# Johnson ahead



## paolo (Mar 18, 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/18/london08.livingstone

Grim reading for many of us. Anyone got any insight into how the 2nd preference votes might play out?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 18, 2008)

Don't know how many of those people supporting Boris are dyed in the wool Tories or who like me are almost anyone but Livingstone.

Personally I'd say that there are probably more who just want rid of Livingstone rather than who actively want Boris.  However, the one policy thats sold me on Livingstone is his policy of wanting an increase in power for the assembly.

I also think Livingstone is paying the price for standing as a NL candidate in that he is now picking up some of the flak that is aimed at the Govt. Maybe if he had continued as an independent.  Doesn't help that Livingstone has shown appallign judgement in hanging onto Jasper the Grasper for so long.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 18, 2008)

Grauniad said:
			
		

> The Livingstone camp, which says it will win if the campaign focuses on policies, was boosted yesterday when former BBC chairman Greg Dyke voiced his support.



Yes, never underestimate the hordes of fanatical Greg Dyke loyalists, obediently awaiting their leader's fatwa.


----------



## jæd (Mar 18, 2008)

Guardian said:
			
		

> The Labour candidate will say: "Some people attempt to portray this election as about personality - a celebrity big brother in which the biggest issue that needs to be discussed is less than 400 bendy buses, a fraction of the bus service. It is not. The stakes are very high. It is about the most vital issues for the future of London affecting the lives of all Londoners for years."



Perhaps if Bendy Buses are an election issue then perhaps its because no-one likes them...?


----------



## Badgers (Mar 18, 2008)

The Boris machine has been busy of late.... 

Was stopped outside Wandsworth Town train station yesterday by a grinning moron distributing 'Back Boris' leaflets. I took the opportunity to have some fun with her  

Moron: Back Boris sir? 
Badgers: Boris who? 
Moron: Boris Johnson, who is running for mayor 
Badgers: That TV bloke, is he still in politics? 
Moron: He is the mayoral candidate! 
Badgers: Is this a joke? 
Moron: No, the leaflet will tell you more. 
Badgers: Leaflet? That is not very good for the environment! 
Moron: Errrrr.... 
Badgers: In fact look at all the litter you are creating, Boris's name is actually in the gutter....Look!!!! 
Moron: Errrrr.... 
Badgers: Anyway, I am late for work! I hope this is not your full time job?
Moron: Errrrr.... 


Fish in a barrel


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 18, 2008)

Badgers said:


> The Boris machine has been busy of late....
> 
> Was stopped outside Wandsworth Town train station yesterday by a grinning moron distributing 'Back Boris' leaflets. I took the opportunity to have some fun with her
> 
> ...



Sounds like the equally moronic Livingstone canvasser who accosted me outside Victoria Station.  'Vote for Ken' says he 'You must be fucking joking' says I.  I got the distinct impression that 'you must be fucking joking' had been said to him more than once that day


----------



## Badgers (Mar 18, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Sounds like the equally moronic Livingstone canvasser who accosted me outside Victoria Station.  'Vote for Ken' says he 'You must be fucking joking' says I.  I got the distinct impression that 'you must be fucking joking' had been said to him more than once that day



Hating people is fun


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 18, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Hating people is fun



I dont' hate Livingscum nor his canvassers.  I think they are misguided for allowing a charlatan like Livingstone to charm them but that could equally apply to all poltiicians.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 18, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I dont' hate Livingscum nor his canvassers.  I think they are misguided for allowing a charlatan like Livingstone to charm them but that could equally apply to all poltiicians.



So who do you think is the 'least worst' option?


----------



## marty21 (Mar 18, 2008)

i haven't seen anyone campaigning, i spend most of my time in hackney, none of them seem that bothered about the hackney vote


----------



## Badgers (Mar 18, 2008)

marty21 said:


> i haven't seen anyone campaigning, i spend most of my time in hackney, none of them seem that bothered about the hackney vote



I thought Chris Liberator was standing?


----------



## marty21 (Mar 18, 2008)

tbh, i'm getting more tempted by the joke candidate, michael hodges of timeout


----------



## Badgers (Mar 18, 2008)

The choice appears to be Ken or Boris. 

My choice from the above is Ken.


----------



## co-op (Mar 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/18/london08.livingstone
> 
> Grim reading for many of us. Anyone got any insight into how the 2nd preference votes might play out?



Livingstone has had more second preference votes in the last two elections (but then he had more _first_ pref votes too then, which isn't guaranteed this time) and I've been told that polling so far this year shows that he is well ahead of Boris on second preference votes - but I got this verbally from some party guy, I don't have the exact figures or a reference for you I'm afraid.  Anyway, this suggests that the anti-Boris vote is more solid than the anti-Ken one and - assuming that it's KL vs BJ in the run-offs (and the 12% for Paddick makes that look pretty likely) - this leaves KL still well in the race.


----------



## co-op (Mar 18, 2008)

Badgers said:


> The choice appears to be Ken or Boris.
> 
> My choice from the above is Ken.




Me too. Ken is not what he was, but Boris is an idiot.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 18, 2008)

co-op said:


> Me too. Ken is not what he was, but Boris is an idiot.



^ ^ This

I know that our country and politics are a bit of a joke right now but to actually elect comedians is nonsense. Ken is trying (and failing) to do a thankless/impossible task and is a bigger man (but slimmer) than Boris is, or ever will be.


----------



## paolo (Mar 18, 2008)

co-op said:


> Livingstone has had more second preference votes in the last two elections (but then he had more _first_ pref votes too then, which isn't guaranteed this time) and I've been told that polling so far this year shows that he is well ahead of Boris on second preference votes - but I got this verbally from some party guy, I don't have the exact figures or a reference for you I'm afraid.  Anyway, this suggests that the anti-Boris vote is more solid than the anti-Ken one and - assuming that it's KL vs BJ in the run-offs (and the 12% for Paddick makes that look pretty likely) - this leaves KL still well in the race.



Interesting. I guess it's also possible that the swing is a temporary one - fallout from Jasper etc.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 18, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I dont' hate Livingscum nor his canvassers.  I think they are misguided for allowing a charlatan like Livingstone to charm them but that could equally apply to all poltiicians.


how can you say you don't hate him when you call him livingscum?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 18, 2008)

marty21 said:


> how can you say you don't hate him when you call him livingscum?



Doesn't mean I hate him.  Don't like his attitude or his politics but if the bloke was drowning I'd probably save him.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 18, 2008)

I'll be totally devastated if that twat Johnson wins... genuinely gutted.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 18, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> I'll be totally devastated if that twat Johnson wins... genuinely gutted.



If he wins it won't be because he has won on a positive choice it will be because Livingstone lost the support of Londoners and people will vote for whatever gets rid of him.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 18, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> If he wins it won't be because he has won on a positive choice it will be because Livingstone lost the support of Londoners and people will vote for whatever gets rid of him.



Indeed, and if Livingstone wins it'll be because the thought of that cynical, bigoted Tory cunt, Johnson, as Mayor is gutting.


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2008)

i find it completely gobsmacking that the tories even put boris up as a candidate, let alone anyone vote for him... you'd have to be an utter idiot to vote for him, frankly, whatever the provocation from livingstone.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 18, 2008)

Tell me about it... judging by the wankers at work, there's a worrying amount of utter idiots


----------



## Urbanblues (Mar 18, 2008)

Unlike all those rich cunts who stated they’d emigrate if Labour won the General Election; I’m not in a position to move out of London if Johnson wins – though, I could top myself.

Livingstone at his ‘concentration-camp-guard’ baiting worse; at his unbending belief in bendy buses; or, even with his ‘London’ll-have-the-Olympics-whether-they-like-it-or-not’ attitude, is preferable to what the falsely fumbling bumbling Boris can offer.  

Fuck off Johnson, you privileged Tory cunt!


----------



## Placid Casual27 (Mar 18, 2008)

Word.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 18, 2008)

The Green Party is about to urge their voters to cast their second preference for Livingstone, and vice versa.

Matt


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 18, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> I'll be totally devastated if that twat Johnson wins... genuinely gutted.



Be prepared to be devastated. I think the fuckers going to win...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 18, 2008)

Matt S said:


> The Green Party is about to urge their voters to cast their second preference for Livingstone, and vice versa.
> 
> Matt



Seriously?


----------



## Random One (Mar 18, 2008)

i read the thread title as 'Johnson Dead'...

...oh well


----------



## Matt S (Mar 18, 2008)

KE,

Yep.

Matt


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 18, 2008)

Matt S said:


> KE,
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Matt



Wow. Now to business, what's the figure vote wise? Will this make much of a difference if Green voters follow it?


----------



## Matt S (Mar 18, 2008)

Well, depends how we do!

Unfortunately, the vast bulk of our vote last time was in 2nd preferences (10% of all second prefs, which is huge), which obviously makes no difference to Ken. Only our first prefs transfer to another candidate.

If we did exactly as well as last time, then we would get about 57,000 first pref votes. If they all transferred to Ken, that would make a decent difference (not a huge one though). However, they won't all transfer to Ken, because some people will never vote Labour under any circumstances, others won't understand the system, etc etc.

But then we could (and I think we will, actually) do better on first prefs than last time. 

So, fuck knows, basically. It'll make some difference, but nowhere near enough to swing the election by itself. It might change the momentum though.

Matt


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 18, 2008)

Matt S said:


> Well, depends how we do!
> 
> Unfortunately, the vast bulk of our vote last time was in 2nd preferences, which obviously makes no difference to Ken. Only our first prefs transfer to another candidate.
> 
> ...




Hmmm but there's a headline in there somewhere because Respect are doing the same in terms of their 2nd pref.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 18, 2008)

If enough Londoners actually _vote_ for the cunt, I don't know what I will do, to be quite honest. Probably I will stand there for a good week saying "Boris Johnson? _Boris Fucking Johnson?_", mixed in with "what the _fuck_ were you _thinking_?" And then, well, I don't know, I'll play it by ear.

Pretty sure he won't win though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 18, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If enough Londoners actually _vote_ for the cunt, I don't know what I will do, to be quite honest. Probably I will stand there for a good week saying "Boris Johnson? _Boris Fucking Johnson?_", mixed in with "what the _fuck_ were you _thinking_?" And then, well, I don't know, I'll play it by ear.
> 
> Pretty sure he won't win though.


I'm up for a revolution and/or assassination if bojo does win it. that or emigration, cos i simply can't envisage having that fool in charge of anything tbf.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 18, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Pretty sure he won't win though.



I think he's going too. If he does it's the first major step toward Cameron and the Tories winning the next election.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 18, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I think he's going too. If he does it's the first major step toward Cameron and the Tories winning the next election.



I think a lot of people who voted for Boris in London in order to get rid of Livingstone will either abstain or vote Lib Dem or another party at the GE.  Can see it seriously damaging NL nationally though.  Can't see it boosting the tories as much as you think.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 18, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I think a lot of people who voted for Boris in London in order to get rid of Livingstone will either abstain or vote Lib Dem or another party at the GE.  Can see it seriously damaging NL nationally though.  Can't see it boosting the tories as much as you think.



Want to bet on it? I'm serious, I'd lay money on a Bojo victory playing a significant role in a Tory GE win.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

When is the next GE? Does Boris have time to leave London in tatters thus people realising a Tory govt would be an equal disaster?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Want to bet on it? I'm serious, I'd lay money on a Bojo victory playing a significant role in a Tory GE win.



If NL continue fucking up, patronising, curbing peoples freedom, behave arrogantly and much much more then they are quite capable of losing the election without any help from Johnson.

Its a sad day when someone like BoJo looks electable because the alternatives are worse.


----------



## scalyboy (Mar 19, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Badgers: That TV bloke, is he still in politics?
> Moron: He is the mayoral candidate!
> Badgers: Is this a joke?




Very good work!

"that TV bloke" hahahahaha!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 19, 2008)

I interviewed him the other day. Nice bloke actually but he didn't have a clue as to what the bloody hell was going on. I really really really really dont think Boris is up to the job, hes just saying what his press people think will win votes. It really looked like poor Boris was being wheeled out to us to say what he had been told then pulled away. We asked a couple of questions that had not been cleared, Boris was ok with it bit didn't really have a clue, the press officer was furious. 

For some reason his press people have turned down ITVs request for a live debate the night before the election on several occasions. All the other candidates will be there so we asked Boris why he wouldnt be. He hadn't even been told about it and was keen to find out why from the press officer who pretty much patted him and said "its nothing to worry about, there there, shussh" and dragged him away. 

Quite frighteningly about four people that past us (outside but in a fairly remote location) gave a great cheer with a "go boris". . Uh oh.


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> When is the next GE? Does Boris have time to leave London in tatters thus people realising a Tory govt would be an equal disaster?



In short - yes he has plenty of time to fuck them royally which might be the only silver lining 

I know perfectly rational, sensible, politcally aware people who plan to vote for BoJo. Some of them in reaction to thinking Ken's been a bit of a twat and see's London as "his" and others who thought "it might be a laugh"  I'm reconsidering my friendship with those 3


----------



## Chairman Meow (Mar 19, 2008)

I can't believe anyone sane person would seriously vote for the faux-niave buffoon. Unless Ken had actually eaten your baby or something. But I'm worried for you guys - its a shame ex-Londoners can't vote!


----------



## maes (Mar 19, 2008)

This election is depressing me. Mass politics is depressing me. If BJ wins I think I'm leaving london for good, I don't feel as at home there as I once did.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 19, 2008)

g force said:


> In short - yes he has plenty of time to fuck them royally which might be the only silver lining
> 
> I know perfectly rational, sensible, politcally aware people who plan to vote for BoJo. Some of them in reaction to thinking Ken's been a bit of a twat and see's London as "his" and others who thought "it might be a laugh"  I'm reconsidering my friendship with those 3



I know people who think the latter, too. Do they not realise how much power the London Mayor actually has? 

I hope I don't have this twit foisted on me and my city for such stupd reasons.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> I can't believe anyone sane person would seriously vote for the faux-niave buffoon.


It's terrifying prospect. The guy's entertaining but I sure don't want some bumbling toff running London.


----------



## story (Mar 19, 2008)

Am I the only person who wants to see Ken returned?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 19, 2008)

Matt S said:


> The Green Party is about to urge their voters to cast their second preference for Livingstone, and vice versa.
> 
> Matt




What does the Green Party gain in all of this?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I hope I don't have this twit foisted on me and my city for such stupd reasons.



What would you  prefer then an arrogant scumbag who embraces homophobic clerical fascists, who has backed to the hilt the olympic disaster, who has shown massive errors of judgements in many areas, who appears not to listen to Londoners and much much more.

I'd much rather there was an electable alternative to BoJo but sadly we don't have one.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> What does the Green Party gain in all of this?



they are going to find that some of the mud that is beginnign to rightly stick to Livingstone is going to start sticking to them.  A piss poor decision on the part of the Greens IMO.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I interviewed him the other day. Nice bloke actually but he didn't have a clue as to what the bloody hell was going on. I really really really really dont think Boris is up to the job, hes just saying what his press people think will win votes. It really looked like poor Boris was being wheeled out to us to say what he had been told then pulled away. We asked a couple of questions that had not been cleared, Boris was ok with it bit didn't really have a clue, the press officer was furious.
> 
> For some reason his press people have turned down ITVs request for a live debate the night before the election on several occasions. All the other candidates will be there so we asked Boris why he wouldnt be. He hadn't even been told about it and was keen to find out why from the press officer who pretty much patted him and said "its nothing to worry about, there there, shussh" and dragged him away.
> 
> Quite frighteningly about four people that past us (outside but in a fairly remote location) gave a great cheer with a "go boris". . Uh oh.



This is what worries me... the bloke doesn't have a clue. He didn't when he became MP for Henley. He canvassed us in The Angel when we were outside having a pint. Was all over the place when a mate of ours actually started questioning him on his politics. Really flustered. Ended up buying us a all a pint and being hastily bundled a way by his Tory boy advisor.

London is too important to be handlded by such a tool. Why can't people look past petty shit and see this? "I'll be voting for Boris 'cos he'd have never introduced the congestion charge!" - the congestion charge is a good thing you fucking simpleton 

The damage he could do is utterly depressing. London will always be London, but it's riding the crest of a wave at the moment and it wouldn't be difficult to upset this.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> What would you  prefer then an arrogant scumbag who embraces homophobic clerical fascists, who has backed to the hilt the olympic disaster, who has shown massive errors of judgements in many areas, who appears not to listen to Londoners and much much more.
> 
> I'd much rather there was an electable alternative to BoJo but sadly we don't have one.



Bollocks, you just can't look past the personal injury you feel because of his policies on congestion and emissions! 

No different from the vacuous, clucking Fulham based muppets at work who'll be voting for 'Good old Boris!' because they don't have a clue. It's just selfishness pure and simple.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> they are going to find that some of the mud that is beginnign to rightly stick to Livingstone is going to start sticking to them.  A piss poor decision on the part of the Greens IMO.



It's only a reflection of the reality - most greens would be voting for livingstone 2nd pref anyway.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> Bollocks, you just can't look past the personal injury you feel because of his policies on congestion and emissions!


Nah there are  personal 'ways and means ' around that.  Its the arrogance and the waste and the piss poor judgement on the part of Livingstone that makes me want him gone.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Mar 19, 2008)

There was an article in the Times magazine (I think) a few weeks ago, pretty much saying the same thing - that Johnson had few policies, some rather trite speeches, and basically didn't have a clue. Oh and quite a few Tory boys protecting him from any diffcult questions.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 19, 2008)

Oswald,

I shouldn't really go into detail about all of this because I've had bad experiences before at election time of other parties taking my internet quotations out of context!

However, in short, my view is that the Green Party doesn't gain much out of this, but that it is the right thing to do for London. Which might sound idealistic, but hey, thats us. 

Matt


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Nah there are  personal 'ways and means ' around that.  Its the arrogance and the waste and the piss poor judgement on the part of Livingstone that makes me want him gone.



No-one's arguing that Ken is in any way honest or unselfish, but he's been good for London and Boris Johnson would be a massive, massive step in the wrong direction.

All of your points may be perfectly accurate, but do you really, truly believe that Boris Johnson wouldn't be way worse!?


----------



## scifisam (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> What would you  prefer then an arrogant scumbag who embraces homophobic clerical fascists, who has backed to the hilt the olympic disaster, who has shown massive errors of judgements in many areas, who appears not to listen to Londoners and much much more.
> 
> I'd much rather there was an electable alternative to BoJo but sadly we don't have one.



Arrogant? Hel_lo_, politician!

Scumbag - disagree.

Homophobic clerics - well, that's all of them, really. 

Olympics - I agree there, but I doubt, at the time, that it was apparent how bas this was going to be for the city. 

The rest I disagree with. 

He's made some excellent decisions, and his policies are mostly in line with my own opinion. He's far from perfect, but still far, far better than a poor twit with no policies who's only there as a puppet for the real Tories behind him - the invisible people who'll be making re real decisions. At least with Ken you know who you're voting for.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> No-one's arguing that Ken is in any way honest or unselfish, but he's been good for London and Boris Johnson would be a massive, massive step in the wrong direction.
> 
> All of your points may be perfectly accurate, but do you really, truly believe that Boris Johnson wouldn't be way worse!?



I haven't seen any huge benefits for London to be honest.  The tubes are still shit, the buses are slightly better but could be better, he has surrounded  himself with yes men and dodgy cronies, shown appalling errors of judgement and been arrogant and dismissive of the concerns of the little person.

Boris is a bit of a joke but there is a strong chance that a BoJo mayoralty may be th echance to increase  the power and influence of the Assembly which I believe in and Boris has said he wants.


----------



## maes (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Nah there are  personal 'ways and means ' around that.  Its the arrogance and the waste and the piss poor judgement on the part of Livingstone that makes me want him gone.



What do you mean by this? What jugements has he made that you think are poor, how is he wasteful?

I think you've fallen hook line and sinker for BJprop, big brother style adhominem politics. Arrogance ffs? Even if 'ken' was, why would that even be a problem? Since when do we have to like people for them to be good leaders?


----------



## Matt S (Mar 19, 2008)

Yes, because I'm sure that once Boris becomes Mayor, he will increase the powers of the body whose sole purpose is to scrutinise him and which contains a majority of his political opponents.

Or, umm, not.

Matt


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2008)

mae said:


> If BJ wins I think I'm leaving london for good, I don't feel as at home there as I once did.



I found myself thinking this yesterday.  I won't - i love this city and i'll continue to love it... but i just can't get my head round the place being overseen by some vague, sort of affable, posh tory boy from Henley.  What does he actually understand about this city?
Which Londoners exactly does he relate to?

It's terrifying.

Surely sod all these second choices - anyone who doesn't want BJ as mayor has to vote for Ken.  First choice.  It's the only way we stand a chance of not getting Boris as our mayor.  And we all have to actually get out and vote.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

mae said:


> What do you mean by this? What jugements has he made that you think are poor, how is he wasteful?


Not campaigning against Londoners having to pay for the olympic disaster, throwing money at the Lee Jasper fiasco, beauracratic waste in city hall etc etc.


mae said:


> I think you've fallen hook line and sinker for BJprop, big brother style adhominem politics. Arrogance ffs? Even if 'ken' was, why would that even be a problem? Since when do we have to like people for them to be good leaders?




