Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
So are you voting tomorrow? Who for? Who will win? In fact, when is it announced? MAYOR.
haven't decided yet. Boris will win.
I'll vote for somebody (not sure who as I don't really want to vote for anyone) and Ken as a reluctant second choice.
Can I just put Ken as a second choice with no first choice? I'm guessing not.
All I'm going to acheive by voting Ken (which I will do) is upping his vote and encouraging the chances of his attempting to run again in the future.
The vote is a form of AV, so vote for your top choice & put Ken second.
Glad to be of assistance.
...and nothing will change. fucking.
Voting Independent first preference, Labour second. Labour for the constituency, Green on the list.
Boris probably 95% sure of winning, Labour hopefully for my local constituency... probably outperforming the general swing thanks to the Conservative candidate. Likely Labour 12, Conservative 8, Lib Dem 3, UKIP 2, Green 2 on the London Assembly.
Labour 11, Conservative 8, Lib Dem 3, UKIP 2, Green 1 or Lib Dem and Green with 2 each.
Are you doing electoral 'wet work' in Tower Hamlets too?
For some reason when I posted last night, I thought it added up to 25 seats, double checked, and still made it 25.
Didn't see the Greens outdoing the Lib Dems though.
Going to vote UKIP 1st preference, Boris 2nd.
but Boris will get through to the second round anyway, and so my vote for him will still be counted. This way it means my 'protest' vote has slightly more (if still very little) impact.
You know, given how much money it makes off them?
But i'm sure it would survive well enough if the EU were to disappear.
A sea of tranquillity was briefly interrupted when the local copper informed the polling station staff that a film crew would be visiting later that morning. This announcement caused a flutter of excitement amongst the otherwise impeccably behaved ladies.
Boris to win (sadly).
there's a big photo of him posing with the staff at the entrance of the Kentish Town recycling centre
but when the muggers saw that his son had just bought some dope-ass hiphop 12"s they gave him a fist bump and walked off
maybe he moved house
I'm voting Paddick.
but Labour have a chance - poll released early today showed they're more or less level overall, Boris is only ahead after knocking out everyone who said they're not 100% certain to vote.
Doubt they'll manage it, but it's not a foregone conclusion yet.
and higher profile, but Ken and Boris would have been high profile as council leaders too.
I mean these mayors of london and the 'mooted' idea of other cities having mayors.
Im confused, why do they have the same word for something that is nearly almost exactly the same but isnt?
Anyway back to the original question, what were Ken and Boris meant to do that the london council leader wasnt meant to? Except do it with more freedom? more publicity etc
Mayors are like a President, elected by the public
it's worth pointing out that there wasn't really a London council before the Mayorship was established in 2000, not since the Milk Snatcher disbanded the GLC.
[I don't think]
the individual Boroughs were the top tier.
ken as mayor and ken as leader of GLC......or in other smaller cities, difference between city council leader and the 'mooted' mayors. But you have explained that already down there \/
clear figurehead for an administration
easier for everyone to understand
council leaders being elected but only as councilers and then elected by other elected councilers? so there is a slight removal from accountability?
Yeah I understand that figureheads are popular, perhaps instead they should adopt a standard (like army regiment's) then all members of a council could speak when they are holding it.
are those any different to that of council leader? OK obviously in London a citywide transport strategy would be difficult with each borough council acting independantly......so for these citywide things, did they bring in a mayor of london cos they realised that an akll encompassing remit was needed, and since they did away with the GLC this had been missing (and perhaps it was wrong to do away with it?)
Jenny Jones // GRN // 72,070 // 4.17%
Brian Paddick // LD // 71,543 // 4.14%
Jenny Jones // GRN // 86,568 // 4.51%
Brian Paddick // LD // 80,005 // 4.17%
- Deposit: £10,000, returnable on the candidate's winning at least 5% of the first-choice votes cast.
does anyone else think Oona King would have won? I think she would have. oh well.
Doubt anyone could have won it for Labour, not while Johnson has done so well at distancing himself from the slump the Tories are in lately.
I mean it would have been a totally different race.
and the press deciding that they can sell more papers painting them as incompetants, it served Livingstone well to be seen as somewhat separate from the Labour Party establishment.
And Oona King would have had a lot less support from Labour members on the ground too anyway.
