Boris to be London Mayor

seamasdefaoite

Active member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
113
stopthetrain said:
seamasdefaoite said:
krayZpaving said:
Just a note of caution - the London Mayoral election is run using a form of STV that the UK media aren't entirely familiar with. The result will likely come down to Lib Dem transfers, so a lot will depend on where they go. Predictions on transfers aren't yet the art in the UK that they are in Ireland.
considering all the lefty groups Ken could actually convincingly win this over bonking boris. If he doesnt, God help us all. Britain under the Tories is a Britain in Trouble
Well legally and fundamentally, i dont think citizens has something to worry about insofar they follow the law not been sarcastic they've nothing to fear and beside that, it maybe better than labour time in london in terms of mayoral posittion to be honest. :|
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

was I implying that they were illegal, no

strange
 


NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
unlike Mayor Livingstone who has been involved in Privatisation
Just to clarify - were you referring to his attempt to stop the Tube PPP by court action when you used the word "involved"?!
 

Jozer

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
57
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

sandar said:
Boris is far from a buffoon, a comedian he certainly is, but as shakespeare said, bewaare the jester. Boris has turned from being an anonymous backbencher to one of the best known politicians in Britain through his courting of celebrity status, his remarks about liverpool were controversial but not as far wrong as they were painted, he is portrayed as some sort of racist exenophobe despite having been born in new york to a family of mixed race english and turkish people, he won a schoalrship to eton, and another to oxford, both things which require brains, he has worked for three national newspapers including being editor of the very polemical spectator, and despite being an MP for just seven years he has held two positions on his parties front bench and been deputy chairman of the party, yes he does have a crumpled, muddled air about him, the absent minded p[rfessor stereotype, but I think people in Britain warm to that on many levels,. it was one of the things which initially heklped gordon brown, they dont want automatons, or politicans who are a little to obviously on the make, I dont know if boris will win, if he does and is a success then he will go very far in the party, if he fails it will be by a narrow marghin, but he will have boosted his profile
Indeed. A narrow defeat could be a very good result for Johnson. He would have given Labour a bloody nose while avoiding tying himself down to that post for four years, thus leaving him free to grab a national role at the next general Election, as a new Tory hero. Meanwhile Livingstone would still be at large dragging Labour in to further disrepute.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW said:
sandar said:
unlike Mayor Livingstone who has been involved in Privatisation
Just to clarify - were you referring to his attempt to stop the Tube PPP by court action when you used the word "involved"?!

Nope Im referring to the Mayors support for the privatization of the East London rail line, which is now closed and will reopen in private hands next year as an overground line
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
Nope Im referring to the Mayors support for the privatization of the East London rail line, which is now closed and will reopen in private hands next year as an overground line
And you have a reference for Ken's support of its privatisation somewhere...? It would be quite the volte face from being a one man band standing up to the initial tube PPP contracts (and eventually bringing one of them in-house). I think you'll find that Ken's support was for the extension and upgrading of the ELL. It is not his decision and nor does he have the power to change the fact that it was to be financed by PFI. It's a bit of a stretch to claim he supports privatisation and utterly ridiculous to think that Boris would have been more hostile to private financing.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW said:
sandar said:
Nope Im referring to the Mayors support for the privatization of the East London rail line, which is now closed and will reopen in private hands next year as an overground line
And you have a reference for Ken's support of its privatisation somewhere...? It would be quite the volte face from being a one man band standing up to the initial tube PPP contracts (and eventually bringing one of them in-house). I think you'll find that Ken's support was for the extension and upgrading of the ELL. It is not his decision and nor does he have the power to change the fact that it was to be financed by PFI. It's a bit of a stretch to claim he supports privatisation and utterly ridiculous to think that Boris would have been more hostile to private financing.
Heres a link.
www.labournet.net/ukunion/0609/rmt2.html - 5k