But Livingstone IS NOT a good leader.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 19, 2008)

spanglechick,

>Surely sod all these second choices - anyone who doesn't want BJ as mayor >has to vote for Ken. First choice. It's the only way we stand a chance of >not getting Boris as our mayor. 

HOw do you work that out? The entire point of the voting system is to avoid choices like that...

Unless you think Boris is going to get over 50% of first preferences?? IN which case we are screwed anyway.

Matt


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> he's been good for London



We keep on hearing this, yet London still seems the increasingly expensive, overcrowded dump of a rich-kids-playground - while the rest of us find it harder and harder to get by.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> But Livingstone IS NOT a good leader.



But Johnson will be 6 billion times worse for christ's sake!!!!


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

And all these hysterical predictiors of apolcalypse if Ken looses do themselves - or their idol - no favours, tbh. Nor does screeching "don't these ungrateful idiots know when they've got it good? How can they even think of voting him out!?"


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If enough Londoners actually _vote_ for the cunt, I don't know what I will do, to be quite honest. Probably I will stand there for a good week saying "Boris Johnson? _Boris Fucking Johnson?_", mixed in with "what the _fuck_ were you _thinking_?" And then, well, I don't know, I'll play it by ear.
> 
> Pretty sure he won't win though.


 

Yeah, this.  I simply refuse to accept that people would be that stupid.  I mean, London has been a much better place to live since Livingstone took over, imagine actually WANTING to turn the clock back fifteen years?  It's madness, utter madness.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> But Johnson will be 6 billion times worse for christ's sake!!!!



So I've got the choice between the shit leader I already have or someone who is likely to be shit who I don't know.  difficult question really isn't it.  We've had two terms of Livingstone shit maybe its time for a change.  Its not the sort of change I would want but its not as bad as some make out. 

My hope is that Boris fucks up enough for the Assembly to start standing up for itself.  

Mind you if NL do badly in the assembly  we will end up with an assembly of Tories with some Lib Dems who are liable to vote with the tories plus a couple of greens and one fash.  Whatever you do it is undeifying,


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> And all these hysterical predictiors of apolcalypse if Ken looses do themselves - or their idol - no favours, tbh. Nor does screeching "don't these ungrateful idiots know when they've got it good? How can they even think of voting him out!?"



It does smack of 'we know better than you so shut up and vote as you are told'.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Yeah, this.  I simply refuse to accept that people would be that stupid.  I mean, London has been a much better place to live since Livingstone took over, imagine actually WANTING to turn the clock back fifteen years?  It's madness, utter madness.



It's got better if you've got money and like overcrowding. Otherwise it's been the same as ever.


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> We keep on hearing this, yet London still seems the increasingly expensive, overcrowded dump of a rich-kids-playground - while the rest of us find it harder and harder to get by.



Ken has very little to do with the wider economy, council tax or energy bills really though does he? He can't stop rich Russians and Arabs coming over and buying up housing stock, unless he fancies destroying a global financial centre that contributes huge sums to GDP.

Shitty sitaution I agree but the alternative of a Tory boy like BoJo isn't any better.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

What and the buses havent got better and more frequent then, with costs far more stable than they have been in the past. Compare the rises in bus fares with those from the private rail franchises for example.

Whether or not opponenet of Ken want to admit or not, the congestion charge and the increase in bus lanes has markedly improved public transport.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> It's got better if you've got money and like overcrowding. Otherwise it's been the same as ever.


 
Not at all.  I don't have any money either.  But at the very least the tube and buses are better, the transport infastructure is better, the congestion charge is better, and the random silly shit in the street is better.

Most of the major problems with London are ones that the mayor can't do anything about and are caused by local or national government.

He took fighting PFI to the High Court, fought it every step of the way and had it forced up us.  As far as I'm concerned that shows the sort of balls that we want from a politician.

Johnson will be about cutting costs or raising prices, PFI-ing everything that can be PFId, removing budgets from arts and community groups, selling off London to rich mates.

If that's the least-worst option to you, you're a fucking nob.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> What and the buses havent got better and more frequent then, with costs far more stable than they have been in the past. Compare the rises in bus fares with those from the private rail franchises for example.
> 
> Whether or not opponenet of Ken want to admit or not, the congestion charge and the increase in bus lanes has markedly improved public transport.



Now that sounds like a person who isn't a regular traveller on the Victoria Line of an evening.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

g force said:


> Ken has very little to do with the wider economy, council tax or energy bills really though does he? He can't stop rich Russians and Arabs coming over and buying up housing stock, unless he fancies destroying a global financial centre that contributes huge sums to GDP.
> 
> Shitty sitaution I agree but the alternative of a Tory boy like BoJo isn't any better.



It actually shows that the Mayor has little powers. However, Livingstone can't even bring himself to campaign that the things in your post above are "a bad thing". Especially the "global finance empire" thing - a bloated monster that brings wealth only to itself and yuppies and which seriously needs it's winged clipped.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I mean, London has been a much better place to live since Livingstone took over



I'm far from sure that is true. Livingstone has largely been successful because he has distanced himself from New Labour (whilst benefiting from their support) and has constantly banged on about the failings of the 80s/90s Tory government nationally.

His actual achivements have been pitifully thin on the ground.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Not at all.  I don't have any money either.  But at the very least the tube and buses are better, the transport infastructure is better, the congestion charge is better, and the random silly shit in the street is better.



I can honestly say I've noticed no improvement at all in my experience. I've just seen loads of stuff saying it's got better.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

Erm, I live about 5 mins from Brixton tube, where the Victoria line terminates - I have been known to catch it, as I suspect Bluestreak has.

Still, love the fact that it's Kens fault that maintenance on the line is necessary. It's there no end to your desperate justifications for voting Johnson - as I say if you want tio vote for a Tory just do it. But don't pretend that Johnson would be a better or more ethical choice for wporking class Londoners - it's plainly guff.

After all, this is the same Johnson who comes up with fatuous soundbites about bringing back the Routemaster at a cost of £8 million. Only about 100million out Boris - yep he's the realistic man with his finger on the pulse, entirely capable of running the city


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Now that sounds like a person who isn't a regular traveller on the Victoria Line of an evening.



Or anyone sitting in a bus going nowhere in an "imaginary" (statistically-proven not to exist ) traffic jam in central London.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I can honestly say I've noticed no improvement at all in my experience. I've just seen loads of stuff saying it's got better.



Yup there is plenty of 'things are getting better' propaganda from Livingstone but not much else.  Those on here who seem to think Livingstone is some sort of saviour of the city and shout 'bus lanes' fail to remember that we have had bus lanes for far longer than we have had Livingslime.  

I have no problem with sensible use of bus lanes.

It does make me wonder if there are posters on here who either work for city hall or benefit from Livingstones largess with public money who don't really care about Londoners at all only about their own wallets.  The vitriol aimed at anti Livingstone comments makes me think that this could be one explanation.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Most of the major problems with London are ones that the mayor can't do anything about and are caused by local or national government.



I'd have more respect for him if he made more of this fact. Instead we just get relentless propogander insisting everythings' getting better and better.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

if i find out anyone i know has voted for boris johnson i will simply blank them from my life as they are not people i want to be around.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I can honestly say I've noticed no improvement at all in my experience. I've just seen loads of stuff saying it's got better.



So things like the much more regular services, the new routes (eg the 133/333 split in Brixton) the availabilty checkers, the much improved nightbus provision, the free transport to youths, improved journey times through more bus lanes, the fact that fares have been stable or decreased compared to other forms of transport have alll passed you by?

You don't catch the bus very much do you? I'm a cynical bod, but the improvements have been marked over recent years


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Yup there is plenty of 'things are getting better' propaganda from Livingstone but not much else.  Those on here who seem to think Livingstone is some sort of saviour of the city



I read on another site that most of what Ken's supporters use to defend him seems little more than an uncritical regurgitation of his own press office material rather than anything analytical.


----------



## Mitre10 (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> No different from the vacuous, clucking Fulham based muppets at work who'll be voting for 'Good old Boris!' because they don't have a clue. It's just selfishness pure and simple.





Its democracy if Boris wins.

You think its selfishness because they don't agree with your point of view.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I read on another site that most of what Ken's supporters use to defend him seems little more than an uncritical regurgitation of his own press office material rather than anything analytical.



Hmmmm I'll look out for that.  There does seem to be a correlation between what the Livingstone worshippers say and what is coming out of Livingstones propaganda machine at City Hall.

May be worth monitoring.

Maybe after a term of Boris we can start thinking about how to democratically, effectively and fairly run London.

Once the ghost of Livingslime is exorcised maybe things will get better.


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> if i find out anyone i know has voted for boris johnson i will simply blank them from my life as they are not people i want to be around.



This is also going to be my approach esp if their only justification was "he'll be a laugh"


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> So things like the much more regular services, the new routes (eg the 133/333 split in Brixton) the availabilty checkers, the much improved nightbus provision, the free transport to youths, improved journey times through more bus lanes, the fact that fares have been stable or decreased compared to other forms of transport have alll passed you by?
> 
> You don't catch the bus very much do you? I'm a cynical bod, but the improvements have been marked over recent years



I use buses evey day and have noticed no significant changes. I still find I have to wait just as long as before and when they turn up are just as crowded. Still get stuck in jams all over the place.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> if i find out anyone i know has voted for boris johnson i will simply blank them from my life as they are not people i want to be around.



That is pathetic.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I read on another site that most of what Ken's supporters use to defend him seems little more than an uncritical regurgitation of his own press office material rather than anything analytical.



What and the fact that you've at least two posters from the same part of town as you, both catching public transport every day, commenting on the improved state of transport has passed you by? Why not comment on the specific of the list of improvements for example?

You seem to be reciting your favoured soundbited regardless of what people say on this thread.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I use buses evey day and have noticed no significant changes. I still find I have to wait just as long as before and when they turn up are just as crowded. Still get stuck in jams all over the place.



So you haven't noticed the new routes, the presence of availabity checkers, the largely stable fares and free transport for children then.

Quite remakable in your lack of observation skills aren't you?


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I use buses evey day and have noticed no significant changes. I still find I have to wait just as long as before and when they turn up are just as crowded. Still get stuck in jams all over the place.



So you haven't noticed the new routes, the presence of availabity checkers, the largely stable fares and free transport for children then.

Quite remakable in your lack of observation skills aren't you?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> What and the fact that you've at least two posters from the same part of town as you, both catching public transport every day, commenting on the improved state of transport has passed you by? Why not comment on the specific of the list of improvements for example?
> 
> You seem to be reciting your favoured soundbited regardless of what people say on this thread.



People can comment and say what they like. So can people who'se experiences are a hundred miles off from what their co-debators are saying.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

Yes Poster they can, but when they deny the obvious they look as though they're being deliberately obtuse for effect

So, have you noticed those shelters with electronic information screens then, or the free transport for kids, or the fact that fares didn't rise this Jan then? My point about your piss-stained shades of misery perception and convenient lack of observational skills in this instance stands.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> Yes Poster they can, but when they deny the obvious they look as though they're being deliberately obtuse for effect


Exactly, it's just playing devils advocate.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> when they deny the obvious they look as though they're being deliberately obtuse for effect



I'll certainly remember that the next time I'm standing on a crowded bus (that I've waited ages for) in central London that's stuck in traffic going nowhere and I see one of those posters proclaiming how much better and faster my journey now is.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> or the free transport for kids.



A fucking disaster not so much the free transport but the failure to remove the free transport from the anti social.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I can honestly say I've noticed no improvement at all in my experience. I've just seen loads of stuff saying it's got better.


Oh come on - bus services, and in particular night bus services - have improved out of all recognition.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 19, 2008)

The fact is Livingstone gets things done - he introduced the Oyster card (from HOng Kong which has amazing public transport), he introduced bendy busses (from Europe where they are common, and they make logical sense in improving traffic speed), and he introduced the Kengestion charge - the first in the world.

East London line extension? Cross rail? Olympic redevelopment? Free travel to under 16's? He's a very pro-active mayor, that is for sure...

Wether any of these are good moves or not is not my point - my point is Ken isn't scared to make radical changes and get things done. Boris hasn't got a clue - the most we can expect from him is to scrap things, not be creative and make thigns happen.

There is a lot to be said for actually getting things done - far from easy.



KeyboardJockey said:


> A fucking disaster not so much the free transport but the failure to remove the free transport from the anti social.



This is the most ridiculous post i've seen on u75 in years  has to be trolling surely


----------



## Matt S (Mar 19, 2008)

Perhaps people who live in London permanently sometimes find it hard to see the difference, but as someone who lived in London for 18 years, then moved out and comes back occasionally, the buses are clearly clearly better. They just are.

Matt


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> And all these hysterical predictiors of apolcalypse if Ken looses do themselves - or their idol - no favours, tbh. Nor does screeching "don't these ungrateful idiots know when they've got it good? How can they even think of voting him out!?"



I don't think anyone remotely idolises Ken, or even thinks he's that good - it's just that thought of Boris Fucking Johnson is too depressing to contemplate.

No need to try and a be so cool and scathing, sunny jim.


----------



## Andy the Don (Mar 19, 2008)

jæd said:


> Perhaps if Bendy Buses are an election issue then perhaps its because no-one likes them...?


 
Firstly I cannot believe that one of the major issues of the London Mayoral elections will be bendy buses. The London mayoral elections are the second biggest direct UK election after the general election & the biggest direct English election. 
What do people have against bendy buses I think they are fantastic. I fear that politics are becoming more & more personality lead & less issue lead. I do not care if the person I vote for has the personality of a grumpy great white shark in a feeding frenzy, as long as their policies are good for the greater mass of the electorate.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 19, 2008)

Matt S said:


> Perhaps people who live in London permanently sometimes find it hard to see the difference, but as someone who lived in London for 18 years, then moved out and comes back occasionally, the buses are clearly clearly better. They just are.
> 
> Matt



Yes. Definitely. I was shocked when I came back to London after a couple of years how much they'd improved (and congestion was noticeably less, too).

This is actually the first time I've seen or heard someone say they've not.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 19, 2008)

I can see the world laughing at us again if he wins....


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Its democracy if Boris wins.
> 
> You think its selfishness because they don't agree with your point of view.



I think it's selfishness because their ignorant reasons for voting Boris are because it takes too long for them to drive from Fulham to Farringdon and don't feel they should have to pay a congestion charge when congestion still exists. They seem to think that as a righteous Tory, Boris will bring benefits to the posh such as this.

So no, i think their motivations are selfish because they are indeed selfish.

Much like Keyboard Jockey's real dislike of Ken is because he's a fan of polluting vehicles and feels picked on.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> This is what worries me... the bloke doesn't have a clue. He didn't when he became MP for Henley. He canvassed us in The Angel when we were outside having a pint. Was all over the place when a mate of ours actually started questioning him on his politics. Really flustered. Ended up buying us a all a pint and being hastily bundled a way by his Tory boy advisor.
> 
> London is too important to be handlded by such a tool. Why can't people look past petty shit and see this? "I'll be voting for Boris 'cos he'd have never introduced the congestion charge!" - the congestion charge is a good thing you fucking simpleton
> 
> The damage he could do is utterly depressing. London will always be London, but it's riding the crest of a wave at the moment and it wouldn't be difficult to upset this.



What I suspect is the plan - such as it exists - is that if he wins, given that he clearly has no proper policies and says different things to different audiences, he will be advised by the cream of the Tory think-tanks, who will come up with lots of bold forward-thinking initiatives to take London forward.

And if _that_ idea doesn't put the shits up people, I don't know what will.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

I don't drive, my family didn't drive in london, so i've used buses and trains as my primary form of transport for 29 years now, and even the two years when i didn't live within zone 6 i was a regular visitor there.  It seems much better.  When i was a teenager and started going out in London the night buses to ilford were hourly, and one in three went to somewhere else which meant that you'd have to walk from wanstead.  often these night buses would be full, leaivng you to wait another hour.  now they're every half an hour minimum.  they go everywhere too.  so easy, it's great.  i've never had any significant problems using buses to commute either, but i never commuted before livingstone so i can't make that claim either way.  they're cheaper now though.  a decade ago a two pounds bus fare wasn't unknown...

the reason why the underground is closed down so often is because boris johnson's party, the conservative party, spend over a decade where they deliberatly underfunded reactive repairs to the underground, let alone major projects for improvement.  i'm told that this was because they aimed to sell it off cheaply.  this hasn't completely happened, although PFI has been forced upon us by thatchers vile successors.  have the tories changed their minds about public ownership?  or is johnson going to continue with privatisation?

the man isn't fit to run a whelk stand.  by all means vote against livingstone, he's done stuff wrong alright, but to pick a racist elitist moron to do so is fucking sick and a kick in the balls to all of london's working class and BME citizens.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

Badgers said:


> I can see the world laughing at us again if he wins....



Yep... couldn't envisage London becoming recognised as cultural, gastronomic and financial capital of the world under Boris, yet it happened under Ken. 

Can't see tourism improving under Boris either.

Above anything else, he's an Eton educated Tory. I means for fucks sake


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

Badgers said:


> I can see the world laughing at us again if he wins....



If that's who we choose to represent our city on an international level, at a very high profile time with the Olympics on the horizon... humiliation will ensue


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> I think it's selfishness because their ignorant reasons for voting Boris are because it takes too long for them to drive from Fulham to Farringdon and don't feel they should have to pay a congestion charge when congestion still exists. They seem to think that as a righteous Tory, Boris will bring benefits to the posh such as this.
> 
> So no, i think their motivations are selfish because they are indeed selfish.
> 
> Much like Keyboard Jockey's real dislike of Ken is because he's a fan of polluting vehicles and feels picked on.



As I've said before its nothing to do with my choice of vehicle and everything to do with distaste for Livngstones arrogance and corruption.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

innit said:


> If that's who we choose to represent our city on an international level, at a very high profile time with the Olympics on the horizon... humiliation will ensue


 

Yup... the gaff prone MP, friend to racists, smasher of restaurants, runner of a rich and relatively sedate constituency, put in charge of one of the most important cities in the world... fucking joke... and with the olympics too!  putting a pig in charge of the swill!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I don't drive, my family didn't drive in london, so i've used buses and trains as my primary form of transport for 29 years now, and even the two years when i didn't live within zone 6 i was a regular visitor there.  It seems much better.  When i was a teenager and started going out in London the night buses to ilford were hourly, and one in three went to somewhere else which meant that you'd have to walk from wanstead.  often these night buses would be full, leaivng you to wait another hour.  now they're every half an hour minimum.  they go everywhere too.  so easy, it's great.  i've never had any significant problems using buses to commute either, but i never commuted before livingstone so i can't make that claim either way.  they're cheaper now though.  a decade ago a two pounds bus fare wasn't unknown...
> 
> the reason why the underground is closed down so often is because boris johnson's party, the conservative party, spend over a decade where they deliberatly underfunded reactive repairs to the underground, let alone major projects for improvement.  i'm told that this was because they aimed to sell it off cheaply.  this hasn't completely happened, although PFI has been forced upon us by thatchers vile successors.  have the tories changed their minds about public ownership?  or is johnson going to continue with privatisation?
> 
> the man isn't fit to run a whelk stand.  by all means vote against livingstone, he's done stuff wrong alright, but to pick a racist elitist moron to do so is fucking sick and a kick in the balls to all of london's working class and BME citizens.



Exactly... "but he's promised to get rid of bendy buses" - fucking clowns


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> As I've said before its nothing to do with my choice of vehicle and everything to do with distaste for Livngstones arrogance and corruption.


Keep trotting this line out, None of us believe you.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> the man isn't fit to run a whelk stand.  by all means vote against livingstone, he's done stuff wrong alright, but to pick a racist elitist moron to do so is fucking sick and a kick in the balls to all of london's working class and BME citizens.



And Livingstone who embraced yes embraced a homophobic racist cleric isn't a kick in the balls for all those who dislike religous fascism?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> As I've said before its nothing to do with my choice of vehicle and everything to do with distaste for Livngstones arrogance and corruption.



Bigotry, a right-wing stance, elitism, and a complete lack of any idea of how to run a megapolis are preferable to you, then?


----------



## jæd (Mar 19, 2008)

ska invita said:


> he introduced bendy busses (from Europe where they are common, and they make logical sense in improving traffic speed),



They might make sense in Europe, but in on London's roads they don't. And they manage to lose money as well being a fire hazard...


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> Bigotry, a right-wing stance, elitism, and a complete lack of any idea of how to run a megapolis are preferable to you, then?



Can't be any worse than Livingstone.  Besides that London needs a change and unfortunately Paddick isn't going to be the man as much as I'd like him to be.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> the reason why the underground is closed down so often is because boris johnson's party, the conservative party, spend over a decade where they deliberatly underfunded reactive repairs to the underground, let alone major projects for improvement.



Again, Livingstone would earn more of my respect if he made more of this instead of presenting these never-ending shutdowns as a virtue.

If you moved into a house that had been badly-maintained by it's previous owner, yet the builders you got in told you you had to leave the house every weekend and could never give you a completion date for the repairs, how would you start to feel? You'd be entitled to ask "yes, but when's the work going to be _finished_?" Especially after you'd noticed the wallpaper had been put up and taken down several times.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> And Livingstone who embraced yes embraced a homophobic racist cleric isn't a kick in the balls for all those who dislike religous fascism?


 
Yes, it is.  I'm deeply disappointed by that.  I however understand the problems involved in running a large city with lots of faiths including some quite unpleasant fuckers who need to be appeased and co-opted at times.  Personally I'd have told 'em to sling their hook, as it were.  However my protest against religious intolerance is not voting in a racist tory twat.  I understand why you're protest voting, i just can't see why you've chosen that berk.


----------



## Andy the Don (Mar 19, 2008)

jæd said:


> They might make sense in Europe, but in on London's roads they don't. And they manage to lose money as well being a fire hazard...


 
Public transport is not there to make a profit it's there to provide a public service. Is it the fault of Ken that the first bendy buses had a manufacturing fault that has now been corrected. Blame Mercedes not Ken for that.


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

Can we drop the Bendy Buses thing...they're really not that big a deal in the grand scheme of running London. Having Johnson represent London on the international stage will make the city a laughing stock - there's only so long he and the advisory team can keep his stupidty in before his hair goes wild again and he start spouting crap.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Can't be any worse than Livingstone.


What in his or his partys record makes you sure?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Yes, it is.  I'm deeply disappointed by that.  I however understand the problems involved in running a large city with lots of faiths including some quite unpleasant fuckers who need to be appeased and co-opted at times.  Personally I'd have told 'em to sling their hook, as it were.  However my protest against religious intolerance is not voting in a racist tory twat.  I understand why you're protest voting, i just can't see why you've chosen that berk.



There is a difference between having to co-operate with people who have different views to your own and embracing a tosser who wants to kill gays and believes women are inferior.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Again, Livingstone would earn more of my respect if he made more of this instead of presenting these never-ending shutdowns as a virtue.
> 
> If you moved into a house that had been badly-maintained by it's previous owner, yet the builders you got in told you you had to leave the house evry weekend, yet could never give you a completion date for the repairs, how woudl you start to feel? You'd be entitled to ask "yes, but when's the work going to be _finished_?" Especially after you'd noticed the wallpaper had been put up and taken down several times.


 
I'm not it's Livingstone's fault people don't understand the problems inherant with the underground.  You're aware that, at the time, it's still not recovered from the neglect it got under the Tories.  Johnson won't wave a magic wand and make it fixed, it's going to be years before the underground can even be said to be ready for purely reactive repairs let alone future projects.  Yet future projects are going ahead anyway!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

g force said:


> Can we drop the Bendy Buses thing...



I wish the public and the media would... that Johnson might get in on the strength of a shape of fucking bus is deeply depressing.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> I wish the public and the media would... that Johnson might get in on the strength of a shape of fucking bus is deeply depressing.



Tell that  to the family of the poor bastard who was killed by one in Ilford last year.

They are not suitable for London roads.  Lets bring back two person operated buses of what ever design.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> There is a difference between having to co-operate with people who have different views to your own and embracing a tosser who wants to kill gays and believes women are inferior.


 
Aha, it's this that drives you into the arms of the gay-loving and sexually egalitarian tory party.

Reality check:  all mainstream politicians will at some stage welcome onto the platform a very honoured guest who is, in reality, a complete scumbag.  If Ken extended this to supporting and promoting the values of this scumbag via his position then you'd be right.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> There is a difference between having to co-operate with people who have different views to your own and embracing a tosser who wants to kill gays and believes women are inferior.


What do you think of  the racism Johnson allows to be printed in his paper?


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

Actually I think Livingstone deserves more respect for just getting on with the Tube stuff and not beating us over the head with "the Tories, the Tories" every 5 minutes... it would get tired very quickly... it's better just to move forward positively which is what he's been doing.

Not perfectly, mind, but it's a massive task


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Aha, it's this that drives you into the arms of the gay-loving and sexually egalitarian tory party.
> 
> Reality check:  all mainstream politicians will at some stage welcome onto the platform a very honoured guest who is, in reality, a complete scumbag.  If Ken extended this to supporting and promoting the values of this scumbag via his position then you'd be right.



Although not a regular Tory voter or supporter the Tories are a lot more gay friendly than they used to be.


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you think of  the racism Johnson allows to be printed in his paper?



And his impressive track record of referring to black kids as "piccaninnies"?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 19, 2008)

I wonder what Boris would have had to say to the world on the evening of the 7th July bombings?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you think of  the racism Johnson allows to be printed in his paper?



Are you referring to Taki?

If so Taki is a tosser.  I dont' agree with him and think that it would be better if Taki didn't write for the Spectator.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

Isn't that something Boris has got direct control over. I mean, if he can't even look after his fucking rag...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Are you referring to Taki?
> 
> If so Taki is a tosser.  I dont' agree with him and think that it would be better if Taki didn't write for the Spectator.


But Johnson is still happy to employ him, doesn't that bother you?. What about the water-melon smiles etc that he has wrote himself?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

reality check #2: buses that aren't bendy buses kill too

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020310/ai_n12605551

in fact, this is interesting...

"After this last tragic accident where the man was dragged for a mile or more under the bus, I asked London transport officials to go back through everybody who had died in a bus accident since 1994, in order to work our how many died on which kinds of buses. What came back was that the death rate around bendy buses is half what it was for the old Routemasters and the other buses are about mid‑way in between. Although the publicity is massive, the fact is that the statistics of the actual deaths show that bendy buses are the safest of the buses that we run.

On the particularly tragic incident that we had with the young man who was dragged to his death, a lot of misinformation is around at the moment. What I am told is that it was not the case that he fell under the wheels of the back; he fell under the wheels of the front section. Exactly the same incident could have happened. Had it been at a better time, and during the day, people could have called out and screamed, but with rather empty roads at 04.00 or 05.00 in the morning, no‑one saw. Unless the driver is looking in the rear mirror at that moment when someone’s clothing is caught and they are whipped under the bus in a second or two, there is no way of knowing. However tragic it is, it does not change the simple fact that bendy buses are the safest buses that we have on the street, in terms of people being killed."

http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/pqt/20071025/transcript3.jsp


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> But Johnson is still happy to employ him, doesn't that bother you?. What about the water-melon smiles etc that he has wrote himself?



Like I said I don't agree with it.

However, I was impressed when Boris said 'I promise I shall never officially  host those who are racist, sexist, antisemitic or homophobic'

Nice and clear that unlike the mealy mouthed bollocks that Livingstone came out with when he met the fash Qadarwi.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> reality check #2: buses that aren't bendy buses kill too
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020310/ai_n12605551
> 
> ...




Livingstone propaganda.


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> reality check #2: buses that aren't bendy buses kill too
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020310/ai_n12605551
> 
> ...



Sometimes the truth is just so much less fun than getting alll worked up and angry.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Like I said I don't agree with it.
> 
> However, I was impressed when Boris said 'I promise I shall never officially  host those who are racist, sexist, antisemitic or homophobic'
> 
> Nice and clear that unlike the mealy mouthed bollocks that Livingstone came out with when he met the fash Qadarwi.



So he will employ them, but not host them. Yeah, really clear boundaries there.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> So he will employ them, but not host them. Yeah, really clear boundaries there.



He left the Speccy ages ago.  There are many things that I'm ashamed of about in my own politics.  Primarily actually buying more than one copy of Socialist Worker when I was much younger.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Livingstone propaganda.


 
In which case, you will provide us with evidence that bendy buses are more dangerous then standard buses.  If you can do so I'll write to the mayor today about the lies.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Like I said I don't agree with it.


Would you vote for a racist?


KeyboardJockey said:


> However, I was impressed when Boris said 'I promise I shall never officially  host those who are racist, sexist, antisemitic or homophobic'


And you believed him?. He's absolutely fine with them writing for his paper.

What do you think of his support for Section 28?. And his opposition to the minimum wage?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

'Such views are not welcome in a city like London,' said Ken Livingstone of geneticist James Watson as all his speaking engagements in Britain were cancelled and he returned to a suspension from his institute in the United States.

at least his tolerance of horseshit isn't a formal policy!


----------



## jæd (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> In which case, you will provide us with evidence that bendy buses are more dangerous then standard buses.  If you can do so I'll write to the mayor today about the lies.






			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> One disadvantage that appears in an articulated bus is the effective power available to it. It is common for articulated buses to use the same engine as non-articulated buses; this leads to a slower speed and acceleration, due to an increase of weight. When used in cities with many slopes (e.g. Vancouver, B.C. or San Francisco, California) the vehicle is prone to overheating, leading to stalling in the milder case and a fully fledged fire in the worst case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendy_buses#Advantages_and_disadvantages


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Tell that  to the family of the poor bastard who was killed by one in Ilford last year.
> 
> They are not suitable for London roads.  Lets bring back two person operated buses of what ever design.



What the drunk guy who jumped back on just to retrieve a mobile? 

I'd blame rampant consumerism for needing the latest gadget and/or perhaps a lack of phone insurance rather than a bus design


----------



## jæd (Mar 19, 2008)

Andy the Don said:


> Public transport is not there to make a profit it's there to provide a public service. Is it the fault of Ken that the first bendy buses had a manufacturing fault that has now been corrected. Blame Mercedes not Ken for that.



If public transport isn't fully subsidised the service will become worse if fares are reduced...

And I don;t think you appreciate how many problems bendy-buses cause when negotiating corners...


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

jæd said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendy_buses#Advantages_and_disadvantages



Couldn't agree more.  Thanks for pointing out another Livingstone Lie.


----------



## Andy the Don (Mar 19, 2008)

jæd said:


> And I don;t think you appreciate how many problems bendy-buses cause when negotiating corners...


 
So we bring back the AEC routemaster then..?? A bus which is unsuitable if you are elderly, disabled, have luggage or a pushchair. A bus which was disliked when it replaced the trams in the 1950's.


----------



## Andy the Don (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Couldn't agree more. Thanks for pointing out another Livingstone Lie.


 
An underpowered engine with a bad weight/power ratio can be improved its no reason to vote Boris.


----------



## jæd (Mar 19, 2008)

Andy the Don said:


> So we bring back the AEC routemaster then..?? A bus which is unsuitable if you are elderly, disabled, have luggage or a pushchair. A bus which was disliked when it replaced the trams in the 1950's.



Who's saying that...? I would replace them with modern double-decker buses which have shown themselves to be better suited to London's streets...


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

jæd said:


> Who's saying that...? I would replace them with modern double-decker buses which have shown themselves to be better suited to London's streets...



That would be my favoured option for buses.

Also with conductors.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Tell that  to the family of the poor bastard who was killed by one in Ilford last year.
> 
> They are not suitable for London roads.  Lets bring back two person operated buses of what ever design.



Fine, but it's a minor fucking issue that might go some way to bringing in a truly disastrous mayoral candiate.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> Fine, but it's a minor fucking issue that might go some way to bringing in a truly disastrous mayoral candiate.



I think Boris will be a one term mayor anyway.  I think it would be equally disasterous to give Livingstone another term. Shame really I was one of those who supported him in the 80's.  The fact he hs sunk so far that I'm having to consider voting for Boris isn't a comment on how good Boris is but what a shitstain Livingstone has become.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I think Boris will be a one term mayor anyway.  I think it would be equally disasterous to give Livingstone another term. Shame really I was one of those who supported him in the 80's.  The fact he hs sunk so far that I'm having to consider voting for Boris isn't a comment on how good Boris is but what a shitstain Livingstone has become.



I just don't believe you. You haven't given one good reason for voting for Boris other than calling the opposition 'Livingslime' and saying you don't like him.

If that's all it takes for you jump aboard the non-bendy Tory bandwagon, then what next?


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

If he gets elected I doubt he'll last a term anyway...he's a buffoon and is bound to slip up.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

g force said:


> If he gets elected I doubt he'll last a term anyway...he's a buffoon and is bound to slip up.



What I hope will happen is that Boris gets elected but is ineffectual thereby passing more power to the Assembly.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> I just don't believe you. You haven't given one good reason for voting for Boris other than calling the opposition 'Livingslime' and saying you don't like him.
> 
> If that's all it takes for you jump aboard the non-bendy Tory bandwagon, then what next?



I dont' need to give positive reasons for voting for Boris (although I do agree with his promise not to invite homophobic nutters to city hall) I just need to show that Livingstone is unfit for purpose which I and others have done.


----------



## jæd (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I think Boris will be a one term mayor anyway.  I think it would be equally disasterous to give Livingstone another term. Shame really I was one of those who supported him in the 80's.  The fact he hs sunk so far that I'm having to consider voting for Boris isn't a comment on how good Boris is but what a shitstain Livingstone has become.



Its an election issue because it shows how out-of-touch Ken has become. The only people who want bendy-buses are fare-dodgers. Everyone else thinks they're completely unsuited to London's streets.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

g force said:


> If he gets elected I doubt he'll last a term anyway...he's a buffoon and is bound to slip up.



Resulting in war between Liverpool and London.


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

Andy the Don said:


> An underpowered engine with a bad weight/power ratio can be improved its no reason to vote Boris.



^^ This.

As a regular cyclist I'm not a number one fan of bendy buses, but I can see why they were introduced.  If, on balance, they're not right for London, then eventually they'll need to be changed.

OTOH, the Routemasters had to go on accessiblity and environmental grounds and something new had to be brought in.  I don't think bendy buses are a bad enough fiasco to be worth voting Ken out - maybe you don't agree.

But I definitely don't think it's worth voting him out in favour of Boris, who has no credibility and doesn't represent the city, the people who live here and what makes it a great place.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I dont' need to give positive reasons for voting for Boris (although I do agree with his promise not to invite homophobic nutters to city hall) I just need to show that Livingstone is unfit for purpose which I and others have done.



So your answer is to vote in someone worse, yes?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> So your answer is to vote in someone worse, yes?



How do we know that he will be worse?  I'd like to see power in London with the Assembly and have a mayoral figurhead. The antics of Livingstone and Sir Robin Wales in Newham have prejudiced me deeply against the idea of having elected mayors with actual power.


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I just need to show that Livingstone is unfit for purpose which I and others have done.



But.  You haven't


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

Seems a bit pointless arguing with KJ after all this. He's not voting politically so politics can't be argued.

KJ, would you vote national socialist in the midst of depression by any chance?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> How do we know that he will be worse?


Because he has never shown anything in his work to suggest he is competent. That is why.

What do you make of his support for section 28 and his opposition to the minimum wage btw?, you didn't answer me earlier


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> Seems a bit pointless arguing with KJ after all this. He's not voting politically so politics can't be argued.


I'm voting tactically


ChrisFilter said:


> KJ, would you vote national socialist in the midst of depression by any chance?



I very much doubt it for a multitude of reasons even if they did promise to get the trains running on time .  However, I am worried that many others might vote for such parties if there is a bad economic downturn.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because he has never shown anything in his work to suggest he is competent. That is why.
> 
> What do you make of his support for section 28 and his opposition to the minimum wage btw?, you didn't answer me earlier



I disagree with his opposition to the min wage and his earlier support for Sect 28.  However, sect 28 is a minor thing compared with the sort of punishments that the  fascist Qadarwi would impose on gay people and remember this is a fash that Livingstone actually embraced.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I disagree with his opposition to the min wage and his earlier support for Sect 28.  However, sect 28 is a minor thing compared with the sort of punishments that the  fascist Qadarwi would impose on gay people and remember this is a fash that Livingstone actually embraced.


Would Livingstone have said something like this:

"if gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."

Because Johnson did.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

innit said:


> But I definitely don't think it's worth voting him out in favour of Boris, who has no credibility and doesn't represent the city, the people who live here and what makes it a great place.



And Livingstone does fit the bill? Personally, one of the things I've grown tired of is all the "Livingstone _is_ London" hype.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> Would Livingstone have said something like this:
> 
> "if gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."
> 
> Because Johnson did.



At least Johnson hasn't compared a jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.  

Both candidates have scummy pasts.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> And Livingstone does fir that bill? Personally, one of the things I've grown tired of is all the "Livingstone _is_ London" hype.



Likewise.

Sick of the propaganda.


----------



## jæd (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm also thinking about voting for Brian Paddick, probably would as (a) his manifesto makes a lot of sense and (b) he seems to have his head screwed on. (And a mate of mine met him once and said he seemed ok...)

(I hope he hasn't said anything homophobic...  )

He's also not Boris or Ken..


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

jæd said:


> I'm also thinking about voting for Brian Paddick, probably would as (a) his manifesto makes a lot of sense and (b) he seems to have his head screwed on. (And a mate of mine met him once and said he seemed ok...)
> 
> He's also not Boris or Ken..



In an ideal world I'd trot down to the polling station with a cheery smile and vote for Paddick IF he had a chance of winning.  The problem is he hasn't and the only alternative is to vote for the candidate who has the most chance of unseating Livingstone.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Likewise.
> 
> Sick of the propaganda.


oh the irony it kills me


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> if i find out anyone i know has voted for boris johnson i will simply blank them from my life as they are not people i want to be around.



You were never on my christmas card list anyway


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> In an ideal world I'd trot down to the polling station with a cheery smile and vote for Paddick IF he had a chance of winning. The problem is he hasn't and the only alternative is to vote for the candidate who has the most chance of unseating Livingstone.


 
As I believe has been said before a few times, in several of your daily "woe! alack-a-day, for there is no alternative to Boris!" threads, you can vote for Paddick with Boris as your second preference. This should enable you to sustain as cheery a smile as you like, and has the same effect in stopping the crazed Ken from returning and making one of his newts a senator.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Maurice Picarda said:


> As I believe has been said before a few times, in several of your daily "woe! alack-a-day, for there is no alternative to Boris!" threads, you can vote for Paddick with Boris as your second preference. This should enable you to sustain as cheery a smile as you like, and has the same effect in stopping the crazed Ken from returning and making one of his newts a senator.



That might be the course of action I take.   I'll see how the polls work out closer to the day.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

For everyone's information here is the candidate list

Alan Craig Christian Peoples Alliance & The Christian Party
Boris Johnson
Conservative party
Brian Paddick
Liberal Democrat 
Chris Prior Stop The Congestion Charge party
Damian Hockney
One London party
Dennis Delderfield
New Britain
Gerard Batten UKIP
Ken Livingstone Labour party
Lindsey German
Left List party
Matt O'Connor
English Democrats party
Richard Barnbrook BNP
Sian Berry Green party
Winston McKenzie Independent
John Flunder Senior Citizens' Party


----------



## corporate whore (Mar 19, 2008)

The choice appears to be between two men who each have some fairly repellent views and are prone to stupidity.

One, however, has worked in and for London for 30-odd years and clearly loves the place. The other is Boris Johnson. 

On that basis I make my choice.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

corporate whore said:


> The choice appears to be between two men who each have some fairly repellent views and are prone to stupidity.
> 
> One, however, has worked in and for London for 30-odd years and clearly loves the place. The other is Boris Johnson.
> 
> On that basis I make my choice.



There is someone on that list who is far far worse than Boris can ever be - Richard Barnbrook.  Be interesting to see where he comes in the final tally.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> At least Johnson hasn't compared a jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.


He was pushed into it by an argument with someone from a newspaper which did support fascism and currently has it in for him, Johnson did his in a book in the cold light of day - there is a big difference.

I'm wondering if your support for Johnson is because of his papers rabid support of Israel, is it?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> He was pushed into it by an argument with someone from a newspaper which did support fascism and currently has it in for him, Johnson did his in a book in the cold light of day - there is a big difference.
> 
> I'm wondering if your support for Johnson is because of his papers rabid support of Israel, is it?



I don't read his papers.  Besides that I don't rabidly support Israel.   I support Israel's right to exist and I also support a two state solution and a just compensation package for Palestinians who were affected by the tragic events that occured in the creation of the State of Israel (as I have said many many times on here ) but I don't take the view that Israel should be supoorted what ever it does.  I don't say that about any country.  

Your clutching at straws now Sleaterkinney.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> He was pushed into it by an argument with someone from a newspaper which did support fascism and currently has it in for him, Johnson did his in a book in the cold light of day - there is a big difference.
> 
> I'm wondering if your support for Johnson is because of his papers rabid support of Israel, is it?


 
How was he "pushed into it?" Finegold accosted a drunken Ken and introduced himself, whereupon (and without any build-up argument) Ken launched into a fuckwitted tirade about the holding company which owns the _Standard_.


----------



## g force (Mar 19, 2008)

UKIP have a candidate  jesus...Chris Prior should be punched


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

Maurice Picarda said:


> How was he "pushed into it?" Finegold accosted a drunken Ken and introduced himself, whereupon (and without any build-up argument) Ken launched into a fuckwitted tirade about the holding company which owns the _Standard_.


I thought they waited outside a party they were banned from and jumped on him?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I don't read his papers.  Besides that I don't rabidly support Israel.   I support Israel's right to exist and I also support a two state solution and a just compensation package for Palestinians who were affected by the tragic events that occured in the creation of the State of Israel (as I have said many many times on here ) but I don't take the view that Israel should be supoorted what ever it does.  I don't say that about any country.
> 
> Your clutching at straws now Sleaterkinney.


It was just a question, because I'm finding it hard to reconcile your support for Johnson, I thought you were supportive of gay rights.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> I thought they waited outside a party they were banned from and jumped on him?



IIRC Feingold approached Livingstone asked questions and then launched into a tirade about Feingold being like a concentration camp guard.  

So what if he was banned from the party.  Its a journos job to hang round and wait for the person to ask them questions.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> It was just a question, because I'm finding it hard to reconcile your support for Johnson, I thought you were supportive of gay rights.



