Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

For those not following the London Mayoral election the Liberal Democrats
are in the process of selecting their candidate. Applications closed
yesterday (June 17) and following interviews & appeals the shortlist will be
formally announced on July 12, with a postal ballot declared on August 12.

However three main candidates are already emerging:

* Lembit Öpik - former MP for Montgomeryshire and ex Lib Dem spokesperson
for various portfolios including Wales, Northern Ireland, Housing, Education
and Business. Best known for supporting unusual causes such as asteroid
deflection shields and making it easier to use Segways, for a high media
profile and a high profile personal life. Website:
http://www.lembit4london.co.uk/

* Brian Paddick - 2008 candidate, former member of the Metropolitan Police
who finished up as Deputy Assistant Commissioner. Achieved notoriety whilst
Borough Commander (or whatever the post formally is) of Lambeth (2000-2002)
for his approach to cannabis. He has been a very late surprise entry into
the race this time round. I haven't seen if he has a website live yet.

* Mike Tuffrey - sitting London Assembly Member (list), Lib Dem group leader
2006-2010, also former leader of Lambeth Borough Council (1994-1998) and one
of the joint last ever members elected to the Greater London Council.
Website: http://miketuffrey.com/

Amongst the transport policies, Öpik is pledging a 24 hour tube. Whenever
anybody questions the viability of this online his campaign manager insists
that it just requires political will to be done and New Year's Eve shows
that it can happen. Tuffrey is pleding express buses at peak hours and more
orbital routes, as well as raising extra funding through a municipal bond
scheme and switching to green energy.

I won't vote for any Liberal Democrat candidate and I wouldn't vote for Brian Paddick even if he weren't a Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Tuffey's advocacy of express buses is interesting - at least to me - because I have long thought that the massive expansion of bus services in the outer suburbs in recent years has been misconceived. Far more relevant to the transport requirements of most Londoners would be express buses.

Travelling by bus in London is slow and frustrating, partly because our road system has been sabotaged, partly because buses are large and clumsy and partly because buses have to stop so frequently. On judiciously selected routes, express buses could for many people be a huge improvement over normal buses.

Mr. Tuffey's idea about municipal bonds frightens me. This is a recipe for bankruptcy. Issuing bonds is a just another way of going into debt.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transportpledges
 

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Robin9 wrote:

I won't vote for any Liberal Democrat candidate and I wouldn't vote for
Brian Paddick even if he weren't a Liberal Democrat.

Might i ask, at the risk of going firmly OT, what your objection to
Paddick is?

Tuffey's advocacy of express buses is interesting - at least to me -
because I have long thought that the massive expansion of bus services
in the outer suburbs in recent years has been misconceived. Far more
relevant to the transport requirements of most Londoners would be
express buses.

Travelling by bus in London is slow and frustrating, partly because the
roads have been sabotaged, partly because buses are large and clumsy and
partly because buses have to stop so frequently. On judicially selected
routes, express buses could be a huge improvement over normal buses.

I hope the selection won't be judicial. Judicious, perhaps, but i'd rather
it was made by transport planners than judges!

It would definitely be interesting, though. The outer suburbs are the
areas where car use is highest, but also perhaps where it is least
problematic - there are more roads and fewer people.

Anyway, in inner or outer suburbs, where are these buses going to go? Into
town, like the existing railway lines? Or to local centres? His site:

http://miketuffrey.com/mike-tuffrey-...lan/transport/

merely says "Run express bus routes at peak commuter times, to speed
people to work, and more orbital routes round London to relieve pressure".

Mr. Tuffey's idea about municipal bonds frightens me. This is a recipe
for bankruptcy. Issuing bonds is a just another way of going into debt.

Presumably, the GLA already has ways of getting into debt - can it borrow
from banks? Might bonds be preferable to that? Or would they be used in
addition to, rather than instead of, loans?

tom

--
Don't believe his lies.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

I appreciate we are a year or so away from the vote but I hope we are
not going to have a transport campaign predicated on whether we like
Boris Buses and Boris Bikes (as I rather fear we might!). I would like
to see some real and genuine debate about what is needed.

Seconded. But I am not hopeful; and I predict there will be no
discussion of one of the options to improve transport in London: fewer
people in London. (The current Mayor's transport strategy actually has a
goal to "Support economic development and population growth". I have
never understood the justification for making the latter part of that a
goal, as opposed to a possibly unavoidable consequence. Of course it may
just be sloppy drafting: the strategy documents seemed just to take
population growth forecasts as externalities.)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

Note the suggestion that the all-night tube would in part be funded by not
being included in the Travelcard package (including seasons it seems) but
instead would be paid for separately.

Good grief - and people complain about the complexity of PAYG
charging!

Yes and I wonder how this would work for people whose journeys straddle the
start and end of "night time running".

On top of everything else 24 hour running isn't going to be the greatest
help for those of use whose journey combines tube and National Rail - if
it's a choice between waiting in the cold in the West End/City for a night
bus that I can get onto or waiting in the cold at Stratford for a packed one
and the latter option costs more then I would not pay the night tube.

That's a vote loser before he even starts his campaign.

Finding ways to lose votes seems to be a speciality of Opik. He managed to
lose not just any safe Lib Dem seat, he lost Montgomeryshire. *The* seat
that always returned a Liberal of one description or another, except for
that one time they forgot to campaign *, since the days of Disraeli. That
takes some doing.

(* The story is commonly told of how the local Liberal Association in 1979
were so busy planning to celebrate a centenary of the seat being Liberal
1880-1980 held that they neglected to actually campaign, then lost the seat.
To add to the embarassment the sitting MP was the Deputy Leader.)

Opik has also been something of a Jonah for Lib Dem leadership elections
with the likes of Don Foster, Charles Kennedy and Mark Oaten all having
crashed and burned with Opik amongst their most prominent (sometimes only)
public supporters.

I've never liked the man. I first heard about him when was a senior police officer in Lambeth. He was in the news quite a lot and I got the impression that this was by design. He got a lot of publicity by adopting a tolerant policy towards the drugs trade and he was not averse to being interviewed about this on the radio.

Later he resigned from the police force and again secured masses of publicity. He was soon announced as the Liberal Democrat candidate for the Mayoral election. His campaign seemed to consist mainly of making some rather obvious snide remarks about the other two parties. He had nothing new or constructive to say about the two big issues the Mayor Of London has the means to tackle: housing and transport. I sensed that the main reason he wanted to be Mayor was to be able to settle an old score with Ian Blair.

All in all I formed the opinion that Brian Paddick was a publicity-seeking, self-serving weasel.

Re judicial instead of judicious: Touche! A sloppy mistake, the result of posting hurriedly.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On 21/06/2011 21:59, Robin9 wrote:

I've never liked the man. I first heard about him when was a senior
police officer in Lambeth. He was in the news quite a lot and I got the
impression that this was by design. He got a lot of publicity by
adopting a tolerant policy towards the drugs trade and he was not averse
to being interviewed about this on the radio.

Later he resigned from the police force and again secured masses of
publicity. He was soon announced as the Liberal Democrat candidate for
the Mayoral election. His campaign seemed to consist mainly of making
some rather obvious snide remarks about the other two parties. He had
nothing new or constructive to say about the two big issues the Mayor Of
London has the means to tackle: housing and transport. I sensed that the
main reason he wanted to be Mayor was to be able to settle an old score
with Ian Blair.

All in all I formed the opinion that Brian Paddick was a
publicity-seeking, self-serving weasel.

So what we need is a politician who doesn't want publicity, campaigns on
something other than "well at least I'm not him --", has real answers
to complex and long-standing problems, has no grudges, and is not a
self-serving weasel.

Could such a person actually exist on a non-trivial stage in a modern
popular democracy?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:58:21 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Could such a person actually exist on a non-trivial stage in a modern
popular democracy?

Probably not. Most of the public are dumb - they don't listen to the arguments
on both sides and weigh up the options, they just go with who they like or
whoever "feels" right. Whatever the hell that means. You could have the worlds
greatest economic genius , guaranteed to sort out the economy , but if he
had a dull personality he'd almost certainly lose against a cheap showman like
Blair or a talking head on a stick like Cameron.

