Boris Johnson becomes the Mayor of London

[Linkinbassist]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7380947.stm

What do we think?

[PerpetualBurn]

I think his bumbling fool act is half a cleverly crafted image and half bumbling fool.

I think his highest office was something like shadow arts minister (correct me if I'm wrong) and so this is a stupidly big leap.

I think he'll make a hash of the whole thing, but it'll be ****ing hilarious and I look forward to it because I don't live in London and don't intend to.

[peeted]

How? How can the people of londen elect a man who has said such things as

"The proposed ban on incitement to “religious hatred” make no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself. "

"Yes, cannabis is dangerous, but no more than other perfectly legal drugs. It's time for a rethink, and the Tory party - the funkiest, most jiving party on Earth - is where it's happening."

" I don't see why people are so snooty about Channel 5. It has some respectable documentaries about the Second World War. It also devotes considerable airtime to investigations into lap dancing, and other related and vital subjects."

"Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."

etc.

He is funny, he is likeable, but that doesnt qualify you to be the mayor of london.

[Der Übermensch]

How? How can the people of londen elect a man who has said such things as

"The proposed ban on incitement to “religious hatred” make no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself. "

"Yes, cannabis is dangerous, but no more than other perfectly legal drugs. It's time for a rethink, and the Tory party - the funkiest, most jiving party on Earth - is where it's happening."
" I don't see why people are so snooty about Channel 5. It has some respectable documentaries about the Second World War. It also devotes considerable airtime to investigations into lap dancing, and other related and vital subjects."
"Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."
etc.
He is funny, he is likeable, but that doesnt qualify you to be the mayor of london.

Well, #1 is irresponsible at the least, but #2 is spot on - as far as the legal drugs thing goes. Don't know about #3, but #4 is a pretty good thing to say. No more absurd that the Raving Loonies, and they won a number of elections back in the day, no?

[Aaron]

"Lets get cracking tomorrow and let's have a drink tonight"

:lol:

I'd vote for him.

[peeted]

Yea, the point is that he is a buffoon, it is acceptable to have a buffoon as some shadow minister who apers on have i got news for you etc, but i dont think a buffoon should occupy a position such as mayor of london.

Having said that i have to agree with pb that waching him **** the whole thing up will be hilarious.

[Aaron]

It's his team that's important, not his speeches.

[PerpetualBurn]

No more absurd that the Raving Loonies, and they won a number of elections back in the day, no?

They, on occasions, have won seats in elections. It's hardly the same thing at all.

[dei]

You can't go wrong with a man named Boris.

[Der Übermensch]

They, on occasions, have won seats in elections. It's hardly the same thing at all.

Well, they didn't have anything as big as Mayor of London, but my point is merely that parties have had some pretty crazy platforms, and someone obviously got behind it.

[Aaron]

Google "Mark Latham" if you want crazy/awesome.

[GurS]

Oh, joy... the greatest city in the world gets to be run by a ****ing joke for the next four years.

[1338 h4x0r]

Oh, joy... the greatest city in the world gets to be run by a ****ing joke for the next four years.

You'll understand what Bush was like

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, they didn't have anything as big as Mayor of London, but my point is merely that parties have had some pretty crazy platforms, and someone obviously got behind it.

No one would elect them in any place they could really make a difference though.

[Futue te Ipsum]

You can't go wrong with a man named Boris.Yes, you really can.

We need Ian Hislop as mayor, tbh.

[Linkinbassist]

I actually think he can make a difference.

I think he's shaped up and he's become less of an electoral liability. Lets see how this first year pans out...

[2muchket!]

Well I dont live in London so the comedic value of him out weighs the negatives tbh

[Futue te Ipsum]

Well I dont live in London so the comedic value of him out weighs the negatives tbhyeah it's not like london subsidises the rest of this country

oh wait :p

[Linkinbassist]

yeah it's not like london subsidises the rest of this country

oh wait :p

he's gonna have to behave more like a politician, if you get me. I like his off-the-cuff sayings but i think he'll actually implement policy that will work. he's got a great vision, for an indecisive man...

