Goldsmith's London Mayoral Campaign as Good As Lost? Bookmaker Odds Show 88% Chance of Khan Victory
4 replies, posted
[url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-tories-be-happy-to-lose-london/[/url]
[QUOTE]The Labour plotters who dream of ousting Jeremy Corbyn had high hopes for the local elections on 5 May. They envisaged a moment of humiliation for their leader in Scotland, Wales and England; a moment that would prove beyond doubt that the party’s leftwards lurch had narrowed its appeal and consigned it to the electoral wilderness. A good time, in other words, to stage a coup. Corbyn’s loyalists, for their part, had been preparing to blame the rebels and their constant sniping. Neither side imagined what now looks likely: that Labour might soon be celebrating a stunning victory in London.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]But the countrywide councils failure will be shrugged off if Boris Johnson is replaced as London mayor by Sadiq Khan, a Labour candidate with close links to the Corbyn machine. [B]Khan started this campaign as the underdog but is now leading the polls by a healthy margin. Bookmakers put his chances of victory at 88 per cent (see graph, above). Those around Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith are in despair, and think the race is as good as lost. Tories in Tooting, the constituency Khan will resign from if elected mayor, are already bracing themselves for a by-election.[/B]
Goldsmith’s campaign has struggled for a number of reasons. He doesn’t give the impression he’s all that bothered about winning — a problem given that he’s up against the scrappy, energetic Khan. Goldsmith spent his earlier years trying to avoid the media, who were always interested in the son of a billionaire. In showbiz, the photographers chase you. In politics, you need to chase the photographers. Senior Tories are frustrated that their candidate doesn’t seem to have made the switch. [B]One says: ‘Boris won in London despite the party, but if Zac wins, it will be because of the party.’[/B]
That bodes ill for Zac, because the Conservative party has an ageing and dwindling base, especially in London. When Lynton Crosby helped Boris campaign four years ago, he complained that many Tory members were taking their afternoon naps when he needed them on the streets. Those members haven’t got any younger.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Some Labour rebels, meanwhile, are dreading a Khan victory. As a backbencher says, the 5 May elections ‘will be mixed enough for everyone to get what they want from the results. Corbyn’s guys can say they’ve won London and a council here or there, and they’re making progress.’
If the Corbynites can make this claim, the nervous majority of Labour MPs will be even less inclined to support an immediate coup. The most aggressive plotters are already conceding that not enough of their colleagues are ready to support even ‘unity candidates’ such as Angela Eagle and Hilary Benn.[/B]
So now the moderates are changing tack. One group has been holding discussions about using Khan as a stalking horse — hoping that, after a decent interval, he will turn on Corbyn and prompt a leadership crisis. One Labour rebel explains why: ‘If Sadiq wins, the Corbynistas will go on a week-long bender on their own Kool Aid. But most people will see he won by rejecting everything Corbyn stands for and, after their initial triumphalism, Sadiq will have an enduring platform to demonstrate an alternative way of delivering Labour values.’ Khan will be one of the few Labour figures actually in government. Another plotter says: ‘Look at the way Sadiq turned on Jeremy after he was named the candidate: he’s not someone who could resist twisting the knife when the time is right.’[/QUOTE]
Someone's shouting KHAAAAAAAAN! to the ceiling I presume
As an American I never quite understand why the mayor of London is such a big deal, yes it's comparable to new York, and it's mayor certainly has more power in that state than most mayor's but like the mayor of DC is usually laughed at by Congress here so I don't get it
[QUOTE=Sableye;50111999]Someone's shouting KHAAAAAAAAN! to the ceiling I presume
As an American I never quite understand why the mayor of London is such a big deal, yes it's comparable to new York, and it's mayor certainly has more power in that state than most mayor's but like the mayor of DC is usually laughed at by Congress here so I don't get it[/QUOTE]
London is a significantly bigger portion of the UK's economy and influence than any singular American city. It's one of the biggest economic hubs in the world; anyone involved in it gets a huge amount of influence. Think how much BoJo gets to run his mouth and spout bullshit
35% of the British economy IIRC
[editline]11th April 2016[/editline]
[IMG]http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20160227_FNC707_1.png[/IMG]
Here is is. London is enormous, and quite possibly the most important city in the world.
I feel that the New York vs London is kind of skewed given that New York isn't the only majorly large city in the US both in terms of population and % of national GDP but that the US has a higher GDP than England altogether as well, so though percentage wise it may be larger, but in terms of actual money flowing the difference would be much smaller.
Larger cities have larger portions of they're country's GDP, but while the UK has just London, the US has NY, LA, Chicago, San Fran, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.