Boris has a 'mare.

rick_chasey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/vide ... asty-video

This is the video. I'm sure you can find it elsewhere than the guardian if the web address offends .

What I never get is when the interviewer makes the interviewee squirm and wriggle because they've cornered them they then accuse them of not giving a straight answer. They know full when why it's not a straight answer because the answer is unpalletable and will be quoted ad infinium so why fall into the lazy cliche? He'd done all the work, leave it at that.

Agent57

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-accused-nasty-video

This is the video. I'm sure you can find it elsewhere than the guardian if the web address offends .

Yep, on the BBC site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21916385

And the full interview (15 minutes): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21916721

tailwindhome

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 3032563652

jonny_trousers

Uncomfortable viewing, but I don't really get why it's such big news this morning (was hearing about it on the radio).

notsoblue

Eddie Mair seems like such a nice chap on PM...

veronese68

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Uncomfortable viewing, but I don't really get why it's such big news this morning (was hearing about it on the radio).

Once again the shocking revelation that someone in a position in power may not be a very nice person and may have bent the truth a little and trodden on a few toes to get there. The only surprising thing about these stories is that people are still surprised by them.
I only watched a tiny bit of it. But, as for the question about why doesn't he just admit outright that he wants to be PM. Err, because he's a politician?

mroli

I think its a big story because historically it has been very hard to lay a glove on Boris - he is the master of obfuscation and taking interviews where he wants to go, charming the interviewer into giving up in amused exasperation. Mair, whilst not bringing up anything really contemporary, certainly managed to avoid falling into that trap.

Mind you, even if you don't like Boris, you've got to admit he can spin a story well (from today's Guardian):

But speaking in London on Monday, Boris Johnson said: "Eddie Mair did a splendid job. There is no doubt that is what the BBC is for – holding us to account.

"I fully concede it wasn't my most blistering performance, but that was basically because I was set to talk about the Olympics and housing in London and he wanted to talk about other things, some of them – my private life and so on – of quite some antiquity, the details of which I wasn't brilliant on.

"He was perfectly within his rights to have a bash at me – in fact it would have been shocking if he hadn't. If a BBC presenter can't attack a nasty Tory politician what's the world coming to?"

junglist_matty

Let's be honest, it's something he did in the past, and it's hardly a secret, why open that can of worms again?

Because they've got nothing better to do... I'm fairly sure all of us have something we are not that proud of, we are all human, and we all make mistakes.

Fair enough if it was something he's done whilst holding the position as Mayor of London that's understandable, but this is his history and people who voted for him, know his history and if they don't well all-fool them for not doing their research.

In my opinion (as someone not living in London and from an outsiders viewpoint), it seems he's done (and doing) a good job.

jonny_trousers

mroli wrote:

I think its a big story because historically it has been very hard to lay a glove on Boris - he is the master of obfuscation and taking interviews where he wants to go, charming the interviewer into giving up in amused exasperation. Mair, whilst not bringing up anything really contemporary, certainly managed to avoid falling into that trap.

Mind you, even if you don't like Boris, you've got to admit he can spin a story well (from today's Guardian):

But speaking in London on Monday, Boris Johnson said: "Eddie Mair did a splendid job. There is no doubt that is what the BBC is for – holding us to account.

"I fully concede it wasn't my most blistering performance, but that was basically because I was set to talk about the Olympics and housing in London and he wanted to talk about other things, some of them – my private life and so on – of quite some antiquity, the details of which I wasn't brilliant on.

"He was perfectly within his rights to have a bash at me – in fact it would have been shocking if he hadn't. If a BBC presenter can't attack a nasty Tory politician what's the world coming to?"

^ This is kind of the man's - and I use the word lightly - genius. He's back to being silly, muddled up old Bozza and what he may or may not have done in his past is forgotten. He'll end up PM and we'll all be left scratching our heads and wondering HTF it happened.

rolf_f

junglist_matty wrote:

Let's be honest, it's something he did in the past, and it's hardly a secret, why open that can of worms again?

Because the entire basis of his career seems to be founded on the idea that he is more loveable than the mainstream Tory MP. People like him because he says what they want to hear but his actual policies don't seem to match what he says - you think you agree with him but you don't. Anything that breaks this false image is worth while.

Besides, so what it is in the past. Doesn't mean if he hasn't been brought to account that it isn't worth doing. Doesn't imply for one minute that his behaviour is any better now and that he isn't doing more of the same which will also be uncovered but maybe not for a while. It's easy to say 'it's in the past' but why should that be a let out? There's not much I've done in the past that I would feel ashamed about and I'd expect a Mayor of London to be the same. We shouldn't fall into the trap of accepting politicians having such poor standards just because so many do. It's an insult to the ones that do have integrity.

junglist_matty

Rolf F wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

Let's be honest, it's something he did in the past, and it's hardly a secret, why open that can of worms again?

Because the entire basis of his career seems to be founded on the idea that he is more loveable than the mainstream Tory MP. People like him because he says what they want to hear but his actual policies don't seem to match what he says - you think you agree with him but you don't. Anything that breaks this false image is worth while.

Besides, so what it is in the past. Doesn't mean if he hasn't been brought to account that it isn't worth doing. Doesn't imply for one minute that his behaviour is any better now and that he isn't doing more of the same which will also be uncovered but maybe not for a while. It's easy to say 'it's in the past' but why should that be a let out? There's not much I've done in the past that I would feel ashamed about and I'd expect a Mayor of London to be the same. We shouldn't fall into the trap of accepting politicians having such poor standards just because so many do. It's an insult to the ones that do have integrity.

Fair point, well made.... As an outsider, he is a bit of a character, but unlike Londoners, outsiders don't get to see the full results of his day to day politics, we mostly hear about the success stories, for example the Borris bikes.

rick_chasey

It's also the first time he hasn't been given an easy ride by the press. Welcome to the sharp end of politics.

rolf_f

junglist_matty wrote:

Fair point, well made.... As an outsider, he is a bit of a character, but unlike Londoners, outsiders don't get to see the full results of his day to day politics, we mostly hear about the success stories, for example the Borris bikes.

Which, of course, was an idea that was instigated by Livingstone.....