Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I was reading that Comment is Free LOLathon on the Guardian's website and expected there to be scenes like this by now:
are completely blocked as deluded freaks flee the capitol.
surely not a coincidence. BRING BACK KEN!
he even worked on bank holiday!
we used to have the same ones as CTU tho :(
did they have the same ringtones?
*I say did because I have not been in there in ages.
Also, it's really obvious that he's looking at 'mature' pornography.
He hasn't closed Ken's pointless London 'embassies' yet
i just don't know where i stand...
look set to fall dramatically.
a policeman came into school and asked us about weapons, my mate tried to be a smart alec and said that a news paper was a weapon, so the policeman promptly went on to agree and showed him a devastating manoeuvre
You went to school in the popular teen movie 'Step Up', right?
where else would i have gone?
Its not as if a lefty would bring up one of Ken's expensive failures :P
But he has only been in the job for a day!
I don't know it'll offset the billions he'll waste getting these 21st century Routemasters in place.
had to wait fucking ages for my bus, which is a bendy. Maybe he's phasing them out.
Either way, I was nearly late.
crime instantly disappeared, all transport immeadiately worked and people all started being friendly to each other.
Do you not have anything better to do?
Do you not have anything better to do than
take the internet too seriously?
then you're actually going to have the shit beaten out of you by your own internet browswer when he's in a rage.
It was a flippant comment born out of how bored I'm getting by your tedious streams of posts on the subject matter flooding the boards.
Boris won, fair and square. He's got 4 years. Let's see what he does with it
Hey, guess what? You don't have to read, you sure as hell don't have to reply!
By the end of the day the forum would just be you talking about Thatcher to yourself
to rise to the bait like so many sour guppies.
Right to the last word DENIED.
when you go on holiday and forget to put fish food in your pond
The only comment I have made in this thread on the election was "Boris won, fair and square. He's got 4 years. Let's see what he does with it".
My point is that everything you're posting is so tedious. I don't even know why you're bothered so much
Surely someone who considers themselves to be a Tory would indeed (and perfectly legitimately) feel a victory has been won?
I think that's precisely the problem with this election, that it's been politicised by Tory numpties who are more concerned with Ken having been a thorn in Thatcher's side than the point of the post which is to SERVE LONDON.
This was the first Mayoral election I've bothered to vote in. The reason I didn't previously is because I felt reasonably assured all the people up for election, regardless of their political background, were trying to get elected on the basis of giving a shit about London and doing something about it.
Boris hasn't been elected on that platform at all. It's rather sad that we have someone who's gone into the race for Mayor on entirely the wrong basis and we have to hope he doesn't fuck things up as a result.
you are completely in the wrong here, is that you simply cannot substansiate your last statement.
How on Earth could anyone claim to have a full and robust understanding behind the motivations behind each and every vote cast? How can you reconcile your first point about Tories wanting to oust someone who had been a pain to them in the 1980's with the fact that Johnson (and indeed apparently this election generally) secured many young votes? And even if people did vote for Johnson on the "wrong basis", what makes you think motivations behind voting for Ken are any different? What you've said yourself could be interpreted as "I didn't previously bother voting but I did this time out of spite directed at the Tories".
Whether or not Johnson does a good job remains to be seen. Bare in mind Ken took a while to settle in. And on the matter of manifestos and policies, on most things Ken and Boris aren't a million miles away from one and other anyway
First, I wasn't talking about the voters, I was talking about the Tories, which is clearly the party. If you talked about Labour and meant all those who voted Labour I'd be confused.
I was talking specifically about why Boris was chosen and why the campaign was run as it was.
In the end I voted Ken because he was the only candidate who had a hope against Boris, pure and simple.
Boris could indeed turn out okay, in which case that's fine, but the nature of why he was the Tory candidate and why the Standard and others wanted him remains the same: it wasn't about London's good.
of what was 'good for London' was that it have a Conservative mayor. Boris was there best hope of that. Labour's eventual move towards backing Ken in 2004 was born from exactly the same sentiment.
For what it is worth, I hadn't confused Tory voters and Tory members. Being one and very much not the other, it isn't hard for me to grasp the difference.
There just isn't any concrete proof or evidence to support your argument, and anti-Conservative rhetoric (which is fine and with regards to many issues entirely fair) isn't good enough.
Because over the last 8 years we've certainly seen enough of that, generally concentrating on nothing he's done as Mayor but on peculiar points like stuff that happened 20 years ago, or anecdotal evidence.
The Evening Standard have wanted Ken out since day one and they hate him. Will you accept that as fact? That the Tory party have no love for him as a political figure is certainly very true thanks to his time in the GLC where he basically did everything in his power to undermine Thatcher's view of the world.
Labour only backed Ken because they realised he was going to poll more votes than their candidate, whoever they were, and they knew none of their MPs were prepared to step down to take up the role with the certain knowledge they couldn't win. They didn't want to back Ken but obviously had to in the end.
That's because Labour also wanted to put politics first but luckily failed.
What I've outlined here is based in fact. Obviously the Conservatives would prefer a Conservative Mayor but they didn't pick their candidate on the basis of the best man for the job of Mayor: they picked him as the best man for the job of getting votes away from Ken, which is precisely my point.
was against Ken from day one. Who wouldn't? It is hardly unusual for a newspaper of a certain persuasion to dislike a politician of a different persuasion. But I think the point you are missing is that there are plenty of young Tories who disliked Ken because of his policies, rather than past. You can't possibly know their motivations, and any claim that presumes otherwise is as far removed from being a fact as it could be.
I don't really see what we differ on here then, perspective aside. The Conservatives wanted a Tory mayor, at any cost, so they laid aside other concerns. I'll concede that. But how on Earth you could claim that Labour has acted differently, I don't know. Ken was only approached to be their candidate in 2004 because of his previous victory and his differences with the current Labour administration are numerous and well documented. They would have picked a donkey for their candidate if they thought it would secure a Labour victory.
Labour weren't going to win with their own candidate, the understood that after the first election. But given Ken didn't really do anything that was pro-Labour one could really say all they did was bow out of the contest and nominally say they were behind Ken.
This is really what I mean: London voted on Ken a-politically in many ways. I don't think it's an accident that Boris went around saying 'The Labour Mayor': he realised that most people didn't perceive Ken in that way or certainly not as part of the administration. He was where he was because of his knowledge of London and respect he had from Londoners.
Look at Paddick: a man who got a lot of respect because of the policies he put forward, a man who was coming from the right place. I'm laying aside personal aspects of the man that grated on people but just saying that a genuine and worthwhile Tory adversory should have been coming from along the same lines. And would likely have won also but without having the massive misgivings of a large section of London's population.
but I honestly believe that Johnson fully intends to do a good job and has a real passion for the position. Some of his policies are dubious, some of them are exactly what many Londoners want and most of them aren't drastically different to Ken's.
I've seen alot of people, in the media, on these boards and just generally make unfounded assumptions about why people voted for Boris and that is really what I was getting at.
or something. I'm sure there will have been people who voted for him on that basis because the Raving Loony party always got votes so clearly some people vote for very different reasons. No doubt Ken got votes because he keeps newts...
you haven't followed the coverage in the Guardian then?
Fighting smugness with smugness, the difference being, we can take it, you just have a very public sulk about it.
but you were talking about on these boards. I think it's more telling that you're convinced we're all 'having a sulk' etc. to boost your ego.
You're a strange little man, Alex. Get some perspective. Learn from Sam, maybe?
Oh physician, heal thyself!
My perceived smugness is nothing in comparison to your arrogance. Your candidate lost, deal with it.
Remember, Labour only adopted Ken with extreme reluctance once they realised how popular he was. Prior to that......FRANK DOBSON!
Perhaps you could explain it.
Labour didn't have anything to do with the election of the London Mayor, did they?
How am I being arrogant here?
"Remember, Labour only adopted Ken with extreme reluctance once they realised how popular he was. Prior to that......FRANK DOBSON!"
I supported Ken because he was the right candidate for London. I actually couldn't give a blue arsed fuck about Labour because New Labour are simply the Tories under a different name. It's not about being 'anti-Tory' it's about being against a Mayor who doesn't really seem to get or care about London.
X X X
save that for two years time. X X X
He is, and will be for the next four years, God's gift according to the Mail and the embodiment of all that is wrong with politics and the human race generally according to the Guardian, no matter what he does
Nothing like starting like how they mean to go on.
are 'on hold' pending a big meeting this afternoon. Drastic. Looks like he's going to bring all of his own press office / media team in and you know what - I don't blame him.
could do with taking note of both Boris and Ken's speaches on Friday after the results were announced. Both speaking graciously about the other and with a decent amount of respect.
Personally, I'm not happy that Boris is mayor, don't believe he was put forward or elected for the right reasons and in particular don't think much of most of his transport policies (in some cases they're awful in my opinion), but I'll at least give him the chance to prove himself now elected.
Boris took victory with an immense amount of grace, I was incredibly impressed.
Shame a similar stance has not been undertaken on here with the endless A-I-C "HAHAHA LABOUR R GAY" threads