Next Mayor of London

mybreakfastconsisted

Boris also told fibs about bendy buses and claimed, entirely wrongly, that they'd killed cyclists.

When Boris was asked about Catriona Patel, killed by a drunk lorry driver chatting on his mobile who had been banned from driving 16 times, Boris said perhaps the most important thing is cyclist education:

http://www.stockwellnews.com/2011/03/bo ... death.html

I like Boris. He makes me laugh, it would be great to have a pint with him, but he's a disaster as mayor.

EKE_38BPM

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I like Boris. He makes me laugh, it would be great to have a pint with him, but he's a disaster as mayor.

+1

se-po

Isn't Ken a bit old to be a major again?

prj45

se-po wrote:

Isn't Ken a bit old to be a major again?

I'm biased here, but frankly if he was pushing up daisies I'd vote for him over Boris Johnson...

EKE_38BPM

se-po wrote:

Isn't Ken a bit old to be a major again?

66 (according to Wiki) is hardly old for a politician. I think with politics, there is a lot to be said for age and experience. I don't think Ken is the man for the job, but not on the grounds of age.
I wouldn't want to go for a pint with him, either. Its all "Newts this" and "Newts that" with him.

Gazzaputt

Boris is buffoon and steals all his policies from others. Media whore.

FFS spending all that money on a new routemaster bus????

Guy is an wibbling idiot.

Get a real politician in that isn't interested in making the job all about himself.

Wallace1492

Listen guys, if you are very good, we might be able to spare Alex for a couple of years, just till we get the vote sorted out. Then we will need him back to be crowned.

roger_merriman

prj45 wrote:

Jenny Jones wrote:

Boris continues to ignore own TfL stats that show #cyclesafety is *worse* since he elected. Ignorant or lying?

https://twitter.com/#!/GreenJennyJones/ ... 1811587072

Having a look at what she based this on, admitly in by her self rough calculations.

It's all a bit selective stats.

I hate party politics, ken for me is a no no as every interview all you see is hurt ego.

cornerblock

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I wouldn't want to go for a pint with him, either. Its all "Newts this" and "Newts that" with him.

That might be the coversation over the first pint, after a few though he strikes me as being the 'nasty drunk' type. Probably start accusing you of being a concentration camp guard if you dare disagree with his views and opinions.

Strange thing is I tend to agree more with Ken on some policies but don't like him, disagree more with Boris on his policies, but do like him.

roger_merriman

Cornerblock wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I wouldn't want to go for a pint with him, either. Its all "Newts this" and "Newts that" with him.

That might be the coversation over the first pint, after a few though he strikes me as being the 'nasty drunk' type. Probably start accusing you of being a concentration camp guard if you dare disagree with his views and opinions.

Strange thing is I tend to agree more with Ken on some policies but don't like him, disagree more with Boris on his policies, but do like him.

The likeable floppy haired twit is all a act. He's clearly a bright sharp man.

London and boris could do with some creditable opposition tbh

walkingbootweather

I suspect if you canvassed public opinion or sought the view of the popular press, the overwhelming candidate at the moment would be .....






...... Harry Rednapp. Now what was the job again?

sketchley

prj45 wrote:

Jenny Jones wrote:

Boris continues to ignore own TfL stats that show #cyclesafety is *worse* since he elected. Ignorant or lying?

https://twitter.com/#!/GreenJennyJones/ ... 1811587072

Hmmm. My own calculations on the chart in her twitter link kind of put that to bed. How she calculated her ratio figure is beyond me.

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_re ... ting-safer

Year	Journeys	KSI	Per 1000 Slight	Per 1000 Total	Per 1000
2000	290000	  422	1.46	  3084	  10.63	 3506	 12.09
2001	320000	  465	1.45	  2857	  8.93	  3322	 10.38
2002	320000	  414	1.29	  2648	  8.28	  3062	 9.57
2003	370000	  440	1.19	  2616	  7.07	  3056	 8.26
2004	380000	  340	0.89	  2620	  6.89	  2960	 7.79
2005	410000	  372	0.91	  2523	  6.15	  2895	 7.06
2006	470000	  392	0.83	  2566	  5.46	  2958	 6.29
2007	470000	  451	0.96	  2509	  5.34	  2960	 6.30
2008	490000	  445	0.91	  2757	  5.63	  3202	 6.53
2009	510000	  433	0.85	  3236	  6.35	  3669	 7.19
2010	540000	  467	0.86	  3540	  6.56	  4007	 7.42

DonDaddyD

Maybe it was extravagant but at least the 'Boris bus' gives you something to smile about and helps reclaim some of that 'London identity'. London under Red-Ken felt like an oppressive regime.

And Bendy buses were a nightmare.

And if Red-Ken comes back I'll have to give up my car as there will be no doubt that the congestion zone will, eventually, extend into Wimbledon (to pay VED, a parking permit to park on my road that I already pay Council tax to help maintain and then a congestion charge would just piss me off).

But what irks me the most?

Ken was voted out as the public didn't want him in office the last time we had a Mayoral Election. What makes him think we want him this time round? The seat of Mayor isn't some sort of throne to be reclaimed by an ousted king. Ken was mayor, he lost touch with the public and lost an election. Step down, allow someone else to have a stab at this. Labour does actually have other candidates that could stand for election as mayor.

I grow tired of his personal vendetta against Boris (and the Tories). I fear what Ken fails to realise is that while he may enjoy jousting with the Boris and the Tories it's our actual lives in London he is using as the Lance.

notsoblue

Oona King should have been Labour's candidate imho... Ken has too much baggage. Both him and Boris Johnson are polarising characters, that always makes any election a dull, dumbed down affair. The mayor isn't a just a mascot for the city. As was shown in the recent dealings over the Blackfriar's bridge redevelopment, the mayor can shut down the democratic process and push unpopular, illogical ideas through. If we have an election where the candidates are speaking across eachother from fairly extreme ideological standpoints then we won't end up voting for them for the right reasons. These ideological right/left standpoints don't allow for intelligent handling of various issues (business, social care, transport) because more often than not the right approach is usually straight down the middle and involves compromise. Its hard for an elected official to take that approach without seeming hypocritical if they were arguing vehemently along ideological lines during their election.

Its annoying to me that many of the people voted for Boris Johnson (Look at his funny blond hair! HA HA BORIS LOL!!!! WHAT A LEGERND!!!!!!) ended up getting stiffed by him on issues that matter to them when he got into power because they didn't consider his politics and were distracted by his Jim Henson-esque caricature appearance.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Maybe it was extravagant but at least the 'Boris bus' gives you something to smile about and helps reclaim some of that 'London identity'. London under Red-Ken felt like an oppressive regime.

Really? In what way? As a cyclist the congestion zone, especially in its original area, had a big positive effect on the traffic around where I lived and travelled.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Oona King should have been Labour's candidate imho... Ken has too much baggage. Both him and Boris Johnson are polarising characters, that always makes any election a dull, dumbed down affair. The mayor isn't a just a mascot for the city. As was shown in the recent dealings over the Blackfriar's bridge redevelopment, the mayor can shut down the democratic process and push unpopular, illogical ideas through. If we have an election where the candidates are speaking across eachother from fairly extreme ideological standpoints then we won't end up voting for them for the right reasons. These ideological right/left standpoints don't allow for intelligent handling of various issues (business, social care, transport) because more often than not the right approach is usually straight down the middle and involves compromise. Its hard for an elected official to take that approach without seeming hypocritical if they were arguing vehemently along ideological lines during their election.

Its annoying to me that many of the people voted for Boris Johnson (Look at his funny blond hair! HA HA BORIS LOL!!!! WHAT A LEGERND!!!!!!) ended up getting stiffed by him on issues that matter to them when he got into power because they didn't consider his politics and were distracted by his Jim Henson-esque caricature appearance.

I'd love to see Oona King step forward.

Like with political parties, if you lose an Election (in this case London Mayor) then for the next election you should step down/aside and allow new blood to step forward.

It will be hard to believe that Ken would change many of his policies from the last election. From an ideological stand point we know that he believes in them and the only reason he would retract those policies is because he wants to win the election not because he thinks they are bad ideas. Therefore we can never be too sure that should he get in power we won't see those policies being pushed through anyway.

As a Londoner, I can't think of one Boris decision that noticably affects me that aslo upsets me.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Maybe it was extravagant but at least the 'Boris bus' gives you something to smile about and helps reclaim some of that 'London identity'. London under Red-Ken felt like an oppressive regime.

Really? In what way? As a cyclist the congestion zone, especially in its original area, had a big positive effect on the traffic around where I lived and travelled.

The Route Master was quintessentially London. As London as London Undergound, the East End, the theatres in the West End, our suit wearing bankers and lawyers in the city, Fish and Chips and Soho. Without those things I really do think London loses a part of itself a part of it's identity. I look at the Boris Bus and I think/feel that 'this is London' feeling I get from no other City. Even if that is it's only beneficial aspect I think it's a worthy one.

I don't believe theCongestion Charge has had any positive effect. It's still busy as ever with the only difference being that people now pay to drive through there.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'd love to see Oona King step forward.

She did, but didn't win the Labour nomination. Labour really needs to have a good long think about where its going as a party.

DonDaddyD wrote:

As a Londoner, I can't think of one Boris decision that noticably affects me that aslo upsets me.

Do you ever use any of the bridges in London?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'd love to see Oona King step forward.

She did, but didn't win the Labour nomination. Labour really needs to have a good long think about where its going as a party.

DonDaddyD wrote:

As a Londoner, I can't think of one Boris decision that noticably affects me that aslo upsets me.

Do you ever use any of the bridges in London?

Yes. I lived in London all my life - with the exception of 4 years in Derby.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Route Master was quintessentially London. As London as London Undergound, the East End, the theatres in the West End, our suit wearing bankers and lawyers in the city, Fish and Chips and Soho. Without those things I really do think London loses a part of itself a part of it's identity. I look at the Boris Bus and I think/feel that 'this is London' feeling I get from no other City. Even if that is it's only beneficial aspect I think it's a worthy one.

Well the problem is that London is a bit more than just bankers and soho. I'm sure that political PR wishes that everyone had the same view as you do, makes it easier to run an election

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't believe theCongestion Charge has had any positive effect. It's still busy as ever with the only difference being that people now pay to drive through there.

Well I used to live in the W12 area, and it had an effect there.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Do you ever use any of the bridges in London?

Yes. I lived in London all my life - with the exception of 4 years in Derby.

Are you aware of the TFL & Bridges debate that happened recently?

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what irks me the most?

Ken was voted out as the public didn't want him in office the last time we had a Mayoral Election. What makes him think we want him this time round? The seat of Mayor isn't some sort of throne to be reclaimed by an ousted king. Ken was mayor, he lost touch with the public and lost an election.

I find that view quite interesting.

In the 1970s, Harold Wilson was PM, then was ousted by Ted Heath, then regained the job after defeating Heath in the rematch. Kinnock was allowed another go after losing to Thatcher in 1987, only to lose to Major in 1992.

In the 1950s Nixon* had two terms as VP under Eisenhower. In 1960 famously lost the Presidential election to Kennedy (it is said) on the back of his performance in the televised debate. However, he took the Presidency from Johnson in 1968, having in the meantime lost an election to become Governor of California in 1962.

Yet over the last 20 years or so here, and perhaps a bit longer in the US, perception seems to have shifted. Losing an election is now a career-killer, at least in terms of your career plan has ambitions to occupy the office you stood for. You get one shot, and that's it. The only recent possible exception I can think of to this is Sarah Palin, whose career plan hasn't (yet) been formally terminated.

So why are we now apparently obsessed with novelty to this extent?


*Factoid for the day: Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, is the only man in US history to have occupied the offices of Vice President and President never having been elected to either.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what irks me the most?

Ken was voted out as the public didn't want him in office the last time we had a Mayoral Election. What makes him think we want him this time round? The seat of Mayor isn't some sort of throne to be reclaimed by an ousted king. Ken was mayor, he lost touch with the public and lost an election.

I find that view quite interesting.

In the 1970s, Harold Wilson was PM, then was ousted by Ted Heath, then regained the job after defeating Heath in the rematch. Kinnock was allowed another go after losing to Thatcher in 1987, only to lose to Major in 1992.

In the 1950s Nixon* had two terms as VP under Eisenhower. In 1960 famously lost the Presidential election to Kennedy (it is said) on the back of his performance in the televised debate. However, he took the Presidency from Johnson in 1968, having in the meantime lost an election to become Governor of California in 1962.

Yet over the last 20 years or so here, and perhaps a bit longer in the US, perception seems to have shifted. Losing an election is now a career-killer, at least in terms of your career plan has ambitions to occupy the office you stood for. You get one shot, and that's it. The only recent possible exception I can think of to this is Sarah Palin, whose career plan hasn't (yet) been formally terminated.

So why are we now apparently obsessed with novelty to this extent?


*Factoid for the day: Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, is the only man in US history to have occupied the offices of Vice President and President never having been elected to either.

+1 Why on earth should losing one election disqualify you from running again?

kieranb

well, having lived in London under both mayors and elsewhere, the major negative change to my cycling experience came under Boris with the introduction of motorbikes and mopeds into bus lanes. Also due to Boris's politicising of the met police - Boris, you're fired.

EKE_38BPM

I'd love to see the Republicans run on a Santorum/Palin ticket. I can think of nothing that would make Obama more of a shoe in.
[rant]Then I'd like to see Obama steamroll through legislation that means that one person with their own personal agenda can't block a bill that EVERYONE else has agreed on. That is just stupid and not democratic.[/rant]

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Do you ever use any of the bridges in London?

Yes. I lived in London all my life - with the exception of 4 years in Derby.

Are you aware of the TFL & Bridges debate that happened recently?

Not to mention claiming 'credit' for the poorly implemented Cycle SuperHighways by rushing them through, particularly the fiasco of Bow flyover, and as Kieranb mentioned, motorbikes in bus lanes. This last has led to the marked increase in motorbikes in cycle lanes and ASLs. I think he's done plenty to negatively affect cycling in the capital, quite apart from the non-cycling stuff.

jedster

Ken didnt do a bad job but I doubt he's the man for running London when money is really tight. I mean he's proposing to cut public transport fares... something people like to hear but pretty irresponsible given the mess we're in.

I'd say his advocacy of bendy buses is mildly more stupid than Boris's Routemaster revival but there's not much in it.

The other thing about Ken is that I do think he's slightly mental. One of those people who is very comfortable thinking that he everyone else disagrees with him then they are obviously just wrong. He strikes me as the sort of bloke that starts with good intentions but give hime too long in power and he begins to turn into Robert Mugabe... And dont get me onto that rediculous stuff with Chavez. Actually pretty embarassing for London. I bet he'd pull many more of those stunts when he had some Tories in government to wind up.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what irks me the most?

Ken was voted out as the public didn't want him in office the last time we had a Mayoral Election. What makes him think we want him this time round? The seat of Mayor isn't some sort of throne to be reclaimed by an ousted king. Ken was mayor, he lost touch with the public and lost an election.

I find that view quite interesting.

In the 1970s, Harold Wilson was PM, then was ousted by Ted Heath, then regained the job after defeating Heath in the rematch. Kinnock was allowed another go after losing to Thatcher in 1987, only to lose to Major in 1992.

So why are we now apparently obsessed with novelty to this extent?

I did think about Harold Wilson before I wrote my post and decided to go ahead with it. My only response is that it's possibly a generation thing in that people (younger) have less tolerance for politicians and patience in general. In an age where inforamtion is widely available but we spend less time listening and digesting the information and we always want the new latest thing, Ken Livingston seems like a step back away from that and certainly doesn't feel like a step moving forward.

Also it's Ken Livingston, it's not like this is his second stab at the seat. New blood, in this instance considering the dude was doing this in the 80s, probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Never mind the type of bus.

Why are buses allowed to ignore yellow box junctions? This one of my particular hate-filled rants.

AND: do buses have a place in a modern city?

The more I think about it the more it seems to me stupid to have cycle lanes and bus routes on the same road.

mybreakfastconsisted

I couldn't give a flying flip if a politician's gay, but if that politician consistently votes against progressive measures for gay people...

Hague was absent for all votes on equalising the age of consent; voted against gays in the military; voted to retain section 28 (and put a three line whip on it - even sacking two front benchers who refused to back it); voted against gay men and women adopting children.

Now this:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/ ... pe=article

News of the World sources back up Guido Fawkes claims about photographs.

Politics blog said paper paid £20,000 for pictures of William Hague's special adviser in gay bar, but never used them.