New London Mayor

[Quillan]

Well is he a buffoon or not, that is the question. Well obviously the majority of the 45% of those Londoners that bothered to turn out (the largest amount for several elections they say) and vote don't think so or do they? Did they vote for him because they see him as the best 'man' for the job or is this a protest vote against Labour especially after the recent problems (getting rid of the 10p tax etc).

A close friend of 'Red' Ken said that Livingston thought he was a buffoon initially but after reading his speech's early on and looking at his past speech's he took him very seriously. Ken took all the blame for loosing but then should he or was he shot in the food by Gorden and his governmental policies. I guess whatever we (I'm an ex Londoner) think the proof will be in the next 12 months and then of course later on when the next mayoral election takes place. Personally I think Boris's buffoonery is just an act to make him appear human which has worked rather well but then we will see.

[nectarine]

well I was working as a poll clerk at one of the polling stations in Surrey where our region didn't have a mayoral vote, only voting for the local council.  I was surprised at the amount of people who came in and expressed surprise or anger that our area wouldn't have a chance to vote for the London Mayor, since the mayoral policies don't just affect central London but also the suburbs around that are full of commuters who travel in there to work.  Without exception, all of the voters who came to my desk and asked if they had a mayoral vote then said that they wanted Ken out, as he had effectively driven the commuters away.  They couldn't drive in to London (and suburban train services can be patchy in the evenings and at weekends) and that was a big issue, especially with the planned increase in congestion charge.  Many of them had to take a vehicle in (vans, etc.) for building work and they said they were just being priced out.  However, there is a surcharge on our council rates for pay for the mayor, so we have to pay but don't get any say in the vote!    So, regardless of what central Londoners think, I believe there may be rejoicing in the suburbs - not for the vote for Boris but for the fact that Ken is now out!

[just john]

Take a look at the Euro this morning, [:)] that should tell you something. 

Going . . .   Going . . . . .

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="nectarine"]

well I was working as a poll clerk at one of the polling stations in Surrey where our region didn't have a mayoral vote, only voting for the local council.  I was surprised at the amount of people who came in and expressed surprise or anger that our area wouldn't have a chance to vote for the London Mayor, since the mayoral policies don't just affect central London but also the suburbs around that are full of commuters who travel in there to work.  Without exception, all of the voters who came to my desk and asked if they had a mayoral vote then said that they wanted Ken out, as he had effectively driven the commuters away.  They couldn't drive in to London (and suburban train services can be patchy in the evenings and at weekends) and that was a big issue, especially with the planned increase in congestion charge.  Many of them had to take a vehicle in (vans, etc.) for building work and they said they were just being priced out.  However, there is a surcharge on our council rates for pay for the mayor, so we have to pay but don't get any say in the vote!    So, regardless of what central Londoners think, I believe there may be rejoicing in the suburbs - not for the vote for Boris but for the fact that Ken is now out!

[/quote]

So the running of London is about some Surrey van drivers (and what a lovely bunch they are - not) being made to pay the congestion charge like everybody else?

Stunning political analysis...

[Baz]

Ken didn't stand a chance with it being St Boris day in France yesterday.

Baz

[Judith]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Well is he a buffoon or not, that is the question. .......  A close friend of 'Red' Ken said that Livingston thought he was a buffoon initially but after reading his speech's early on and looking at his past speech's he took him very seriously.[/quote]

Not ..... idiot he is not. I always reckoned that his flaxen tresses hid an intellect very well disguised,  but no doubt we must wait and see.  Whilst I suspect all that has been said re taxes etc had an impact, 8 years in such a job is quite long enough - defintely time for a change.  Shame I 'm now not likely to stay in London long enough to benefit!!

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

I want to see him as pm of England. It's about time we had some characters to became the headpiece of countries. It's been rather stale since the Thatcher, Reagan, Hawkin, Gorby years. Grey, faceless pm's like Major, Blair and Brown with zero personality have made politics even more boring.

And if you watch Yes Minister, you will know that it's civil servants who run the country anyway....[;-)]

[Marym2]

Well done Boris, and a few other too. Like a lot of people I voted for Boris as it was scandel after scandel (re Jasper) as well as the way this EX Mayor who for me has been a joke for many years, now he is out, lets hope Boris gets rid of a few things that the EX mayor forced on us in London. Wish he would give France the Games as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kitty]

Have a look at his website.

http://www.boris-johnson.com/

His books are fascinating and show his intellect.  He is not a buffoon.  "Lend me your ears" is a collection of his Telegraph articles.  I read it about 3 years ago and was hooked.  From then on, I would read his articles in the Thursday edition of the paper or online.  The Barclay Bros paid him £250,000 per year for his writings.  You don't pay that kind of money to an idiot.

'Dream of Rome' is an interesting study and as you read it, you can hear his voice dictating it - it contains his speech mannerisms.  It has some absorbing analogies between the Roman Empire and the EU.  Take a look at the customer reviews of this book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dream-Rome-Boris-Johnson/

 

[Quillan]

Looking forward to the political comment this morning on the Politics show to see what they have to say. Having read a few of the 'morning after' article's perhaps it was not just the link between Ken and Gordon that was Ken’s downfall. There seems to be a state of apathy involved especially when you consider 55% of the registered electorate could see little point in getting out and voting.

I was wondering if this is the real state of current UK politics, this state of general apathy. In the last election it appeared a lot of people turned out to vote but in reality didn't, I shall explain what I mean. I remember somebody tried to work out what the real turnout was by taking the quantity of people who were registered to vote and comparing them against those in the last census who were eligible to register to vote and there was a massive, massive difference. When a survey was done, by the labour party incidentally, the reason people were not registering to vote was because they didn't see the point as nobody had anything of interest to offer them with regards to future policies. Sort of "it will never change whoever is in power so why bother". You can of course argue the rights and wrongs of such attitudes but you can't stop people thinking the way they do unless you drop the voting age to 16 and indoctrinate them at school .

You do get 'die hard' Labour supporters who find it difficult to both see or understand that like the Tories they too have got it terribly wrong and are so totally out of tune with the electorate, their aspirations, wants and needs. Very few or the government members, if any, have ever had to live off income support or low wages, never had to wonder what they can buy with the two quid in their pocket to feed the 2.5 children. The labour party wants to get rid of child poverty in the UK. The intellectuals say they are referring to education etc when what the ordinary people on low incomes really want is financial help to put food on the table and cloths on their children's backs. What does labour do, smack these people in the mouth by removing the 10p tax, well that will really help them.

People want better education, health and policing. These are issues that local and national government, labour in particular (as they are the government) have failed to address in real terms. They threw billions after billions in to these sectors but fail to do nothing about the massive hole in the bottom where the money appears to go out quicker than it goes in. It's just throwing good money after bad. The 'trick' is they can legitimately say they have given loads more money to these sectors, more so than the previous government, but ordinary people, especially in inner cities see little or no change. They are like the forgotten population.

London has been left in a terrible state by Ken. The Surrey 'white van driver' who is legitimately going about his business is finding it hard to compete against the major courier services because of the congestion charge. Just because you don't like them does not mean they don't have the right to work. Small business's are suffering, corner shops who have to go outside the congestion charge area to visit the Cash and Carry. Builders, painters and other tradesmen also suffer as does the end user because theses people can't operate inside London. Those inside (the now to get bigger) congestion zone that require these trades have to pay a higher rate to the companies based inside the congestion zone because they in turn have to pay higher rent for their offices and because there is also a lack of competition and can charge what they like.

Londoners want to see more police on the street, not a couple of hundred they need a few thousand to make a real difference and they want them to be highly visible to stop crime. They also want to be able to travel on the public transport system late at night without the worry that the group of youths at the end of the tube platform won't mug them. The truth is they probably won't mug you but its how people feel and the only way to stop them feeling this way is to have a visible police presence. Perhaps Boris will deal with this in a "New York" way where people have successfully 'reclaimed' the streets at night

Londoners want better transport at cheaper prices to make them move out of their cars. Kens method is to beat people over the head by having the congestion charge. This does nothing for the big company car abusers because it's not them that pay the charge so they just carry on driving in as they always have. What it does hit are those that need and use their cars in central London for deliveries. It also effects the service industry (like lift engineers, computer engineers etc, etc.). What is even more bizarre is that crossing London by car can often be quicker than using public transport, so where is the incentive. Why not introduce school buses, think how that will remove the 'school run' cars from the roads at peak time and cut down of pollution. You could use "walking bus's" for getting kids to school like the do outside London except the parents won't have it because there are not enough police around to deter perv's and gangs from attacking their children.

So now they have got rid of Ken (who did have some good points, once, a long time ago) it will be very interesting to see what happens and how the money will be spent.

[YCCMB]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Looking forward to the political comment this morning on the Politics show to see what they have to say. Having read a few of the 'morning after' article's perhaps it was not just the link between Ken and Gordon that was Kens downfall. There seems to be a state of apathy involved especially when you consider 55% of the registered electorate could see little point in getting out and voting.

[/quote]

 

Interesting observation, Quillan. Especially since it is widely acknowledged that the turnout for this particular election is approximately double that for the last two mayoral elections. Which, IMO, tends to suggest that whoever was going to win, people have realised that perhaps it was apathy that helped seal the results of the previous two elections.

 

Incidentally "Why not introduce school buses?" Well, one argument put forward by Ken Livingstone on a radio interview only a few days ago seems quite sensible......Imagine clogging up parts of London just that little bit more at peak times, with buses that ordinary commuters can't get on, and spending money on acquiring buses that are only effectively going to be used for a couple of hours in the morning and afternoon. There are something in the region of 2600 state schools in London, plus any number of private ones. That'd really encourage people back onto public transport, wouldn't it? And I would happily have allowed both my children to use a "walking bus" if they had been up for getting up at 5 in order to walk the 4 or so miles to school............

 

 

[Quillan]

School Buses - You don't have to buy them yourself, you do a deal with the private bus companies so that they can use ordinary bus's to take the kids to school and then once dropped off can carry one transporting ordinary people about.

Somebody on TV pointed out that the number of 'school runs' has actually increased now in London because parents are more worried about lack of policing coupled with (over) sensationalism in the media about youths stabbing other youths that older children (12/14+) are being taken to school by private cars. If you wanted to be generous and say each car takes two children (many take only one) then by using a bus that takes typically 40 kids then that 20 cars off the road at peak time, less roads blocked by cars dropping kids off, easier for people to get around, better on the environment (that Ken cares so much about), is not such a bad thing.

"Walking Bus" - When I have seen it in action the kids are outside their house waiting for it to arrive. I don't think it is used for 4 mile 'runs' probably a mile at most. In our case it just went round the village and collected about 40 kids on each 'bus'. It's good for the kids as well what with schools being forced to sell off playing fields, at least it means they get a certain amount of healthy exercise every day.

 

[YCCMB]

Sorry, but I can't see the logic of flooding the roads with buses which, after all, won't be able to take kids from their front door to school - London just isn't that simple - at a time when ordinary commuters are (supposedly) being encouraged to take buses to work.You'd need hundreds and hundreds of routes for this to be a convenient and easy method for transporting kids to the number of schools we're talking about. Neither school buses nor ordinary buses will be able to benefit from bus lanes if they're choked with extra traffic, and the only significant benefit would be in removing many of the little fragile flowers, whose parents are so worried about them, from transport being used by people who are old enough to have learned how to behave in public. There's been enough flak concerning the upset, inconvenience and violence shown to ordinary passengers by schoolkids on buses since they were all given free Oyster cards..............................And it's all very well saying that the bus companies could buy additional buses, but what's their incentive to do so?? So they can run them practically empty on little used routes from 9.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.??????

[Quillan]

If one bus for kids can effectively take 20 cards of the road which are only there to take the kids to school think how many cars could be taken off the road for a whole school, it would be several hundred at least. School buses would also remove the kinds from normal bus's thus solving the problem you have described (something I have seen at first hand which eventually lead me to start driving in because it was both quicker and less stressful).

Bus companies do not actually own any bus's, they couldn't afford to, what they do is lease them. Quite right that there would be probably hundreds of routes involved but then other countries manage OK. To get the bus companies to do this just requires the school bus's to be added to the tender as and when the routes come up for renewal, the incentive is to win the contract. The free Oyster card for kids is however a brilliant idea if you want to 'catch them young' and get them accustomed to using public transport as they are not just restricted to going back and forth to school.

If there were more police 'visible' then perhaps the parents of 14 year olds would feel happier about letting their kids go to school un-chaperoned which would reduce traffic even more.

[YCCMB]

It's been a while since you lived in London (or anywhere near it), hasn't it, Quillan? [:)][:)].

 

Seriously, it's a piece of cake being an armchair politician and fixing London's transport problems at a stroke from the comfort of sunny France. It really, really isn't that simple. And I am speaking not just as an armchair politician. My husband ( you're gonna love this) happens to work for TFL.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]

It's been a while since you lived in London (or anywhere near it), hasn't it, Quillan? [:)][:)].

Seriously, it's a piece of cake being an armchair politician and fixing London's transport problems at a stroke from the comfort of sunny France. It really, really isn't that simple. And I am speaking not just as an armchair politician. My husband ( you're gonna love this) happens to work for TFL.

[/quote]

Your right it's a long time, 8 years but I visit and my daughter lives and works there and would love to meet people like your husband and his mates, so would many other commuters. I wonder what will happen to TFL under Boris, a few heads for the chop or 'reassignment' to 'other' places. Nothing personal intended.

The problem is these policy makers don't live in the real world plus it's common knowledge (and has been mentioned many times on TV like Friday, Saturday and today being the most recent) that  transport and policing were controlled directly by Ken, he said, they jumped. This is the problem when you have career politicians involved in these sort of issues. Things get made very murky and complicated when often the answers are very simple and just require some common sense. Some of the transport issues in London are very simple to cure. The real issue with London transport and London policing. like many other things,  is that it's the policy makers who operate from armchairs with no concern for those who use the system. They need to be reminded that they are servants of the people and should listen to their wants and needs and not to the politicians. Something Gordon has just discovered judging by what he said on TV today but it's now a bit too late.

[YCCMB]

I'm sure MOH would be thrilled to meet anyone who thinks he's in any way responsible for London's transport problems, just to disabuse them of that erroneous thought!!!  However, he's fortunate in not being involved in the political machinations, just the mammoth task of enhancing capacity on an already overstretched transport infrastructure. And I can assure you, he lives in the real world. It's a real world that has meant we've been unable to take a holiday together since last August, that has meant this Bank Holiday weekend is the first one he hasn't worked since before Christmas (and he's worked the others 24/24) and he'd probably love to consult with you over these simple, common-sense answers that you appear to have at your fingetips. In fact. so would I, if it means it'll restore some normality to my family life, which is set to continue on the same course until 2010, or he has a heart attack, whichever comes first.

[Ron Avery]

Corr I haven’t read so much inaccurate rubbish since the last time I read an Evening Standard on the train cut into strips and hanging on a hook in the toilet.  I don't want to spoil a good yarn with facts Nectarine but you said "They couldn't drive in to London  -  why not vans are not banned from London. 

and suburban train services can be patchy in the evenings and at weekends) not sure what that has to do with van man doesn’t he work in the day? But anyway, perhaps the next time you see your white van man you can tell him the Congestion charge does not actually apply in the evening or at weekends

From TfL site" You do not have to pay the charge on weekends, English public holidays, designated non-charging days, or between 18:00 and 07:00"

 Livingstone did not beat van man around the head, or ban him from central London, he was never going to use the bus or train anyway, he just told him if you want to come into central London and pollute the streets and air, then pay for it or go around London on the M25 or up Park lane.

Too right Betty, Quillan is another one who is short on facts and woefully out of date, if he wasn't he would know that there are as many buses on the road in the Capital now than since the bus strike in 1958, and all put in place before the congestion charge was put in, plus many special school buses on many routes in London, which had  been the situation around the capital for many years.

Of course all those shops have really gone out of business due to the congestion charge, those lines of cars parking outside on yellow lines on their way through London to work  buying their papers and groceries have been forced to go elsewhere, or had use the bus or tube.  Of course the downturn in retail has nothing to do with a drop in retail sales across the whole country and the fact that many of those shops were just uncompetitive and out dated and been priced out of the market by Tesco Metros, far easier to blame the congestion charge, which by the way Boris Johnson has said he will keep. So why did van man want to vote for the Mayor exactly?

Quillan, why people at TfL should lose their jobs just because there is a new Mayor is beyond me, why should they?  What exactly have they done that warrants the sack of generally hard working and conscientious people whose overall policies and finances were dictated by City Hall?

 It was not so long ago that a certain candidate to be Mayor told everybody that the Directors of London Underground were totally incompetent and he would sack them all if he became Mayor, well he did and he didn’t, only two left, both for better positions, perhaps they were doing a good job after all.

[Kitty]

Question to the Forum:  If Ken Livingston had run again as an independent and not representing the Labour Party, do you think that he would have won the election?

 

[brianagain]

A French perspective:  "le trublion* conservateur" is how Boris is described on the front page of today's Figaro.

What can they mean?

Brian (again)

* trublion = troublemaker (in Larousse) or maybe true blue lion?

[Clair]

They also call him le bouffon (no translation required, I expect).

[Trying]

[quote user="Cathy"]

Question to the Forum:  If Ken Livingston had run again as an independent and not representing the Labour Party, do you think that he would have won the election?

 

[/quote]

yes

[Quillan]

[quote user="Cathy"]

Question to the Forum:  If Ken Livingston had run again as an independent and not representing the Labour Party, do you think that he would have won the election?

[/quote]

Good question, on the Politics show and on the news after the results were announced they did a straw poll and the feeling was that they would not. Some actually said they would have voted for anyone else other than him.

I would like to ask the question another way round, would you have voted for a Labour mayor if it were not Ken?

[Judith]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Question to the Forum:  If Ken Livingston had run again as an independent and not representing the Labour Party, do you think that he would have won the election?

[/quote]

Ken's shennanigan's over funding minority groups hasn't helped his cause regardless of any political affiliation.  Whilst voting for Boris (as voting for the Tories or LibDems in the local council elections) was certainly a protest against the incomptence of Labour, the final straw being the 10p tax debacle, I think there was definitely the feeling that it was time for change. I think it was a judgement on Ken and his recent behaviour rather than the fact that he was also the Labour choice.  It was always a choice between Ken or Boris, none of the others realistically stood any chance.  The mayoral race was (is) always about personalities rather than party allegiance - and has been since the job of mayor was created. 

[Will]

[quote user="Clair"]They also call him le bouffon (no translation required, I expect).
[/quote]

That name rings a bell - no, it can't have been Boris the outcast, surely [:D]