News2 mins ago
poor londoners
Poor old Londoners -they have to choose between Ken who is so far left that he seems to think that Black is best and are never in fault and Boris who is a clown. Wot do you think ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
God help them. Oh god has a candidate too...
Alan Craig
"The CPA is a Christian political party. We actively promote Christian social teaching and draw our principles from the Bible, especially the life and teaching of Jesus Christ"
Alan Craig
"The CPA is a Christian political party. We actively promote Christian social teaching and draw our principles from the Bible, especially the life and teaching of Jesus Christ"
Hmm so Boris is such a smart operator that he deliberately put his foot in it in Liverpool and had to appologise?
And then there was the time he was sacked as minister for arts.
Then there were the references to canabalism in New Guinia
And lets not remember his membership of Oxford's infamous Bullingdon Club that specialises in trashing restaurants!
I met him personally once at a friend's wedding many years ago - frankly if buffonery is an act it's one he carries over into real life!
I simply cannot understand what posessed the Tories to let him stand
Surely they have better candidates!
And then there was the time he was sacked as minister for arts.
Then there were the references to canabalism in New Guinia
And lets not remember his membership of Oxford's infamous Bullingdon Club that specialises in trashing restaurants!
I met him personally once at a friend's wedding many years ago - frankly if buffonery is an act it's one he carries over into real life!
I simply cannot understand what posessed the Tories to let him stand
Surely they have better candidates!
I genuinely think Boris will be a massive own goal for the Tories.
The best thing about being in Opposition is that you can throw stones at the present government and not have to face any flak yourself.
They now want to appoint a man into a position of power who is so far removed from the man on the street as to be a different species. He's hugely error prone and has proven himself a failure at, among other things, race relatins and diplomacy. The Tories are giving Labour a stick to beat them with. Maybe they didn't think he'd win?
The best thing about being in Opposition is that you can throw stones at the present government and not have to face any flak yourself.
They now want to appoint a man into a position of power who is so far removed from the man on the street as to be a different species. He's hugely error prone and has proven himself a failure at, among other things, race relatins and diplomacy. The Tories are giving Labour a stick to beat them with. Maybe they didn't think he'd win?
-- answer removed --
heres the plan,
ken would be a pensioner during the next term if he won,
at least he would be able to use one of his free bus passes!
boris is not a cure all but is a definite different choice over tired ken,
so boris gets elected by working londoners,
he then quits and the conservatives shove in a proper politician in his place,
no need for another election of course,
labour did that with slippery mc broon !!!!!
ken would be a pensioner during the next term if he won,
at least he would be able to use one of his free bus passes!
boris is not a cure all but is a definite different choice over tired ken,
so boris gets elected by working londoners,
he then quits and the conservatives shove in a proper politician in his place,
no need for another election of course,
labour did that with slippery mc broon !!!!!
They also did it in 1981, but far more blatantly, in the days of the Greater London Council (GLC).
Labour was elected to control that body with Andrew McIntosh at the helm. A vigorous campaign was fought by the Tories, who insisted that the �moderate� McIntosh would be deposed after the election. This was strenuously denied. The Tories lost and just one day after the election the council voted themselves a new leader, who went by the name of, er.... Ken Livingstone!
Mrs Thatcher successfully abolished the GLC in 1986 and London functioned perfectly well for fourteen years. However, this ridiculous government sold the idea of an �elected mayor� to the gullible London electorate along the lines that they would get a mayor rather like New York had in Rudolph Guiliani.
All they got, of course, was a resurrected GLC (now called the GLA) which was put in place to satisfy the government�s masters in Brussels who want to see the UK reduced to a number of manageable (i.e. easy to bully) �regions�.
What Londoneres really need every four years is not a choice of political and social misfits who try to run their vital services in line with their own ideology. They need instead an option to say whether they would continue to prefer to have a mayor at all. They should also be asked whether they would like to continue to pay for the mayor�s �small number of administrative staff� (which was what they were told they would be getting in 2000, and whose numbers currently run to about 700), or whether they would prefer their services to be run by professionals in the relevant fields.
Will this happen? Not until a squadron of pigs takes off from �London� Biggin Hill aerodrome (which is 20 miles from central London, in rural Kent, but over which the Mayor and the GLA hold power to determine what it can and cannot do).
Labour was elected to control that body with Andrew McIntosh at the helm. A vigorous campaign was fought by the Tories, who insisted that the �moderate� McIntosh would be deposed after the election. This was strenuously denied. The Tories lost and just one day after the election the council voted themselves a new leader, who went by the name of, er.... Ken Livingstone!
