- This topic has 102 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Nice to see a different London Mayor, I wonder if everyone is willing to give Boris a chance, I agree about what he said about Liverpool, and I think if hes given a fair chance he will be a very good and innovative(!) London mayor. Seemed pretty clear to me Livingston had becone arrogant and out of touch.
I expect a great deal of entertainment during the next four years from the new Mayor of London. The team of professionals he hired to help him win the election will presumably move on to other things and Boris will be left to his own devices.
I don’t seriously think anyone believes he is a buffoon or that he has no political nous at all. He’s an intelligent and articulate man. However, what he does have is a populist streak and an eye for publicity – both of which lead him into more sticky situations than are strictly necessary. Being Mayor of London is a dull and responsible position in which he will be required to do a great many dull and unpopular things. It will be fascinating to see how he gets on.
And as for the BNP, if this Assembly member is anything like the assorted collection of criminals and imbeciles who have represented that squalid little party at council level in the past, he/she is more likely to be a danger to themselves than the community.
I was delighted to see Boris getting elected but I’ve got a question for NV, GC and other liberal democrats on the forum.
I see becoming the Mayor of London as a great PR achievement for any party. With Ken Livingstone appearing to be unelectable this time why didn’t the Libs put forward a really strong candidate that could have got elected and therefore started something of a band wagon. I’m thinking of somebody like Simon Hughes or Lembit Opik who may have got the capital behind them.
Adrian,
A great question, and one to which I have absolutely no answer! Brian Paddick is not everyone’s cup of tea, and I kept waiting for him to step up his campaign and start speaking out about key issues, but he never really did.
Simon Hughes would have appealed to many (I would have thought) as a decent politician with a sound head on his shoulders, a passion for London, and few skeletons lurking.
I also wonder whether perhaps choosing a ‘trendy’ female candidate (not sure who, it has to be said) might have led to a more exciting campaign and possibly yielded greater dividends…
The role of Mayor is quite an interesting one, coming as it does with considerable freedoms and a smattering of genuine power. I’ll be interested to see how Boris does – I have nothing really against the man, and he has a chance to prove himself useful and sensible.
nv
I suspect (and hope) this appointment will be the making of Boris. He’s essentially a broad-minded cerebral polymath who doesn’t seem constrained by a narrow, extreme or fervent political ideology – decent attributes all
I expect a great deal of entertainment during the next four years from the new Mayor of London. The team of professionals he hired to help him win the election will presumably move on to other things and Boris will be left to his own devices.
I don’t seriously think anyone believes he is a buffoon or that he has no political nous at all. He’s an intelligent and articulate man. However, what he does have is a populist streak and an eye for publicity – both of which lead him into more sticky situations than are strictly necessary. Being Mayor of London is a dull and responsible position in which he will be required to do a great many dull and unpopular things. It will be fascinating to see how he gets on.
And as for the BNP, if this Assembly member is anything like the assorted collection of criminals and imbeciles who have represented that squalid little party at council level in the past, he/she is more likely to be a danger to themselves than the community.
Yet there are no criminals or imbeciles in the Labour Party are there? Cash For Honours anyone? No charges hmm what a surprise.
Even my Tory party aren’t exactly squeaky clean I admit so again why the cheap smear when the smear equally applies across the political board?
If we are going to debate politics can’t we be a bit more adult about it and discuss policy without reducing ourselves to such low levels?
What makes me smile is people make the case for PR being more democratic.
Yet when PR is implemented and a minority party manages to get 5% of the vote and therefore some representation, the same people are then up in arms about these minority parties having a say in councils.
Is what they really saying "I’m in favour of PR only as long as it favours my own party?"
Whatever our own personal views of these extreme parties, if they attract 5% of the popular vote, put another way 1 in 20 of those who voted, then surely those 5% have the right to have their views expressed?
Is that not the precept of democracy?
What makes me smile is people make the case for PR being more democratic.
Yet when PR is implemented and a minority party manages to get 5% of the vote and therefore some representation, the same people are then up in arms about these minority parties having a say in councils.
Is what they really saying "I’m in favour of PR only as long as it favours my own party?"
Whatever our own personal views of these extreme parties, if they attract 5% of the popular vote, put another way 1 in 20 of those who voted, then surely those 5% have the right to have their views expressed?
Is that not the precept of democracy?
Thats exactly my point democracy is democracy you cannot deny someone a democratic right. If you do that the whole concept of democracy is defeated. If you don’t have a democracy you will end up having a dictatorship either of the right or of the left (I don’t like the term extreme I think its misleading and often innacurate).
