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