B2003

What we need is a public-minded individual who recognises that publicity is useful but is not an end it itself, and who has analysed both the issues facing London and what powers the Mayor really has and who has consequently worked out what issues the Mayor should concentrate on.

Does such a paragon exist? Of course. We have innumerable good, conscientious people in this country. Unfortunately, because they are good and conscientious, they will never be adopted by the established political parties whose members want candidates who share their own mean-spirited prejudices and priorities.

What we do not want is a self-serving professional politician who went into politics with no intention of working to make life better for the people but instead merely to further his career, to line his pockets and to indulge his prejudices.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

Robin9 wrote:

What we do not want is a self-serving professional politician who went
into politics with no intention of working to make life better for the
people but instead merely to further his career, to line his pockets and
to indulge his prejudices.


So what you are saying is that Brian Paddick is no different from any
other self-serving professional politician who went into politics with
no intention of working to make life better for the people but instead
merely to further their career, to line their pockets and to indulge
their prejudices.

I think there is another reason why you don't like him. Perhaps it is
time for you to come out of the closet and tell us what it is?

First, why do you believe there is another reason I don't like Brian Paddick?

Second, why have you failed to understand that the paragraph you quoted was a generalisation and was not exclusively about Brian Paddick?

Third, if you are a Brian Paddick admirer, please put forward some arguments on his behalf.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On 22/06/2011 17:54, Robin9 wrote:
Arthur Figgis;120738 Wrote:
On 21/06/2011 21:59, Robin9 wrote:
-
I've never liked the man. I first heard about him when was a senior
police officer in Lambeth. He was in the news quite a lot and I got
the
impression that this was by design. He got a lot of publicity by
adopting a tolerant policy towards the drugs trade and he was not
averse
to being interviewed about this on the radio.

Later he resigned from the police force and again secured masses of
publicity. He was soon announced as the Liberal Democrat candidate for
the Mayoral election. His campaign seemed to consist mainly of making
some rather obvious snide remarks about the other two parties. He had
nothing new or constructive to say about the two big issues the Mayor
Of
London has the means to tackle: housing and transport. I sensed that
the
main reason he wanted to be Mayor was to be able to settle an old
score
with Ian Blair.

All in all I formed the opinion that Brian Paddick was a
publicity-seeking, self-serving weasel.-

So what we need is a politician who doesn't want publicity, campaigns on

something other than "well at least I'm not him --", has real answers
to complex and long-standing problems, has no grudges, and is not a
self-serving weasel.

Could such a person actually exist on a non-trivial stage in a modern
popular democracy?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

What we need is a public-minded individual who recognises that publicity
is useful but is not an end it itself,

So the voters wouldn't have heard of him, while they would all know the
bloke off the telly.

and who has analysed both the
issues facing London and what powers the Mayor really has and who has
consequently worked out what issues the Mayor should concentrate on.

While the person is working out the issues, his evil opponent is telling
the world how he bites the heads off kittens, and the mud sticks (if it
didn't, people wouldn't throw it).

Does such a paragon exist? Of course. We have innumerable good,
conscientious people in this country. Unfortunately, because they are
good and conscientious, they will never be adopted by the established
political parties whose members want candidates who share their own
mean-spirited prejudices and priorities.

More likely that such a person couldn't survive. Would a "good,
conscientious" person even be willing push themselves forwards at the
right opportunity (see any committee in human history)? Would they want
to put their family through it?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 09:49:14PM +0100, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

* Brian Paddick

Last time round, his transport policies we

* women-only tube carriages (sexist and stupid)
* free wifi across London, paid for by cutting TfL's communications
budget (stupid, and would only have applied to the inner boroughs but
you can bet the outer boroughs wouldn't get a discount on our taxes);
* lots of ANPR and linking it to "GPS technology", whatever that means;
* a high speed rail link to Scotland (which is outside the mayor's
remit)

So, despite me being a member of the Lib Dems, I didn't vote for him,
because he's an idiot.

Tuffrey is pleding express buses at peak hours and more
orbital routes, as well as raising extra funding through a municipal bond
scheme and switching to green energy.

Uh-huh. The mayor has no say in energy policy, and municipal bonds
would require an act of Parliament.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

If you can't imagine how I do something, it's
because I have a better imagination than you

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transportpledges
 

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 09:49:14PM +0100, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Tuffrey is pleding express buses at peak hours and more
orbital routes, as well as raising extra funding through a municipal bond
scheme and switching to green energy.

Uh-huh. The mayor has no say in energy policy, and municipal bonds
would require an act of Parliament.

Like Crossrail, new tram schemes, or many other things mayoral candidates
propose, and that mayors have done. Can't we take it as read that "through
a municipal bond scheme" means "through getting a private bill to enable
municipal bonds through parliament and then exercising the powers it
confers"?

I'm not saying it's a good idea, mind!

tom

--
The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right. -- Lord Hailsham

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

In the interests of neutrality here's Brian Paddick's pitch to Lib Dem
members on why they should pick him:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-pad...012-24581.html

(I'm sorry that it's not a piece with any of his policies on transport - or
much else for that matter!)

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

The shortlist will be officially published shortly, but according to the
Grauniad there are four names on it and they are the only four who've
applied.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/d...date-shortlist

Three names have been discussed already on this thread: Lembit Öpik, Brian
Paddick and Mike Tuffrey. The fourth is Brian Haley, a former Haringey
councillor who defected to the Lib Dems in January 2010 after being
deselected by Labour and rejected by the Conservatives. He's very keen on
controlled parking zones, as are the Lib Dems in general (it's about their
one constant in local government).

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk...princi ples_/

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

The Lib Dems are currently in the process of hustings and balloting. All
four candidates have submitted a two-page manifesto to members, with the
full set available at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60713785/l...manifestos2011
(Warning: BIG file)

Their transport pledges are as follows:

Brian Haley:

* Review all bus routes into London
* Reduce the number of large vehicles coming into the city *
* Bring canals back into use
* Make it easier to walk and cycle
* Wants to negotiate a no-strike deal with the unions

(* It's not clear in a number of candidates' material whether by "the
city"/"the City" they mean the Square Mile or the whole metropolis.)

Lembit Opik:

(Note - it's emerged that Opik didn't write this manifesto himself, and has
since pledged to sign off everything going out in his name. Given the
approach on some issues - particularly "explaining" why he lost
Montgomeryshire - I reckon the author is Ed Joyce, director of
Lembit4London.)

* Encourage working from home
* Run some tubes 24 hours, exploring all options, refusing to be "defeatist"
and making passengers pay for their journey

Brian Paddick:

* Hold down fares, to be financed by "scrapping Boris Johnson's vanity
projects"
* Maintain the bus fare subsidy
* A clean-air zone for central London with action on high-polluting vehicles
* Hand over some TfL land for affordable new homes

Mike Tuffrey:

Policy pledges are rather light on the manifesto but amongst the snippets we
get:

* Campaign to bring London's trains under the Mayor's power
* Fight for cleaner air

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

In message , at 14:39:25 on Wed, 27 Jul
2011, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:

* Bring canals back into use

Which canals are not in use?

Actually, there's few in London, the longest of which by far seems to be
the Croydon Canal (closed 1836), but it hardly seems like a priority to
get it restored, especially as it would mean closing some railways which
have re-used parts of the alignment!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Kingdom#Aband
oned_or_unnavigable_canals_in_England
--
Roland Perry

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message , at 14:39:25 on Wed, 27 Jul
2011, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:

* Bring canals back into use

Which canals are not in use?

Actually, there's few in London, the longest of which by far seems to be
the Croydon Canal (closed 1836), but it hardly seems like a priority to
get it restored, especially as it would mean closing some railways which
have re-used parts of the alignment!

That'd be the Brighton mainline which uses the Croydon Canal alignment
between New Cross and Croydon - not sure if rail passengers would really
welcome transferring to canal boats to cover this stretch!

The London Canals website is the 'go to' reference site:
http://www.londoncanals.co.uk/

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:39:25 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

The Lib Dems are currently in the process of hustings and balloting.
All four candidates have submitted a two-page manifesto to members,
with the full set available at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60713785/l...manifestos2011
(Warning: BIG file)

Their transport pledges are

... mostly drivel.

Are these people really as clueless (on transport) as they appear?

I don't know them all but I'd trust Brian Paddick and Mike Tuffrey at least
as good team workers who would work with people who are not clueless.

Not unlike Boris in that respect (only) in fact.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:23:29 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:39:25 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

The Lib Dems are currently in the process of hustings and balloting. All
four candidates have submitted a two-page manifesto to members, with the
full set available at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60713785/l...manifestos2011
(Warning: BIG file)

Their transport pledges are

.... mostly drivel.

Are these people really as clueless (on transport) as they appear?

Since none of them are ever going to be elected they can make whatever
fairytail promises they like and never have to back them up.

B2003

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

For those who haven't yet seen the outcome, Brian Paddick has been selected
as the Liberal Democrat nominee for Mayor.

A reminder of his transport pledge from his two page manifesto:

* Hold down fares, to be financed by "scrapping Boris Johnson's vanity
projects"
* Maintain the bus fare subsidy
* A clean-air zone for central London with action on high-polluting
vehicles
* Hand over some TfL land for affordable new homes

The full figures, for those interested, we

First round
Brian Paddick 1,289 (42%)
Mike Tuffrey 1,232 (40%)
Brian Haley 316 (10%)
Lembit Opik 252 (8%)
Total valid votes: 3,089

Second round
Brian Paddick 1,567 (51%)
Mike Tuffrey 1,476 (49%)
Majority: 91 (2%)

So the Liberal Democrats, like Labour, have decided to make it easy for Boris Johnson to be re-elected. I am an early and severe critic of Boris but I will vote for him because he is at least tolerable. I am sure there are many other Londoners who will vote likewise for the same reason.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 01:27:32 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

For those who haven't yet seen the outcome, Brian Paddick has been
selected
as the Liberal Democrat nominee for Mayor.

A shame because he'll get squashed out of the way by Ken and Boris.

While Mr Tuffrey may have less of a profile than Mr Paddick I think he
would have placed both of the other candidates under a lot of scrutiny
about policy and delivery which is what is actually needed. We're not
holding a beauty parade

You may not be, but the majority of the electorate are

tim

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

While Mr Tuffrey may have less of a profile than Mr Paddick I think he
would have placed both of the other candidates under a lot of scrutiny
about policy and delivery which is what is actually needed. We're not
holding a beauty parade - it's an election where clear plans, good
ideas and proper scrutiny of delivery against their previously
declared commitments is required.

I'm afraid elected Mayors are not turning out quite the way people expected
(and hoped?) - I think the expectation was that the posts would attract new
talent, especially from industry, who would be interested in running for a
direct executive post but not in the street level work that councillors do
which is a pre-requisite to being a council leader. Unfortunately the UK
party system doesn't operate in such a way that such outsiders can dip in to
electoral politics. Ironically Paddick in 2008 is the nearest to a US style
candidate that any of the parties on the GLA have yet fielded and both he
and the Lib Dems found the experience an unhappy one (he says he's learnt
from the experience and certainly he's more experienced in Lib Dem
campaigning now).

The other problem is that elected Mayors are not seen as a stepping stone to
higher things because it's hard to know if one can return to the Commons, so
the ambitious are not drawn to the post (okay Lembit stood but... he's
Lembit). Here it will take time and precedents to change that to show the
talent can easily jump between venues.

I dread to think what will happen if we ever get regional government -
whatever one may think of special advisors going into safe Westminster seats
they do have political knowledge and talent but are unlikely to stand for
regional assemblies. Anyone fancy a chamber full of county councillors who
fancy a nice sinecure?

Months of political jamboree is going to be tedious in the extreme.
Recent skirmishes between Ken and Boris "supporters" fill me with
dread.

If you think Boris's supporters hate Livingstone, you should hear some of
the attitudes held about him in certain London Labour Parties.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

While Mr Tuffrey may have less of a profile than Mr Paddick I think he
would have placed both of the other candidates under a lot of scrutiny
about policy and delivery which is what is actually needed. We're not
holding a beauty parade - it's an election where clear plans, good
ideas and proper scrutiny of delivery against their previously
declared commitments is required.