You have to have a level and fair playing field its the only way. Democracy has already been compromised by the lack of alternative in policy offered between Tory and Labour. That isn’t right and we cannot allow democracy to be compromised any further.
Yet there are no criminals or imbeciles in the Labour Party are there? Cash For Honours anyone? No charges hmm what a surprise.
Indeed, which is why I would never vote for a Labour party who’s leaders permitted such things to go on.
Even my Tory party aren’t exactly squeaky clean I admit so again why the cheap smear
Cheap smear? How many party leaders have a conviction for incitement to racial hatred? Or have stated that they believe the Holocaust was a lie? Or expressed their belief in the legitimacy of political violence? A brief scan of the internet will reveal that many BNP organisers and candidates either have convictions for violent/racial crimes or strong links to deeply unpleasant and racist groups such as Combat 18, Blood and Honour and the Ku Klux Klan. This isn’t hard to find and I won’t list it all here. If you want to know more, Flash, feel free to PM me.
The BNP is a party that doesn’t allow non-whites to join, does not regard non-whites born in this country as British, believes in paying people who were born here but aren’t white to go and resettle in other countries and is opposed to mixed race marriages. Read their manifesto and it all sounds very moderate and reasonable. They have learnt the lesson that if you want any chance of power, you have to temper your language and curb your extremism, at least on the surface. But then I don’t suppose Hitler ran on a manifesto of mass-murder. That is where he ended up because it was the logical conclusion of his political philosophy. If you want to know how a party will act in government, you don’t just go by their manifesto, you look at the character of the people leading it and try to understand their beliefs.
The BNP are what they are, what they have always been; a racist, homophobic and dangerous organisation. If you ignore where they have come from, you can have no idea about where they are going and it is naïve in the extreme to just go by their manifesto. David Cameron doesn’t. He and every other senior Tory condemns them at every opportunity.
And please don’t take this as an invitation to a prolonged BNP themed debate. TRF has seen enough of those over the years and frankly I haven’t the energy to spend hours at a time going over the same ground. You shouldn’t take it as an attack, either Flash, since I appreciate your political sincerity and I could never take a dislike to someone from your part of the world (unless you told me you were a Wolves fan!)
Yet there are no criminals or imbeciles in the Labour Party are there? Cash For Honours anyone? No charges hmm what a surprise.
Indeed, which is why I would never vote for a Labour party who’s leaders permitted such things to go on.
Even my Tory party aren’t exactly squeaky clean I admit so again why the cheap smear
Cheap smear? How many party leaders have a conviction for incitement to racial hatred? Or have stated that they believe the Holocaust was a lie? Or expressed their belief in the legitimacy of political violence? A brief scan of the internet will reveal that many BNP organisers and candidates either have convictions for violent/racial crimes or strong links to deeply unpleasant and racist groups such as Combat 18, Blood and Honour and the Ku Klux Klan. This isn’t hard to find and rather than outline it all here, you can read more here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/organisers/criminal.stm%5B/size:3dvi72po%5D%5Dhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/organisers/criminal.stm
The BNP is a party that doesn’t allow non-whites to join, does not regard non-whites born in this country as British, believes in paying people who were born here but aren’t white to go and resettle in other countries and is opposed to mixed race marriages. Read their manifesto and it all sounds very moderate and reasonable. They have learnt the lesson that if you want any chance of power, you have to temper your language and curb your extremism, at least on the surface. But then I don’t suppose Hitler ran on a manifesto of mass-murder. That is where he ended up because it was the logical conclusion of his political philosophy. If you want to know how a party will act in government, you don’t just go by their manifesto, you look at the character of the people leading it and try to understand their beliefs.
The BNP are what they are, what they have always been; a racist, homophobic and dangerous organisation. If you ignore where they have come from, you can have no idea about where they are going and it is naïve in the extreme to just go by their manifesto. David Cameron doesn’t. He and every other senior Tory condemns them at every opportunity.
And please don’t take this as an invitation to a prolonged BNP themed debate. TRF has seen enough of those over the years and frankly I haven’t the energy to spend hours at a time going over the same ground. You shouldn’t take it as an attack, either Flash, since I appreciate your political sincerity and I could never take a dislike to someone from your part of the world (unless you told me you were a Wolves fan!)
The establishment has been out to get Nick Griffin for years. He once said (and he was quite right) they would charge him with helping an old lady accross the road if they could get away with it.
