wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

So far the drivers haven't won with their Night Tube strikes (which are
presumably just disguised pay strikes).

Of course, the strikes will become even more effective if we get another
Labour mayor in May. Sadiq isn't a commie like Ken, but he's still unlikely
to stand up to the unions.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:52:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Of course, the strikes will become even more effective if we get another
Labour mayor in May. Sadiq isn't a commie like Ken, but he's still unlikely
to stand up to the unions.

Khan is a former human rights lawyer and was chairman of Liberty at one point
and spent a large amount of time bringing cases against the police so I
wouldn't **** on him if he was on fire and sitting in the only urinal.
Also his Ad Hominem attack on Zac Goldsmith a few weeks back shows his real
personality and style of politics.

If he's true to his type he'll be permanently opposed to anything the
government does regardless of merit but as you say will back down as soon as
the unions start flexing their muscle. Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a
non-entity so Khan has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

--
Spud

On 2016\01\20 09:42, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

Cameron won't lead the Tories into another GE, Pig-gate put paid to
that, so I don't think that's his motive.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:53:23 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\20 09:42, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

Cameron won't lead the Tories into another GE, Pig-gate put paid to
that, so I don't think that's his motive.

Cameron announced during the GE campaign that he'd step down before
the following GE, as he though that ten years was too long at the top.
So it's no secret that he'll go in around 2019, when he'll have done
nine years as PM, and Tory leader for 14 years.

Nothing to do with the later, unsourced, and almost certainly invented
tale in Ashcroft's revenge ("I donated so much money that I expected a
big job") book. Pig-gate was nothing to do with Cameron, and just
served to damage the reputations of the authors the book, Ashcroft and
Isabel Oakeshott.

The problem with the mayor's job is that it doesn't really lead
anywhere, so most of the heavy hitters don't want it. Boris had to
have his arm twisted to stand the first time, and as they were in
opposition at the time, he liked the idea of being the most important
elected Tory in the country.

Now they're in power, you wouldn't find any senior London Tory
ministers wanting to stand for the job. Also, London voters seem to
prefer maverick mayors anyway, which might help Zac once his campaign
actually gets underway (he's certainly had a slow start). I suppose
there might be the implied promise that he will be able to get more
investment from the government than a Labour mayor would, which is
more than likely true.

London also seems to elect mayors with a slightly racy side to them,
and Zac fits that bill better than boring family man Sadiq:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...0m-payout.html

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:39:34 +0000
Recliner wrote:
London also seems to elect mayors with a slightly racy side to them,
and Zac fits that bill better than boring family man Sadiq:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oldsmith-admit
-adultery-wife-divorces-days-Election--faces-100m-payout.html

Looking the the drop dead gorgeous wife and then the Ms Plain Jane mistress
you have to question the mans judgement somewhat. Or eyesight at least!

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither
is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him.

He was the best of the bunch.

Not unreasonably, the London electorate want a mayor who has some commitment
to London and parachuting in a high flyer from the shires is unlikely to be
more successful.

Which means that you have to select from those few London MPs who have no
immediate aspiration for ministerial post and/or some unknown (outside his
own front room) councillor.

They were lucky to get someone of even Mr Goldsmith's calibre to stand IMHO.

tim

tim..... wrote:

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither
is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him.

He was the best of the bunch.

Not unreasonably, the London electorate want a mayor who has some commitment
to London and parachuting in a high flyer from the shires is unlikely to be
more successful.

Which means that you have to select from those few London MPs who have no
immediate aspiration for ministerial post and/or some unknown (outside his
own front room) councillor.

They were lucky to get someone of even Mr Goldsmith's calibre to stand IMHO.

Yes, I agree.

BTW, Boris was the Henley MP when he was elected mayor, so though
preferable, it's not essential that a candidate be a London MP.

In message , at 09:39:22 on Wed, 20
Jan 2016, Robin9 remarked:

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona:

Independently minded on account of his wealth, keen on Parliamentary
reform. Re-elected in 2015 with a stonkingly increased majority.

--
Roland Perry