Boris to be London Mayor

david

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Messages
190


NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
david said:
Johann Hari is unequivocal.

Come on, Ken.
Always worrying to be on the same side of the argument as Johann Hari...

But it's all pointless according to most sources - Boris seems to have it.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW 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
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!).
Evidence pelase that Boris is currently pro-privatisation. I understand what you are saying about the futility of Ken taking the case, but he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking such a case, his fight against privatization the first time around was extremely popular and it would have served his interests to be visibly against privatisation the second time around. But then again he was an independent candidate during the fight against privatiosation, and a new labour candidate the second time around, and new labour are a pro-pfi party. And it wouldn't have been Ken paying for the case if he wanted to take it.
And his attitude to privatisation is not the reason I refused to vote for him, its more to do with the vanishing of taxpayers money into interest groups where it has not been accounted for, his u-turns on transport issues, his cosying up to Chavez etc.
A lot of the people who are supporting Ken are justifying it on the basis that Boris is racist and homophobic, nonsense and verifibaly so, as I have shown above, Ken's comments regarding Jews are at least as racist as anything Boris has produced, while Ken has been cosying up to some members of radical islamic groups whose ideology is definitely homophobic, Im not saying Ken is Homophobic he is not an idiot after all, but there is more eveidence that Ken is rather than Boris.
Livinstone was the politican who condemned new labour when they wouldn't let him run for mayor, then became blairs candidate for mayor four years later, the man who opposed privaisation of the tube, then ran as the official candidate for the party which wanted to privatize it, such as the incobnsistencies, decptions of ken, and such are the raesons I dont like him.
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
Evidence pelase that Boris is currently pro-privatisation.
He's in the Conservative Party ... I mean, duh.
sandar said:
I understand what you are saying about the futility of Ken taking the case, but he had nothing to lose
Just his and the other side's substantial legal bills and the possibility of blowing any chance of the ELL extension ever happening at all :roll: .
 

kerrynorth

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
1,525
Any word on the counting?
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,634
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

Keith-M said:
Boris is a character but he's politically sound; a good unapologetic Thatcherite.
A twat then :roll:
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

Aindriu said:
Keith-M said:
Boris is a character but he's politically sound; a good unapologetic Thatcherite.
A twat then :roll:
He's not a twat, a twat is useful. How he got that gorgeous wife of his is beyond me.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW said:
sandar said:
Evidence pelase that Boris is currently pro-privatisation.
He's in the Conservative Party ... I mean, duh.
sandar said:
I understand what you are saying about the futility of Ken taking the case, but he had nothing to lose
Just his and the other side's substantial legal bills and the possibility of blowing any chance of the ELL extension ever happening at all :roll: .
Labour is in favour of privatization but Ken is against it, so maybe you shouldn't judge on party affiliation what the policies of a candidate are. i emphasise again,.Boris has mentioned nothing about privatising anything as mayor, so you have no evidence.
The legal bills would be paid by London taxpayers, who are against privatisation(as am I) and when ken spent their money on this before it made him mroe popualr with tax payers.
 

Sligoboy

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
180
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

Aindriu said:
Keith-M said:
Boris is a character but he's politically sound; a good unapologetic Thatcherite.
A twat then :roll:
He's beyond twatdom, hes the very caricture of a bumbling toff who yelps out of the side of his mouth whilst sucking on marbles.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
Dire result generally for Labour with loses heading towards 300. LibDems a few overall gains but have basically stabilised. If this sort of result happened in a general election the Conservatives would have over 100 seat majority. Are we heading back to more privatisation dogma or will it be smaller more efficient government.

I have not been a great fan of Gordon's financial management and the steady increase in state spending. Will we ever see a government that will consider returning a lot more power and finance raising and spending to the local councils? A minimal central government? Highly unlikely.


On the Counting At lunchtime Boris leads in 10 areas Ken in 4. Could be 9pm before the results. Turnout is 45%which i think is up on last time.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Squire Allworthy said:
Dire result generally for Labour with loses heading towards 300. LibDems a few overall gains but have basically stabilised. If this sort of result happened in a general election the Conservatives would have over 100 seat majority. Are we heading back to more privatisation dogma or will it be smaller more efficient government.

I have not been a great fan of Gordon's financial management and the steady increase in state spending. Will we ever see a government that will consider returning a lot more power and finance raising and spending to the local councils? A minimal central government? Highly unlikely.