The BNP was formed on the back of race issues like Labour were formed "for the working man" but parties evolve and times change.
I am quite deep into politics. One look at BNP members letters dispels the myth of racial hatred it simply isn’t true anymore. Yes there WILL be BNP members / supports who harbour racial hatred but believe me they are also present in the Conservative Party and probably (not that I have anything to do with the red side) within the Labour party also, inverted racism or otherwise.
Its far, far too simplistic to label. Lets not forget its Labour that run this country. The BBC is a British Broadcasting Corporation which is effectively under Labour control. Even Sky. It is Rupert Murdoch’s baby. Murdoch is a close personal friend of Tony Blair and was anm advisor of Blairs when he was in power. Is it any wonder the media slant is all left? People fear for their jobs if they don’t follow the guidelines that are set.
There is a huge difference between the modern day BNP and the National Front but if the media constantly tell someone that Garreth Barry is the best footballer in the world people will soon start to believe it and once mud sticks its difficult to shift.
If you want corrupt, illegal – look no further than the party that is currently running the country. They are hardly a moral example.
Labour have done everything they can to destroy the BNP but they can’t do it, that tells you its own story.
Look at policy and ignore smear.
On to more important things – me a W****s fan? You are heading for deep water son.
I am a Baggie through and through. I’m a Premiership Club supporter. 
Come to think of it is it possible to find anything worse than a Labour voting W****s fan? Ewww, what a thought, a Red Dingle!!
The media slant is all left? The Daily Mail? The Telegraph? The Times? Rupert Murdoch a leftie? Now I’ve heard everything. Presumably David Cameron is a leftie as well, because he also condemns the BNP.
And policy is the last thing you should look at. Policies come and go and for a party that is never going to get elected, they can say what they like. I am more interested in who they are and what they believe in.
Congratulations on your promotion to the Premier League, playing excellent football.
What a pity about the Dingles – another year in the Championship
This whole election and especially London has seen a massive revival in the Conservative Party-probably the biggest since the 1987 election.
By the 1992 election-we weren’t picking up any new volunteers and very few people were willing to put posters up.
At the start of this campaign-I had virtually no volunteers to work in my own ward-in the last 3 weeks-i’ve got at least 12 and most importantly that means mutual aid workers at by-elections and in the marginal seats at the next election.
I’ve already volunteered to work at the Crewe and Nantwich by-election in 17 days time-now we have the initiative we can’t lose it-will be the 1st out of London by-election i’ve worked on since 1991.
1992 is a good parallel. A tired government and a new leader lacking in charisma going for a fourth term. The difference being that the Tories have already found their Tony Blair.
Three terms is a long time for a government to be there, particularly one which started by abandoning it’s principles. I would be astonished if the Tories didn’t win next time.
Andrew the Conservatives are difting more towards the left by the year at the moment which I find worrying.
They aren’t far left by any means but they are no longer right of central IMO.
Another case of a party evolving.
The Conservatives are doing what they need to do to get elected. Appear to be a moderate, centrist party and sufficiently fresh and interesting in contrast to the tired Labour party. Had they done it before now, they might already have been in power.
It is precisely what Labour did under Blair. Find out what people in marginal constituencies want and then promise to give it to them, as though you were running a supermarket rather than a political party. In the past, parties coalesced around certain principles and their policies were derived from these principles, often after heated and prolonged debate. Now policies are thought up on the hoof and abandoned at the end of every news cycle. Blair did it and now Cameron is doing it.
But long term this is eroding people’s respect for or in interest in politics. PR would make it much harder for the parties to target their policies at certain key sectors of the vote and so force them to rediscover their political principles and hopefully end up with us having a choice.
Both, I would imagine, Marb. And no politician would last longer than five minutes without a degree of cynicism. Elections are a tough and dirty business and when it comes down to it, you do what you have to do to get elected.
Hopefully when that is done, there is something of substance there too, which was not the case with Blair.
Is cameron just in it for his own ends or do you think he would genunily like to change the country for the better?
Marb, the question is how?
What is Cameron’s ‘views’ on:
Current Fiscal Policy
Current Monetary Policy
The European Union
EU Migration to Britain
Non EU immigration to Britain
The Fuel Price Escalator
The 10% Tax Rate
The Iraq War
‘Supermarket’ Monopoly
Tax Rates of Non Domiciles
Current spending on Education
Current spending on the NHS
Prison Population
Court Guildlines from the Justice OfficeAs your a party activist I look forward to your detailed response.
I am a Baggie through and through. I’m a Premiership Club supporter. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.