A lot of people who like to see themselves as 'influential' in the party made a point of quite openly saying they don't rate Ken and weren't going to campaign for him.
(and possibly oother voters too), never really got behind Oona King was because she was seen as a party establishment pick, parachuted in despite it being pretty obvious that she wasn't up to the requirements of the job, whether or not she may have done better than Ken.
Why was it obvious she wasn't up to the job? What was Boris' previous experience?
and virtually all the rest of the Labour party hierarchy (as you've already suggested).
She had no ideas, no vision, performed badly in debates, seemed like she wasn't leading her team and was being pushed around, she didn't seem to grasp how to get things done in local politics, she came across as too flightly, not rational enough and prone to following fads and using meaningless phrases and buzzwords.
And I don't think that Johnson is in any way up to the job.
(I prefer Ken myself, I have more similar politics)
it's just that I think that she would have been torn to shreds in the campaign (in a way that would have been even more damaging that the shit thrown at Livingstone).
Seriously, if she performed in any of the debates/hustings in the same way as she did campaigning for the nomination, she'd have come off worse than all of the other big four candidates.
(which I don't think she would have, tbh).
From a policy point of view she was utterly lightweight, she was incapable of debating and defending her point of view, lacked vision, and, in a similar way to Harriet Harman, would have been an absolute gift to papers such as the Standard, Metro and Mail (being female, successful, very patronising, and a little bit shrill).
everyone threw support behind ken like 2 years ago. if she'd been nominated, she could have prepared a very good campaign.
it sounded a bit like you were saying we shouldn't choose women candidates cause the right wing press will be mean about them
Thought of becoming a journalist?
"in a similar way to Harriet Harman, would have been an absolute gift to papers such as the Standard, Metro and Mail (being female, successful, very patronising, and a little bit shrill)."
It's the combination of all the factors together.
I get it. It's not ALL women. It's just those women who have certain traits that are stereotypical to women politicians e.g. Harriet Har-person. Cause they're the ones the media is most sexist towards.
that clearly wasn't his point at all. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer? At any point did Marckee say "Most women politicians are shrill and patronising"!?!?
FFS we're on your side.
Am I supposed to have suggested marckee thinks "most women politicians are shrill and patronising"
...cause I didn't.
But that's what this says to me: "It's not ALL women. It's just those women who have certain traits that are stereotypical to women politicians e.g. Harriet Har-person."
Sadly, certain newspapers are somewhat sexist, even in today's day and age. These are the kind of people who think that what unites women politicians is an abhorrent, Louise Mensch-like superiority, and can't distinguish that characteristic from 'being female and successful'.
Unfortunately, that causes a problem in elections, especially with papers like the Metro and the Standard which scream headlines every day that you can't avoid.
(although carves a totally inappropriate media platform for herself and she is awful)
It's not just about the failure of the media to distinguish 'patronising' 'superiority' type traits from being a woman. It's also about their framing of all criticism of those negative qualities in a totally different way because of gender (which often means exaggeration often overt misogyny).
(I despise Louise Mensch almost as much as I despise DC and George Osborne)
The thing is that it's an unfortunate reality. We're in post-modern politics now. Parties (and even in some cases, voters) don't select the best candidate; they select the one who is most likely to win.
is likely to be discounted for that reason.
There are plenty of exceptionally able women MPs and politicians. We just need to talk about them more.
but I do think it's worth being really critical about how the media/people generally perceive and criticise all women politicians, even the really shit ones.
I mean if people are making too many assumptions about which women are electable in advance of women in politics actually being the norm, I do worry 'exceptionally able' women who don't fit with that idea will face a lot more difficulties.hmmmmm.
I think there are almost none who are actually any good, capable or remotely honest. That goes for men, women and everyone in between. Maybe I'm not a good test audience for your theory.
I know a few exceptionally good and hard working councillors. That's about it
Just with more buttons. And no concubines.
While its campaign against Ken wasn't quite as eye-buldingly vitriolic as last time (although it's still been as unfounded as smear-driven - witness the front page splash on the Moody's assessment: http://londonist.com/2012/03/kens-fare-deal-and-that-rating-agency-assessment.php), they have become a free paper, and its readership has therefore increased dramatically.
She looked totally out of her depth while seeking the nomination.