It may be quite a volte-face but then again Ken Livinstone has always been quite good at them, once pledging to save the routemaster bus, saying that it would be 'inhuman' to want to replace them' until he did, and there are other examples.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
I never said Boris would not privatise , i merely said he has not advocated any privatisation at the moment, his main transport policies have involved re-introducing the routemaster bus and placing inspectors on all busses to herlp prevent crime. None of this involves private capital, and the PFI is an initiative of new labour and not the tories, although the toreis may support it in future
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
The RMT is living in a fantasy world where there is a choice to upgrade without PFI. Under this government Ken has a choice upgrade by PFI or not upgrade / extend at all. This does not mean Ken supports privatisation. And PFI came in under the last Tory government rather than under New Labour by the way.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW said:
sandar said:
The RMT is living in a fantasy world where there is a choice to upgrade without PFI. Under this government Ken has a choice upgrade by PFI or not upgrade / extend at all. This does not mean Ken supports privatisation. And PFI came in under the last Tory government rather than under New Labour by the way.
So your saying that he does support it, its just that he has no choice? fair enough if thats your opinion. my point was that he supported it, amde no attempt to stop it happening.
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
So your saying that he does support it, its just that he has no choice? fair enough if thats your opinion. my point was that he supported it, amde no attempt to stop it happening.
Er, he took the government to court over their foisting of PPP on him - what other attempts to stop it could he have undertaken? Given the position of a PFI-funded extension or no extension the only reasonable position is to back the extension. It is possible to back the scheme overall while neither welcoming nor supporting the fact that it is privately-funded.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW said:
sandar said:
So your saying that he does support it, its just that he has no choice? fair enough if thats your opinion. my point was that he supported it, amde no attempt to stop it happening.
Er, he took the government to court over their foisting of PPP on him - what other attempts to stop it could he have undertaken? Given the position of a PFI-funded extension or no extension the only reasonable position is to back the extension. It is possible to back the scheme overall while neither welcoming nor supporting the fact that it is privately-funded.
He took them to court over the privatisation of the whole tube, not over the specific privatisation of the east london line which was a later policy, you may be rightr that he felt he had no choice, my point is that a privatisation has happened in an area over which Livingstone has has direct executive responsibility, he made no attempt to stop it happening, therefore I dont believe it is a strecth to say he supports it.
Livingstone ios very good at spreading myths about himelf, and people keep believing them, he describes the multi-cultural multi-ethnic Johnson as racist, despite having himself made a comment at least as bad as anything johnson has ever said with his 'concentration camp gaurd' response.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
sandar said:
He took them to court over the privatisation of the whole tube, not over the specific privatisation of the east london line which was a later policy, you may be rightr that he felt he had no choice, my point is that a privatisation has happened in an area over which Livingstone has has direct executive responsibility, he made no attempt to stop it happening, therefore I dont believe it is a strecth to say he supports it.
One thing I am very sure of is that Livingstone does not support Privatisation. He has more sense than to continually bang his head against a wall.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Squire Allworthy said:
sandar said:
He took them to court over the privatisation of the whole tube, not over the specific privatisation of the east london line which was a later policy, you may be rightr that he felt he had no choice, my point is that a privatisation has happened in an area over which Livingstone has has direct executive responsibility, he made no attempt to stop it happening, therefore I dont believe it is a strecth to say he supports it.
One thing I am very sure of is that Livingstone does not support Privatisation. He has more sense than to continually bang his head against a wall.
He supported it in this specific case, maybe reluctantly.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Squire Allworthy said:
sandar said:
He supported it in this specific case, maybe reluctantly.
There is no maybe about it. He definitely does not support privitisation.
There is no maybe about it, he did support it in this case,
he has never objected to it happening in this case, made no attempt to stop it happening through the courts, as he has done in the past.
Ken does not have much of an ideology just a set of principals to be used to get him re-elected
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,803







Boris is no buffoon

Can you imagine any other politician being able to call black children "piccanninies" and comparing gay marriage to bestiality and then to be elected mayor of London?
 

Joe Ryan

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
32
A friend of mine from Liverpool was canvassed going to the Chelsea match at Stamford Bridge by a Tory election worker for Boris. Needless to say the canvasser needed a strong G & T afterwards!
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
He took them to court over the privatisation of the whole tube, not over the specific privatisation of the east london line which was a later policy
Look - he fought against the tube PPP and lost. He then had a choice between extending the ELL with PFI or not at all. He could have taken another court case against the imposition of PFI but, hey, he did that before and lost. What idiot takes the exact same case knowing the outcome? (There are plenty who say he shouldnt have taken the first case as the outcome was always obvious.) I'm no fan of Ken but this is a ridiculous line of attack against him (especially when the alternative is a genuinely pro-privatisation Conservative!).
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top