I am supportive of Gay rights but that doesn't mean I will slavishly lick Livingstones arse just because he flies a few rainbow flags here and there or has the occasion city hall reception.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> I thought they waited outside a party they were banned from and jumped on him?


 
_Jumped?_ What, they all got on top of him and started yelling "bundle"? Goodness. I'm not going to google for a rebuttal for this; it's too nice an idea.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> IIRC Feingold approached Livingstone asked questions and then launched into a tirade about Feingold being like a concentration camp guard.
> 
> So what if he was banned from the party.  Its a journos job to hang round and wait for the person to ask them questions.


You think that's what journos do?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> You think that's what journos do?



Its what I did when I was a photographer and I was quite a lot of the time accompanied by a scribbler.

A subject sometimes will try to avoid all or some journos so the  only way to approach them is to ask them questions (or in my case pop out from behind a wall with a camera) in a public area.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I am supportive of Gay rights but that doesn't mean I will slavishly lick Livingstones arse just because he flies a few rainbow flags here and there or has the occasion city hall reception.


The fact is that you're voting for someone that doesn't support them so you can't care much about them either.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Its what I did when I was a photographer and I was quite a lot of the time accompanied by a scribbler.


You just hung around innocently outside parties you were banned from?


----------



## Echo Base (Mar 19, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I think he's going too. If he does it's the first major step toward Cameron and the Tories winning the next election.



Yeah.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> You just hung around innocently outside parties you were banned from?



Not just parties, peoples houses, workplaces, when they were walking to the station, or stopped at traffic lights that sort of thing.

Did a lot of doorstepping work where you knock on the door with the camera behind your back and when the subject answers you can normally get two or three good shots of them before they realise what is happening and slam the door.

A jobs a job innit.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 19, 2008)

g force said:


> UKIP have a candidate  jesus...Chris Prior should be punched



Eh? The UKIP candidate is Gerard Batten. 

I can't see UKIP doing as well as in 2004 because the elections don't co-incide with Euro elections.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> A jobs a job innit.



Yes and some of them only an arsehole would do.

Have you given up your stupid claim that Livingstone hasn't improved the buses since he came into office?

Honestly the shite you chat, and all because you love your silly car so much  Get a life.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

co-op said:


> Yes and some of them only an arsehole would do.
> 
> Have you given up your stupid claim that Livingstone hasn't improved the buses since he came into office?
> 
> Honestly the shite you chat, and all because you love your silly car so much  Get a life.



I already have a life thank you very much.  Some buses have improved but not as much as they need to.


----------



## Urbanblues (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> IIRC Feingold approached Livingstone asked questions and then launched into a tirade about Feingold being like a concentration camp guard.
> 
> So what if he was banned from the party.  Its a journos job to hang round and wait for the person to ask them questions.



Maybe Livingstone places scum journos on the same level as Nazi concentration camp guards? Scab reporters are pretty scummy after all; on par with bailiffs and other assorted cunts.


----------



## Urbanblues (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I already have a life thank you very much.



Gosh, you really are a twat, innit?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Urbanblues said:


> Maybe Livingstone places scum journos on the same level as Nazi concentration camp guards? Scab reporters are pretty scummy after all; on par with bailiffs and other assorted cunts.



No way is there any sort of fair or moral comparison between a journalist and a concentration camp guard.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> No way is there any sort of fair or moral comparison between a journalist and a concentration camp guard.



True enough, many guards had no real choice of their job.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Urbanblues said:


> Gosh, you really are a twat, innit?



The only twattery I'm seeing on these boards is coming from those who are in denial about their hero Livingstone showing very obvious feet of clay.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

co-op said:


> True enough, many guards had no real choice of their job.



Aha I see the servants are becoming like their master.  Full of offensive hyperbole.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> The only twattery I'm seeing on these boards is coming from those who are in denial about their hero Livingstone



They'll probably need 'exit-counselling' one day.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Like I said I don't agree with it.
> 
> However, I was impressed when Boris said 'I promise I shall never officially  host those who are racist, sexist, antisemitic or homophobic'
> 
> Nice and clear that unlike the mealy mouthed bollocks that Livingstone came out with when he met the fash Qadarwi.


And of course, Johnson would never lie just to get some votes would he? 

Admit it, you're being paid for this continual aggrandisation of the tory buffon. Cos i can't see any other reason for your eulogising of someone who has cheated on his wife yet says his family is his finest achievement, who has used racist language outright and only made the vaguest of apologies and who belongs to the Conservative party, that well known bastion of free thinkers and progressive viewpoints, just what we need in London....


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> They'll probably need 'exit-counselling' one day.



If Paddick wins I hope he cleans out a lot of Livingstones dodgy appointees. 

For the record I'd rather a Paddick win.  Thats the very best outcome.  Johnson winning really is second best.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> And of course, Johnson would never lie just to get some votes would he?
> 
> Admit it, you're being paid for this continual aggrandisation of the tory buffon. Cos i can't see any other reason for your eulogising of someone who has cheated on his wife yet says his family is his finest achievement, who has used racist language outright and only made the vaguest of apologies and who belongs to the Conservative party, that well known bastion of free thinkers and progressive viewpoints, just what we need in London....



If I was being  paid to boost BoJo I'd be doing a lot more than posting on a bulletin board.

Like I've said earlier.  Johnson isn't the person I would choose to run London. That would be Paddick. However a greater priority is to remove Livingstone.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> They'll probably need 'exit-counselling' one day.



For a "proper left-wing socialist" to slag off Livingstone makes sense. To welcome in the Tories and team up with them (or rather, him) on this thread....


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

I more meant his uncritical fawning adulators, who put me in mind of cult-devotees. Hence the "exit counselling" quip.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> No way is there any sort of fair or moral comparison between a journalist and a concentration camp guard.



What. And you think that talking of savages with 'watermelon smiles' in preferable then, particularly when you've the written word in front of you and time to reflect?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I more meant his uncritical fawning adulators, who put me in muind of cult-devotees. Hence the "exit cousnelling" quip.



Oh yes.  I stand corrected.

Will it end up as a sort of Jonestown by the Thames for his acolytes I wonder.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I more meant his uncritical fawning adulators, who put me in muind of cult-devotees. Hence the "exit cousnelling" quip.




I haven't seen it on this thread. There are plenty of people (like me earlier) who've said KL isn't exactly the ideal, but it's the simplest no-brainer in politics for a while that he's better than the alternative we're being offered here (unless, like KJ, you have over-identified with your car to such an extent that literally nothing else matters).


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

tarannau said:


> What. And you think that talking of savages with 'watermelon smiles' in preferable then, particularly when you've the written word in front of you and time to reflect?



This makes me very uneasy but how else are we to be rid of Livingstone.  Paddick and the Lib Dems really should have sorted their act out earlier.

If it was a choice between Paddick and Livingstone the situation wouldn't have been such a horrible choice.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

co-op said:


> I haven't seen it on this thread. There are plenty of people (like me earlier) who've said KL isn't exactly the ideal, but it's the simplest no-brainer in politics for a while that he's better than the alternative we're being offered here (unless, like KJ, you have over-identified with your car to such an extent that literally nothing else matters).



Its got very little to do with my vehicle and a lot to do with KL's attitude in general.

Voters seem to be feeling that KL is very out of touch with the concerns of the person in the street.

I think that if Livingstone goes a whole web of dodgy dealings are going to be uncovered.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

co-op said:


> I haven't seen it on this thread. There are plenty of people (like me earlier) who've said KL isn't exactly the ideal, but it's the simplest no-brainer in politics for a while that he's better than the alternative we're being offered here (unless, like KJ, you have over-identified with your car to such an extent that literally nothing else matters).



I've just have reached a point where I feel I cannot vote for any of the candidates on offer and wish a plague on all their houses. Last time I voted IWCA (2nd pref to the Lib Dems for want of anything better), but this time the IWCA aren't standing and I feel there's really nothing deserving of my vote.

And to suggest that for, KBJ, it's all about his car is grossly simplistic, imo and rather typical of the way a lot of Ken's supporters go about "debating" their opponents.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I've just have reached a point where I feel I cannot vote for any of the candidates on offer and wish a plague on all their houses. Last time I voted IWCA (2nd pref to the Lib Dems for want of anything better), but this time I feel there's really nothing deserving of my vote.
> 
> And to suggest that for, KBJ, it's all about his car is grossly simplistic, imo and rather typical of the way a lot of Ken's supporters go about "debating" their opponents.



You don't seem to get debates with the Livingstone worshippers just screaming, insults, smears and meaningless slogans.  A bit like trying to debate with Swappies really.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I more meant his uncritical fawning adulators, who put me in mind of cult-devotees. Hence the "exit counselling" quip.


have you a quote from this thread of anyone who fits this description?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You don't seem to get debates with the Livingstone worshippers just screaming, insults, smears and meaningless slogans.



Sort of like a weird version of "You don't want _Mr Jones _to come back, do you? Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bsd! Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!"


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> have you a quote from this thread of anyone who fits this description?



Just look at the tone of some of the posts from the Livingstone worshippers. 

I freely admit that BoJo isn't the person I would actively want in the job and accept that the guy has faults but the important point is he is NOT Livingstone and neither is he pond life like the bnp.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Sort of like a wierd version of "You don't want _Mr Jones _to come back, do you? Four Legs Good! Two Legs BAd! Four Legs Good! Two Legs BAd!"



Snap I was thinking along similar lines.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Just look at the tone of some of the posts from the Livingstone worshippers.


who? where? eh?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You don't seem to get debates with the Livingstone worshippers just screaming, insults, smears and meaningless slogans.  A bit like trying to debate with Swappies really.



This is a joke right, for someone who has said that they don't have to give a positive reason to vote for Johnson.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> who? where? eh?



You yourself said that you would blank anyone who voted boris.  That looks like a pretty hysterical point of view to me.  

Then you have the constant harping on from other posters about how its because I'm a motorist and totally ignoring the fact that I and many many others have concerns about the concentration of power in Livingstones hands and also how he is using and abusing that power.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> This is a joke right, for someone who has said that they don't have to give a positive reason to vote for Johnson.




No that isn't a joke.  We are in the sad position where we who loath Livingstone for his arrogance are faced with the awful realisation that the only practical way to rid our selves of him is to vote Boris.  

Livingstone has spunked a lot of goodwill over the last term of office it should be for the Livingstone supporters to convince  people that he can gain our trust again.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You yourself said that you would blank anyone who voted boris.  That looks like a pretty hysterical point of view to me.
> 
> Then you have the constant harping on from other posters about how its because I'm a motorist and totally ignoring the fact that I and many many others have concerns about the concentration of power in Livingstones hands and also how he is using and abusing that power.



how is that blindly supporting ken livingstone? i just hate boris johnson.

it's not like yr some crazy rebellious free thinker, yr just saying what every letter written to The London Paper says every evening.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> No that isn't a joke.  We are in the sad position where we who loath Livingstone for his arrogance are faced with the awful realisation that the only practical way to rid our selves of him is to vote Boris.
> 
> Livingstone has spunked a lot of goodwill over the last term of office it should be for the Livingstone supporters to convince  people that he can gain our trust again.



All it says to me is that you have very weak politics and don't give a fuck about the bigger picture, just your personal satisfaction.

These Livingstone worshippers... who are they supposed to be? I've not seen one person come anywhere near saying they like him, let alone worship him.


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You yourself said that you would blank anyone who voted boris.



I wouldn't have much respect or time for anyone who voted for Boris, but I'm far from being a Livingstone worshipper.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> No that isn't a joke.


Yes it is, what sort of debate did you expect when you can't name any reasons to vote for Johnson?. 

At no stage have you shown that he'll be any better and given his track record on minorities and the working class there is good evidence that he will be worse.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> it should be for the Livingstone supporters to convince  people that he can gain our trust again.



Quite. Rather than give the impression that the office is his by right - and that for anyone to stand against him at all is almost tantamount to an abuse of proceedure. Or that he's the ONLY person who could _possibly_ know and love London enough to be worthy of the job. Do these people not _see_ how ridiculous they're making themselves look? 

God, I'd be embarrassed to carry on in such an undignified way.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> how is that blindly supporting ken livingstone? i just hate boris johnson.



Johnson isn't exactly the sort of person I would want as mayor its just that he is the only chance at this point of ridding this city of Livingstone


rutabowa said:


> it's not like yr some crazy rebellious free thinker, yr just saying what every letter written to The London Paper says every evening.



Dont' read the London Paper much.  Prefer the Guardian.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> All it says to me is that you have very weak politics and don't give a fuck about the bigger picture, just your personal satisfaction.
> 
> These Livingstone worshippers... who are they supposed to be? I've not seen one person come anywhere near saying they like him, let alone worship him.


 

That's people like me, I think, who shamefully point out the ways in which livingstone has been good for london, thus allowing their experiences to become the newtlover's propagandist.

i have to admit, i've been thinking about this thread and worrying.  i wasn;t going to bother to vote this time, but if there are people out there who are willing to inflict boris on me because livingstone gets their goat, i think i might have to register.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

innit said:


> I'm far from being a Livingstone worshipper.


he has got a sexy voice though i admit


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> yr just saying what every letter written to The London Paper says every evening.



Or like those people who repeat the drivel in _The Londoner_ ad-verbatim as gospel?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yes it is, what sort of debate did you expect when you can't name any reasons to vote for Johnson?.
> 
> At no stage have you shown that he'll be any better and given his track record on minorities and the working class there is good evidence that he will be worse.



Its a pretty piss poor state of affairs when you are presented with a situation where you can only vote negatively. 

Johnson would certainly raise London's profile in the media.  A bit like Ed Koch did for New York.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Dont' read the London Paper much.  Prefer the Guardian.


errr nob.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Then you have the constant harping on from other posters about how its *because I'm a motorist* and totally ignoring the fact that I and many many others have concerns about the concentration of power in Livingstones hands and also how he is using and abusing that power.



Yep and that's why chummy, it comes through loud and clear, as a result of your comments on many threads.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

co-op said:


> Yep and that's why chummy, it comes through loud and clear, as a result of your comments on many threads.



I've dealt with motoring issues on other threads.

On other general threads about the mayoral election I've dealt with other issues. 

Another attempt at a smear.  Trying to make me out to be some sort of Urban 75 Jeremy Clarkson.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

co-op said:


> Yep and that's why chummy, it comes through loud and clear, as a result of your comments on many threads.



Well, I'm NOT a motorist  - so what is it in my case, then?


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Well, I'm NOT a motorist  - so what is it in my case, then?



i haven't got a clue tbh


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Quite. Rather than give the impression that the office is his by right - and that for anyone to stand against him at all is almost tantamount to an abuse of proceedure. Or that he's the ONLY person who could _possibly_ know and love London enough to be worthy of the job. Do these people not _see_ how ridiculous they're making themselves look?
> 
> God, I'd be embarrassed to carry on in such an undignified way.



FWIW I think KL has slid downhill at a rate of knots in the last few years. He used to be a good public speaker and doing media stuff. What I've heard of him this time has been rubbish - I listened to him on Question Time on R$ recently and had to turn it off, it was toe-curling. But then I think "Boris Johnson", and it all becomes quite easy to decide.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Its a pretty piss poor state of affairs when you are presented with a situation where you can only vote negatively.


This is not that situation, no matter how much you try and kid yourself.


KeyboardJockey said:


> Johnson would certainly raise London's profile in the media.  A bit like Ed Koch did for New York.


No, he is a joke, we might as well elect a monkey to be mayor - that would raise our profile as well.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> we might as well elect a monkey to be mayor - that would raise our profile as well.



We've already elected an ass, so you're probably right.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I've dealt with motoring issues on other threads.
> 
> On other general threads about the mayoral election I've dealt with other issues.
> 
> Another attempt at a smear.  Trying to make me out to be some sort of Urban 75 Jeremy Clarkson.





Come on. A "smear"? You're pretty open about your car-centric opinions elsewhere, I don't think you are ashamed of it (or even that it is a shameful thing per se - there's a perfectly coherent pro-car pov, it's just wrong imo ). 

What is perverse is your pretence that it isn't KL's anti-4x4 stance that has wound you up. You get so angry about him and his "corruption" - that's carhead emoting all over. For everyone else it's basically yawnsville.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Johnson would certainly raise London's profile in the media.  A bit like Ed Koch did for New York.



"Johnson's latest gaffe"
"Protests continue at 'Bigot' Johnson's racial slurs"
"Johnson adjudged to be unfit to rule world city"
"Johnson accused of pandering to wealthy"
"Johnson slammed by gay rights movement after Section 28 revelations"
"Everyone laughs at London as Boris totally fucks what was the capital of the world"


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, he is a joke, we might as well elect a monkey



Sounds like something Boris would say about the race for the US Democratic Presidential Candidate


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Well, I'm NOT a motorist - so what is it in my case, then?


 
You're bonkers.


----------



## co-op (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Well, I'm NOT a motorist  - so what is it in my case, then?



There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ken. Being a proper leftwing socialist is probably good enough. For dirty slags like me who are prepared to choose the lesser of two evils, this is an easy election.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> the capital of the world



More perspective-free "London Jingoism" we've come to know and love from the Ken supporters.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Well, I'm NOT a motorist  - so what is it in my case, then?



Fuck knows... scratch a lefty find a Tory?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> More perspective-free "London Jingoism" we've come to know and love from the Ken supporters.



It was a mock headline, a weak point to argue on. Besides, his London as world capital propaganda has done very well for London in recent years.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

So, yet more banal insinuations that anyone who's against Ken is either a motorist, or bonkers or a closet tory (or a combination of all three).

You're not going to get your hero elected with this, you realise that, don't you?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> Besides, his London as world capital propaganda has done very well for London in recent years.



Er, has it?! In what way have ordinary Londers (as opposed to the city, big business and the sodding olympics) benefitied from that? Becuase as far as I can see all it's done is fed into a relentless overpricing of everything and made it harder to get London's poverty-related problems get an airing.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> So, yet more banal insinuations that anyone who's against Ken is either a motorist, or bomkers or a closet tory (or a combination of all three).
> 
> You're not going to get your hero elected with this, you realise that, don't you?



HE'S NOT MY FUCKING HERO - STOP BEING SO FUCKING LAME

I don't care if anyone's against Ken, as I've said umpteen times, I'm not even particularly for him. What I resent is people voting for Johnson.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

> Well, I'm NOT a motorist - so what is it in my case, then?


Just Mr Angry.


----------



## El Jefe (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Well, I'm NOT a motorist  - so what is it in my case, then?



You're a perpetual cuntsock.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> So, yet more banal insinuations that anyone who's against Ken is either a motorist, or bomkers or a closet tory (or a combination of all three).


no it's not "anyone who's against Ken" it's "ANYONE WHO WOUDL VOTE FOR BORIS JOHNSON". otherwise yes you're about right (misuse of "banal" though)


----------



## weltweit (Mar 19, 2008)

I have never considered the possibility that Boris might actually win! 

The campaign so far seems to have been pretty light on policy, (what campaign indeed) does anyone have any idea of what Boris is likely to do were he to be elected?


----------



## innit (Mar 19, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> You're a perpetual cuntsock.



I don't know what one of those is, and I don't think I want to


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Er, has it?! In what way have ordinary Londers (as opposed to the city, big business and the sodding olympics) benefitied from that? Becuase as far as I can see all it's done is fed into a relentless overpricing of everything and made it harder to get London's poverty-related problems get an airing.



Everyone benefits from a higher city profile, not least good old salt of the earth cor blimey trousers proper working class Londoners working in the tourist and hospitality industries. The jobs created by a boom city supply normal people with jobs.

Ask any city in decline if they'd quite like to have hyperbole drawing the world towards them - I'm sure the response would be positive.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 19, 2008)

weltweit said:


> I have never considered the possibility that Boris might actually win!
> 
> The campaign so far seems to have been pretty light on policy, (what campaign indeed) does anyone have any idea of what Boris is likely to do were he to be elected?



Mutter 'cripes', grin inanely, scratch his head then look at his advisor for guidance.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> You're not going to get your hero elected with this, you realise that, don't you?


you have done a good job in alerting a lot of people to the fact that OH MY GOD THAT JOKE ONE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET IN MAYBE I SHOULD ACTUALLY VOTE!!


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 19, 2008)

weltweit said:


> The campaign so far seems to have been pretty light on policy, (what campaign indeed) does anyone have any idea of what Boris is likely to do were he to be elected?


 
No-one knows.  So far, he'll ban bendy buses and invest in a fleet of incredibly cheap routemasters.  The maths don't work, and the disabled aren't happy, but no worries.

Apart from that there aren't any policies.  Definitely something about supporting business, which I think is to do with lowering rates for multinationals.  There was loads of stuff about putting police on the streets that was shown to be bollocks on another thread because he was claiming he'd use powers that the mayor doesn't have.

Beyond that his whole argument is that he isn't ken, and he;s like, this really odd character with floppy hair who doesn't mean to get himself into fixes, he just kind of does... whoops, i offended the niggers... oh sorry hahaha look at me, one does get into these fixes... hahah


----------



## corporate whore (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Voters seem to be feeling that KL is very out of touch with the concerns of the person in the street.


