Also in the news

[Innovindil]

13 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

F**king easy, lads. 

 

They'd been looking for over a century. I rocked up at 8am, sprinkled a load of quavers everywhere and waited for a bit. I was back on the boat slamming pina coladas by half-nine. You're welcome, Galapagos.

 

 

What sort of a monster wastes quavers hunting an animal so shit no one has even realised it existed for over a hundred years? Smh. 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What sort of a monster wastes quavers hunting an animal so shit no one has even realised it existed for over a hundred years? Smh. 

They’ve been hiding under a rock.

[Guest MattP]

37 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Which has made me wonder... has anyone ever voted for a party, despite hating the candidate who was standing for them. Or maybe voted against the party they broadly agreed with, because they really liked what another party's candidate stood for or how how he/she conducted themselves? Would someone vote for their traditional party if the "candidate" was a convicted rapist or child molester?

Answer to the last bit obviously no I could potentially vote for any political party aside from the Greens or the SNP depending on where I lived.

 

My original vote would want to be Conservative but I wouldn't vote for Dominic Grieve or Philip Lee - likewise the three Tories that left yesterday. 

 

I'd vote Labour in Bassetlaw or Vauxhall as I'm very fond of Kate Hoey and John Mann. I'd vote Labour in any seat like Brighton Pav where the Greens are in power and Labour are the only chance to unseat them.

 

My country is also more important than politics, so any seat that was clearly SNP v Lab/Lib Dem I'd also vote for the latter.

[Kopfkino]

Voted for Sadiq Khan in 2016 cos Zac and his campaign was deplorable. And what a ****ing mistake that vote was. 

[davieG]

I try to vote for the person based on their beliefs but sometimes it's very hard to determine what they are because they tend give out info based solely on the party they are representing rather than their own beliefs, which I understand why.

However I find it hard to believe that anyone individual believes wholeheartedly in every aspect of a parties manifesto so I just think this is being dishonest.

 

I'll often vote for an independent candidate if their beliefs don't vary significantly from mine although I accept it's probably a wasted/pointless vote.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Voted for Sadiq Khan in 2016 cos Zac and his campaign was deplorable. And what a ****ing mistake that vote was. 

 

What has Sadiq done wrong, in your view?

 

I'm just curious. Although I'm vaguely pro-Lab and find he comes across quite well on TV, I don't live in London so have almost zero knowledge of his record in office.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

F**king easy, lads. 

 

They'd been looking for over a century. I rocked up at 8am, sprinkled a load of quavers everywhere and waited for a bit. I was back on the boat slamming pina coladas by half-nine. You're welcome, Galapagos.

 

 

She doesn’t look very pleased. She looks like someone who missed out on the Hide and Seek World Record by 10 minutes. 

[String fellow]

Like 3 of The Independent Group, she's cute!

[MC Prussian]

German state-funded TV station ARD caught in a bit of turmoil, as they have recently paid 120‘000 Euro (£105’000) to a German linguist for a paper on Newspeak: It‘s about how to formulate terms and words on TV that previously had a negative connotation, pushing for a more positive spin.

The actual term for it is „framing“.

 

Deplorable practice. Using taxpayers‘ money to fund a study how to manipulate and cull your own audience aka the very same taxpayer.

It’s getting more and more ridiculous in media.

 

Also, it turns out that the institute that issued the report doesn‘t exist at all.

 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

What has Sadiq done wrong, in your view?

 

I'm just curious. Although I'm vaguely pro-Lab and find he comes across quite well on TV, I don't live in London so have almost zero knowledge of his record in office.

He hasn't. He inherited a boiling piss pot which would've spilled over regardless. 

[EnderbyFox]

[Nalis]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

What has Sadiq done wrong, in your view?

 

I'm just curious. Although I'm vaguely pro-Lab and find he comes across quite well on TV, I don't live in London so have almost zero knowledge of his record in office.

He blames everyone else for everything and takes no responsibility for anything.

 

Grenfell was Kensington and Chelsea Council & Westminster's fault.

 

Crossrail's delay is Spurs' fault

 

Housing crisis in London is Westminster's fault

 

If he held his hands up and admitted his faults under his stewardship then he's have more credibility.