[fingers mccoy]

yeh this really sucks, i find it hard to agree with this guy on anything

[Futue te Ipsum]

what does that have to do with london subsidising the rest of the uk? :p

[deathscreamingsheep]

Ideally I would vote for a more Conservative inclined London mayor, but I just don't see that Boris has the experience for this job. Ken, whilst his actions are extremely dubious: his support for Cuba, his welcoming of radical islamic clerics who advocate killing homosexuals etc are extremely unsavoury, the fact remains that he has consistantly delivered with new schemes for example the introduction of the Oyster card, congestion charge, the beginnings of the infrastructure for the Olympics etc.

Tbh I'm more worried that the BNP managed to get enough votes to get one of the 25 seats on the General London Assembly.

[Stevie II]

hurrah! people will regret this

[totah]

No one would elect them in any place they could really make a difference though.

Here's how I see it:

Eight years ago Red Ken was elected and he made the busses run on thyme. Now that everything is slightly more hunky-dory than it was with the previous mayor (no idea who that was, but probably a Tory from Major's time), all that Londoners want is a politician for their mayor who isn't so serious as RK and they can have a good laugh at. If you're gonna have this whole ridiculous system, you may as well have it with funny guys.

And the funniest thing of it all? These elections saw a record turnout of voters, 45%. Talk about representative.

[Curve]

I thought Ken was the first London mayor? I think the title of mayor or london is pretty new itself. But anyway Boris Johnson will probably manage to ruin quite a lot of what Ken has managed to do (he's in charge of £22 billion :( ), but Boris may get rid of the congestion charge so :thumb:

[PerpetualBurn]

And the funniest thing of it all? These elections saw a record turnout of voters, 45%. Talk about representative.

Low turnouts don't necessarily indicate a failure of democracy.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I thought Ken was the first London mayor? I think the title of mayor or london is pretty new itself. But anyway Boris Johnson will probably manage to ruin quite a lot of what Ken has managed to do (he's in charge of £22 billion :( ), but Boris may get rid of the congestion charge so :thumb:Speaking as somebody who spends a lot of time in central london:

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT REMOVING THAT CHARGE

[Linkinbassist]

Speaking as somebody who spends a lot of time in central london:

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT REMOVING THAT CHARGE

he's not going to. He is, however, going to reform the payment system to a 'monthly tab' system...

[totah]

Low turnouts don't necessarily indicate a failure of democracy.

No, they indicate that whoever is claiming to represent the will of the British people is actually representing the will of the people who voted for him, out of the total of 45%. Like, Labour is actually running on a mandate of 29% of the population, or something similar, because only 50% of the voting-capable population actually turned out to vote last general elections.

Speaking as somebody who spends a lot of time in central london:

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT REMOVING THAT CHARGE

Hear hear! He's not going to remove it, tories love traffic money. In the area my parents lived in the new tory council (at the time) took out most of the speed bumps and replaced them with speed cameras. Also they painted double yellows on practically every street in the borough. Some guy woke up to find a huge ticket in his windscreen and a yellow line that wasn't there yesterday, with two gaps where the painter went around his wheels.

[siva_chair]

This guy sounds hilarious.

[Untitled]

Speaking as somebody who spends a lot of time in central london:

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT REMOVING THAT CHARGE

Boris wont get rid of the congestion charge, they probably just wont implement the proposed £25 charge to "gaz guzzlers"

I do believe you are all forgeting on thing.

If Boris ****s this up, the torys have had it at the next election, so im sure Camaron will be watching over him like a hawk making sure he does say, or do anything too stupid.

He has a great personality though, and is funny, have to see how he does i guess.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Boris wont get rid of the congestion charge, they probably just wont implement the proposed £25 charge to "gaz guzzlers"

I do believe you are all forgeting on thing.

If Boris ****s this up, the torys have had it at the next election, so im sure Camaron will be watching over him like a hawk making sure he does say, or do anything too stupid.

He has a great personality though, and is funny, have to see how he does i guess.come on, the election is basically theirs for the taking regardless.

[Untitled]

come on, the election is basically theirs for the taking regardless.

Maybe so, but do you really think Camaron is going to willingly sit back and to let him do as he likes, when he may pose a problem?

[Futue te Ipsum]

ken was allowed to :p

but I guess you're right. Not that I trust cameron either.

[totah]

If nobody's noticed, the Labour and the Tories have been consistently switching every four terms, the first three terms being served by a "charismatic leader" and the last by some "servile half-breed". For examples of the latter see John Major and Gordon Brown. So in fourteen years' time we'll see who the Tories has to put up as their next "servile half-breed".

Not that it matters since they carry off exactly the same policies as the Opposition anyway.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, they indicate that whoever is claiming to represent the will of the British people is actually representing the will of the people who voted for him, out of the total of 45%. Like, Labour is actually running on a mandate of 29% of the population, or something similar, because only 50% of the voting-capable population actually turned out to vote last general elections.

This isn't necessarily an indication of anything wrong with the voting system.

[mph4ever]

at least they turned out to vote and their vote was considered to be valid and that whoever won did so on the basis of being the most popular person among those who wished to exercise their democratic right. i suspect it will be the same in the next british general election

(unlike fla, where 9 judges decided the will of the democracy):naughty:

anybody ever read the spectator? gives you a good insight to boris. hes a bright bloke but only 44 or so, nice to see some youth getting to a high office, pity it wouldn't happen in politics more. it might bring some innvovation and ideas from your generation more to the forefront instead of fossils like mccain or tokens like hilary and obama

[Futue te Ipsum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84CRGnfIilI&feature=related

this is what boris should stick to :p

[PerpetualBurn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA

Boris Johnson's greatest moment.

[totah]

This isn't necessarily an indication of anything wrong with the voting system.

If you mean the methods they use to gather and count votes; then you're right, it doesn't. However:

at least they turned out to vote and their vote was considered to be valid and that whoever won did so on the basis of being the most popular person among those who wished to exercise their democratic right.

So less than 50% of those who still clutch the centuries-old (in Britain anyway) idealism of representative democracy turn out to vote and you call it a good result? It should be a 100% voluntary turnout! Though I can see that's unfair 'cos there's always gonna be party-people and couch-potatos who can't be bothered. I'd be willing to acknowledge a 70% turnout, or any reasonable majority for that matter.

But less than half of the population wanted to vote, which means that either we have A LOT of party people and couch potatos, or people are simply fed up with this way of doing things and aren't bothering anymore. I know it's hard to let go of popular and established ideas (as demonstrated by Winnie the Pooh's unwillingness to let go of his balloon, even though it was rising quickly into the sky with him hanging from the string), but at least from you, Andy, I would have expected a firm grip on what's true.

The fact is that while in theory and elsewhere this system may have worked, in Britain it is not working because there is too much of what appears to be disillusionment and apathy for it to work. I don't know how it got this way, 'cos back in the day people would turn out in their dozens of millions to vote, but I can take a guess at what caused it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Low turnouts at ballots don't mean anything by themselves.

It could be a very good sign.

[totah]

You're being very vague in your posts, please detail it a bit for me.

'Cos as I see it, the main thing that these consistently low turnouts signify is a widespread unwillingness to participate in this representative parliamentarianism. What do you think they signify?

[Smokey D]

Local body elections shouldn't be held to be representative of parliamentarianism.

[PerpetualBurn]

That people don't turn up in record numbers to vote might just signify contentment.

[Ganondorf]

Boris Johnson is a moron...black people are ''piccaninies'' with ''water melon smiles''...

"if gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."


Idiots say the funniest things.

[totah]

Local body elections shouldn't be held to be representative of parliamentarianism.

I was also referring to the last general elections in the UK when only 50% of the country turned out to vote.

That people don't turn up in record numbers to vote might just signify contentment.

It could signify a lot of things, if you take it like that. Seeing as we have (so far in this argument) no clue as to how most people feel about their lives (socially, financially, morally) then that's a pretty big, black, information hole to fill up with anything you might care to mention. Maybe 50% of the British population was too busy copulating last year to bother turning out to vote. Or maybe they were all playing a massive online game of CS but all the nerds missed out 'cos they were at the polling stations. All we do is either guess according to how we perceive reality, or we could reasonably speculate according to direct experience:

Most people I've seen in the places where I've been (whether living or visiting) in the UK were pretty poor, had to work loads and still rely on benefits to pay the rent. Most of them who I talked to about mainstream politics (though admittedly I don't talk to many people about it 'cos it's boring and irrelevant) expressed the general view that they don't give a damn and would rather talk about something else. They none of them seemed very happy and comfortable in their lives, at least not as happy and smiley as the people who walk around Golders Green and Knightsbridge and Isle of Dogs and Brighton and Edinburgh and mainstreet Leeds. So I applied my experience of the British working class (which isn't huge, but I presume it to be representative of most of the working class in the UK, which is the majority of the population) to this phenomenon of non-voter turnout.

"if gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."

Lawl. That's reasoning for a politician.

[PerpetualBurn]

It could signify a lot of things, if you take it like that.

Yeah, that's exactly why you shouldn't get fixated on a single statistic like that.

And I'm glad you're so much more in tune with the common man than me. Obviously I've lived too much of a life of luxury...

[mph4ever]

So less than 50% of those who still clutch the centuries-old (in Britain anyway) idealism of representative democracy turn out to vote and you call it a good result?

never said it was a good result. i said it was a result indicative of the will of the people who bothered to turn out. for london, knowing it as i do, i would have said that close on 50% was good.


It should be a 100% voluntary turnout! Though I can see that's unfair 'cos there's always gonna be party-people and couch-potatos who can't be bothered. I'd be willing to acknowledge a 70% turnout, or any reasonable majority for that matter.

are you suggesting that a percentage turnout should make a vote valid or not?

less than half of the population[/I] wanted to vote, which means that either we have A LOT of party people and couch potatos, or people are simply fed up with this way of doing things and aren't bothering anymore. I know it's hard to let go of popular and established ideas (as demonstrated by Winnie the Pooh's unwillingness to let go of his balloon, even though it was rising quickly into the sky with him hanging from the string), but at least from you, Andy, I would have expected a firm grip on what's true.

The fact is that while in theory and elsewhere this system may have worked, in Britain it is not working because there is too much of what appears to be disillusionment and apathy for it to work. I don't know how it got this way, 'cos back in the day people would turn out in their dozens of millions to vote, but I can take a guess at what caused it.
some people have become immune to the pressures of democracy. i am sure they don't even understand what it means to have a democratic right. the focus of media is on the few and as such people feel that their opinion does not count. also, if the press suggest that a politician has the popular vote and that the policies are in line with your prinicples, then you might as well stay at home because everyone else is going to vote them in anyway.

maybe only 50% voted but perhaps the vote is representative of more than 50% of the population. like any poll, we can extrapolate the results. the winner still wins.

[totah]

And you don't see a problem with someone claiming to represent the will of the majority when most of the people didn't vote for her?

[PerpetualBurn]

Abstaining is a legitimate voting option.

[fingers mccoy]

thank god someone said it

[mph4ever]

And you don't see a problem with someone claiming to represent the will of the majority when most of the people didn't vote for her?

in that particular scenario i can only think of one example and you will find that she is a he, the year 2000, the state florida and of course, the slimebag was georgie bush


Abstaining is a legitimate voting option.

abstaining is also a legitimate way of staying sober

being an anarchist i say fu'ck the vote, doesn't stop me talking about it though

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm not trying to stop you talking about it.

[mph4ever]

i know that

[Futue te Ipsum]

being an anarchist i say fu'ck the vote, doesn't stop me talking about it thoughthat'll get things changed man

fight the power

[mph4ever]

that'll get things changed man

fight the power

i'm not sure understand. who cares. same government, different politician.

i don't vote, not because the candidates happen to be idiots, more because i don't believe in it. i have figured out how to live alongside, theres way too many sheep to try and change it

once again, fu'ck the vote

[Smokey D]

Ngh, just because we don't want to abolish liberal democracy doesn't mean we are sheep. There are plenty of reasons for maintaining parliamentary democracy and there are plenty of ways to reform it without abolishing it.

[mph4ever]

liberal democracy? i am sure they exist but i just can't think where. are there many of them around? i know democracy exists in a few places, but liberal ones, thats a toughie.

[Smokey D]

A liberal democracy is one which recognises the value of individuals simply because they are individuals and doesn't add other requirements for political value.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't think you understand what "liberal democracy" means.

[totah]

Abstaining is a legitimate voting option.

For sure. I wasn't arguing against abstaining. I was just thinking that in a system of government in which the responsibility to govern our own lives can be voluntarily handed over to a politician (this is what I see voting as), and up until recently was willingly given as part of the social contract, what should happen when the majority of people decide not to give their consent to be governed?

A liberal democracy is one which recognises the value of individuals simply because they are individuals and doesn't add other requirements for political value.

Assuming that means it also recognises the importance of individual health and happiness to the overall health and happiness of the rest of society, then it is incompatible with a capitalist economic structure which creates inequality in bucketloads.

[PerpetualBurn]

For sure. I wasn't arguing against abstaining. I was just thinking that in a system of government in which the responsibility to govern our own lives can be voluntarily handed over to a politician (this is what I see voting as), and up until recently was willingly given as part of the social contract, what should happen when the majority of people decide not to give their consent to be governed?


Abstaining to vote is not withdrawal of consent to be governed. At all. Not even slightly.

[Smokey D]

Assuming that means it also recognises the importance of individual health and happiness to the overall health and happiness of the rest of society, then it is incompatible with a capitalist economic structure which creates inequality in bucketloads.

No, there's nothing automatic about that.

And I don't think you should recognise a right to happiness. All you can recognise is a right to pursue happiness.

And also, withdrawing consent to be governed, I would think, requires that you actively say you don't want to be governed. But consent models of government are pretty silly really.

[totah]

No, there's nothing automatic about that.

What do you mean, automatic? You've lost me in one post. :p

And I don't think you should recognise a right to happiness. All you can recognise is a right to pursue happiness.

Definitely. Happiness is nothing without the struggle towards it.

And also, withdrawing consent to be governed, I would think, requires that you actively say you don't want to be governed. But consent models of government are pretty silly really.

Why are they silly? Isn't government, very essentially, a social contract (between governor and governed)? And isn't a contract a mutual agreement (ie. not based in coercion or obedience)?

Abstaining to vote is not withdrawal of consent to be governed. At all. Not even slightly.

Within a dictatorial system declaring your autonomy from the government would seem the reasonable thing to do if you considered yourself ungovernable. But within a democratic voting system surely abstaining from a vote could very well mean that (as well as what you mentioned)?

[PerpetualBurn]

No.

Declaring that you do not wish to be governed would be removing your consent (not that that would really have any effect unless you had many people with you).

Not voting is not voting.

It isn't saying that you do not recognise the government's right to govern.

[Volumnius Flush]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7380947.stm

What do we think?

I think the Boris's have it. If your name is Boris, go into politics.

[Smokey D]

What do you mean, automatic? You've lost me in one post. :p

I mean that given parliamentary democracy, it doesn't follow that there will necessarily be a decline in happiness and health.

Definitely. Happiness is nothing without the struggle towards it.

That wasn't really my point. I'm more talking about the fact that a right to happiness creates a duty in both the government and citizens to make other people happy, which is totally infeasible, whereas a right to pursue happiness just prevents people from putting any restrictions on it.

Why are they silly? Isn't government, very essentially, a social contract (between governor and governed)? And isn't a contract a mutual agreement (ie. not based in coercion or obedience)?

No, social contracts are a lie. We don't contract to be governed and it's a mystification that confuses the purpose and nature of government to pretend we do. The purpose of government is to expedite process whereby the will of the majority is realised and to protect the rights of individuals against individuals who would prey on them. It has nothing to do with consent.

Within a dictatorial system declaring your autonomy from the government would seem the reasonable thing to do if you considered yourself ungovernable. But within a democratic voting system surely abstaining from a vote could very well mean that (as well as what you mentioned)?

Well it could, but it could also signify a whole lot of other things. There are far more obvious ways to signify the retraction of your consent, although I don't think the government is under any obligation to listen to you if the rest of society still favours government.