I'm afraid elected Mayors are not turning out quite the way people
expected (and hoped?) - I think the expectation was that the posts
would attract new talent, especially from industry, who would be
interested in running for a direct executive post but not in the
street level work that councillors do which is a pre-requisite to
being a council leader. Unfortunately the UK party system doesn't
operate in such a way that such outsiders can dip in to electoral
politics. Ironically Paddick in 2008 is the nearest to a US style
candidate that any of the parties on the GLA have yet fielded and
both he and the Lib Dems found the experience an unhappy one (he says
he's learnt from the experience and certainly he's more experienced
in Lib Dem campaigning now).

The other problem is that elected Mayors are not seen as a stepping
stone to higher things because it's hard to know if one can return to
the Commons, so the ambitious are not drawn to the post (okay Lembit
stood but... he's Lembit). Here it will take time and precedents to
change that to show the talent can easily jump between venues.

I dread to think what will happen if we ever get regional government
- whatever one may think of special advisors going into safe
Westminster seats they do have political knowledge and talent but are
unlikely to stand for regional assemblies. Anyone fancy a chamber
full of county councillors who fancy a nice sinecure?

Months of political jamboree is going to be tedious in the extreme.
Recent skirmishes between Ken and Boris "supporters" fill me with
dread.

If you think Boris's supporters hate Livingstone, you should hear
some of the attitudes held about him in certain London Labour
Parties.

Don't be quite so dismissive about councillors. Many MPs once had that role
and some in all parties are very good. My present MP was a County Councillor
until 2009. I'm sure he'll go far.

Some ex-councillor MPs may only make mediocre backbenchers but I wouldn't
accuse any of the former members of my council (Cambridge City) of that.
There are currently two and another two (both former council leaders)
retired in 2010.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

wrote:

I dread to think what will happen if we ever get regional government
- whatever one may think of special advisors going into safe
Westminster seats they do have political knowledge and talent but are
unlikely to stand for regional assemblies. Anyone fancy a chamber
full of county councillors who fancy a nice sinecure?

Don't be quite so dismissive about councillors. Many MPs once had that
role and some in all parties are very good. My present MP was a County
Councillor until 2009. I'm sure he'll go far.

There are good ones who are drawn to Westminster and good ones who
are unlikely to ever stand for it but the question I raised is would
they be drawn to devolved assemblies? It's a question that needs to
be addressed seriously (albeit rather OT for this newsgroup) before
new bodies and elections are held. When the London Mayoral referendum
was held back in 1998 the party introducing it took the official line
of "we are discussing creating the post, not who will be our
candidate for it" which in hindsight has proved a mess because nobody
was really stopping to ask just whether or not the culture was there
that would produce the kind of candidates envisaged.

And then there are the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, where a
common complaint is that the non-nationalist parties are generally
sending their high profile best talent to Westminster and, with some
individual exceptions, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay are left with B-list
talent (or C-list when they suffer a reversal that replaces a load of
constituency members with listers). English regional assemblies would
be even less attractive.

I know what you mean about Holyrood and Cardiff. Labour got it right in 1999
when Donald Dewar forsook the UK Cabinet for Scottish First Minister. It was
tragic that he then died.

My views on London are coloured by a deep dislike of concentrating so much
in one pair of hands. It's a system seriously vulnerable to corruption and
not suitable for the UK.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 01:38:54PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 01:27:32 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
For those who haven't yet seen the outcome, Brian Paddick has been selected
as the Liberal Democrat nominee for Mayor.
A shame because he'll get squashed out of the way by Ken and Boris.

Good. He's a loon. Remember his transport policies four years ago?
Women-only tube carriages, and free wifi (in the inner boroughs only,
presumably) paid for by slashing TfL's communications budget.
Apparently it's better to compete with Starbucks than to tell people
when the Tube gone done broke.

While Mr Tuffrey may have less of a profile than Mr Paddick I think he
would have placed both of the other candidates under a lot of scrutiny
about policy and delivery which is what is actually needed.

FWIW, I'm a member of the Lib Dems. I got campaigning emails from all
four candidates. I replied to all four, asking detailed questions. The
only one to give a decent reply was Tuffrey.

