Just a query re. mayoral election/economy

kinger101

cells wrote: »

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

I think it's a little different when you're running for Mayor of London. Ken won as an independent, then was bought in from the cold. Boris wasn't accepted with open arms by the rest of the Tories. You need to be a bit of a maverick to win. I think Khan can claim that (if we extend maverick to mean wally). Goldsmith is an utter lightweight an entirely an establishment figure.

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

I think it's a little different when you're running for Mayor of London. Ken won as an independent, then was bought in from the cold. Boris wasn't accepted with open arms by the rest of the Tories. You need to be a bit of a maverick to win. I think Khan can claim that (though we extend maverick to mean wally). Goldsmith is an utter lightweight an entirely an establishment figure.

Goldsmith got 995 thousand people to vote for him. Boris got 1055 thousand people to vote for him.
Not all that a big difference.

Khan got 1.31 million votes. It would be interesting to know if he got the Muslim vote out as turnout was a lot higher this time than the last mayor elections. Or if he really did win a wide spectrum of support.

And once again I don't feel the London mayor vote is representative of all 'Londoners'. It should include the 'London metropolitan area' with it's circa 14 million people rather than just the London of 8.5 million

vivatifosi

cells wrote: »

Goldsmith got 995 thousand people to vote for him. Boris got 1055 thousand people to vote for him.
Not all that a big difference.

Khan got 1.31 million votes. It would be interesting to know if he got the Muslim vote out as turnout was a lot higher this time than the last mayor elections. Or if he really did win a wide spectrum of support.

And once again I don't feel the London mayor vote is representative of all 'Londoners'. It should include the 'London metropolitan area' with it's circa 14 million people rather than just the London of 8.5 million

I read on another thread over in DT that the number of people who voted was up, quite substantially. As a result, while he can't claim to have the biggest margin, he can claim to have the biggest vote.

I also heard on Sky that it was the highest vote ever in the UK for a single person (in practice this can only ever be the mayor of London as other constituencies are smaller).

Generali

cells wrote: »

Goldsmith got 995 thousand people to vote for him. Boris got 1055 thousand people to vote for him.
Not all that a big difference.

Khan got 1.31 million votes. It would be interesting to know if he got the Muslim vote out as turnout was a lot higher this time than the last mayor elections. Or if he really did win a wide spectrum of support.

An eighth of Londoners called themselves Muslim at the last census so there are about a million.

Given that about 20% of people are children (roughly) in the UK then there are probably something in the region of 800,000 Muslims of voting age in London, maybe a bit less as I think I read that Muslims in the UK have more children than the average (that might have been some kind of racist rant, sorry if it was). That's enough to swing the mayoral election.

cells wrote: »

And once again I don't feel the London mayor vote is representative of all 'Londoners'. It should include the 'London metropolitan area' with it's circa 14 million people rather than just the London of 8.5 million

Agree. Most of the South East is now effectively London. It's only really the extremities on the coast and the uncommutable bits that aren't.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

I think it's a little different when you're running for Mayor of London. Ken won as an independent, then was bought in from the cold. Boris wasn't accepted with open arms by the rest of the Tories. You need to be a bit of a maverick to win. I think Khan can claim that (if we extend maverick to mean wally). Goldsmith is an utter lightweight an entirely an establishment figure.

Let me put it this way, as far as Blair was concerned Livingstone was a PITA, as far as Cameron is/was concerned BoJo was a PITA. It won't be long before Corbyn regards Khan as a complete PITA.

In fact, I think Khan's already started.:)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/07/sadiq-khan-londoners-deserve-better-tory-campaign

antrobus

cells wrote: »

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....

You could say much the same thing about any metropolitan area in the UK; it's not like the idea of commuting is exclusive to the south-east of the country.

And you could say the same thing about somewhere like, say oh St Ives, and argue that their local democracy was 'not representative' becuase it failed to take account of the views of those who holiday in St Ives but don't live there.

Crumbs, eventually someone is going to argue that the entire UK electoral system is 'not representative' becuase it fails to take account of the views of the millions of EU citizens who have the right to come and work and live here.

kinger101

cells wrote: »

Goldsmith got 995 thousand people to vote for him. Boris got 1055 thousand people to vote for him.
Not all that a big difference.

Khan got 1.31 million votes. It would be interesting to know if he got the Muslim vote out as turnout was a lot higher this time than the last mayor elections. Or if he really did win a wide spectrum of support.

And once again I don't feel the London mayor vote is representative of all 'Londoners'. It should include the 'London metropolitan area' with it's circa 14 million people rather than just the London of 8.5 million

Boris won. Goldsmith lost. Absolute numbers are irrelevant given the number of people that voted was different at the two (38.1% turnout in 2012 v 45.3% in 2016). Boris got 51.5% of the vote. Goldsmith got 35.0%. OK, I accept the they used a different voting system this time round, but it's a spectacular failure.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

You could say much the same thing about any metropolitan area in the UK; it's not like the idea of commuting is exclusive to the south-east of the country.

And you could say the same thing about somewhere like, say oh St Ives, and argue that their local democracy was 'not representative' becuase it failed to take account of the views of those who holiday in St Ives but don't live there.

Sure all regions border other regions and towns so there is cross border traffic but are any on the scale of London and its commuter towns?

Also its a game of invisible lines. Whats to stop London being defined as say within the M25 in which case it brings a lot more people into 'London'

An alternative would be to have a South East Region Mayor which would include the SE and London. But that would be too big an area I think I would prefer a system where if you work full time within London you get a vote.

Anyway Im not here to change the makeup of London or the political system I am only pointing out its silly that the mayor responsible for transport planning housing and economy development isnt voted for by about a million people who have a legitimate claim to have their voice heard on those topics.

antrobus wrote: »

Crumbs, eventually someone is going to argue that the entire UK electoral system is 'not representative' becuase it fails to take account of the views of the millions of EU citizens who have the right to come and work and live here.

What are you blabbering on about, virtually no one lives in Germany or Poland but works in London doing a daily 1,000 mile commute.

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

Boris won. Goldsmith lost. Absolute numbers are irrelevant given the number of people that voted was different at the two (38.1% turnout in 2012 v 45.3% in 2016). Boris got 51.5% of the vote. Goldsmith got 35.0%. OK, I accept the they used a different voting system this time round, but it's a spectacular failure.

Boris Got 51.5% Goldsmith got 43.1%, not 35%

Yes Goldsmith lost.

The point I was making is that Boris just won by a tiny bit and that was against ken I will accept barrels of oil from a 3rd world trash economy to run our buses.

The second point I was making is that London elections (for mayor and even MPs) are not really representative of those who live and work in London.

zagubov

Live on the SW London /Surrey border. Got a mayoral vote.

Had to cross to a polling station that was just outside the city limit - still officially a London one that you could vote for the mayor in.

My MIL lived near my polling station but as her residence was just outside the boundary, she had a different polling station with no mayoral vote.

There has to be a boundary. No big deal.