 

Instead, he's more concerned with lip service which is the only thing he is good at.

 

I voted him in over Zac Goldsmith. More fool me as I'd do the same again unless another candidate had a chance of winning.

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, Nalis said:

He blames everyone else for everything and takes no responsibility for anything.

 

Grenfell was Kensington and Chelsea Council & Westminster's fault.

 

Crossrail's delay is Spurs' fault

 

Housing crisis in London is Westminster's fault

 

If he held his hands up and admitted his faults under his stewardship then he's have more credibility.

 

Instead, he's more concerned with lip service which is the only thing he is good at.

 

I voted him in over Zac Goldsmith. More fool me as I'd do the same again unless another candidate had a chance of winning.

I don't know anything about crossrail but I'm pretty confident neither Grenfell or the housing crisis is his fault...

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, bovril said:

I think I can say with relative certainty everyone on this forum would answer "no" to that. Also I'm pretty sure a political party would not put up such a person. 

You see, I'm fairly certain that, whilst a political party almost certainly wouldn't do it, there are people who would vote for them regardless.

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

In reality the majority of people align to a party and vote for that Party's candidate, barely know their name or anything about them.  Few people meet their MP or look into them very much.

 

Your last question is a bit nuts, as surely no recognized party would select a candidate with such a record.

I thought it would be fairly obvious that the last point was both hypothetical and hyperbole on my part.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't know anything about crossrail but I'm pretty confident neither Grenfell or the housing crisis is his fault...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/so-sadiq-khan-where-are-all-those-new-homes-you-promised-a3926326.html

[Nalis]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't know anything about crossrail but I'm pretty confident neither Grenfell or the housing crisis is his fault...

Kensington and Chelsea Council falls under his remit and he blames them. Then blames the government. Surely either they arent at fault and he isnt or thry are all to blame somewhat? He cant have it both ways.

 

I probably should have rephrased the housing crisis point. His manifesto on new affordable housing he'd provide when elected vs what he has actually achieved are poles apart.

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, RoboFox said:

F**king easy, lads. 

 

They'd been looking for over a century. I rocked up at 8am, sprinkled a load of quavers everywhere and waited for a bit. I was back on the boat slamming pina coladas by half-nine. You're welcome, Galapagos.

 

 

Is it the same one, cos it looks it.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Nalis said:

Kensington and Chelsea Council falls under his remit and he blames them. Then blames the government. Surely either they arent at fault and he isnt or thry are all to blame somewhat? He cant have it both ways.

 

I probably should have rephrased the housing crisis point. His manifesto on new affordable housing he'd provide when elected vs what he has actually achieved are poles apart.

The Tower was built and renovated before he became mayor, surely it's a bit of a reach to blame him for it?  What did he say about the council?

 

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/so-sadiq-khan-where-are-all-those-new-homes-you-promised-a3926326.html

He's not responding to it as effectively as he promised he would but that doesn't make the crisis is his fault.  Latest figures are better but still pretty damning:

Quote

 

London must build 6,500 affordable homes in three months to hit mayor’s target

NEWS11/02/195:30 PMBY JACK SIMPSON

The mayor of London will need to see nearly 6,500 affordable homes started in the final quarter of 2018/19 if he is to hit his target of 12,500 affordable housing starts across the year.

The Greater London Authority’s (GLA) latest quarterly statistics on housing starts revealed that a total of 6,066 affordable homes had been started through GLA housing programmes in the nine months to 31 December 2018.

The latest figures mean that in the last quarter of the year, the mayor would need to see 6,434 affordable homes started to achieve his pledge of delivering between 12,500 and 16,500 affordable homes this year.

The mayor currently has an aim of delivering 113,000 housing starts by March 2022, including 105,000 affordable homes. This is supported by £4.8bn of funding that the mayor has been able to secure from the government.

Of the 6,066 homes started so far in 2017/18, 1,324 were for social rent, 3,103 were for shared ownership or London Living Rent, and the remainder were for other tenures.

---

 

---

An additional 159 homes were built for the open market over the nine-month period, taking the total number of housing starts to 6,225.

Andrew Boff, who is a Conservative London Assembly member and part of the London Assembly’s Housing Committee, blasted the latest figures, calling them “deeply disappointing”.