* A clean-air zone for central London with action on high-polluting
vehicles
Don't we have the LEZ already?

That's one of the questions I asked him and didn't get a reply to.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

fdisk format reinstall, doo-dah, doo-dah;
fdisk format reinstall, it's the Windows way

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 05:20:02PM +0100, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

The other problem is that elected Mayors are not seen as a stepping stone to
higher things because it's hard to know if one can return to the Commons, so
the ambitious are not drawn to the post

Johnson isn't ambitious?

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

Please stop rolling your Jargon Dice and explain the problem
you are having to me in plain English, using small words.
-- John Hardin, in the Monastery

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

David Cantrell wrote:

The other problem is that elected Mayors are not seen as a stepping stone
to
higher things because it's hard to know if one can return to the Commons,
so
the ambitious are not drawn to the post

Johnson isn't ambitious?

He has ambitions but he was also somewhat drafted rather than initially
seeking it - and there were signs his Commons career was stalling back in
2007. Furthermore many Conservatives seriously doubted Livingstone could be
defeated in 2008. Runing Boris for the Mayoralty was a gamble that paid off
for the party at the tiny cost of subsequently losing him from the Commons
but for Boris it's removed him from the main centre political attention
without a clear route for returning.

People talk of Boris as a potential future Conservative leader but they
forget that it's difficult to make a successful return to the Commons and
obtain the top prizes, and especially so in the short run. The last major
party leader to have had an interrupted parliamentary career was Michael
Foot (who was out between 1955 and 1960) and he obtain the Labour leadership
20 years after he returned. The last Conservative leader was Sir Alec
Douglas-Home - leaving aside his transfer from the Lords to the Commons he
had lost his seat in the 1945 election before regaining it in 1950, but
again that was over 13 years before he obtained the leadership (and at
several stages he had astounding luck in his career). The last Liberal
leader was Sir Herbert Samuel who lost his seat in the 1918 election then
had a career outside party politics before returning to the Liberal battle
and the Commons in 1929 and becoming the leader of the main party in the
1931 splits. The most recent other case is Roy Jenkins coming back from
Europe and forming the SDP but their failure is a deterrant to anyone else
trying the route of a new party.

And of course there are the failures - both Michael Portillo and Malcolm
Rifkind fell in the 1997 general election and so were absent from the
subsequent leadership election. Each eventually got back to the Commons but
by the time the leadership came up they found their original political bases
had moved on. Conservative MPs still retain a lot of power in the leadership
election and it's questionable whether a returned Johnson would have
sufficient support to make it to the final two and thus go to the full
membership.

If Boris is re-elected in 2012 then his term won't expire until 2016 and to
get back into the Commons he would either have to wait until a general
election in 2020 (thanks to the fixed terms legislation) or win a
by-election. But if the Conservatives are still in power after 2015, which
many seem to expect, then being the government candidate in a by-election is
a risky strategy, especially if it seems the candidate wants to go straight
to the top. However if he waits until 2020 then it's likely that by then
Cameron will have already stepped down and a new leader will have been
elected so Boris would have missed his chance. The only other possibility is
if he could contest the leadership as a non-MP - I forget if the rules are
explicit on this point, but it's a very risky strategy.

The main Westminster style country where this happens a lot is Canada, where
party leaderships at both federal and provincial/territorial level are often
contested by non-MPs, with former MPs, MPs from the other level, Mayors of
big cities, private businessmen, union leaders and others often standing.
There is also a partially observed covention in Canada that if a leader
doesn't have a seat then another MP will resign and the leader will stand in
the by-election without opposition from the other parties. (It's not always
observed and can sometimes go wrong - John Tory in Ontario is the most
prominent recent case.) Some leaders don't have a by-election and instead
fight a seat in the main election, even if they've already been appointed
Prime Minister/Premier - John Turner in 1984 is the most prominent federal
case.

