The taboo thread

Ben6899

I don't know Boris Johnson, but given his breeding and background I would guess he is rather.

MonkeyMonster

rjsterry wrote:

I suspect when it came down to it they wouldn't actually accept many losses at all, but would like the perks anyway. Holding a door open for someone is just being considerate and courteous. I can't see how that has anything to do with gender. True, there used to be different sets of manners that were observed for each gender, but manners have changed over time anyway. Anyway, arguing over whether men should hold doors open or not completely misses the point. Gender equality in the workplace and other areas, despite being enshrined in law for over 30 years, has still not been achieved. My take on it is that the manners argument has actually been pushed, as a distraction, by people who want the status quo to continue.

Careful laddie or I'll think you're having a go at me... and I am taller than you mind, just. Workplace equality is a given. If you're doing a job, what you are makes no difference UNLESS due to physical impossibilites you can't do the same as another in that identical role - but then you aren't doing the same job; I highlight this because its often ignored or misused.
My anecdotal evidence has told me that equality can and does mean very different things to different people be they female or male. That is what I am more interested in, not whether equality in the workplace is necessary because its a foregone conclusion [it is btw] - but alas [I don't think] one person in the mayors office is unlikely to ever effect much change to the number of old school men in power who don't think equality is valid - that will take time in the fact that as when they die/leave they are replaced by a more aware generation you'll get the equality.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Why should we vote for Paddick, RC?

I'll be honest.

From where I'm sitting there are 3 big issues for the Mayor.
They are, in no particular order:
- Policing & the met
- Housing
- Travel.

On the first two I think he's the best candidate.

Much to Ben's chagrin, I have to mention his record at the Met.

Ultimately, I think he's in a better position to deal with the met. He knows how it works in a way the other candidates simply can't. I think that that experience combined with his pretty progressive views on discrimination makes him the best candidate of them all. He must know what goes on in a way the other candidates can't know, and he seems to be one of the few politicians that is calling both that, and the riots (and like me he draws some lines between the two) as big problems and something that needs to be addressed. After all, after this election the mayor becomes the new head of the Met.

With housing, again, he seems to be the candidate that is most explicit about the housing problems. He seems the most happy to put away significant cash to build many more homes which London needs, and that are affordable to people at the bottom end - who ultimately need to live somewhere. Things like the earls court redevelopment that's happening in my area, which amongst other things is turfing out a lot of low income habitants and replacing them with very expensive flats - are things I believe Paddick would stop. Boris hasn't. I can't speak about Ken too much, but his record previously was weak.

Travel? Personally, I think, beyond the budget which you can't really change there's not much the mayor can do. It's ultimately mostly about the tubes and buses, rightly or wrongly, and as long as the mayor keeps up the investment, there's not much else to do. Paddick faffs about on the edges with oyster cards for part-time workers and discounts for travel before 7:30, but I don't think there's much to do there. It's just time and money. Ken's started the big development project which is being continued, and there's no reason to stop it. It's poor due to years of under-investment.

I'd like to see more pro-cycling policies, but that's me. Of the big 3, I like to think Paddick would be the most receptive to pro-bike ideas. The London lot I've met through local Lib dem stuff are all very pro bike - principally because they all seem to commute by bike. I know we backed the go-Dutch campaign pretty early on.

Ultimately, looking at the party he's representing helps. I broadly agree with the lib dem PoV, and their reaction to 'issues' is broadly in line with mine. That's what you really want in a politician - someone who reacts to circumstances in a way you think is right. Circumstances change, and that means things that were promised suddenly are untenable. It's how they react.

If you're quite right, I wouldn't be voting for him. If you're quite old school socialist, I don't think he's right either.

If you think more can be done with fairer and better policing, and a more balanced approach to governance without the big ego projects that Boris has a tendency towards, then vote Paddick .

SteppenHerring

I'd be tempted to vote for Paddick (he went to my son's school) but:
a) I could never bring myself to vote Lib Dem ever again
b) I live outside London so I don't get a vote

TheStone

Paddick doesn't come across that well.
In an election headed by two people I could never bring myself to vote for, he should be doing a lot better.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

My biggest concern is that UKIP is polling higher than the Lib Dems in some polls.

You don't say! Lib Dems probably will take the blame for all of the goverments wrongs without the credit for the rights.

that is the price for taking power as the lesser partner.

I'd expect Brian Paddick who isn't a strong candiate at the best of times to take a fair old hammering.

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

My biggest concern is that UKIP is polling higher than the Lib Dems in some polls.

You don't say! Lib Dems probably will take the blame for all of the goverments wrongs without the credit for the rights.

that is the price for taking power as the lesser partner.

.

You clearly haven't watched Borgen .

DonDaddyD

TheStone wrote:

Paddick doesn't come across that well.
In an election headed by two people I could never bring myself to vote for, he should be doing a lot better.

This, if you'd gave Boris and Ken a gun it wouldn't kill them off any faster than they have done already. But that said how poor must the other candidates be if they can't outshine people that most have frankly gotten bored of?

And this is true for this entire generation of politicians. Cameron generation of Tories are arrogant and have learned nothing. Yes they have youth on their side, but I'm beginning to think even IDS and Hague have more tactical smarts than this lot.

Given how poor the unpopular ones are and perform, the fact that there is no stand out politician, no beacon of light really shows up how lacking this lot is in quality. Miliband has grown (he is still light weight) but you get the impression that a young hungry Thatcher, Blair - even Major (my early generation) would have forced a general election or taking a few more scalps by now.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

And this is true for this entire generation of politicians. Cameron generation of Tories are arrogant and have learned nothing. Yes they have youth on their side, but I'm beginning to think even IDS and Hague have more tactical smarts than this lot.
.

I think you're forgetting how bad IDS and Hague were as leaders.

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke. That pundits are talking of the 'retoxification' of the tory party suggests he was at some point successful in 'detoxifying' the tory party > no easy feat.

I think Osbourne's f*cked that for him with the 45p, alongside the the NI stuff, and cash for access.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke.

Exactly. Its an act.

Prince William and Prince Harry do actually seem like good blokes (never met them, so no first hand stories of them getting a round in). It doesn't seem like an act, but Cameron does seem like he's trying to look like 'the common man'.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke.

Exactly. Its an act.

Prince William and Prince Harry do actually seem like good blokes (never met them, so no first hand stories of them getting a round in). It doesn't seem like an act, but Cameron does seem like he's trying to look like 'the common man'.

He's hardly going to lay on the public schoolboy shtick very thickly though.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke.

Exactly. Its an act.

Prince William and Prince Harry do actually seem like good blokes (never met them, so no first hand stories of them getting a round in). It doesn't seem like an act, but Cameron does seem like he's trying to look like 'the common man'.

He's hardly going to lay on the public schoolboy shtick very thickly though.

His mate Boris does. It seems to be working for him.

DonDaddyD

Cameron does not come across as a resonable bloke, he appears patronising and detached from truly understanding or empathising with different sections of society. "Hug a hoody". "Big Society". "We are in it together". These do not resonate an understanding of the needs of those at the lower end of soceity.

I'd have more respect if he said "We are not in it together, but we'll help those that are, out of it".

And to clarify, I do not have an issue with the affulent. A mate of mine got married in the Temple Church - you need to be directly related to "someone" to have the privilede - (High court judge). What I dislike is people who are false with their wealth and/or who try to be "down with the homies".

EKE - in certain circles word is William and Kate "were" massive coke heads at Uni.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke.

Exactly. Its an act.

Prince William and Prince Harry do actually seem like good blokes (never met them, so no first hand stories of them getting a round in). It doesn't seem like an act, but Cameron does seem like he's trying to look like 'the common man'.

He's hardly going to lay on the public schoolboy shtick very thickly though.

His mate Boris does. It seems to be working for him.

You can do that when you're not the leader.

I also think Boris is very unusual. He can play that role fine in his position.

Then again, I despair at the thought of anyone voting for him, so maybe I'm not the best person to answer.

Edit: not because he's privileged. I just wonder how anyone who behaves like that can be considered seriously in a political and leadership position.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE - in certain circles word is William and Kate "were" massive coke heads at Uni.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I'm sure James Hewitt's son knows what to do with a pack of king size Rizla too.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke.

Exactly. Its an act.

Prince William and Prince Harry do actually seem like good blokes (never met them, so no first hand stories of them getting a round in). It doesn't seem like an act, but Cameron does seem like he's trying to look like 'the common man'.

He's hardly going to lay on the public schoolboy shtick very thickly though.

Ah yes, because on the Venn diagram of Life, there's no overlap between the areas labelled "reasonable blokes" and "public schoolboy".

ETA: Boris is unusual amongst the public face of politicians because he has charm and humour and uses it to get away with stuff others would be burnt at the stake for. And he's prepared to laugh at himself, which almost every other politician seems to regard as public suicide.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cameron is actually pretty OK at coming across like a reasonable bloke.

Exactly. Its an act.

Prince William and Prince Harry do actually seem like good blokes (never met them, so no first hand stories of them getting a round in). It doesn't seem like an act, but Cameron does seem like he's trying to look like 'the common man'.

He's hardly going to lay on the public schoolboy shtick very thickly though.

Ah yes, because on the Venn diagram of Life, there's no overlap between the areas labelled "reasonable blokes" and "public schoolboy".

Was referring to Cameron trying to look like the 'common man'. Do keep up. :roll:

Anyway, I don't think anywhere we seem to say that's the case? EKE's believes poshest of the posh Will & harry are good blokes - I said Cameron is OK at coming across as a reasonable bloke.

notsoblue

Do British voters really want a "common man" as a leader though?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Do British voters really want a "common man" as a leader though?

It's not unreasonable to want someone in charge who has some understanding of how the average person lives. Their concerns, needs, etc.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Do British voters really want a "common man" as a leader though?

It's not unreasonable to want someone in charge who has some understanding of how the average person lives. Their concerns, needs, etc.

Sure. I don't really agree with people who say that Cameron is putting in a lot of effort to appear to be a social class that he's not. I think its entirely possible to empathise with the "common man" without being one yourself. The implication is that beneath his PR polished facade, he's like George Osbourne.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Do British voters really want a "common man" as a leader though?

It's not unreasonable to want someone in charge who has some understanding of how the average person lives. Their concerns, needs, etc.

Sure. I don't really agree with people who say that Cameron is putting in a lot of effort to appear to be a social class that he's not. I think its entirely possible to empathise with the "common man" without being one yourself. The implication is that beneath his PR polished facade, he's like George Osbourne.

I think Cameron's biggest mistake so far is putting as much trust in Osbourne as he has. If I had Osbourne as treasurer I'd keep him on a tight leash.

I also think it's either telling or interesting that Cameron is aping the Blair Brown combo with himself and Osbourne.

Do I think he's like Osbourne? No - I think he's a fair bit better at being a politician. I think the image Cameron projects of himself works well - Osbourne is doing the unravelling, not Cameron - though the horse thing didn't help.

I do think both lack a certain attention to detail.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Do British voters really want a "common man" as a leader though?

It's not unreasonable to want someone in charge who has some understanding of how the average person lives. Their concerns, needs, etc.

Sure. I don't really agree with people who say that Cameron is putting in a lot of effort to appear to be a social class that he's not. I think its entirely possible to empathise with the "common man" without being one yourself. The implication is that beneath his PR polished facade, he's like George Osbourne.

I think Cameron's biggest mistake so far is putting as much trust in Osbourne as he has. If I had Osbourne as treasurer I'd keep him on a tight leash.

I also think it's either telling or interesting that Cameron is aping the Blair Brown combo with himself and Osbourne.

Osborne is not someone who inspires confidence, I have to admit. Although I have heard he is a strategy genius. Perhaps he should have had the Mandelson job rather than No 11.

As for the "aping", in my view this is one of the single worst aspects of modern British politics, and it's become entrenched (DC and GO, the Two Eds) because of Blair having to offer Brown No 11 as the price of an unhindered run at the leadership. It has elevated the PM/Chancellor combo to a quasi-Presidential offering, and relegated the rest of the Cabinet to a second or lower tier. Not good at all.

Wasn't the last "common man" leader John Major?

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

...EKE's believes poshest of the posh Will & harry are good blokes - I said Cameron is OK at coming across as a reasonable bloke.

It seems to me that you don't really believe Cameron is a reasonable bloke, just that he is OK at coming across as one. So he's acting.
Compare him to the princes. They don't act like they're getting on with people, they just seem to get on with people.
Big difference.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...EKE's believes poshest of the posh Will & harry are good blokes - I said Cameron is OK at coming across as a reasonable bloke.

It seems to me that you don't really believe Cameron is a reasonable bloke, just that he is OK at coming across as one. So he's acting.
Compare him to the princes. They don't act like they're getting on with people, they just seem to get on with people.
Big difference.

*shrugs* it's irrelevant what he actually is really like, in this context isn't it?

What he comes across as is what matters.

notsoblue

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...EKE's believes poshest of the posh Will & harry are good blokes - I said Cameron is OK at coming across as a reasonable bloke.

It seems to me that you don't really believe Cameron is a reasonable bloke, just that he is OK at coming across as one. So he's acting.
Compare him to the princes. They don't act like they're getting on with people, they just seem to get on with people.
Big difference.

Wouldn't it be awesome for there to be a member of the royal family who was just an utter douchebag? They'd act like they were a psychopathic feudal prince who'd stumbled into a wormhole and ended up in 2012.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Wouldn't it be awesome for there to be a member of the royal family who was just an utter douchebag? .

Charles? .

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Do British voters really want a "common man" as a leader though?

It's not unreasonable to want someone in charge who has some understanding of how the average person lives. Their concerns, needs, etc.

Sure. I don't really agree with people who say that Cameron is putting in a lot of effort to appear to be a social class that he's not. I think its entirely possible to empathise with the "common man" without being one yourself. The implication is that beneath his PR polished facade, he's like George Osbourne.

I think Cameron's biggest mistake so far is putting as much trust in Osbourne as he has. If I had Osbourne as treasurer I'd keep him on a tight leash.

I also think it's either telling or interesting that Cameron is aping the Blair Brown combo with himself and Osbourne.

Osborne is not someone who inspires confidence, I have to admit. Although I have heard he is a strategy genius. Perhaps he should have had the Mandelson job rather than No 11.

As for the "aping", in my view this is one of the single worst aspects of modern British politics, and it's become entrenched (DC and GO, the Two Eds) because of Blair having to offer Brown No 11 as the price of an unhindered run at the leadership. It has elevated the PM/Chancellor combo to a quasi-Presidential offering, and relegated the rest of the Cabinet to a second or lower tier. Not good at all.

Wasn't the last "common man" leader John Major?

It's not that Osborne doesn't inspire confidence it is that he has very little, with even less charisma and a face soaked with contempt. No.11 has been elevated to 'faceman' status standing alongside the PM and Osborne is a terrible 'faceman' at a time when you need a crowd pleaser to deliver bad news i.e. Granny tax.

Cameron's biggest problem is that he is trying to hard to relate to the 'common man' and his obvious inability to do so leaves him open to criticism and the 'posh boys' jibes. He'd be better off admiting the fact that he cannot directly relate but explain that he is willing to listen to the 'common mans' issues and help. But that would be too much of a Labour approach. This is why I've always thought you need liberal socialists to deal with the societal aspect of Government and Conservatives dealing with the business and cash generation side of Government.
You need

notsoblue

Isn't a failure to relate part of the whole conservative shtick though? If I had voted tory, I wouldn't expect a prime minister that listens to the "common man's" issues.

Personal responsibility, trickle down economics, let the market judge... etc etc etc...

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Isn't a failure to relate part of the whole conservative shtick though? If I had voted tory, I wouldn't expect a prime minister that listens to the "common man's" issues.

Personal responsibility, trickle down economics, let the market judge... etc etc etc...

But that's what is so insulting and patronising about Cameron. We already know and accept that the Tories fail to relate. It's like he thinks we're dumb enough to believe hsi act.

It's why peopl like Boris, he doesn't deny his public school boy background and feign a 'down with the homies' understanding. He isn't trying to be anybody else but himself* and thus his oaf-like pomposity is actually charming.

In fact Boris keeps it realz... :shock:

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's why peopl like Boris, he doesn't deny his public school boy background and feign a 'down with the homies' understanding. He isn't trying to be anybody else but himself* and thus his oaf-like pomposity is actually charming.

But does Cameron actually do this? I honestly don't get the feeling he does. Can you give me an example of him feigning empathy in this way?