Can anyone explain exactly what the fuss..

(69 Posts)
HappydaysArehere Sat 09-Aug-14 09:54:21

Can anyone explain what Boris has done for London. The bus has not been an overall success but costs us Londoners a fortune., the bikes are no longer funded by Barclays perhaps because they are referred to as Boris bikes!! They have been the cause of deaths and I am more frightened of them than lorries and buses since I nearly had my lot as one disregarded a crossing and charged towards me. That river crossing is underused and has cost a fortune. The Olympics was gained by Ken Livingstons efforts but he is good at taking credit for other peoples work. He famously doesn't do detail and when at a loss for an answer he blubs, blubs away or throws in a Greek phrase or two. Is he really Prime Minister material? I hope the answer doesn't come when it's too late to realise that entertainment doesn't make for good government.

HappydaysArehere Sat 09-Aug-14 10:02:52

By the way I meant Boris took the credit for the Olympics although Ken Livingstone worked hard to get them. Apparently Ken had trouble getting ticket!

claig Sat 09-Aug-14 10:07:41

'Is he really Prime Minister material?'

I don't think he is. He puts his foot in his mouth too often and sometimes even borders on being insulting to other countries in some of his jokey speeches. A Prime Minister has to represent the entire United Kingdom abroad and that requires diplomatic skills. Tomfoolery and buffoonery at that level is not good for the country.

claig Sat 09-Aug-14 10:27:59

'Can anyone explain exactly what the fuss..'

I think his popularity is symptomatic of the low esteem in which our political class of spinners is held by most of the public. They are so out of touch and so divorced from ordinary people's concerns and so powerless (as the EU makes the important laws), that they crave public support by embracing jokers and clowns and comedians. Labour bigwigs are photographed with Eddie Izzard in a vain attempt to win back public support, but the effect is the exact opposite and the public only mock them even more.

Their public approval has got so low that they would endorse Donald Duck or Charlie Chaplin for Prime Minister if a focus group told them they were more popular than the rest of them. But, paradoxically, that is exactly why the public has lost faith in them and they have lost all credibility.

The public seeks conviction not clowning. But none of them have any conviction - apart from the new star on the block, Nigel Farage, which explains his real popularity with a large portion of the public.

HappydaysArehere Sat 09-Aug-14 14:58:48

Wow, I couldn't agree more. My only fear is that so many voters are talking about Boris as a breath of fresh air". This is the man who is anything but in the excerpts I have seen from London assembly meetings. This is the man who thinks nothing of doing the dirty on his wife so would I trust him? I wouldn't buy a second hand car from him. I only hope you are correct about the public seeking conviction not clowning otherwise we will walk into a voting disaster. On a daily basis there is constant talk about Boris's political ambitions. Thank you for your excellent posting. It has cheered me up no end.

DiaDuit Sat 09-Aug-14 15:03:21

he really isn't prime minister material and it would be a sad day (sadder than when shiny dave got it) if he were to become PM. in fact I think it's pretty sad that he is even being talked about as PM. has it really come to that? that's what we have on offer to us? embarrassing. please let some fresh new faces arrive on the scene and turn the shit around.

HappydaysArehere Sun 10-Aug-14 09:21:15

Thanks DiaDuit. Just turned LBC on. Once more they are giving this self seeking, devious wannabe publicity. The "magic" of the man etc. etc. I could weep.

HappydaysArehere Sun 10-Aug-14 09:36:20

Also, got a horrible feeling that it is going to be the drip, drip, effect. The idea that if people are exposed to the idea long enough it will become the truth. So many people don't appear to explore further than the headlines. Agree about "shiny Dave" the PR man with little else to offer who shelters himself by surrounding himself with "mates ". No wonder people disengage with politics. My fear is that votes could go to Boris precisely for that reason. Help, help.

WetAugust Sun 10-Aug-14 22:45:38

Boris is not PM material. I am uncertain as to whether the Tory party really would be dopey enough to think Boris would be an election winner for them, but who knows, they were after all dazzled by shiny Dave and his rather ordinary ability to speak without notes!

If they do elect Boris s their leader it would just be an act of desperation from a party.

Read an interesting article today that said that Boris would wait until dave's promised EU referendum and then campaign for a NO vote while Cameron campaigns for a YES, then loses the referendum and Boris takes over as Tory leader.

A bit too convoluted I think.

WetAugust Sun 10-Aug-14 22:46:43

Well you mY be right because it was drip drip drip that got Camilla accepted by he public

claig Sun 10-Aug-14 23:15:04

The Mail is joining in the hype over Boris today. Nadine Dorries is backing him. The media will probably swing to his favour. Lots of Conservatives are not too keen, including on the Mail, but the Tories are probably so desperate to find someone popular that they may go for it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721275/I-want-I-says-Boris-polls-clear-favourite-Tory-leader.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720896/Revealed-Tory-MPs-plot-dump-Dave-Boris-100-MPs-ready-vote-Queen-s-Speech-forcing-Prime-Minister-resign.html

He is playing a more Eurosceptic card, but I don't think that is for real. However, Boris can flipflop and get away with it.

HappydaysArehere Mon 11-Aug-14 08:14:51

There it is again. Just put the radio on. Nick Farari on LBC quoting Bariness Warsi banging on about the Conservatives not getting in as they are ignoring ethnic vote BUT he says "has she forgotten the Boris factor?" How much more publicity is he getting from his old mates? Claiig thanks for the info about the Mail but not surprised about Nadine, that woman courts publicity like a hound dog and Wet August that is a good example. Another was the constant demand for a knighthood for Bruce Forsythe. Hey, there's the answer a knighthood for Boris, kick him upstairs so he can't do too much harm. That article Wet mentions sounds interesting or should I say horrifying! Thanks everyone I began to think I was the only person who wasn't bathing in the magic light cast by Boris.

Isitmebut Mon 11-Aug-14 15:41:42

Boris needs a song.

What was Blair/Brown's: "Things can only get better". Hmmm.

Boris came in to London when, 2008, after Ken Livingstone (2000-2008)had all the money to spend but brought in the Congestion Tax, pretty Labour par for the course e.g. Council Tax up over 110% under Labour.

Boris had to run London after the 'money party' was over, and the 'punchbowl' was well and truly broken.

No one likes the spending/debt party poopers, as little to give away.

Is there a song 'it could have been a lot 'kin worse'?

WetAugust Mon 11-Aug-14 16:38:23

The Who did Boris the Spider back in the 60s.

Quite appropriate

HappydaysArehere Mon 11-Aug-14 19:27:05

Think Boris's song could be Spend, Spend, Spend And I Can Only Look Better!

Isitmebut Tue 12-Aug-14 11:53:31

HappydaysArehere ……. A Boris “spend, spend, spend” is interesting, and as I left London over 30-years ago and don’t follow the annual affairs of London, please tell us what you mean.

I'll tell you why, as in my experience most people fail to see the long term economic difference of ££billions of taxpayers money being lavished on fat intrusive Quango-esk government/salaries, with the projects that creates private sector employment and over time helps creates sustainable economic growth e.g via infrastructure.

As an example of ‘the before’, Ken Livingston who did some good things e.g. Oyster cards, in a time when it should have been obvious London needed housing, had space cadet plans to launch a taxpayer funded London satellite in space to ‘monitor’ things on the ground, and have mobile phone calls go through it. Probably the time Labour were still looking to lock people up for 90-days without trial, IN CASE the security services needed it. Hmmm.

www.standard.co.uk/news/ken-livingstones-12m-space-mission-to-spy-on-drivers-7187159.html

Indeed Ken was well into a big fat subsidized by someone State, hence his relationship with the state controlled prices Venezuelan El-Presidenti Hugo Chavez, and with so much in common looked to trade a bit of their oil with our inability to upgrade our own London transport system, ‘expertise’.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100205661/hugo-chavez-ken-livingstone-and-me/

As I say, Livingstone’s 2000-2008 time in office came within what the BoE Governor called ‘the nice decade’, which was an understatement as that decade that ended in early 2008 was by good fortune a global boom, with stable inflation and lowing interest rates, was the best time to solve many of our social problems and make the proletariats life so much better – what a shame they fucked it up and left a £157 billion annual overspend.

So I reiterate, whatever Boris achieved ‘it could have been a lot worse’, as whether a socialist mayor or government, they can’t function, so once the money has run, out taxes for everyone go higher, businesses in the largest recession in 100-years would have suffered/closed = less jobs & taxes to fund big spending plans = ever larger national debt, on the Road to Athens.

longfingernails Tue 12-Aug-14 22:33:50

Boris would be a disaster as PM. He hasn't done a great deal for London, beyond small cuts in council tax - but he hasn't massively screwed up either. In any case he is a darn sight better than the divisive Ken Livingstone, whose willingness to associate with the likes of Lutfur Rahman is truly appalling.

I think Labour will easily win the next Mayoral election, unless they put up someone truly awful.

HappydaysArehere Wed 13-Aug-14 09:37:20

Thanks Isitmebut for joining in the discussion. What I was thinking of was the spending on the new buses which have cost a fortune but have met with a lot of criticsm eg break downs, cooling system not sufficient so frying the passengers. Then the bike system which is now paid for by us not Barcladys. The roads in London are totally inappropriate for their use. Hence the large loss of life which cyclists have experienced. This has led to more expense being demanded in a vain attempt to reduce the carnage. The fact is if you allow anyone to pick up a bike and set off in London's teeming, crowded set up you are asking for trouble. I was quite serious when I said earlier I was terrified of them. When I use the crossings I expect the lights to be obeyed by the traffic. However, it is common for bikes to totally ignore the signals and come whizzing along shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way. The last time I had this happen to me the following cyclist was shouting at the first who had missed me only because I managed to skip out of the way (a feat which is not easy at my age). Then the river crossing another hugely expensive undertaking but so underused that it has become a joke when he is asked on the radio about its use. The point I was trying to make was that Boris appears to attach his name to projects which promote him. You see him anywhere it will give him publicity but he never engages with union leaders, refused point blank to meet up with Bob Crowe etc even when strikes were at their most dire. Now Livingstone couldn't stand Crowe but he did make a point of making sure he met up with him. Boris appears to enjoy life and always takes the more easy and more agreeable option. If he is so popular why does he need a safe seat to transfer him back to Parliament?
I appreciate your other points and will try to answer them next but as this is so long winded I will read them again and respond shortly. Thanks again.

HappydaysArehere Wed 13-Aug-14 09:49:34

About to go to London now and face the hazards of bikes as I struggle to get across Trafalgar Square. Will say that Trafalgar Square is a revelation of renewal since Ken got rid of the pigeons and made the set up appropriate for various events. Will continue later......if I survive.

Isitmebut Wed 13-Aug-14 13:11:27

HappydaysARE here …. For the record, I have said on another thread that I do not believe that Boris would eventually make a good PM, based on the ‘noise’ that seems to surround him, but I suspect those outside the Conservatives are more worried about the prospect, as they seem to protesteth-eth eth so much.

Re his record in London and the points you have raised.

Re spending on London Buses …. Which I’d call useful ‘infrastructure’ over a Livingstone space cadet satellite, I’d say the final design decision was Boris’s, but didn’t Livingstone come to power saying he’d keep the old Routemasters I remember using everyday, but then in 2004 change his mind to ALL the old buses being replaced?

Immaterial really, the old Routemaster’s were built between 1956 and 1986, from a 1947 design, and although like other vehicles those things were so well designed/engined as to be bullet proof, like most of us old farts, they’d seen better days and long past their sell by date. And like all modern ‘stuff’ over old, the new buses no doubt have what my old dad used to say, 'more to go wrong'.

Re Boris/Barclays bikes ….. I doubt since the Model T Ford came about cycling in major cities have been ‘safe’, but to many people in or out of a major recession, whether the oil price stayed up in the $140 a barrel, or the cost of running any engine rocketed whether paying charges in London or not - the bike scheme if not a secret Boris masterplan to alleviate the homes shortage by killing Londoners off, the man clearly meant well – and as far as I know, Boris/London has not made the using of them compulsory.

The bikes are still sponsored by Barclays until some time in 2015 so I doubt if currently costing the taxpayer, but for Ken’s ‘spy in the sky’, I believe it would have required some kind of electronic whirligig in every car as a receiver to get the full ‘benefits’ from it, I wonder how much that would have cost each motorist.

As for Boris or any politician promoting themselves to the media for any GOOD idea, as Del would say, ‘kel surprize Rodney’. Most of them demand airtime to hypocritically blame other politicians for their own SCREW UPS whilst in power.

Re the River Crossing … I have no idea on that other than remembering friends privately investing in a new river shuttle company in the 1980’s and losing most of their money. Would a Labour Major or politician insist a public transport service has to make money to exist, I dunno, but then again I don’t know if taking them off the roads, or trains, gives alternative ‘savings’ to the London commuters misery. And on that note, we follow on to;

Re the Tube Strike …… please correct me if I’m wrong, but London Transport Management (or whoever) are paid to make management decisions, and tube drivers are paid to get millions of commuters each day from point A to B for those fare paying passengers to make a living, go to school, social reasons, shopping etc etc etc. So when ‘the management’ decided to close ticket offices above ground, and those that were inside were more than happy to take a generous redundancy and/or have a job elsewhere, I fail to see why Bob Crow or any other union leader NEEDS to get involved in that decision.

If it is wrong, time will tell, and if the closing of those offices was a bad decision, then ‘the management’ and those supporting them e.g. the incumbent Mayor if still in office, will THEN have to take the hit in the press and any union official giving it a well deserved ‘I/we told you so’.

So as one has to presume that ‘the management’ had thought their decision out using dumb flow charts and numerous studies, what was the POINT of meeting Mr Crow to discuss that decision, especially if ‘meeting up’ and getting around a table’ is union speak for the same thing, the unions demands will be met. Meanwhile during the worst recession is 100-years, all those fare paying commuters had their lives turned upside down, having to stay at home, walk, or pay more e.g. get a taxi.

Mr Livingstone and Mr Crow would have met, cut from the same ideological cloth they might have socialised at the same meetings, so that is why Mr Livingstone would have concentrated on Londoners avoiding pigeon shit, while Boris needed to show no quarter from similar emanating from trade unions, trying to both politically flex their mussels and make the Coalition/Boris look bad, greatly inconveniencing Londoners and blaming others. IMO

FYO so far, all you have done is given me reasons to vote for the geezer. lol

HappydaysArehere Wed 13-Aug-14 19:40:46

Hell, Isitmebut....I am floored by your last remark! However, your attention to detail still gives me hope in that when and if the opportunity arises you will still retain your obvious common sense. You have given me much to think about for the moment. My first thoughts are that Livingstone made no secret that he couldn't stand Crowe. Then again, many criticisms can be made about him but I truly believe he loves London and did his best. Also, I don't believe that corruption has ever been levelled at him. Just look at his modest life style. Of course I am also not suggesting that Boris is anything but power hungry. This would be acceptable if his ability matched his ambition. At the moment Thames Estuary Airport and the cost to us Londoners still unnerves me!

HappydaysArehere Wed 13-Aug-14 19:57:03

Just remembered I noticed more pigeons in Trafalgar Square today. Wondering if I can blame Boris! Oh! go on, I know it's the sheer amount of food consumed by visitors but you never know....I am sure I saw him lurking with a smoked salmon sandwich and a glass of champagne! Kind regards.

Iggly Wed 13-Aug-14 20:08:44

Boris has ushered in terrible pollution endangering the health of my children. He knows what he needs to do but instead wastes money on vanity projects (bloody ditching the bendy bus, that silly cable car...). He's done very little about the housing problem. We don't need more flats thank you.

Plus he's a bullingdon boy. That's enough reason for me.

HappydaysArehere Thu 14-Aug-14 09:43:05

Iggly, I do agree, it is the vanity projects which make my blood boil. Even at the Olympics he was taking all the credit. Not a mention of all the work that Ken Livingstone put in to get them. He was in Singapore, not Boris. I heard Livingston being asked if he was going to the Olympics and he said he hadn't at that point been able to get a ticket. Apparently he was sent one later. Obviously not in a seat near Boris where there was a chance that glory could be shared.
Pretty sure the airport he was proposing on the Thames Estuary, involving the destruction of an oil refinery on the Isle Of Grain, was going to be another idea which was already being described as Boris Island.
The one thing he is good at is promoting Boris. Notice his new hairdo. Now very short to present a more focussed, serious Boris to suit the revealing of his new ambitions.
Anything good he is there. Trouble, not a sign unless forced to appear as after the Croydon,London riots. Oh, hang on, there is something he is good at. He was funny on "I've got News for you". Do you remember the fumbling and mistakes he was making? Nothing changes!

Isitmebut Thu 14-Aug-14 11:32:15

Iggy ….. clearly being a toff means to you they are ‘out of touch’ with the people, but meanwhile could you please explain clearly to me, why Boris who may behave like a demi-god, “controls the air” that your child breathes?

Re the housing problem, did Boris or any Bullingdon Boy bring in 2-3 million net new migrants (many to London), many of which were non EU citizens and had to be signed into the UK, having been brought in by Labour as a ‘diversity’ experiment (that they knew historically voted for socialist parties) thought of in the early 2000’s? And knowing their own secret policy, why did they not listen to the 2003/4 Barker Report on Housing that Mr Brown commissioned, which said PRE immigration a UK building only around 100,000 thousand homes a year needed to be doubled?

Did the Bullingdon Boys leave power after 13-years, where spending a few hundred $billion of fat government was no problem to a Labour government, that left LESS SOCIAL HOUSING STOCK available when they left, than when they arrived?

Did you know that a coalition led by ‘the Bullingdon Boys’ has delivered more Council etc built social housing in 4- years while freezing Council Tax bills, than the NON Bullingdon Boys over 13-years of government plenty plenty, who put up Council Tax over 110% in 13-years, way over inflation, as their contribution to our ‘cost of living’ crisis?

As for vanity projects WITHOUT any use to the masses, can you not still see Blair prancing around the Millennium Dome? How much did that NET cost to build, and then stand empty and be maintained for several years?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now