 
The person in the street is likely to be waiting for a bus. They should vote for Livingstone.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

So, if I may cut through the inane insults and bollocks for a moment.  What would be the best way of boosting Paddick?

Its a fucking shame that the lib dems didn't pull their finger out earlier and do what Boris and KL have done which is start campaigning earlier.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> So, if I may cut through the inane insults and bollocks for a moment.  What would be the best way of boosting Paddick?
> 
> .



Vote Paddick first and Ken second. Come on, don't let that Boris nutter get in, fucking state of it.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> So, yet more banal insinuations that anyone who's against Ken is either a motorist, or bonkers or a closet tory (or a combination of all three).
> 
> You're not going to get your hero elected with this, you realise that, don't you?



I've been noticing this as well.  

Also it looks like KL's supporters within the council and TFL have been using public office and public time to campaign for KL.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23458906-details/Mayor's+bus+boss+and+'nail+Boris'+emails/article.do

Not good.  I wonder how many of KL's political placemen and placewomen are going to be have to be cleared out after the election if he loses. 

The Livingstone fans on here would be the first to shout 'unfair' if it was anyone but KL being as dodgy as that.

Note:  I know that the article is from the Standard but I presume that it will be picked up by the BBC later on.

from the article:

"Transport commissioner Peter Hendy is revealed to have written emails discussing "refuting" Boris Johnson's policies on public transport, particularly his commitment to abolishing bendy buses.

A series of emails seen by the Evening Standard show that he communicated with Ken Livingstone's chief of staff - who is also a key figure in the campaign to re-elect the Mayor - about whether there was "mileage" in rebutting Mr Johnson's attack on bendy buses. Critics today said Mr Hendy's interventions raised questions over whether he had broken rules of political neutrality.

As transport commissioner, he is not allowed to express political views. "


How deep does this politicisation and internal corruption go in the GLA?  Sadly I think a lot more is going to come out about this.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Vote Paddick first and Ken second. Come on, don't let that Boris nutter get in, fucking state of it.



Fair comment there.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 19, 2008)

As regards the political corruption within City Hall part of the reason I'm so angry about it is partly because I've lived in a borough which was so fucking corrupt both financially and 'favour' wise.  Also those of us who supported KL at the time of his election as an independent feel very let down by how he has behaved.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Not at all.  I don't have any money either.  But at the very least the tube and buses are better, the transport infastructure is better, the congestion charge is better, and the random silly shit in the street is better.
> 
> Most of the major problems with London are ones that the mayor can't do anything about and are caused by local or national government.
> 
> ...



Yup. Can anyone serously doubt that's what he'll do (the bolded bit)? 



poster342002 said:


> I read on another site that most of what Ken's supporters use to defend him seems little more than an uncritical regurgitation of his own press office material rather than anything analytical.



But I don't read many newspapers (those articles I do read tend to be read online after following links on here - I don't browse), I don't watch much TV, I don't get the tube (with its adverts) ... Just where am I supposed to have seen all this propoganda?

Perhaps my opinion is actually based on my experience?



KeyboardJockey said:


> Like I said I don't agree with it.
> 
> However, I was impressed when Boris said 'I promise I shall never officially  host those who are racist, sexist, antisemitic or homophobic'
> 
> Nice and clear that unlike the mealy mouthed bollocks that Livingstone came out with when he met the fash Qadarwi.



Is BoJo going to ban himself from office, then, given that extraordinarily nasty quote about gay people that was posted in ths very thread? Or is voting against gay rights - that is, taking actual action to stop gay people from getting rights - and comparing homosexuality to bestiality somehow less bad than meeting someone who is homophobic?

Is he going to ban the staff of his newspaper?

All religous leaders? 

Anyone who writes columns for the Sun?

Somehow I doubt it. 



KeyboardJockey said:


> Couldn't agree more.  Thanks for pointing out another Livingstone Lie.



You cannot seriously be more convinced by a _theoretical_ article about the old types of bendy buses, about possble fires which _haven't actually happened_, than by pretty unjuggleable statistics about _real _road deaths, or the lack of them?

I can understand if people don't want to vote Ken Livingstone, but I can't understand why they'd vote for the Clown Prince instead. 

It's also pretty sick to see such schadenfreude, hoping that Boris will make a huge mess of London. Well, that'll be a bit of a fucker for the people living here, won't it?


----------



## corporate whore (Mar 19, 2008)

Re: corruption - there's questions over £250,000 raised by Johnson's campaign which laid undeclared. The issue of abuse of power has also been mentioned regarding his using parliamentary time to ask questions specific to London whilst sitting as MP for Henley.

Gluttons to the left of us, gluttons to the right..

Again, both Livingstone and Johnson have the whiff of dodge and views which are odious. But only one gives a fuck about London.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> from the article:
> 
> "Transport commissioner Peter Hendy is revealed to have written emails discussing "refuting" Boris Johnson's policies on public transport, particularly his commitment to abolishing bendy buses.
> 
> ...



When you come out with bollocks like this, it's no wonder we don't take you seriously.

The transport commissioner, under whom bendy buses came in is talking about refuting claims Johnson made and he shouldn't be doing that?. Bollocks.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 19, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> When you come out with bollocks like this, it's no wonder we don't take you seriously.
> 
> The transport commissioner, under whom bendy buses came in is talking about refuting claims Johnson made and he shouldn't be doing that?. Bollocks.



Yes, you should be able to say that bendy buses are all actually lizard aliens from the planet Livingeuse, just waiting for the nod from Ken, whereupon they'll eat babies, marry dogs (oh, wait, that's what would happen if we allowed gay marriage, according to BoJo), and turn your sister into a raspberry trifle. And the person who is reponsible for bendy buses should not be allowed to respond to that at all.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> So, if I may cut through the inane insults and bollocks for a moment.


oh the irony it kills me again!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 19, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Come on, don't let that Boris nutter get in, fucking state of it.



An elegant summary, madam.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 19, 2008)

innit said:


> I don't know what one of those is, and I don't think I want to



It's a bit like a woolen femidom.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Mar 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I have no problem with sensible use of bus lanes.



Are some of your best mates black, as well? Read the Daily Mail and member of the Association of British Drivers, too?

 'Cos I've lived in this city since 1991, and if you think the buses prior to 2000 even begin to compare with how they are now, you're lying. End of.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 19, 2008)

I don't particularly like Livingstone but I like what he has done for London on the whole. He is still hugely in credit imo for the many reason's outlined by others.

I would probably rather have a pint with Boris Johnson but the thought of him running London frightens me.

My issue's with the mayor's office apply equally to them - the lack of real accountability and arrogance the system allows Ken to display would be just as bad under Johnson imo. Also i do think there is a risk of 'ken fatigue' i personally don't think any elected head should serve more than two terms, again this would apply to Johnson.

also, please stop calling him Bo Jo ffs
it's really lame 

eta - i'd get shot of bendy buses as well if it was up to me. they are not suited to London's roads. we do not live in a planned city with wide avenue's and lots of blocks. we live in a delightful sprawl more suited to double deckers. it's not a deal breaker though, clearly.

I will forever admire Livingstone and his advisers (the american chap whose name temporarily escapes me) for exposing the risks of the PPP contract for Metronet - i regret that Livingstone is not in a position to make political capital now it has died from its inventor, Mr Brown (why is no one doing this btw, it should be a huge albatross)

I hope he doesn't give Balfour's anymore work though via TFL as i have read he may.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 19, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> When is the next GE? Does Boris have time to leave London in tatters thus people realising a Tory govt would be an equal disaster?



2009/2010 (has to be 2010 at latest). Latest rumour is Gordon Brown is considering doubling up with next years European elections to split the Tory vote (right-wing Tories tend to get a bit more extreme when the word Europe is mentioned at the ballot and vote UKIP)...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 20, 2008)

Oh jesus, hes not going to get in is he? 

Please no.


----------



## paolo (Mar 20, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Oh jesus, hes not going to get in is he?
> 
> Please no.



It might be a blip... could still be all to play for. Livingstone needs a month or two clear of the bad PR of late. Needless to say Gilligan and the Standard will be doing everything to stir more of it up.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 20, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Needless to say Gilligan and the Standard will be doing everything to stir more of it up.



Humm, I meant to ask Gilligan what his thoughts were (have been working a little with him). As a jerno he always has it in for TFL and ken, but then Ken is in (I have seen them chat together quite pleasantly). He cant be backing Boris. Can anyone be backing Boris? I bet all those 4x4 dicks are.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 20, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> 2009/2010 (has to be 2010 at latest). Latest rumour is Gordon Brown is considering doubling up with next years European elections to split the Tory vote (right-wing Tories tend to get a bit more extreme when the word Europe is mentioned at the ballot and vote UKIP)...


 
That's a very cunning plan indeed. He may not be telegenic, Gordon, but he's as wily as you like.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 20, 2008)

Yes, if Livingstone looses it'll be the end of life as we know it. Surely everyone knows there _was_ no London prior to the year 2000 before our Great Founder built it with his own bare hands?

Jeeeez! Get a grip!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 20, 2008)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's a very cunning plan indeed. He may not be telegenic, Gordon, but he's as wily as you like.



Yep, very shrewd probably more so than Blair.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 20, 2008)

Could be the final chapter before the revolution. 

Or we could just nick his bike or something?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 20, 2008)

Poster, you're always going on about how the cod-left fails to help the working classes, some of which is fair point and some of it is ranting.  However, given that you advocate the election of one of modern conservatism great elitists, perhaps you could give me a single thing your beloved toff would do to improve the lives of ordinary working class people in London.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 20, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> However, given that you advocate the election of one of modern conservatism great elitists, perhaps you could give me a single thing your beloved toff would do to improve the lives of ordinary working class people in London.



I_ don't_ advocate electing him. Please point to where I did.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 20, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> I_ don't_ advocate electing him. Please point to where I did.


 
I'm terribly sorry, on a thread where we're discussing whether Livingstone or Johnson would be better choices for London you're saying Livingstone wouldn't be.  Therefore it doesn't seem a leap of faith to suggest that you're taking the pro-Johnson side.

How are you going to vote this election and on waht grounds?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 20, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I'm terribly sorry, on a thread where we're discussing whether Livingstone or Johnson would be better choices for London you're saying Livingstone wouldn't be.  Therefore it doesn't seem a leap of faith to suggest that you're taking the pro-Johnson side.
> 
> How are you going to vote this election and on waht grounds?



No, I'm not. I've got no sympathy for either candidate. 

Last time I voted IWCA, but this time I'm having to abstain as the IWCA aren't standing a candidate.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 20, 2008)

OK, carry on then.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 21, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> Yes, if Livingstone looses it'll be the end of life as we know it. Surely everyone knows there _was_ no London prior to the year 2000 before our Great Founder built it with his own bare hands?
> 
> Jeeeez! Get a grip!



As many people on here have pointed out, it's not that people are worried about Ken being voted out, but Borsi being voted in.


----------



## paolo (Mar 21, 2008)

scifisam said:


> As many people on here have pointed out, it's not that people are worried about Ken being voted out, but Borsi being voted in.



Yep for me. Boris in is much more worrying than Ken out. People are, sadly, relating to him because of that. "He's funny on telly. I'll vote for him!". Or, conversely, because they hate Ken/his policies.

Commensurately the votes for Boris are largely either a celebrity vote, or a negative vote.

I think the _positive and considered_ vote for Boris, i.e. his policies, is a minor part of his support.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 21, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Yep for me. Boris in is much more worrying than Ken out. People are, sadly, relating to him because of that. "He's funny on telly. I'll vote for him!". Or, conversely, because they hate Ken/his policies.
> 
> Commensurately the votes for Boris are largely either a celebrity vote, or a negative vote.
> 
> I think the _positive and considered_ vote for Boris, i.e. his policies, is a minor part of his support.



Is nobody voting for Firky?


----------



## Zeppo (Mar 21, 2008)

Ken is Labour and there will be big support for him from New Labour Government. Lots do not like the latter. So NL support will hit Ken badly in the polls. Ken would have a better chance standing as an independent.

Not a Ken lover myself. Boris would be a disaster but he does not have to do much in terms of a campaign - he is winning due to lack of support for Ken.

It is going to go to the wire.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 21, 2008)

Zeppo said:


> It is going to go to the wire.



Been a lot of threads on this site about 'the wire' 

Not sure if that will have any bearing though?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Needless to say Gilligan and the Standard will be doing everything to stir more of it up.



Not just Gilligan and the Standard but there seems to be a whole Stop Livingstone movement breaking out.  The criticisms of Livingstone are far wider than just the Standard and one journo.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Not just Gilligan and the Standard but there seems to be a whole Stop Livingstone movement breaking out.  The criticisms of Livingstone are far wider than just the Standard and one journo.



And what is Johnson's profession outside of the Commons? He's a journalist. So perhaps you'd like to tell us how his professional experience and press connections _don't_ help his standing in the polls.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

*Boris Johnson's campaign platform*

His policies are

1. Bendy buses
2. Bendy buses
3. Bendy buses
4. Bendy buses


----------



## co-op (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Not just Gilligan and the Standard but there seems to be a whole Stop Livingstone movement breaking out.  The criticisms of Livingstone are far wider than just the Standard and one journo.






You really are living in a parallel universe if you think that the weird alliance of chelsea-tractor drivers + disgruntled far-leftists is a "whole Stop Livingstone movement breaking out".

Far more common are those of us who can see Livingstone isn't necessarily the greatest offer ever, but he is a mile ahead of the tory idiot that you have decided to give your (de facto) support to.

So back in the real world, the campaign is Anyone But Boris, website details below - and some very good reasons to reject this fool; go to the "why?" age and then come back and tell me why I should get this moron in?

http://www.stopboris.org/whystopboris.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

Just to add to what I said above. This is from the Stop Boris site and it confirms what I said about his [lack of] policies.


> Essentially he seems to have set out to use as many words as possible, over as many pages as possible, to say as little as possible about what he would actually do in any sort of detail.



Bendy buses!!!


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> His policies are
> 
> 1. Bendy buses
> 2. Bendy buses
> ...



You can also add increased powers to the assembly, scrutinisation of his own appointments by the assembly, no extra payments from London tax payers for the Olympics, reform of the congestion charge (with looking again at the contracts to the pfi parasites), a listing system for minor london landmarks that may not be covered by national listing procedures, GLA control of the Met, more cycle facilities, a ban on homophobic and antisemitic and racist mayoral guests oh and getting rid of bendy buses.

That good enough for you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You can also add increased powers to the assembly, scrutinisation of his own appointments by the assembly, no extra payments from London tax payers for the Olympics, reform of the congestion charge (with looking again at the contracts to the pfi parasites), a listing system for minor london landmarks that may not be covered by national listing procedures, GLA control of the Met, more cycle facilities, a ban on homophobic and antisemitic and racist mayoral guests oh and getting rid of bendy buses.
> 
> That good enough for you.



LOL!!! He's knicked some of those ideas from Ken. Of course the real reason for your anti-Ken stance is the congestion charge. As a cyclist, I want to be able to cycle on streets that aren't clogged with selfish motorists. As a selfish motorist, you want the freedom to drive 500 metres down the road to get a pint of milk from the corner shop.

As for the rest of these so-called policies, there doesn't appear to be any substance; it's all nice-sounding phrases and warm, sudsy, words.

Bendy buses!


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

co-op said:


> You really are living in a parallel universe if you think that the weird alliance of chelsea-tractor drivers + disgruntled far-leftists is a "whole Stop Livingstone movement breaking out".
> 
> Far more common are those of us who can see Livingstone isn't necessarily the greatest offer ever, but he is a mile ahead of the tory idiot that you have decided to give your (de facto) support to.
> 
> ...



That stop boris site just looks like the usual mock left whinging.  It is right in one way in that people are so pissed off with mainstream politicos that they will vote for change no matter what that change is.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> it's all nice-sounding phrases and warm, sudsy, words.



A bit like the constant stream of Livingslime propaganda that we in London are subjected to every day and paid for by Londons taxpayers.

You know thesort of thing the 'London is fabulous' type of poster while all around you can see that London is distinctly NOT fabulous unless you are Livingslime, his corrupt friends and recipients of his (or should I say taxpayers) largesse.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> That stop boris site just looks like the usual mock left whinging.  It is right in one way in that people are so pissed off with mainstream politicos that they will vote for change no matter what that change is.



"Mock left whinging"? Christ, you have as many soundbites as Johnson. So how less "mainstream" is Johnson?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> "Mock left whinging"? Christ, you have as many soundbites as Johnson. So how less "mainstream" is Johnson?



He APPEARS less mainstream.  Thats his killer sales point at the moment.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> A bit like the constant stream of Livingslime propaganda that we in London are subjected to every day and paid for by Londons taxpayers.
> 
> You know thesort of thing the 'London is fabulous' type of poster while all around you can see that London is distinctly NOT fabulous unless you are Livingslime, his corrupt friends and recipients of his (or should I say taxpayers) largesse.



This is the sort of thing that I've become accustomed to seeing in _The Evening Standard._ If you're so enamoured by the floppy-haired one, why not go and work on his campaign?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> He APPEARS less mainstream.  Thats his killer sales point at the moment.



LOL!!! How "less mainstream" is an Old Etonian Tory politician than any other sort of politician? If anything he represents not only the mainstream but the interests of the ruling classes. 

Bendy buses!


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> This is the sort of thing that I've become accustomed to seeing in _The Evening Standard._ If you're so enamoured by the floppy-haired one, why not go and work on his campaign?



Why not you seem to be working for Livingslimes campaign.  Whats the pay you get for continually bigging up the authoritarian and arrogant Livingslime is it money or are you just satisfied with a nice long lick at your heros arse? 


As I've said before Boris isn't ideal not by a long chalk but he isn't Livingstone but I'm not a Tory party member and don't want to join them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Why not you seem to be working for Livingslimes campaign.  Whats the pay you get for continually bigging up the authoritarian and arrogant Livingslime is it money or are you just satisfied with a nice long lick at your heros arse?
> 
> 
> As I've said before Boris isn't ideal not by a long chalk but he isn't Livingstone but I'm not a Tory party member and don't want to join them.



I'm not working on anyone's campaign but I don't engage in praisesong or cheerleading. 

How is Livingstone "authoritarian"? Oh, you will also notice that I haven't resorted to using puerile names when referring to Johnson. You, on the other hand, have presented your case in a thoroughly juvenile fashion.



> As I've said before Boris isn't ideal not by a long chalk but he isn't Livingstone



If this is the sole basis for your support of Johnson, then I feel sorry for you.

Bendy buses!


----------



## Zeppo (Mar 21, 2008)

Nino and Keyboard -time out drink some earl grey tea.

Ken has his problems. Boris has said some racist comments -not good for multi ethnic London.

Boris is not Obama but the time for a change will be the biggest card that Boris will play. Same goes for Cameron and the next general election.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Mar 21, 2008)

Zeppo said:


> Nino and Keyboard -time out drink some earl grey tea.


I'm off to quaff some nice red wine later that shuold calm me down. 


Zeppo said:


> Ken has his problems. Boris has said some racist comments -not good for multi ethnic London.


I agree not ideal.


Zeppo said:


> Boris is not Obama but the time for a change will be the biggest card that Boris will play. Same goes for Cameron and the next general election.



Its the time for a change tide that Boris is riding.  I think Livingstone is going to regret standing as New Labour.


----------



## rich! (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> A jobs a job innit.



Right. And you're lecturing us on morality?

*plonk*


----------



## marty21 (Mar 21, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> His policies are
> 
> 1. Bendy buses
> 2. Bendy buses
> ...



you forgot bendy buses

surely boris can't get in


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm not going to vote for Ken, I have done so in the past but not now. His frankly ridiculous attempt to brand Johnson some sort of lunatic on the right of Norman Tibbet is too far fetched to believe.

Now he's trying the 'you can't trust him to run anything' line from the man that helped plan the 2012 bid.

The fact Ken has also decided he needed Brown to speak up for him is a worrying sign. 

Boris hasn't had much to say but most of it are ideas e.g. more transport police etc. Some good, some bad - I don't understand the whole 'issue' around bendy buses, it's just a bus for goodness sake.

The only guy that has won my vote is Brain Paddick who appears to be the only one that's a normal human being.

My 2nd vote was going to be a Green Party one but now they appear to have hitched their wagon to Ken I won't be doing that. So it may well be Boris on my 2nd ticket. 

I agree with lot's a people here I think a large part of Boris' support is an anti-Ken vote not a pro-Boris one.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 21, 2008)

From stopboris...

This point may convince you Boris isn't for you, or if you're an old-school Conservative it might actually have the opposite effect. In such circumstances, we refer you to the above section, or to our Conservatives against Boris poster, to remind you why not even agreement with his right-wing principles should sway you his way!

The point here is that Boris is at heart a hard-right, Thatcherite politician, who for years has written a Daily Telegraph column and otherwise communicated his views and opinions, including:

    * fanatical support for the Iraq war;
    * campaigning for George W Bush to win the US elections in both 2000 and 2004;
    * opposition to the Kyoto protocol on climate change (which every single developed country in the world apart from Bush's USA has now signed up to, indicating that Boris is more right-wing than any developed country outside America);
    * opposition to the Minimum Wage;
    * support for rail privatisation;
    * opposition to the congestion charge;
    * opposition to paternity leave;
    * the belief that South Africa under Nelson Mandela represents “the majority tyranny of black rule”;
    * such vocal and sustained criticism of the inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder case (calling its recommendations for improved anti-racism laws “weird” and “Orwellian”) that Stephen's non-partisan mother has said he is “definitely not the right person” to be Mayor.

...You get the idea.

As well as all this, when an old friend (and now-convicted fraudster) of Boris's was being investigated by a journalist for fraud, Boris offered to help him arrange for the journalist investigating him to be badly beaten up. Boris's only concern was that the beating wouldn't be traced back to him. When challenged about this several years later, he shrugged: “I'm not ashamed of it”.

---------

Thoughts, KBJ?


----------



## scifisam (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You can also add increased powers to the assembly,



Why is that a good thing? The Assembly is only technically elected; who did you vote for in the last London Assembly elections, then? Most people don't realise there are any.



> scrutinisation of his own appointments by the assembly,



Again, not sure that faceless, barely elected people are qualified to have power over somebody that definitely has been elected.

Also, this is one policy that  doubt will happen at all once he gets in. 



> no extra payments from London tax payers for the Olympics,



That'd be nice. How's he going to manage that, then? Serious question. I can't see way he can possibly manage that. 



> reform of the congestion charge (with looking again at the contracts to the pfi parasites),



Ooh, what's the betting that this reform will cost huge, huge amounts of money and result in no change whatsoever?



> a listing system for minor london landmarks that may not be covered by national listing procedures,



Why?



> GLA control of the Met,



I'd bet that Ken wants this too, and neither of them are gonna get it. 



> more cycle facilities,



Hmm, let me think, do any other candidates have this policy? 



> a ban on homophobic and antisemitic and racist mayoral guests



Bollocks. He'd have to ban nearly everyone, then. He'd also have to ban himself from office.



> oh and getting rid of bendy buses.



Pointless and not exactly legal, and, if he did find a way of having routemasters that met the DDA, they wouldn't be true Routemasters and would cost far, far more than the laughable £8million he's suggesting.



> That good enough for you.



No. They mostly aren't policies at all, because they mostly could not ever happen. 

You don't seem stupid, KBJ, but you're falling for this? You're becoming not just anti-Ken, but pro-Boris? Say it's not so!


BTW, the anti-Linvingstone stuff in the press is partly because the Mail group own the London free papers, and they hate Ken out of principle. They're having an awfully big influence now; we might end up with a Tory Mayor because people have been persuaded by right-wing newspapers.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 21, 2008)

FFS 'bendy busses' isn't a policy, it's a tweak to the vehicle types on 12 - count them 12 - bus routes that pass through central London. It's an experiment in a city learning how to best manage mass public transit, and consequently evolving ideas.

The CC is a  'policy', 'transport' is a policy; bendy busses is a fly on the arse of a policy.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Mar 21, 2008)

But does any of them have a song?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rIY5dvvJ4&feature=related

Ooh - he's got a rap too

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLSr7WkKdy4&feature=related


----------



## HackneyE9 (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm voting Ken because:
* Crossrail
* East London Line
* Congestion Charge
* Oyster card
* Croydon tram nationalisation
* Southern rail nationalisation
* Silverlink nationalisation
* Taking Tube PFi to the courts, losing, and being proved right
* Opposing the Bermondsey incinerator
* Taking Thames Water to court over the Oxford reservoir
* Velibs by 2010
* £25 congestion charge for 4x4s
* Fighting to get London-wide recyling rubbish powers.

Considering the mayor only has real powers over transport, that's an impressive list. And Boris and Brian's transport policies are what? Ban bendy buses, and put a taxi driver on the TFL board. 

No thanks.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 21, 2008)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Ooh - he's got a rap too
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLSr7WkKdy4&feature=related



Oh dear, oh dear


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 21, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> * Croydon tram nationalisation




I'm holding fire on this, I've been using it since day one and it's got decidedly worst since he handed out free travel to oiks. I'm still not sure they he felt the need to take it over, it's clean, runs on time and apart from the little shites who think it's a handy place to ride around on out of the rain all around pleasant.


----------



## co-op (Mar 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You can also add increased powers to the assembly, .



You've mentioned that 'increasing the powers of the London Assembly' is an aspiration of yours a couple of times.

Has it occurred to you that - since the mayoral budget needs the approval of one third of the assembly (from memory, 8/25 members, could be 9) - the obvious thing to do is to elect a Labour Mayor. Why? Because Labour cannot get the necessary seats - 7 is the most it can expect. Therefore KL (or whichever Labour Mayor) HAS to find a coalition to steer his budget through the assembly - something which absolutely automatically increases the power of the assembly..

By contrast, a tory one can just get it nodded through by the 9 Tory Assembly members.

Logically you should be voting Labour.


Except, you don't care about "increasing the power of the Assembly", you're just in a tizz about your stupid car.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Mar 21, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> And Boris and Brian's transport policies are what? Ban bendy buses, and put a taxi driver on the TFL board.
> 
> No thanks.


But Brian is the better looking one out of the three.

We need someone with a bit of flair. 

Ken's too old and Boris looks like a scruffy bastard. 

London needs someone at the forefront who is smart, well-presented and who looks good. Not some old gollum lookalike or a mop-headed tosser who looks like he's been dragged through a bush backwards.
Brian is wearing well for his age, plus he's fit enough to run the London Marathon.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Mar 21, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> But Brian is the better looking one out of the three.
> 
> We need someone with a bit of flair.
> 
> ...



What about Sian "Lady Galadriel" Berry?


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 21, 2008)

co-op said:


> You've mentioned that 'increasing the powers of the London Assembly' is an aspiration of yours a couple of times.
> 
> Has it occurred to you that - since the mayoral budget needs the approval of one third of the assembly (from memory, 8/25 members, could be 9) - the obvious thing to do is to elect a Labour Mayor. Why? Because Labour cannot get the necessary seats - 7 is the most it can expect. Therefore KL (or whichever Labour Mayor) HAS to find a coalition to steer his budget through the assembly - something which absolutely automatically increases the power of the assembly..
> 
> ...



Doesn't really work though does it? In 2005 when the GLA tried to cut part of his budget he happily said if he didn't get it he'd have to put up Tube fares, which the GLA have no control over.

If the only control over the Mayor (of any political party) is you stop part of his budget once a year that's not full accountability in my mind. 

At a minimum the GLA should be allowed to order an independent enquiry into aspects of a Mayor's actions if they decide to and should have some say over senior appointments that have the power to spend large lumps of public money.

Seems to me there is very little the GLA can do to bring a Mayor under control, apart from stop funding him - which is a nuclear option to say the least.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Mar 21, 2008)

Prince Rhyus said:


> What about Sian "Lady Galadriel" Berry?


Abba meets Bet Lynch.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Mar 21, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Abba meets Bet Lynch.



_Goes and looks up who Bet Lynch is..._​


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 22, 2008)

marty21 said:


> you forgot bendy buses
> 
> surely boris can't get in



Damn! You're right!


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 22, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> I'm not going to vote for Ken, I have done so in the past but not now. His frankly ridiculous attempt to brand Johnson some sort of lunatic on the right of Norman Tibbet is too far fetched to believe.



Isn't he? Johnson is Tebbitt with better PR and more 'charm' but he is very right wing and somewhat racist (I'm just waiting for treelover and his gang of ninnies to seize on that word ).


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 22, 2008)

I never did quite understand the 'watermelon smile' comment?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2008)

In what way does it confuse you?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 22, 2008)

It's called a leading question Mr Apron.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 22, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> We need someone with a bit of flair.


And you're talking about Brian? First I've time I've heard his candidacy described in that way! Even Brian's campaign doesn't talk about him in such terms...it's all 'Sensible for London' etc


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 22, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Isn't he? Johnson is Tebbitt with better PR and more 'charm' but he is very right wing and somewhat racist (I'm just waiting for treelover and his gang of ninnies to seize on that word ).



Never met him so have no idea if he's racist, but given Ken likes to call pretty much everyone he doesn't like I'm not sure I'd believe him if he told me Nick Griffin was one.

I've never understood Ken and his approach to race and minority relations on one hand he seems to have lots of good idea on the other he cuddles hate mongers like Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.


----------



## co-op (Mar 23, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Doesn't really work though does it? In 2005 when the GLA tried to cut part of his budget he happily said if he didn't get it he'd have to put up Tube fares, which the GLA have no control over.
> 
> If the only control over the Mayor (of any political party) is you stop part of his budget once a year *that's not full accountability in my mind.*
> 
> ...



It's nothing like full accountability, the GLA is pretty weak. But my point was really made to Keyboard Jockey who has been desperately twisting and turning to find figleaf "reasons" for supporting Boris Johnson to cover his real reason (namely that the CC + the 4x4 surcharge has produced a classic carhead reaction of irrational fury in him due to his over-identification with his car). 

Among the "reasons" KJ has given is that he wants to see a stronger assembly. The point is that due to the fact that the tories are guaranteed at least one third of the Assembly, any Boris budget will go through on the nod. Due to the fact that Labour won't get one third of the Assembly any Labour mayor is going to have to cut some kind of deal with the Greens, the Lib-dems (or even with a couple of Tories if that were possible). Thus a Labour mayor (within the constraints of a system which makes the Assembly systemically weak) means a stronger Assembly role than does a Tory one. In other words KJ's "reason" is absolutely contradictory of his stated desire.

Students of carhead emotion-based logic will be familiar with this kind of contradiction.


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 23, 2008)

co-op said:


> It's nothing like full accountability, the GLA is pretty weak. But my point was really made to Keyboard Jockey who has been desperately twisting and turning to find figleaf "reasons" for supporting Boris Johnson to cover his real reason (namely that the CC + the 4x4 surcharge has produced a classic carhead reaction of irrational fury in him due to his over-identification with his car).
> 
> Among the "reasons" KJ has given is that he wants to see a stronger assembly. The point is that due to the fact that the tories are guaranteed at least one third of the Assembly, any Boris budget will go through on the nod. Due to the fact that Labour won't get one third of the Assembly any Labour mayor is going to have to cut some kind of deal with the Greens, the Lib-dems (or even with a couple of Tories if that were possible). Thus a Labour mayor (within the constraints of a system which makes the Assembly systemically weak) means a stronger Assembly role than does a Tory one. In other words KJ's "reason" is absolutely contradictory of his stated desire.
> 
> Students of carhead emotion-based logic will be familiar with this kind of contradiction.




Having watched Ken being questioned by the GLA several times, I don't think the threat of not passing his budget will phase him the slightest, or any other Mayor for that matter. Not passing is an option most parties wouldn't take faced with being blamed for switching off London. The system itself is broke.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Never met him so have no idea if he's racist, but given Ken likes to call pretty much everyone he doesn't like I'm not sure I'd believe him if he told me Nick Griffin was one.



Perhaps you missed his oft-quoted "picaninnies with watermelon smiles"? You know what a "picaninny" is, I take it? And you understand the reference to "watermelons"? Non?


----------



## Chairman Meow (Mar 23, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Perhaps you missed his oft-quoted "picaninnies with watermelon smiles"? You know what a "picaninny" is, I take it? And you understand the reference to "watermelons"? Non?



I must admit, I don't really understand the watermelon thing. I do know Boris is a racist shit though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> I must admit, I don't really understand the watermelon thing. I do know Boris is a racist shit though.



All Black people allegedly have a fondness for watermelon [and fried chicken]. 

Here's something from The Seattle Times that puts it in perspective.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002941348_bcc20e.html


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 23, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Perhaps you missed his oft-quoted "picaninnies with watermelon smiles"? You know what a "picaninny" is, I take it? And you understand the reference to "watermelons"? Non?



Having experienced a fair bot of racism myself I tend not to use it as a generic term of abuse undermine it's very meaning. I've got no experience of Johnson or anyone else I trust.

Nor have I seen him cuddle homophobic nutters.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 23, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Having experienced a fair bot of racism myself I tend not to use it as a generic term of abuse undermine it's very meaning. I've got no experience of Johnson or anyone else I trust.



There are a couple of quotes from him in this thread that seem very racist, though.



> Nor have I seen him cuddle homophobic nutters.



No (well, he probably has done, but they'd be family members, so he's excused ). All he's done is vote against gay rights and say that homosexuality is the same as bestiality.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Mar 23, 2008)

co-op said:


> It's nothing like full accountability, the GLA is pretty weak. But my point was really made to Keyboard Jockey who has been desperately twisting and turning to find figleaf "reasons" for supporting Boris Johnson to cover his real reason (namely that the CC + the 4x4 surcharge has produced a classic carhead reaction of irrational fury in him due to his over-identification with his car).
> 
> Among the "reasons" KJ has given is that he wants to see a stronger assembly. The point is that due to the fact that the tories are guaranteed at least one third of the Assembly, any Boris budget will go through on the nod. Due to the fact that Labour won't get one third of the Assembly any Labour mayor is going to have to cut some kind of deal with the Greens, the Lib-dems (or even with a couple of Tories if that were possible). Thus a Labour mayor (within the constraints of a system which makes the Assembly systemically weak) means a stronger Assembly role than does a Tory one. In other words KJ's "reason" is absolutely contradictory of his stated desire.
> 
> Students of carhead emotion-based logic will be familiar with this kind of contradiction.




More importantly, only Westminster has the power to change the terms of the Assembly/Mayor's powers - noone you vote for on May1st can do anything about it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 24, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Having experienced a fair bot of racism myself I tend not to use it as a generic term of abuse undermine it's very meaning. I've got no experience of Johnson or anyone else I trust.
> 
> Nor have I seen him cuddle homophobic nutters.



Really?


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 24, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Really?



Yep.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 24, 2008)

poster342002 said:


> And all these hysterical predictiors of apolcalypse if Ken looses do themselves - or their idol - no favours, tbh. Nor does screeching "don't these ungrateful idiots know when they've got it good? How can they even think of voting him out!?"



Thank God someone said it at last.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 24, 2008)

tarannau said:


> So things like the much more regular services, the new routes (eg the 133/333 split in Brixton) the availabilty checkers, the much improved nightbus provision, the free transport to youths, improved journey times through more bus lanes, the fact that fares have been stable or decreased compared to other forms of transport have alll passed you by?
> 
> You don't catch the bus very much do you? I'm a cynical bod, but the improvements have been marked over recent years




I used to be able to catch a night bus home on my travelcard (N25), now its one bendy bus and 1 N86 which takes a lot longer than it used to (the the point where I get a £50 cab now).  Running times are longer on most routes I;ve used and the Routemaster figures given by Livingstones camp to refute Boris' claims are lies too.

The only 'positive' difference I can see is that there are more so you wait less.  But I'm not getting anywhere quicker.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 24, 2008)

What do you do if you don't really want Boris but really really don't want Ken?  I don't think Boris would be a disaster by any means, we would still get Crossrail etc, more because London can run itself perfectly whichever bozo is in charge.

Why is Paddicks share so low?  I don't think I've met anyone yet that would object to him being in charge as a difference from the party politics of the main two.

If all those who dislike Ken but will still vote for him voted for Brian, what would he get??


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 24, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> What do you do if you don't really want Boris but really really don't want Ken?  I don't think Boris would be a disaster by any means, we would still get Crossrail etc, more because London can run itself perfectly whichever bozo is in charge.
> 
> Why is Paddicks share so low?  I don't think I've met anyone yet that would object to him being in charge as a difference from the party politics of the main two.
> 
> If all those who dislike Ken but will still vote for him voted for Brian, what would he get??



I'm voting for Paddick, my second vote is up in the air. I was going to vote Boris, then Green but they've both put me off. I may leave it blank. 

There appears to be a general undertone that if you don't vote for Ken somehow it'll be your fault that Boris may get in, to me that's nonsense. Livingstone hasn't earned my vote so he's not getting it. 

Vote for who you think would do a good job whether you think they'll win or not, the second preference vote is optional not compulsory if you don't like any of the other candidates don't vote for them. 

If we all fall for this idea that you absolutely must back one of the main candidates or the World will end just reinforces the monolithic political system we have.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 24, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> I'm voting for Paddick, my second vote is up in the air. I was going to vote Boris, then Green but they've both put me off. I may leave it blank.
> 
> There appears to be a general undertone that if you don't vote for Ken somehow it'll be your fault that Boris may get in, to me that's nonsense. Livingstone hasn't earned my vote so he's not getting it.
> 
> ...



I agree with that. Don't like Livingstone? Don't vote for him. But why vote for Boris unless you actually think he'd do a good job? Same for anyone else. 

Harold, you must live on a particularly unlucky route (although you wouldn't say that if you had a disability). If you can afford a £50 cab now, perhaps your standards have changed a lot too - you expect more than you did in the days when you could get a nightbus back (but not many people could).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 24, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> What do you do if you don't really want Boris but really really don't want Ken?  I don't think Boris would be a disaster by any means, we would still get Crossrail etc, more because London can run itself perfectly whichever bozo is in charge.


Would it?. The tories don't have a good record on transport, look at railtrack, the tube etc. Look at what they've done historically when in local government.



> Why is Paddicks share so low?  I don't think I've met anyone yet that would object to him being in charge as a difference from the party politics of the main two.


Because he's Gay, pro-Weed, ex-Cop, Lib Dem. Take your pick. Enough people have issues with one of the above not to make him a viable candidate, so realistically the choice is between Boris and Ken. The danger is that a lot of left leaning people won't think of that and will split the vote on the left letting Boris in.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 24, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> Would it?. The tories don't have a good record on transport, look at railtrack, the tube etc. Look at what they've done historically when in local government.
> 
> Because he's Gay, pro-Weed, ex-Cop, Lib Dem. Take your pick. Enough people have issues with one of the above not to make him a viable candidate, so realistically the choice is between Boris and Ken. The danger is that a lot of left leaning people won't think of that and will split the vote on the left letting Boris in.



Well they electrified the east Coast Main Line and gave us the green light for the JLE and it was Heseltine that sent the CTRL through.  Labour in comparison have done........nothing, too afraid to upset Easyjet voters.  It's pretty embarrasing for London that a major rail project through Stratford won't be ready for it when its been planned for over 30 years.

I'm not defending them but I don't see the difference anymore.

I don't think anyone really cares about Brian Paddick is.  TBH I just think the Lib DEms are just missing a real killer policy, the same way cable grabbed the headlines after Northern Rock.  Paddick is always mentioned in the last paragraph in the daily Mayoral stories in the papers.

But this race thing with Boris is as useless as Ken being an anti Semite.  The only issue really is whether a Mayoral candidate should be held to account for using words that might offend, whatever the context.

I thought Doreen Lawrence saying that Tory voters 'need to look at themselves' really made me angry.  Whatever she felt the justification was, it's emotional blackmail from a confirmed labour supporter.  Have people not twigged shouting 'racist' is the political equivalent of the 'boy that cried wolf ' yet?


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 24, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I agree with that. Don't like Livingstone? Don't vote for him. But why vote for Boris unless you actually think he'd do a good job? Same for anyone else.
> 
> Harold, you must live on a particularly unlucky route (although you wouldn't say that if you had a disability). If you can afford a £50 cab now, perhaps your standards have changed a lot too - you expect more than you did in the days when you could get a nightbus back (but not many people could).



I don't hate bendies but think this 'buses are better' being parrotted is a farce.  'Disability' automatically seems to mean wheelchair users only these days.  The 25 and 207 get so packed at times I'd love to know many have to pass before a wheelchair user can get on.   But then the comissioner used to run my local bus company where the idea was to put minibuses on double decker routes when it wasn't needed so I shouldn't be too surprised we're just lumped with the cheap option.

I 'share' a cab back normally but that isn't the point.  They've standardised a load of night bus routes so they match the day time ones.  What was the fucking point?

And if people want Boris to get out Ken, it still says far more about the options on offer than about the people voting.  I don't want to Boris to win but won't curl into the foetal position if he does.  London will always attarct investment, tourisst and be a relatively safe place to live.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 24, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> But this race thing with Boris is as useless as Ken being an anti Semite.  The only issue really is whether a Mayoral candidate should be held to account for using words that might offend, whatever the context.
> 
> I thought Doreen Lawrence saying that Tory voters 'need to look at themselves' really made me angry.  Whatever she felt the justification was, it's emotional blackmail from a confirmed labour supporter.  Have people not twigged shouting 'racist' is the political equivalent of the 'boy that cried wolf ' yet?



Why, He has to deal with and be representative of large numbers of minorities, why shouldn't his track record of dealing with them be brought up?


----------



## HackneyE9 (Mar 24, 2008)

So....has there been no other opinion poll bar this Evening Standard job giving their man a 13-point lead??


----------



## scott_forester (Mar 24, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> Labour in comparison have done........nothing, too afraid to upset Easyjet voters.



They're going to push another runway through don't forget.


----------



## corporate whore (Mar 24, 2008)

A 3.30am conversation with a black cab driver on Sat night/Sun morning reveals Boris has the cabbie vote tied up, mostly 'cos he's going to "sort out the poxy bleedin' rickshaws and them bloody licensed cabs" which, naturally, are "all driven by blacks and Asians"


----------



## paolo (Mar 24, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> So....has there been no other opinion poll bar this Evening Standard job giving their man a 13-point lead??



I think the bookies have Johnson in the lead as well, although not sure by how much without checking.


----------



## paolo (Mar 24, 2008)

corporate whore said:


> A 3.30am conversation with a black cab driver on Sat night/Sun morning reveals Boris has the cabbie vote tied up, mostly 'cos he's going to "sort out the poxy bleedin' rickshaws and them bloody licensed cabs" which, naturally, are "all driven by blacks and Asians"



Sadly that conversation doesn't surprise me.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Mar 25, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> I think the bookies have Johnson in the lead as well, although not sure by how much without checking.



Surely those two are just mutually reinforcing?  Bookies don't commission their own polls, they see one, and give odds accordingly.

I thought Ken had already sorted out the private cabs, by making them all licenced?


----------



## Jografer (Mar 25, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> I think the bookies have Johnson in the lead as well, although not sure by how much without checking.



Corals have Boris 1/2, with Ken @ 6/4.......



HackneyE9 said:


> Surely those two are just mutually reinforcing?  Bookies don't commission their own polls, they see one, and give odds accordingly.



Not quite that simple, combination of 'research' & the amounts of money being bet. If this is just a knee-jerk reaction to a rogue poll, then it's time to put the mortgage on Ken....

... however, just remind yourself about the last time you saw a bookie go bust....


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2008)

Jografer said:


> Not quite that simple, combination of 'research' & the amounts of money being bet. If this is just a knee-jerk reaction to a rogue poll, then it's time to put the mortgage on Ken....



But the "amounts of money already bet" is presumably people who stuck on to BJ when he had some decent odds - I don't see 2-1 on as being a good bet in any way for a BJ victory so I'm guessing he was much longer a few weeks ago. The longer price attracted money and now he's been cut as the bookies want to reduce their exposure. 

It's probably a combo with That Poll. Presumably anyone in the know dashed off and got something on at a decent price when they heard he was polling ahead of KL, partly why it's tumbled to 1/2 - it doesn't mean they think he's going to win, it just means they don't want any more bets there for the time being.

On a two-way race, fixed odds let bookies basically guarantee a win for themselves. They'd only lose money if Paddick nips in at 40-1.


----------



## Socket (Apr 3, 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/03/livingstone.boris




			
				Guardian 03-04-08 said:
			
		

> Today's Guardian/ICM poll gives Johnson a two-point lead overall - 51% to 49% - once second preferences have been allocated under London's alternative voting system. That is the narrowest possible margin of victory.



Blimey.


----------



## g force (Apr 3, 2008)

Shock horror the SubStandard poll was a load of shite. I expect Ken to squeak through on second prefrences TBH.


----------



## Socket (Apr 3, 2008)

These things are always shite though aren't they? Extrapolating from 1002 people!

FWIW, I think Brian Paddick's on The Daily Politics today on BBC2, not sure though.


----------



## co-op (Apr 3, 2008)

g force said:


> Shock horror the SubStandard poll was a load of shite. I expect Ken to squeak through on second prefrences TBH.




Second prefs favour BJ according to the poll.


----------



## co-op (Apr 3, 2008)

Socket said:


> These things are always shite though aren't they? Extrapolating from 1002 people!
> 
> .



No, if your sampling is reasonably accurate, 1000 people will give a pretty accurate result.


----------



## Socket (Apr 3, 2008)

co-op said:


> No, if your sampling is reasonably accurate, 1000 people will give a pretty accurate result.



Fair enough!


----------



## g force (Apr 3, 2008)

"Evening Standard" and "accurate" seldom belong in the same sentence.


----------



## co-op (Apr 3, 2008)

Socket said:


> Fair enough!





Although having said the above, a 51%-49% split is sooo tight that the margin of error is probably larger than the difference between the two candidates, so yes you could call this "lead" a load of shite!


----------



## g force (Apr 3, 2008)

It certainly appears to be a real contest unlike last time so maybe, just maybe we'll see some actual debate around issues affecting London - and not, repeat not Bendy fucking Buses!


----------



## Jografer (Apr 3, 2008)

So according to the Guardian poll, you Londoner's think Ken will do more for the environment, will improve buses, is more likely to get on with the job, & is more understanding of the needs of Londoners.....

.. so you're going to elect Boris..

... not the brightest bunnies in the burrow are you...


----------



## co-op (Apr 3, 2008)

Jografer said:


> So according to the Guardian poll, you Londoner's think Ken will do more for the environment, will improve buses, is more likely to get on with the job, & is more understanding of the needs of Londoners.....
> 
> .. so you're going to elect Boris..
> 
> ... not the brightest bunnies in the burrow are you...





The poll has almost isolated out in pure form the power of smear. Apart from the mud that's been thrown at KL by the Standard, he should be well ahead.


----------



## jæd (Apr 3, 2008)

g force said:


> It certainly appears to be a real contest unlike last time so maybe, just maybe we'll see some actual debate around issues affecting London - and not, repeat not Bendy fucking Buses!



The Bendy Bus issue is a real issue. If a mayor ignores the real issues they cause because he thinks he right, whatever else everyone else thinks, perhaps he should be replaced...


----------



## g force (Apr 3, 2008)

But it shouldn't be the focus of a debate between candidtaes....there are much wider transport issues than the bus type we have because neither of them can afford (monetarily) to get rid of them and they have both said they simply won't order any more.

Lets debate proper cycle lanes, the underground and overground network.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 3, 2008)

jæd said:


> The Bendy Bus issue is a real issue. If a mayor ignores the real issues they cause because he thinks he right, whatever else everyone else thinks, perhaps he should be replaced...


Bendy busses turn out on 12 routes that pass through the cenetral area - they're not a policy or an 'issue' in themselves; as above they're a fly on the arse of a policy, the policy being public transport.

By accepting they have this dramatic, election-defining potential is like being mugged by the opponents - they think they can exploit the emotional aspect of this stupid bus palarver and so promote bendy busses way out of proportion.

Fall for it, and you've been politically mug imo. They're on  12 'kin routes ffs. Concentrate on public transport as a policy.


----------



## zoltan (Apr 3, 2008)

hes an odious divisive sneering cunt that Boris fuckpig shitehawk  - its almost getting to the point that I may cast a vote here ( and I dont vote ) , just to keep the cunt at bay


----------



## jæd (Apr 3, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Fall for it, and you've been politically mug imo. They're on  12 'kin routes ffs. Concentrate on public transport as a policy.



Why do I always seem to be stuck behind one then...?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Apr 3, 2008)

zoltan69 said:


> hes an odious divisive sneering cunt that Boris fuckpig shitehawk  - its almost getting to the point that I may cast a vote here ( and I dont vote ) , just to keep the cunt at bay



I feel the same way when I look at Livingstone.  

We need to clear out Livingstone and his cronies and yes men and women.  I'm not convinced totally that Boris will be a fab leader but if he rids us of that grinning arrogant shitbag Livingstone then I'm willing to risk him for a term.


----------



## dtb (Apr 3, 2008)

Jografer said:


> So according to the Guardian poll, you Londoner's think Ken will do more for the environment, will improve buses, is more likely to get on with the job, & is more understanding of the needs of Londoners.....
> 
> .. so you're going to elect Boris..
> 
> ... not the brightest bunnies in the burrow are you...



i think the daily mail poll would say something different. the time has come for red ken


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Apr 3, 2008)

jæd said:


> The Bendy Bus issue is a real issue. If a mayor ignores the real issues they cause because he thinks he right, whatever else everyone else thinks, perhaps he should be replaced...



agree the bendy bus is a problem.  It only takes a bit of emergency roadworks that cuts into its turning circle and not only is the bus fucked but it holds up other traffic sometimes dangerously.

One short term way the bendybus experience could be improved (apart from restricting them to routes on arterial roads) would be to introduce conductors onto them.


----------



## zoltan (Apr 3, 2008)

Livingstone is a top class stakhaniovite administrator.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Apr 3, 2008)

zoltan69 said:


> Livingstone is a top class stakhaniovite administrator.



I translated that as corrupt shyster.


----------



## zoltan (Apr 3, 2008)

dtb said:


> i think the daily mail poll would say something different. the time has come for red ken



"red ken"

oh....


----------



## zoltan (Apr 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I translated that as corrupt shyster.




my bad speel


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> agree the bendy bus is a problem.  It only takes a bit of emergency roadworks that cuts into its turning circle and not only is the bus fucked but it holds up other traffic sometimes dangerously.
> 
> One short term way the bendybus experience could be improved (apart from restricting them to routes on arterial roads) would be to introduce conductors onto them.



It's the ONLY issue as far as Johnson is concerned. The rest of his 'policies' consist of populist bleatings. He is reactive rather than proactive.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Apr 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I feel the same way when I look at Livingstone.
> 
> We need to clear out Livingstone and his cronies and yes men and women.  I'm not convinced totally that Boris will be a fab leader but if he rids us of that grinning arrogant shitbag Livingstone then I'm willing to risk him for a term.



You're still a fucking idiot then


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 3, 2008)

> We need to clear out Livingstone and his cronies and yes men and women.



Subtext: so that we can replace them with Johnson's picked men and women.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 3, 2008)

Jeremy Kyle is the thinking mans option


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Apr 3, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Jeremy Kyle is the thinking mans option



First time I've seen the words 'Jeremy Kyle' and 'think' in the same sentence.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> First time I've seen the words 'Jeremy Kyle' and 'think' in the same sentence.



I once saw the words 'think' 'Jeremy' 'Kyle' and 'Cunt' in the same sentence. 

And something 'Goody' but I can't recall that.


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 5, 2008)

Someone whose opinion I had previously respected (well sort of) told me yesterday that he was going to vote for Boris . After I'd established that he was not joking, he told me it was because of Boris's policies on crime. This is someone who has suffered a lot of petty crime and antisocial behaviour recently. How can I show him the error of his ways?

(And I've got to say, I don't think I can feel the same way about him as a friend if he does vote for Boris  .)


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 5, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> One short term way the bendybus experience could be improved (apart from restricting them to routes on arterial roads) *would be to introduce conductors onto them.*



So you're not in favour of free bus travel then?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> One short term way the bendybus experience could be improved (apart from restricting them to routes on arterial roads) would be to introduce conductors onto them.



Another ill thought out idea from Captain Jockeystrap.  No wonder you're thinking of voting BoJo.  



Citizen66 said:


> So you're not in favour of free bus travel then?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> Someone whose opinion I had previously respected (well sort of) told me yesterday that he was going to vote for Boris . After I'd established that he was not joking, he told me it was because of Boris's policies on crime. This is someone who has suffered a lot of petty crime and antisocial behaviour recently. How can I show him the error of his ways?



If Tories get control of the GLA I think they will continue with their policy on removing free travel for the young.  This is going to make local concerns, such as limited youth clubs, more noticeable imo, and give further reason for the young to voice their sense of alienation from politics.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> If Tories get control of the GLA I think they will continue with their policy on removing free travel for the young.  This is going to make local concerns, such as limited youth clubs, more noticeable imo, and give further reason for the young to voice their sense of alienation from politics.



I'd say that's a reason for voting for Boris in itself, though his website is far from clear that that's actually his policy.

If you want youth clubs, build them. Don't force everyone else to travel in one.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

And what percentage of under18 trips on PT are going to be removed by taking away their pass?  Any idea?  No, didn't think so.  All it will do is make it more expensive for everyone concerned.

Free transport should be possible in this day and age.  Not across the board, but to a large extent. Especially to those that can't afford it.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> If you want youth clubs, build them..



Right, so kids should not only pay for their transport, but for their youth centres too.  Priceless.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> And what percentage of under18 trips on PT are going to be removed by taking away their pass?  Any idea?  No, didn't think so.  All it will do is make it more expensive for everyone concerned.



The explicit aim of the policy is to encourage more bus use by this group. I imagine it's for those proposing to continue it at everyone's expense to demonstrate that it is so.



citydreams said:


> Free transport should be possible in this day and age.  Not across the board, but to a large extent. Especially to those that can't afford it.



So why bring in a scheme for everyone, whether they can afford it or not?

Young people should be encouraged to walk and cycle as much as possible, not given free bus travel so they rarely have to bother.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Right, so kids should not only pay for their transport, but for their youth centres too.  Priceless.



I imagine they'd be paid for by taxpayers, which generally isn't children.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> I imagine they'd be paid for by taxpayers, which generally isn't children.



So why should transport be any different? How do you decide that kids need to be given 'a room to play in' but not 'access to London's cultural heritage'?


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> So why should transport be any different? How do you decide that kids need to be given 'a room to play in' but not 'access to London's cultural heritage'?



You really are breathtakingly naive.

Children in the main are not economically independent. They are dependent on their household's income and therefore having spending power proportionate to that in line with the normal distribution across the population.

Most households in London have the ability to pay fares should their children desperately want to take in London's cultural heritage.

What's happening here is that the taxpayer is being compelled to subsidise children to take journeys that they wouldn't otherwise have taken, not for some enlightened cultural purpose but just as a new way of "hanging out".

Given that this happens to the great detriment of most other bus passengers, I feel that this is something that should be stopped.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> So why bring in a scheme for everyone, whether they can afford it or not?



sorry, don't understand what you're saying.. ??



> Young people should be encouraged to walk and cycle as much as possible, not given free bus travel so they rarely have to bother.



lol... yeah right, what parent would trust their kid on a bike around London during rush hour?


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> sorry, don't understand what you're saying.. ??



Why give free bus travel to children from households that can afford to pay for it anyway?



citydreams said:


> lol... yeah right, what parent would trust their kid on a bike around London during rush hour?



If you want to spend money on improving cycling facilities, be my guest. It is safe to cycle in London as long as you keep your wits about you. It was ever thus, and is the same for children as it is for adults.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> You really are breathtakingly naive.



no, you are breathtakingly ill informed.



> Most households in London have the ability to pay fares should their children desperately want to take in London's cultural heritage.



source?  




> What's happening here is that the taxpayer is being compelled to subsidise children to take journeys that they wouldn't otherwise have taken, not for some enlightened cultural purpose but just as a new way of "hanging out".



You grumpy old curmudgeon  

I suppose children should be seen and not heard too.



> Given that this happens to the great detriment of most other bus passengers, I feel that this is something that should be stopped.



Maybe try talking to the bus driver when you see a problem rather than call for a change in policy?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> Why give free bus travel to children from households that can afford to pay for it anyway?
> .



Sorry, but you're talking out of your arse.  The majority of kids on buses come from families that can't afford it.  You'll find the other half still travel by car.

But that's besides the point, why should kids have to pay for travel, food, school, clubs &c...?


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> source?



Are you suggesting that there was a huge pent-up demand for London's culture that has now been released due to free bus travel for children? Don't be ridiculous.

More's the point, if you want to target a certain usage, provide for it specifically. 



citydreams said:


> I suppose children should be seen and not heard too.



Children should behave themselves in public just like everyone else.



citydreams said:


> Maybe try talking to the bus driver when you see a problem rather than call for a change in policy?



The bus drivers I've spoken to are at their wits' end about this. It really does make their life a total misery and they know that they can't stop the bus and call the police every time a group of youths gets a little bit rowdy, because it happens all the time.

You seem to be labouring (probably Labouring) under a myth that children in general are disadvantaged. They're not. If you want to help the ones that are, fine. But Londoners should not be paying for discretionary bus journeys for children whose parents can perfectly well pay for it themselves.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> Are you suggesting that there was a huge pent-up demand for London's culture that has now been released due to free bus travel for children? Don't be ridiculous.



You're as quick to jump to conclusions as your username suggest..  No, I'm not suggesting there was a *huge* pent-up demand.  You're still missing the point.   Why should children be prevented from travelling around London?  

More importantly, why should parents have to pay for their kids to get to school when it's not their fault that, e.g. Lambeth doesn't have any places left?




> Children should behave themselves in public just like everyone else.



and who's saying otherwise??????




> The bus drivers I've spoken to are at their wits' end about this. It really does make their life a total misery and they know that they can't stop the bus and call the police every time a group of youths gets a little bit rowdy, because it happens all the time.



and it happened well before the introduction of free travel..  or perhaps you're now so old your memory is playing up?




> You seem to be labouring (probably Labouring) under a myth that children in general are disadvantaged.



Of course they are - what rights do they have compared to adults?   

But leaving aside their sense of belonging (which I notice you seem to be avoiding other than to say they should behave) please provide a source for your claim that most children in London come from families that can afford PT.



> If you want to help the ones that are, fine. But Londoners should not be paying for discretionary bus journeys for children whose parents can perfectly well pay for it themselves.



right, so you're all in favour of means testing are you? like, no one ever falls through the net right?


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> You're as quick to jump to conclusions as your username suggest..  No, I'm not suggesting there was a *huge* pent-up demand.  You're still missing the point.   Why should children be prevented from travelling around London?



They're not. They never have been (at least, not in recent decades). That's precisely my point.

Children have always been able to get around under their own steam, costing them, their parents and the taxpayer nothing. That hasn't changed.

Children have always had concessionary fares on public transport. Fine.

You're doing a very bad job of explaining exactly the purpose of this scheme. As far as I can see it's just a gesture, and one that comes to the great disadvantage of the poorest Londoners who are reliant on using the buses and at the expense of taxpayers generally.



citydreams said:


> More importantly, why should parents have to pay for their kids to get to school when it's not their fault that, e.g. Lambeth doesn't have any places left?



Prior to free travel, children always got free bus passes if they lived more than four miles from school. You can cycle four miles in less than half an hour.

Labour have been running the education system in this country for the past ten years. If there's something wrong with it (and I agree, there is) then I suggest a solution to that problem is neither to provide free public transport to compensate for the deficiencies in our schools nor to vote for another Labour politician to run such a scheme.



citydreams said:


> and who's saying otherwise??????



You were suggesting that I was, but of course it was just another straw man.



citydreams said:


> and it happened well before the introduction of free travel..  or perhaps you're now so old your memory is playing up?



It did, but it happens more now because children use the buses more often and differently to how they did.

More's the point, you have no idea how old I am. And should I be older than you, or even _old_, I suppose I'm still entitled to hold and express an opinion without being disparaged on account of my age. Wouldn't you say?



citydreams said:


> Of course they are - what rights do they have compared to adults?



They have a right to a decent and stable roof over their heads. To food on the table. To a good education. To protection from crime and violence. All things which the Labour government seems to be somewhat ambivalent about providing.

They do have a right to freedom of movement, but not a general right to free public transport to enable it. As I describe above, I do not think that childrens' right of movement was in general abridged before this scheme.



citydreams said:


> But leaving aside their sense of belonging (which I notice you seem to be avoiding other than to say they should behave) please provide a source for your claim that most children in London come from families that can afford PT.



Perhaps you should provide a source that they don't. You're the one arguing to raise taxes on the basis that there is a significant number of children from poor families that can't afford it. I'm just arguing for the status quo ante, where this wasn't an issue.



citydreams said:


> right, so you're all in favour of means testing are you? like, no one ever falls through the net right?



The fact that any policy may have shortcomings isn't in itself a reason for not implementing it, as all policies do.

Rather than implementing a costly scheme to provide free travel for children from low-income households, I'd be more keen to ensure that families living on benefits have sufficient income to cover all their reasonable needs and therefore greater freedom to choose their priorities.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 5, 2008)

> What's happening here is that the taxpayer is being compelled to subsidise children to take journeys that they wouldn't otherwise have taken, not for some enlightened cultural purpose but just as a new way of "hanging out".


I don't think children hang out on buses any more that they need to.

It is right that their ability to get around should not depend on how well their parents do, I can't see any argument for restricting them on that basis.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> They're not. They never have been (at least, not in recent decades). That's precisely my point.



Typical Tory response.  It was ever thus, and thus it will ever shall be.



> Children have always been able to get around under their own steam, costing them, their parents and the taxpayer nothing. That hasn't changed.



What decade do you live?  Kids should be made to walk to town to visit an exhibition if they can't afford it then?



> Children have always had concessionary fares on public transport. Fine.



No, not fine.  Not at all.  Kids shouldn't have to spend money.  Period.




> You're doing a very bad job of explaining exactly the purpose of this scheme. As far as I can see it's just a gesture, and one that comes to the great disadvantage of the poorest Londoners who are reliant on using the buses and at the expense of taxpayers generally.



You're so full of shit..  You're saying the poorest Londoners are the ones that have to use the bus to go to work and the like??? they have jobs already, by your standards, they're loaded.  My god, you really are out of touch.   How old are you?






> Prior to free travel, children always got free bus passes if they lived more than four miles from school. You can cycle four miles in less than half an hour.



As long as you don't get run over which, statistically, you have more chance of when you're young.  Or if you can afford a bike, or have somewhere to lock it up, or it doesn't get stolen.  

Your ideals are praiseworthy, just not practical in the current climate.




> Labour have been running the education system in this country for the past ten years. If there's something wrong with it (and I agree, there is) then I suggest a solution to that problem is neither to provide free public transport to compensate for the deficiencies in our schools nor to vote for another Labour politician to run such a scheme.



Dont try and conflate national politics with local politics.  I'm talking about doing something NOW!  not come the next election, then have a commission, then draw up and action plan.....   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......




> It did, but it happens more now because children use the buses more often and differently to how they did.



so, you'd rather they caused trouble anywhere other than your bus?!  How very civil minded of you. 



> More's the point, you have no idea how old I am. And should I be older than you, or even _old_, I suppose I'm still entitled to hold and express an opinion without being disparaged on account of my age. Wouldn't you say?



You may express an opinion all you like.  It's when you vote for it I get rattled.