He said that the mayor was “simply failing to get London building” and “homeownership was becoming even more of an impossible dream for Londoners”.

They said: "The mayor surpassed his housing target last year – starting more social and affordable homes than ever before - and is firmly on track to hit the even higher target this year. Quarterly numbers increase towards the end of the financial period in all housing programmes, as assembly member Boff knows full well.”

The London Borough of Brent was the local authority area with the most affordable home starts across the period, having started 912 homes in the nine months up to December 2018.

Tower Hamlets had the second highest number of affordable home starts, with 514, while Ealing was third, with 430 starts.

The latest housing starts statistics come as pressure ramps up on Mr Khan’s track record in delivering new homes in the capital.

Last month housing secretary James Brokenshire said the Greater London Authority needed to “urgently pick up” the number of affordable homes being built across the capital.

A report by the London Assembly’s Housing Committee in November was also highly critical of Mr Khan’s performance, saying he had fallen short of his promises around affordable housing.

London saw 12,555 affordable houses started in the 12 months to 31 March 2018, with 2,652 of those being for social rent.

 

 

Edited 21 February 2019 by Carl the Llama

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The Tower was both and renovated before he became mayor, surely it's a bit of a reach to blame him for it?  What did he say about the council?

 

He's not responding to it as effectively as he promised he would but that doesn't make the crisis is his fault.  Latest figures are better but still pretty damning:

 

To be fair Carl I wasn’t arguing he was responsible, I heard on LBC a few months back his campaign promise was somewhat fruitless so far. So I was just trying to provide some clarity to the discussion. 

I’m not really fussed either way by Khan, if he wasn’t so anti brexit, I’d probably quite like him.

[davieG]

....and another one goes...

 

Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North, has become the ninth MP to quit Labour this week.

Mr Austin told the Express and Star newspaper that he was quitting because of the party's "lurch to the left" under Jeremy Corbyn and the failure to tackle anti-Semitism in the party.

But he said he had no plans to join the new Independent Group of former Labour and Tory MPs.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

....and another one goes...

 

Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North, has become the ninth MP to quit Labour this week.

Mr Austin told the Express and Star newspaper that he was quitting because of the party's "lurch to the left" under Jeremy Corbyn and the failure to tackle anti-Semitism in the party.

But he said he had no plans to join the new Independent Group of former Labour and Tory MPs.

So he'll be a non independent group independent I suppose.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

....and another one goes...

 

Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North, has become the ninth MP to quit Labour this week.

Mr Austin told the Express and Star newspaper that he was quitting because of the party's "lurch to the left" under Jeremy Corbyn and the failure to tackle anti-Semitism in the party.

But he said he had no plans to join the new Independent Group of former Labour and Tory MPs.

Surprised he's not joining TIG as he has all the attributes to do so.

 

I do wonder if the public reaction has played any part, Soubry got battered on LBC yesterday and Leslie got a rough ride on QT - they are already seen by many as being undemocratic and not holding by-elections hasn't helped that.

 

We also had the ridiculous scene of Soubry standing on a stage defending the coalition and Gideons austerity policy - surely any Labour waverers would have had their head in their hands listening to that. The problem with Soubry for a project like this is she's economically a Thatcherite conservative.

 

When all the dust settles I do fear this lot will sit down to discuss policy and realise the only thing they actually have in common is they all hate Brexit and want it reversed. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Surprised he's not joining TIG as he has all the attributes to do so.

 

I do wonder if the public reaction has played any part, Soubry got battered on LBC yesterday and Leslie got a rough ride on QT - they are already seen by many as being undemocratic and not holding by-elections hasn't helped that.

 

We also had the ridiculous scene of Soubry standing on a stage defending the coalition and Gideons austerity policy - surely any Labour waverers would have had their head in their hands listening to that. The problem with Soubry for a project like this is she's economically a Thatcherite conservative.

 

When all the dust settles I do fear this lot will sit down to discuss policy and realise the only thing they actually have in common is they all hate Brexit and want it reversed. 

Which isn't a problem is it? Then they can go whichever way they choose individually. 

 

The point they are making at the moment is that their parties are a mess - and that's true.