Mrs Thatcher successfully abolished the GLC in 1986 and London functioned perfectly well for fourteen years. However, this ridiculous government sold the idea of an �elected mayor� to the gullible London electorate along the lines that they would get a mayor rather like New York had in Rudolph Guiliani.
All they got, of course, was a resurrected GLC (now called the GLA) which was put in place to satisfy the government�s masters in Brussels who want to see the UK reduced to a number of manageable (i.e. easy to bully) �regions�.
What Londoneres really need every four years is not a choice of political and social misfits who try to run their vital services in line with their own ideology. They need instead an option to say whether they would continue to prefer to have a mayor at all. They should also be asked whether they would like to continue to pay for the mayor�s �small number of administrative staff� (which was what they were told they would be getting in 2000, and whose numbers currently run to about 700), or whether they would prefer their services to be run by professionals in the relevant fields.
Will this happen? Not until a squadron of pigs takes off from �London� Biggin Hill aerodrome (which is 20 miles from central London, in rural Kent, but over which the Mayor and the GLA hold power to determine what it can and cannot do).
quin,
i of course do realise that one only votes for the respective constituency mp,
in real terms people form their judgment on who (which party) to vote for based on the potential prime minister,
rarely are there important enough issues to vote in an mp locally irrespective of any party allegiances,
you knew all this anyway,
a vote for old boy livingstone is a vote for over spending disproportionate to the real benefit of the majority of londoners, it buys some votes though...
i of course do realise that one only votes for the respective constituency mp,
in real terms people form their judgment on who (which party) to vote for based on the potential prime minister,
rarely are there important enough issues to vote in an mp locally irrespective of any party allegiances,
you knew all this anyway,
a vote for old boy livingstone is a vote for over spending disproportionate to the real benefit of the majority of londoners, it buys some votes though...
You may have noticed, jake (and I thought I made it perfectly clear) that endorse nobody as potential mayor. This is regardless or their (or my) political affiliations, their background or abilities.
London simply does not need an elected mayor or a regional assembly (and nor, for that matter, does any other region of the UK). I lived and worked in London from 1986 to 2000 when it had no such level of government. It worked as well, if not better, than it would have done with such an assembly and cost London council taxpayers (many of whom live twenty miles or more from the centre of the Capital and receive none of the mayor�s largesse) an awful lot less as a result. Everything the mayor is said to have achieved since 2000 could easily have been achieved without this additional level of bureaucracy.
Londoners were asked in 1998 whether they wanted a mayor (and, as I implied in my earlier post, I believe they were misled in what was being proposed). I think, after two terms experiencing � and paying for - the activities of the mayor and the London Assembly, they should be asked not only who they want for their next mayor, but whether they really think it worthwhile to pay for a mayor and an assembly at all.
London simply does not need an elected mayor or a regional assembly (and nor, for that matter, does any other region of the UK). I lived and worked in London from 1986 to 2000 when it had no such level of government. It worked as well, if not better, than it would have done with such an assembly and cost London council taxpayers (many of whom live twenty miles or more from the centre of the Capital and receive none of the mayor�s largesse) an awful lot less as a result. Everything the mayor is said to have achieved since 2000 could easily have been achieved without this additional level of bureaucracy.
Londoners were asked in 1998 whether they wanted a mayor (and, as I implied in my earlier post, I believe they were misled in what was being proposed). I think, after two terms experiencing � and paying for - the activities of the mayor and the London Assembly, they should be asked not only who they want for their next mayor, but whether they really think it worthwhile to pay for a mayor and an assembly at all.
-- answer removed --
Come on New Judge we both know that if there was a credible right wing candidate you'd back them.
"Oh we can't have a Thatcherite mayor for London because we don't need a mayor at all!"
I don't think so!
And no Helpmetoo I think Boris has been tested on a number of occasions and has been consistantly found wanting.
Still at least you recognise that he's the best of a bad lot - unlike Loosehead who seems to think that Boris is mild mannered Clark Kent - fooling the world whilst heading for a phone box!
"Oh we can't have a Thatcherite mayor for London because we don't need a mayor at all!"
I don't think so!
And no Helpmetoo I think Boris has been tested on a number of occasions and has been consistantly found wanting.
Still at least you recognise that he's the best of a bad lot - unlike Loosehead who seems to think that Boris is mild mannered Clark Kent - fooling the world whilst heading for a phone box!
Latest Posts
Home & Garden3 mins ago
Reality TV3 mins ago
Can You Be Fined For Emptying A Swimming...
Civil22 mins ago
A Winter Fuel Payment For Scottish...
ChatterBank24 mins ago
