well for Barclays, didn't it?

If they'd written "Barclaybikes" on the side instead of just "Barclays"
I think it would have caught on.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter Smyth" wrote:
While there are certainly many vociferous opponents of Heathrow
expansion in West London, opinion polls have shown the majority support
it so I don't think being anti-Heathrow is the advantage you seem to
think it will be.

Have you got any statistics to back that up?

I'd like to know who actually wants any airport extension anywhere in the
south east other than the aiports themselves and airlines. London already has
4 major airports + city and southend which is more than any other european
capital. This whole manufacturered "crisis" is nothing more than vested
interests trying to increase their share prices with gullible politicians
falling for it hook and line.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter Smyth" wrote:
While there are certainly many vociferous opponents of Heathrow
expansion in West London, opinion polls have shown the majority support
it so I don't think being anti-Heathrow is the advantage you seem to
think it will be.

Have you got any statistics to back that up?

I'd like to know who actually wants any airport extension anywhere in the
south east other than the aiports themselves and airlines. London already has
4 major airports + city and southend which is more than any other european
capital. This whole manufacturered "crisis" is nothing more than vested
interests trying to increase their share prices with gullible politicians
falling for it hook and line.

In less time than it took you to type that post, I found these and numerous
similar reports:

http://m.travelweekly.co.uk/Article....=news&id=53863

http://www.segro.com/Media/PressRele...hrow-expansion

http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-...row-expansion/

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/n...681267.article

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:55:14 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter Smyth" wrote:
While there are certainly many vociferous opponents of Heathrow
expansion in West London, opinion polls have shown the majority support
it so I don't think being anti-Heathrow is the advantage you seem to
think it will be.

Have you got any statistics to back that up?

I'd like to know who actually wants any airport extension anywhere in the
south east other than the aiports themselves and airlines. London already
has
4 major airports + city and southend which is more than any other european
capital. This whole manufacturered "crisis" is nothing more than vested
interests trying to increase their share prices with gullible politicians
falling for it hook and line.

In less time than it took you to type that post, I found these and numerous
similar reports:

A load of partisan publictions stating dodgy unverified polls that have no link
to them. I realised that in less time than it took you to come up with your
feeble attempt at sarcasm.

But if you want to play that game:

http://www.airpor****ch.org.uk/2015/03/25402/

--
Spud