Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The programme showed up the lack of any vision from Paddick and Johnson. Simply saying you are going to sort out London's problems, with little of idea of how to do it, is pathetic.


I think Paddick's rather cute in a sort of ex-copper way and none other the candidates would be seen with their tops off in a nightclub. I just think there is some other role for him outside of party politics. He seems straightkjacketed by having to toe the party line and comes across as wooden.


Boris a buffoon. No matter how much the papers try to big him up. He would be a disaster.


I thought this was Paxman at his best.

Have just watched it


Paddick seems a bit too reactionary to me - willing to expose the loopholes in the policy making of others but with ill-defined stances himself in many areas. The areas in which he's strong minded seem to be the areas which could do with a little discussion and moderation.


All of the negative points that this thread has highlighted about Boris were amply demonstrated, Paxman using his patented technique of bullishly handing out just enough rope.


For me, it's a one horse race.

so who do we vote for then? I want to vote but there are no real options. Green party could be a good option but as someone mentioned having someone whose every move has to be agreed by a commitee as the Green party does, it kind of dilutes decision making. Also there is the fear that if I vote Green, Boris will get in.

I do find Boris funny but also agree his bumbling loveability is an act and I certainly dont want him to be in a position of any power or influence. Someone smart and reasonable tell me who to vote for! (I think that pretty much means you Sean eheheh)

Alan Dale Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think a sensible vote would be one that ensures

> our next mayor doesn't describe black people as

> picanninies.


So you could vote for the man that calls a Jewish journalist no better than a concentration camp guard.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Dale Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think a sensible vote would be one that

> ensures

> > our next mayor doesn't describe black people as

> > picanninies.

>

> So you could vote for the man that calls a Jewish

> journalist no better than a concentration camp

> guard.


Come off it MM. I've read enough of your posts on the forum to know you're not that silly to take that story at face value. Firstly, Ken was steaming drunk and we all say daft things then. Secondly, he didn't know the reporter was Jewish - how would you (unless he wears a kippah on paparazzi detail)? And thirdly, Ken was referring to the fact that the reporter worked for Associated Newspapers, sympathisers of the Nazi regime in the 30s, and so therefore he was no better than a camp guard with the "just following orders" excuse.


It wasn't the cleverest thing to come out with but it doesn't really compare to the rather unpleasant undertones in the Johnson "picaninies" furore. In the article in question, Johnson mocked Tony Blair's brief visits to world troublespots, acting as "SuperTony", bringing peace to the world while the UK deteriorated; Blair would arrive as "the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief", just as "it is said the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies".


Frankly I find that a lot more unpleasant and not far short of thinly veiled racism.

Ken is drunk on power. He thinks he can do what he wants, is profligate with his cash and is a crony magnet par excellence. Boris will be on his best behaviour because his Tory betters will need him to produce results so that they can oust Brown and co in a few year's time. Boris for Mayor! Nero

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>> >

> Come off it MM. I've read enough of your posts on

> the forum to know you're not that silly to take

> that story at face value. Firstly, Ken was

> steaming drunk and we all say daft things then.

> Secondly, he didn't know the reporter was Jewish -

> how would you (unless he wears a kippah on

> paparazzi detail)? And thirdly, Ken was referring

> to the fact that the reporter worked for

> Associated Newspapers, sympathisers of the Nazi

> regime in the 30s, and so therefore he was no

> better than a camp guard with the "just following

> orders" excuse.

>

> It wasn't the cleverest thing to come out with but

> it doesn't really compare to the rather unpleasant

> undertones in the Johnson "picaninies" furore. In

> the article in question, Johnson mocked Tony

> Blair's brief visits to world troublespots, acting

> as "SuperTony", bringing peace to the world while

> the UK deteriorated; Blair would arrive as "the

> tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon

> smiles to see the big white chief", just as "it is

> said the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth,

> partly because it supplies her with regular

> cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies".

>

> Frankly I find that a lot more unpleasant and not

> far short of thinly veiled racism.



I wouldn't even say it was thinly veiled.


BTW - Although Ken's words where perhaps ill chosen, surely the sentiment was fair enough? Isn't it analaogous to saying a black person is capable of racism etc ? I understand that in the immediate aftermath of the remark, Ken was both lauded AND condemned by members of London's Jewish community.

Ok folks, let's deconstruct what Boris said. He's alluding to unsavoury old-world values and words to satirise Blair and the Queen. He is not racist, but he's referring to racism. So Boris is not racist. He's a loundmouth, but that's what politicians are. Ken is not good for London anymore. The GLA needs a good shake-up, otherwise it will end up like the GLC. Nero

tinagwee Wrote:

-- Also there is the fear

> that if I vote Green, Boris will get in.

>

As I understand it (sorry I don't have the correct terminology to hand - its a bit early for me), you have 2 votes, so if you vote Greens first and Ken second, then you'll not be voting for Boris.

I have detials of 7 people in London who will not be voting. I try not to vote, it only encourages these parasites, but I am willing to spend a day trundling about and vote in these 7 peoples names in any way I like


Whats it worth for Snorky to vote for your favoured candidate ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
    • I'd quit this thread, let those who just want to slag Labour off have their own thread.  Your views on the economy are worth debating.  I'm just stunned how there wasn't this level of noise with the last government.  I could try to get some dirt on Badenoch but she is pointless  Whilst I am not a fan of the Daily Mirror at least there is some respite from Labour bashing. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/grenfell-hillsborough-families-make-powerful-36175862 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-facing-parliamentary-investigation-36188612  
    • That is a bit cake and eat it tho, isn’t it?    At what point do we stop respecting other people’s opinions and beliefs  because history shows us we sometimes simply have no other choice  you are holding some comfort blanket that allows you to believe we are all equal and all valid and we can simply voice different options - without that ever  impacting on the real world  Were the racists we fought in previous generations different? Were their beliefs patronised by the elites of the time? Or do we learn lessons and avoid mistakes of the past?   racists/bigots having “just as much to say” is both true and yet, a thing we have learnt from the past. The lesson was not “ooh let’s hear them out. They sound interesting and valid and as worthy of an audience as people who hold the opposite opinion” 
    • I don't have a beef with you. But I do have a beef with people who feel that a certain portion of the public's opinion isn't valid.  I don't like racism any more than anyone else here. But I do dislike the idea that an individual's thoughts, beliefs and feelings, no matter how much I may disagree with them, are somehow worth less than my own.  And I get the sense that that is what many disenfranchised voters are feeling - that they are being looked down upon as ignorant, racists who have no right to be in the conversation. And that's what brings out people on the margins and drives them towards extremes, like Reform.  Whether you like it or not, the racist, bigot, anti-european nextdoor to you has just as much say in the country as you do. Intellectual superiority is never going to bring them round. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...