On the Counting At lunchtime Boris leads in 10 areas Ken in 4. Could be 9pm before the results. Turnout is 45%which i think is up on last time.
Yeah they are saying if this result was to be repeated nationally then the tories would have a 162 seat majority, but perhaps of more benefit to the tories is the 44% vote share, they have always maintained that they would need 40% to be sure of an overall majority, this result allows them to drop 4% and still win
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
sandar said:
Yeah they are saying if this result was to be repeated nationally then the tories would have a 162 seat majority, but perhaps of more benefit to the tories is the 44% vote share, they have always maintained that they would need 40% to be sure of an overall majority, this result allows them to drop 4% and still win
Come the election it will probably be a lot tighter. Labour have run out of steam and do need to retire to the back benches, but I am not so sure what sort of government the Tories would be. I am hoping for a hung government so there are some checks on whoever heads up the government. The choice is dismal and on last nights results it looks like a Conservative majority though a lot less than 160.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Squire Allworthy said:
sandar said:
Yeah they are saying if this result was to be repeated nationally then the tories would have a 162 seat majority, but perhaps of more benefit to the tories is the 44% vote share, they have always maintained that they would need 40% to be sure of an overall majority, this result allows them to drop 4% and still win
Come the election it will probably be a lot tighter. Labour have run out of steam and do need to retire to the back benches, but I am not so sure what sort of government the Tories would be. I am hoping for a hung government so there are some checks on whoever heads up the government. The choice is dismal and on last nights results it looks like a Conservative majority though a lot less than 160.
The thing is that Labour(current majority 68) are going to lose a few MPs shortly due to the fact that there are some boundary changes to come into effect in the North of England in some very safe labour seats, and that already impacts on their chances at the next election.
Labour have also always done well in scotland but are getting squeezed by the Nationalists, and that is eating into their seat total as well, if the last assembly results were to translate into seats then labour would loose several in Scotland as well.
I agree I think a coalition of Tory/Lib Dem would be my preference ubntil I see what the tories are actually made of.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,634
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

DOD said:
Aindriu said:
Keith-M said:
Boris is a character but he's politically sound; a good unapologetic Thatcherite.
A twat then :roll:
He's not a twat, a twat is useful. How he got that gorgeous wife of his is beyond me.
Money, that's how! Women are very transparent creatures where wealth is concerned.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

]
He's not a twat, a twat is useful. How he got that gorgeous wife of his is beyond me.[/quote]
Money, that's how! Women are very transparent creatures where wealth is concerned.[/quote]

Boris is not paedticualrly wealthy( I mean in terms of inherited or family money) he was a schoalsrship boy to Eaton sos his family hadn't the money. His dad was someting of a dilletante and writer and traveller, now they bhave settled on a famr somewhere in devon I think, upper middle class I guess but not aristocracy or landed gentry
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
Re: Boris the Bafoon to be London Mayor

Aindriu said:
He's not a twat, a twat is useful. How he got that gorgeous wife of his is beyond me.
Money, that's how! Women are very transparent creatures where wealth is concerned.[/quote]
How rich is he? I'm surviving on a grant, but I can still afford a haircut, why can't he?
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
Boris has mentioned nothing about privatising anything as mayor, so you have no evidence.
Sorry? Did he or did he not stand on the Conservative manifesto at the last general election (and the one before that). Is his voting record in the Commons not publically available? There is plenty of evidence, you just dont want to see it.
sandar said:
The legal bills would be paid by London taxpayers, who are against privatisation(as am I) and when ken spent their money on this before it made him mroe popualr with tax payers.
You're the first London taxpayer I've met who would be happy to throw millions of pounds down the train with only the prospect of managing to rule out transport infrastructure improvements for it. The first legal case was justifiable - he could claim he might have won. Repeating it with zero prospect of winning (because, get this, the matter had already been ruled on in the initial case) would have been foolhardy beyond belief.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
NeilW said:
sandar said:
Boris has mentioned nothing about privatising anything as mayor, so you have no evidence.
Sorry? Did he or did he not stand on the Conservative manifesto at the last general election (and the one before that). Is his voting record in the Commons not publically available? There is plenty of evidence, you just dont want to see it.
sandar said:
The legal bills would be paid by London taxpayers, who are against privatisation(as am I) and when ken spent their money on this before it made him mroe popualr with tax payers.
You're the first London taxpayer I've met who would be happy to throw millions of pounds down the train with only the prospect of managing to rule out transport infrastructure improvements for it. The first legal case was justifiable - he could claim he might have won. Repeating it with zero prospect of winning (because, get this, the matter had already been ruled on in the initial case) would have been foolhardy beyond belief.
I didn't say I'd be happy but Livingstone has done it several times already, spending money on legal issues that is, so if it doesn't bother him on the numerous other times he has done it, including to take legal actions for libel against publications which he personally has a grievance with, then why would he not use this method for something he believes in as a matter of principle, such as privatisation, especially since in the past he has done it and it proved popular.
As for Boris, you are the one accusing him of being pro-privatisation in London, so it is up to you to offer evidence, not up to me to find it. Ken runs as the labour candidate does he not run on the Labour manifesto, or are mayoral manifestos far more personal to the candidate? In which case they are personal to Boris as well.,, and livingstone was a labour MP Until 2001, did a Labour manifesto not contain pro-privatization stuff up until that point?
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
sandar said:
It really isnt worth labouring the point any more. I'll just leave with one question - are you somehow under the illusion that Boris will take the ELL back in-house?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom