Just a query re. mayoral election/economy

kinger101

michaels wrote: »

According to the 2011 census the proportion of Muslims in London was 12.4%. Up from about 7.5% in 2001. Extrapolating in 2016 that would give approx 15%., and I believe this thread is about the London mayoral election?

The interesting thing is that I am very nervous mentioning this as it just appears racist when looking at it and yet we can say the same thing about the US electoral map with impunity.

Well, muslim isn't a race, so technically, you wouldn't be racist, rather islamaphobic (which I'm not implying you are). It's an ethnically and culturally diverse group, but there are parties which have targeted the muslim vote such as Respect.

I was just clarifying differences in the electoral systems and demographics between the London Mayoral and US Presidential elections that make the hispanic vote more topical in the US and say the muslim vote in London.

Personally, I think people overthink the race/religion thing on voting. It probably boils down to socioeconomic grouping rather than skin colour or belief in any particular god*. Though it's probably quite easy to lose any one groups vote when you insult them like Trump, or play race/religion cards like Goldsmith. In essence, it's easier to lose a vote than win one, so smart politicians avoid digging holes.

*the notable exception is perhaps the white Christian vote is the US.

Moby

Sapphire wrote: »

Jolly good – I wish you luck with him and let's see how this pans out for London. I'll stick with Zac in my constituency, thanks.

Incidentally, to call someone you don't know 'blinkered' just because you don't agree with them is rather blinkered in itself.

Let's see what happens – and whether the nirvana promised by Khan materialises… :T

Zac ran a disgraceful smear campaign and whatever happens in future he will be remembered for that!

Spidernick

Sapphire wrote: »

Incidentally, to call someone you don't know 'blinkered' just because you don't agree with them is rather blinkered in itself.

Sorry, but I called you 'blinkered' as your post to which I was replying was all positives about Goldsmith and wholly negative about Khan. Neither I or anyone else needs to know you personally to see that the accusation of being 'blinkered' is justified based on that post.

Goldsmith's campaign is being rightly attacked by many on his own side, yet all you seem to be doing is making excuses for him, whilst you're prepared to believe the unsubstantiated negatives about Khan. As such, I won't be retracting my previous comment.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Zac ran a disgraceful smear campaign and whatever happens in future he will be remembered for that!

but then you consider saying that Corbyn, DcDonnell and Abbott supported the IRA is a smear too.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

but then you consider saying that Corbyn, DcDonnell and Abbott supported the IRA is a smear too.

It is - they supported a united Ireland which is somewhat different. Are those that oppose unification automatically closet members of the UVF?

What do you think the effect of Brexit would be on the island of Ireland? The Republic wont leave the EU. So would you advocate a physical border, passports, visas, barbed wire and border guards to keep the immigrants out? Do you think NI could survive economically?

Sapphire

Spidernick wrote: »

unsubstantiated negatives about Khan.

Don't make me laugh. I see you are blinkered to Khan's proven connections with radical Islamists, and such things as his remarks about Muslims as 'Uncle Toms' when they cooperated with indigenous whites – which is actually a racist thing to do. But of course, everyone else can immediately be jumped on as racists if they criticise other groups – but not Muslims. Disgusting.

Don't worry, apologists like you will get your comeuppance, whoever you are. :T

Though I wouldn't want anyone to get blown up on a London bus, as a friend of mine was – and he was a humanitarian who was engaged in helping many other people.

No point in continuing this 'discussion' – time will tell…

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

It is - they supported a united Ireland which is somewhat different. Are those that oppose unification automatically closet members of the UVF?

What do you think the effect of Brexit would be on the island of Ireland? The Republic wont leave the EU. So would you advocate a physical border, passports, visas, barbed wire and border guards to keep the immigrants out? Do you think NI could survive economically?

I support a united Ireland based on democratic principles.

However that doesn't mean I would meet IRA leaders 2 weeks about the Brighton killings without challenging them and condemning the outrage.
Nor would I claim that the IRA killers should be 'honoured'.
Presumably you have different views.

I understand that other countries have borders with the EU and seem to co-exist.
Eire is not part of the Schengen area.

kinger101

Linton wrote: »

It is - they supported a united Ireland which is somewhat different.

It shows they basically do not understand the problem. Any British government in the last century would love to have handed the keys back (Wilson actually considered it). But a significant proportion of the people who live there want to remain British, and are willing to kill to do so. The Irish Republic does not have the means to handle the civil war which would follow.

Cutting NI off would have been a coward's option. Self determination was the only way forward.

cells

Spidernick wrote: »

Thankfully a majority of Londoners don't agree with your blinkered assessment and Khan has just been confirmed as the new Mayor.

How many people vote for the man rather than the party?. I'm not ashamed to say I don't even know who my MP is* or who the unsuccessful MP I voted for was called.

Zac had little chance in winning London. Even Burris won by a wisker last time around it was something like 49% v 51%


* actually I know full well who it is it's been abbot for what now seems like a lifetime. But you get the point

cells

The London mayor elections are IMO not represenetivie of 'Londoners' becuase it does not take into account the views/votes of those who work in London but don't live in London.

I don't know how big a number that is but maybe its as much as a million people. They should be able to vote in the London mayor eletrions too as crime transport housing planning and economic development within london are all important to them.

I don't know how it can be done but a London workers vote needs to be taken into account too else its not reresentotive of the people who work and live in London