> They have a right to a decent and stable roof over their heads. To food on the table. To a good education. To protection from crime and violence.



And that's it?  That's all you can think of?  What about being respected as a member of society?  Or does society still not exist for Tories?



> They do have a right to freedom of movement, but not a general right to free public transport to enable it.



Scrooge.



> Perhaps you should provide a source that they don't. You're the one arguing to raise taxes on the basis that there is a significant number of children from poor families that can't afford it. I'm just arguing for the status quo ante, where this wasn't an issue.



OK... which borough do you want to start with? http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/factsfigures/poverty.jsp


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> It is right that their ability to get around should not depend on how well their parents do, I can't see any argument for restricting them on that basis.



Well put. Thank you.


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 5, 2008)

Having had lunch with a guy working on some of the crossrail bidding stuff I'm almost hoping Ken gets back in so he can reap what he's sowed.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Having had lunch with a guy working on some of the crossrail bidding stuff I'm almost hoping Ken gets back in so he can reap what he's sowed.



What do you mean by that?


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> What do you mean by that?



Apprantly the £19 billion is divided between half a dozen organisations it isn't a single lump of cash. These organisations then clapped their hands in glee when Ken said TfL should run the project because it's not there fault if it goes tits up anymore. Not forgetting that any cost over runs will have to funded by Londoners e.g. your Council tax.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Apprantly the £19 billion is divided between half a dozen organisations it isn't a single lump of cash. These organisations then clapped their hands in glee when Ken said TfL should run the project because it's not there fault if it goes tits up anymore. Not forgetting that any cost over runs will have to funded by Londoners e.g. your Council tax.



Cheers.  Will be interesting to read through the service level agreements.  

I would suggest that actually TfL is best placed to manage the risk of the project given Bombardier's track record.

Can't see any reason for it to go tits up though, can you?


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Can't see any reason for it to go tits up though, can you?



Sure I can, it's a massive project that they've calculated the cost of ten years in advance and under written it with our cash. Just look at the 2012 games costs.

I'd be surprised not to see my council tax go up.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> Sure I can, it's a massive project that they've calculated the cost of ten years in advance and under written it with our cash. Just look at the 2012 games costs.
> 
> I'd be surprised not to see my council tax go up.



2012 is a different issue.  It hasn't been planned in meticulous detail for the last 20 years.  

Sure, the costs could well go past current estimates.  Same is true as if it was a private consortium managing it, apart from that they would charge a premium for the risk.

I can't see Ken charging voters for any shortfall.  It will come from businesses or central governement if it has to come from anywhere.


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I can't see Ken charging voters for any shortfall.  It will come from businesses or central governement if it has to come from anywhere.



The funding arrangements exclude any additional contributions from central government, TfL and the Mayor of London would need to raise it.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Typical Tory response.  It was ever thus, and thus it will ever shall be.



Where did you get that from? I didn't say that nothing should ever change. I said that this particular thing isn't really a problem (or at least, not the one you suggest) and therefore doesn't merit the action that it has.

If you want to debate, you could at least try reading and responding accurately.

I'm also not a Tory.



citydreams said:


> What decade do you live?  Kids should be made to walk to town to visit an exhibition if they can't afford it then?



I admire your idealism, but we all know that 99.99% of this travel isn't "kids" going to town to visit an exhibition. It's youths cruising around their neighbourhoods, hopping on and off buses as they please, causing delays for other passengers and crowding out the bus where it doesn't need to be.



citydreams said:


> No, not fine.  Not at all.  Kids shouldn't have to spend money.  Period.



Why not? Firstly, for the economically illiterate among us, it's not their money in the vast majority of cases. It's their parents' money. Secondly, spending money is all about making choices and setting priorities. If you're got £5 pocket money a week and you want to spend it travelling to "town" to visit an exhibition, great. Everything costs money and everything has an opportunity cost. The sooner children understand this the better.

Are there any other things children shouldn't have to spend money on? Clothes? Food? MP3 downloads?



citydreams said:


> You're so full of s-..  You're saying the poorest Londoners are the ones that have to use the bus to go to work and the like??? they have jobs already, by your standards, they're loaded.  My god, you really are out of touch.   How old are you?



I'm not saying that at all, am I?



citydreams said:


> As long as you don't get run over which, statistically, you have more chance of when you're young.  Or if you can afford a bike, or have somewhere to lock it up, or it doesn't get stolen.



Well Mr Livingstone has had eight years to make the roads safe for children to walk and cycle and to create an environment where bicycles are unlikely to get stolen. If he's failed -- and you seem to suggest that he has -- then perhaps it's time someone else had a chance to see if they could do better.



citydreams said:


> Dont try and conflate national politics with local politics.  I'm talking about doing something NOW!  not come the next election, then have a commission, then draw up and action plan.....   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......



I don't see why corrupt and incompetent local politicians should be elected to try to compensate for the failed policies of corrupt and incompetent national politicians of the same party.



citydreams said:


> so, you'd rather they caused trouble anywhere other than your bus?!  How very civil minded of you.



I didn't say that, did I? I do remember saying that children should behave themselves, just like everyone else. I also made the general point that providing free (ie. taxpayer-funded) travel for a whole section of society that can broadly afford it anyway is a flagrant abuse of public office and shows a curious approach to setting priorities.



citydreams said:


> You may express an opinion all you like.  It's when you vote for it I get rattled.



Then perhaps people like you should try harder at explaining to people like me why we should support harebrained schemes like this.



citydreams said:


> And that's it?  That's all you can think of?  What about being respected as a member of society?  Or does society still not exist for Tories?



I don't know whether society exists for the Tories (I'm not one) but it certainly exists for me. I don't see why unlimited free public transport should be a "right" for anyone, though we may accord it as a privilege for some that deserve it and are unlikely to abuse it.



citydreams said:


> OK... which borough do you want to start with? http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/factsfigures/poverty.jsp




What's your point? That there are some poor people in London? I already know that. How do we get from there to giving free bus travel to children from households earning over £50,000 a year?

Sorry, I forgot. They won't be able to get to Tate Modern otherwise.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

scott_forester said:


> The funding arrangements exclude any additional contributions from central government, TfL and the Mayor of London would need to raise it.



in the form of a business rate supplements.  Which means the government being asked to step back in.  The government has agreed that funding is "secure".


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> in the form of a business rate supplements.  Which means the government being asked to step back in.  The government has agreed that funding is "secure".



Hopfully I'm wrong and you're right.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> What's your point? That there are some poor people in London? I already know that. How do we get from there to giving free bus travel to children from households earning over £50,000 a year?



You said that the majority of kids in London can afford to travel did you not?  That's clearly not true as over 50% of kids in Inner London are below the poverty line.  Perhaps you would like to retract your view now?

I would also like a response to the question put to you about the inadequacy of means testing as a policy designed to assist those caught in a poverty trap.



> What's your point? That there are some poor people in London? I already know that. How do we get from there to giving free bus travel to children from households earning over £50,000 a year?



Why bother about households earning over 50k a year?  They'll be paying their fare share under income tax.

*goes off to answer your other points*


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:
			
		

> citydreams  said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, you base your policies on children having a certain amount of pocket money?  How much is enough?  Should children be means tested also?  




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> Are there any other things children shouldn't have to spend money on? Clothes? Food? MP3 downloads?



Anything required to allow them to take part in society I would think should cover it.  Do you have an objection to that?



> I also made the general point that providing free (ie. taxpayer-funded) travel for a whole section of society that can broadly afford it anyway is a flagrant abuse of public office and shows a curious approach to setting priorities.



You still haven't shown how they can afford it.  Or broadly afford it, what's the difference?


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> You said that the majority of kids in London can afford to travel did you not?  That's clearly not true as over 50% of kids in Inner London are below the poverty line.  Perhaps you would like to retract your view now?



Not at all. If there's a case that some households don't have enough income for their reasonable needs then that needs to be addressed. Giving free public transport to all households hardly seems like a reasonable way of doing it.



citydreams said:


> I would also like a response to the question put to you about the inadequacy of means testing as a policy designed to assist those caught in a poverty trap.



The shortcomings of means testing have got nothing to do with the "poverty trap". The poverty trap is where some people cannot escape poverty no matter how hard they try. Again, if that's still the case after ten years of a supposedly "Labour" government then I'd look to their economic and social policies and try to avoid electing one of their members to run London.



citydreams said:


> Why bother about households earning over 50k a year?  They'll be paying their fare share under income tax.



So should everyone have to pay for it, whether they use it or not?

Should everyone have to pay for thousands of unnecessary journeys? Is that green?

Should everyone have to fund a scheme that makes life a misery for the poorest adults in London who are dependent on using the buses (and pay to do so)?

Public transport provision is a scarce resource. Public transport isn't inherently sustainable, only relatively so. Demand needs to be regulated by price. Drop the price to zero and demand goes through the roof, but the system can't scale easily to provide extra services.

It's just a gesture, and a thoughtless one at that. The people that suffer the most are the poor and vulnerable, for whom public transport was always unpleasant and risky. This policy has made it substantially more so.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> So, you base your policies on children having a certain amount of pocket money?  How much is enough?  Should children be means tested also?



It's for the parents to decide. Children are not independent economic actors. I can't believe you still don't comprehend that.



citydreams said:


> Anything required to allow them to take part in society I would think should cover it.  Do you have an objection to that?



I suspect that even should I accept that principle you and I would disagree on the details of what constitutes necessary participation.



citydreams said:


> You still haven't shown how they can afford it.  Or broadly afford it, what's the difference?



I mean that most households can afford for their children to travel as far and as often as they reasonably need to do so. Where there needs to be provision for special cases (eg. school travel for children from low-income households) then there should be special provision. But more generally the underlying problems here for those that are poor (and that's a minority of households in London) are not public transport problems. They're economic problems.

I think you should address your special pleading to Mr Brown on that account.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> Not at all. If there's a case that some households don't have enough income for their reasonable needs then that needs to be addressed. Giving free public transport to all households hardly seems like a reasonable way of doing it.



You're still linking a childs existence to his parents income.  Is that civilised?




> The shortcomings of means testing have got nothing to do with the "poverty trap". The poverty trap is where some people cannot escape poverty no matter how hard they try.



I'm not talking about "the poverty trap", I said "a poverty trap".  That is, those people whose income is dependent, say, on contract based work.  How does one assess their income?  Or, say, a child from a family whose father would rather drink his income than give it to his child.  Or, a family who suddenly needs building work, or any other examples from countless different situations a child has no control over.  




> Again, if that's still the case after ten years of a supposedly "Labour" government then I'd look to their economic and social policies and try to avoid electing one of their members to run London.



That's what you would do.  I would vote for the best person for the job and lobby him as hard as hell to get the real issues on the agenda. 

The real issues are real Londoners.  Not the imaginary average incomes stereotypes that you describe.



> So should everyone have to pay for it, whether they use it or not?



Perhaps you haven't noticed, but everyone does pay for it whether they use it or not.  It's called the London precept.  Are you suggesting we should scrap this too?




> Should everyone have to pay for thousands of unnecessary journeys? Is that green?



How are they uneccessary?  Because you wouldn't chose to do it?  That's hardly reasonable.



> Should everyone have to fund a scheme that makes life a misery for the poorest adults in London who are dependent on using the buses (and pay to do so)?



Again with this poorest adults stuff.  Look mate, if you don't like London, you can move.  Kids can't.  



> Public transport provision is a scarce resource. Public transport isn't inherently sustainable, only relatively so. Demand needs to be regulated by price. Drop the price to zero and demand goes through the roof, but the system can't scale easily to provide extra services.



I'm well aware of the price constraints on PT.  I do it for a living.



> It's just a gesture, and a thoughtless one at that. The people that suffer the most are the poor and vulnerable, for whom public transport was always unpleasant and risky. This policy has made it substantially more so.



It's not just a gesture, it's a stance.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's for the parents to decide. Children are not independent economic actors. I can't believe you still don't comprehend that.



Children's welfare is a civil matter.  




> I suspect that even should I accept that principle you and I would disagree on the details of what constitutes necessary participation.



So you don't refute the principle?  That's encouraging.  

I should hope we could agree.  Society doesn't exist within disagreements.



> I mean that most households can afford for their children to travel as far and as often as they reasonably need to do so. Where there needs to be provision for special cases (eg. school travel for children from low-income households) then there should be special provision. But more generally the underlying problems here for those that are poor (and that's a minority of households in London) are not public transport problems.



You still haven't given any proof of this.  Either provide some proper justification or accept you just don't know.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> You're still linking a childs existence to his parents income.  Is that civilised?



How melodramatic. It's not their "existence" - it's their bus travel. Society already provides for their "existence" and where that's deficient we should address that.



citydreams said:


> I'm not talking about "the poverty trap", I said "a poverty trap".  That is, those people whose income is dependent, say, on contract based work.  How does one assess their income?  Or, say, a child from a family whose father would rather drink his income than give it to his child.  Or, a family who suddenly needs building work, or any other examples from countless different situations a child has no control over.



Households whose income varies over time should make provision for that. Giving all children in London free bus travel just to take care of the tiny number who'd like to get to an "exhibition" and can't afford it because Daddy has drunk their bus fare is getting things somewhat out of proportion.



citydreams said:


> That's what you would do.  I would vote for the best person for the job and lobby him as hard as hell to get the real issues on the agenda.



I think we'd differ on who's the best person for the job. And incidentally, I'm hardly enthusiastic about Mr Johnson either, but I suspect he at least wouldn't come up with nonsense such as this.



citydreams said:


> The real issues are real Londoners.  Not the imaginary average incomes stereotypes that you describe.



I know plenty of "real Londoners" and many of them complain to me about the behaviour of young people abusing public transport with their free rides. These people are generally from low-income groups because the people I know in higher income groups tend to drive and wouldn't be seen dead on a bus.



citydreams said:


> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but everyone does pay for it whether they use it or not.  It's called the London precept.  Are you suggesting we should scrap this too?



I'm suggesting that politicians should be a little more circumspect before they commit taxpayers' money to stupid schemes with significant negative and hopefully unintended consequences.



citydreams said:


> How are they uneccessary?  Because you wouldn't chose to do it?  That's hardly reasonable.



Ah, but there's the rub. I have an opinion and a vote. Simply saying that you have a different opinion and a vote hardly gets us further forward, does it?



citydreams said:


> Again with this poorest adults stuff.  Look mate, if you don't like London, you can move.  Kids can't.



Their parents can, can't they? Plenty of them probably moved here in the first place.



citydreams said:


> I'm well aware of the price constraints on PT.  I do it for a living.



With attitudes like yours, I'm hardly surprised that you work in public administration.



citydreams said:


> It's not just a gesture, it's a stance.



Well then maybe London needs a thoughtful politician running the city rather than a posturing egomaniac.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> With attitudes like yours, I'm hardly surprised that you work in public administration.



tell me about it... I used to be sweet as pie





> Well then maybe London needs a thoughtful politician running the city rather than a posturing egomaniac.



I agree..  But his view on social welfare is what is most important to me.  Especially in these financially precarious times.  Even more so seeming as we are all still waiting for a means testing structure that doesn't discriminate.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Children's welfare is a civil matter.



First and foremost it's a family matter. We interfere with that at our peril. You might want the kind of government that raises children on behalf of their parents but I certainly don't. Dressing it up as social or "civic" concern doesn't make it any better.



citydreams said:


> So you don't refute the principle?  That's encouraging.
> 
> I should hope we could agree.  Society doesn't exist within disagreements.



To borrow a very pertinent line from Mr Cameron, there is such a thing as society but it's not the same as the state.

My idea of society isn't one that's imagined and imposed by government and funded by taxation.



citydreams said:


> You still haven't given any proof of this.  Either provide some proper justification or accept you just don't know.



Taking a cursory look at the documents on the GLA site you linked to it looks like around a quarter of London households are on low incomes.

Once again, you're proposing to continue to raise taxes to fund this scheme. If you want to perpetuate it, justify it. I want to scrap it.

What's coming up next week? Free trainers for the under-25s? I mean, how else would they get around? Can't have them barefoot because their parents have had to splash out on a bottle of whiskey.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> tell me about it... I used to be sweet as pie



Half the public thinks you're not doing enough. The other half thinks you shouldn't be doing anything at all. 



citydreams said:


> I agree..  But his view on social welfare is what is most important to me.  Especially in these financially precarious times.  Even more so seeming as we are all still waiting for a means testing structure that doesn't discriminate.



Mr Livingstone could be the risen Christ but he'd still be irrevocably tainted by his affiliation to Labour. That said, I think his record speaks for itself, and not in a good way.

Is Mr Johnson the answer? Not really, but I think it's time to break the Labour hegemony at City Hall. For at least one term I don't think he could do any worse and it might just provide space for new people and new ideas to seep in where they wouldn't otherwise.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> You might want the kind of government that raises children on behalf of their parents but I certainly don't.



Who said anything about raising on our behalf.  I'm talking about ensuring that they have the means at their disposal to allow them access to the levels of service we expect our children to have.  Schooling is essential as a common good yes?  So access to schooling should be universal to should it not?  Why make people pay different amounts to get to the same end?




> To borrow a very pertinent line from Mr Cameron, there is such a thing as society but it's not the same as the state.
> 
> My idea of society isn't one that's imagined and imposed by government and funded by taxation.



Oh really... So, streetlighting for example.  Imagined by governement and funded by taxation.  Not a good thing in your book then?  "Kids don't need lights.  They never had lights before and were 'broadly' ok."

Sorry.  

If you want to talk about society then you're raising issues about commonality aren't you?  Areas where we are all alike.  
What is more alike than children's welfare?

[quoteTaking a cursory look at the documents on the GLA site you linked to it looks like around a quarter of London households are on low incomes.[/quote]

Oh, only a quarter.  That's alright then.  

Apart from it's not just a quarter.  It's a quarter at any one time.



> What's coming up next week? Free trainers for the under-25s? I mean, how else would they get around? Can't have them barefoot because their parents have had to splash out on a bottle of whiskey.



I would like to see universal provision of food and clothes vouchers.  But I can't see a London Mayor getting away with it.


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> For at least one term I don't think he could do any worse



I think you'd find he could.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Who said anything about raising on our behalf.  I'm talking about ensuring that they have the means at their disposal to allow them access to the levels of service we expect our children to have.  Schooling is essential as a common good yes?  So access to schooling should be universal to should it not?  Why make people pay different amounts to get to the same end?



The more the state makes decisions about what children should expect and provides those things, the more they impinge on the parents' domain. Clearly it's not an all-or-nothing situation but one where an appropriate balance has to be struck. In my opinion it's now gone too far towards the state (often through the agency of schools and teachers) deciding not just that children should be educated, but what they should learn, what they should eat, what they think about sex and drugs and a whole range of lifestyle issues that were traditionally thought of as private matters for families and individuals.

The left likes to praise diversity when it suits them but in practice is literally schooling a whole generation into its own homogeneous cultural vision.



citydreams said:


> Oh really... So, streetlighting for example.  Imagined by governement and funded by taxation.  Not a good thing in your book then?  "Kids don't need lights.  They never had lights before and were 'broadly' ok."



There are some areas where there's broad consensus and some where there isn't. Pretending there's a consensus on everything the left would like to see is probably the kind of fundamental mistake that's likely to cost Mr Livingstone his job very shortly. If you want all these things (I'm not talking about street lighting) to be accepted as norms you have to make the case. And I appreciate that's what you're trying to do here.



citydreams said:


> If you want to talk about society then you're raising issues about commonality aren't you?  Areas where we are all alike.
> What is more alike than children's welfare?



Beyond basic issues of physical health and safety, there's a huge diversity in people's opinions about what's good for children. And the devil is often in the details. Most people would agree that children should be educated, but what they should learn and how they should learn it is hotly debated.



citydreams said:


> Oh, only a quarter.  That's alright then.
> 
> Apart from it's not just a quarter.  It's a quarter at any one time.



It seems to suggest that this kind of policy isn't appropriate to me.



citydreams said:


> I would like to see universal provision of food and clothes vouchers.  But I can't see a London Mayor getting away with it.



You're right. I can't see him getting away with it either.

Must dash. To be continued, no doubt.


----------



## untethered (Apr 5, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> I think you'd find he could.



Better the devil you don't know...




			
				Marina Hyde said:
			
		

> So viscerally impossible is it to adore either that in recent weeks I have heard people at various points on the political spectrum say something along the lines of: "I'm voting Boris, because I can't wait to see that git Ken lose, and I can't wait to see that git Boris cock it up."
> 
> This conceit can be jigged, with very little effort, to explain why someone would back Ken. Yes, as far as tactical voting goes, we can safely call this a new low. In fact, *not since Mohamed Al Fayed sued Neil Hamilton has it felt so agonising that only one party could lose.*



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/05/london08.london


----------



## citydreams (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> Must dash. To be continued, no doubt.



cheers


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/05/london08.london



Nice article this line sums it up for me:


> If London is such a great city, you might be wondering, then how come its future is being decided by a contest between two insanely self-absorbed chancers?


----------



## scifisam (Apr 5, 2008)

Given that more than 50% of kids in inner London live below the poverty line, and lots of 'better-off' kids would still be from families poor enough to merit a means-tested bus pass, plus the richer kids are less likely to use public transport at all, ISTM that administering a means-tested system would cost far more than giving all kids free travel.


----------