But the core Labour vote is already enough to nearly win. Polls suggest that 1 in 10 Labour voters are voting for Boris and another 1 in 10 for someone else. If he's so hated, but can still come a close second, I think almost anyone else wearing a red rosette could have picked up those extra votes and scraped over line, especially given the general poor Conservative performance in these elections.
He's more than just a politician, he's a practical celebrity. I'd hazard a guess and say he's the most identifiable politician since Tony Blair (yes, over Cameron)
The contest still would have turned into a fairly nasty, dirty, mudslinging type of scrap as well. That's the kind of fighting that makes people go and vote for a smaller party, like the Greens or the Lib Dems (surprised Paddick did so poorly, he's by far the best candidate regardless of party affiliations).
London Mayoral Elections don't really seem to work in the same way that council/national elections work. People feel less tied to party allegiances, read something about this a while ago. I'll try and source it.
Tbh I'm not even sure that the 'core' vote still exists. The 'core vote' is something which is becoming marginalised and fragmented in UK politics.
Ken's thing last time round was mobilising the non-voters.
Also, see my point about the nature of the campaign: nasty, scrappy, dirty campaign will invariably favour the incumbent.
actively didn't vote for Ken and some voted for Boris instead. Perhaps they would have turned out for another candidate.
I think Oona vs Boris would have been probably even more unpleasant and Labour would have lost even more badly. I think people are very fed up with the big parties generally tbh. Conservatives aren't losing votes because the options for that type of voter is UKIP (still too nutty, but becoming more and more palatable, frighteningly) or BNP. No conservative voter would ever vote Paddick, Ken or JJ. But how many labour type voters might have voted for any of the other two?
And I think, in other places, the Tories have lost a fair few seats to to UKIP.
Yeah, the point about UKIP is sound, which is why I said they're becoming more and more palatable. Starting to wonder if they're going to do a Front Nationale at the next general election.
to almost 20% would be quite a jump.
but they could well jump to near 10%, don't you think? It's early days yet, but I think they have the unfortunate potential to seriously increase their vote share over the next decade.
though let's face it, they may face the obstacle of people generally not being arsed to vote (even if they're more likely to mobilise people who just believe what their paper tells them about the EU).
e.g. my idiot sister "almost" voted for him but then voted for ken. ejtbsjdgbdfjlsghadkjfb cfnmsdvbdfnmzb vgzv xzv adgad
he might be reading. We don't want to give him ideas.
and if she didn't, it would be really close.
but I also think King had a better chance than Livingstone. A lot of the problem with Livingstone is a lot of people seem to have actively voted against him or abstained 'cos he was the candidate. I don't think that would have happened with King so, in a low turnout like this, I reckon she might have got it on the anti-Boris vote.
Jenny Jones // GRN // 94,183 // 4.56%
Brian Paddick // LD // 85,964 // 4.17%
Although he's made it close than most predicted up until today. It would take a miracle on second votes for him to get it.
by quite some distance
by the way, what's up with Londoners? Can't you count?
For ever two that Boris gets. Thing is, he'll be 70k+ behind and there'll probably be less an 200k total to split.
I don't really understand why they couldn't start the count overnight, or why there didn't seem to be a contingency if there were problems with e equipment. Daft.
when's e-voting going to happen then?
He's loathed by large numbers of people who only dispise Boris.
Most of those LD/Benita first choicers prob didn't put a second choice or put Boris
It's The Graham Norton Show.
it would be interesting to know what the real voice of London might sound like
He finished his victory speech with 'may the fourth be with you'. Aww. Also, just remembered I had a bet on him, even better.
It was that brief blip a couple of months back.
you are scum
he's Mayor the largest city in the UK and a financial and cultural powerhouse that's currently suffering from a vast array of social problems, a crisis in housing of both supply and suppliers, an overdependence on a few economic sectors, an overcrowded and creaking transportation network, and the best he can come up with is a tired Star Wars reference that barely works when you say it just before midnight?
yeah, he's really no Cory Booker
Anyone who gets it will have heard it a hundred times earlier in the day, and anyone who doesn't will just think it was a bit odd.
Ken's seemed a little too aggressive but it was clearly the more statesmanlike one. Boris seems to have trouble finishing sentences or, erm, err, actually, erm, working out what he wants to...Is that the time? LUNCH!
Cory Booker likes Bruce Springsteen
we have not seen the end of ken