Over in Australia this practice may take off if a current experiment works -
in the state of Queensland the Liberal National Party is going into next
year's election led by Campbell Newman, who has just finished as Mayor of
Brisbane and is leading from outside the state legislature. Brisbane is
Australia's largest local authority (most of what we think of as the big
Australian cities are collections of multiple local authorities - Brisbane
is the only case of a super city authority taking effect) and the Mayor is
directly elected, so this could be one to watch for Boris's chances.

Semi-OT - Liberal Democrat mayoral nomination & transport pledges
 

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:

The other problem is that elected Mayors are not seen as a stepping
stone to higher things because it's hard to know if one can return to
the Commons, so the ambitious are not drawn to the post

Johnson isn't ambitious?

He has ambitions but he was also somewhat drafted rather than
initially seeking it - and there were signs his Commons career was
stalling back in 2007. Furthermore many Conservatives seriously
doubted Livingstone could be defeated in 2008. Runing Boris for the
Mayoralty was a gamble that paid off for the party at the tiny cost
of subsequently losing him from the Commons but for Boris it's
removed him from the main centre political attention without a clear
route for returning.

People talk of Boris as a potential future Conservative leader but
they forget that it's difficult to make a successful return to the
Commons and obtain the top prizes, and especially so in the short
run. The last major party leader to have had an interrupted
parliamentary career was Michael Foot (who was out between 1955 and
1960) and he obtain the Labour leadership 20 years after he returned.
The last Conservative leader was Sir Alec Douglas-Home - leaving
aside his transfer from the Lords to the Commons he had lost his seat
in the 1945 election before regaining it in 1950, but again that was
over 13 years before he obtained the leadership (and at several
stages he had astounding luck in his career). The last Liberal leader
was Sir Herbert Samuel who lost his seat in the 1918 election then
had a career outside party politics before returning to the Liberal
battle and the Commons in 1929 and becoming the leader of the main
party in the 1931 splits. The most recent other case is Roy Jenkins
coming back from Europe and forming the SDP but their failure is a
deterrant to anyone else trying the route of a new party.

And of course there are the failures - both Michael Portillo and
Malcolm Rifkind fell in the 1997 general election and so were absent
from the subsequent leadership election. Each eventually got back to
the Commons but by the time the leadership came up they found their
original political bases had moved on. Conservative MPs still retain
a lot of power in the leadership election and it's questionable
whether a returned Johnson would have sufficient support to make it
to the final two and thus go to the full membership.

If Boris is re-elected in 2012 then his term won't expire until 2016
and to get back into the Commons he would either have to wait until a
general election in 2020 (thanks to the fixed terms legislation) or
win a by-election. But if the Conservatives are still in power after
2015, which many seem to expect, then being the government candidate
in a by-election is a risky strategy, especially if it seems the
candidate wants to go straight to the top. However if he waits until
2020 then it's likely that by then Cameron will have already stepped
down and a new leader will have been elected so Boris would have
missed his chance. The only other possibility is if he could contest
the leadership as a non-MP - I forget if the rules are explicit on
this point, but it's a very risky strategy.

The main Westminster style country where this happens a lot is
Canada, where party leaderships at both federal and
provincial/territorial level are often contested by non-MPs, with
former MPs, MPs from the other level, Mayors of big cities, private
businessmen, union leaders and others often standing. There is also a
partially observed covention in Canada that if a leader doesn't have
a seat then another MP will resign and the leader will stand in the
by-election without opposition from the other parties. (It's not
always observed and can sometimes go wrong - John Tory in Ontario is
the most prominent recent case.) Some leaders don't have a
by-election and instead fight a seat in the main election, even if
they've already been appointed Prime Minister/Premier - John Turner
in 1984 is the most prominent federal case.

Over in Australia this practice may take off if a current experiment
works - in the state of Queensland the Liberal National Party is
going into next year's election led by Campbell Newman, who has just
finished as Mayor of Brisbane and is leading from outside the state
legislature. Brisbane is Australia's largest local authority (most of
what we think of as the big Australian cities are collections of
multiple local authorities - Brisbane is the only case of a super
city authority taking effect) and the Mayor is directly elected, so
this could be one to watch for Boris's chances.

You've forgotten the main example of interrupted career followed by
ministerial success, Winston Churchill. But he broke so many "rules" that he
is probably the exception that proves most of them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel