Mayor of London

[Lord Bracknell]

Nobody is yet considering the likely impact of the sex scandals that are bringing some colour to the campaign.

On the one hand, we have Boris denying his affair with Petronella Wyatt as “an inverted pyramid of piffle” but later being forced to recant when Wyatt’s mother revealed the affair had lasted four years and ended with an abortion.

On the other, we have Ken dismissing claims that revelations that he has five children by three different women will affect his mayoral campaign.


But maybe London is a mature democracy and this sort of tittle-tattle will count for nothing either way. As Ken says on the BBC website:- "As long as you don't involve children, animals or vegetables ..."

 

[clapham_gull]

What am I gonna do? Bounce this thread in May. That's what.

As well you might and Boris might be mayor.

The question was asked , Who do you think will win ?

Not how much do you hate the Tories, which is way you seem to have interpreted it.

Seems to have touched a nerve, what's the problem - havent you been invited to enough garden parties this year ?

 

[Buzzer]

As well you might and Boris might be mayor.

The question was asked , Who do you think will win ?

Not how much do you hate the Tories, which is way you seem to have interpreted it.

Seems to have touched a nerve, what's the problem - havent you been invited to enough garden parties this year ?

Because that's all these threads do turn into. Not even onto page 2 and we get the mention of Thatcher, the words evil and tory, the usual guff about being stupid if anyone votes Tory. Have we had any "class" comments yet?

Oh, I see you've done that for us. Nice touch.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

I reckon Boris will nick it on second preferences. He'll get the comedy vote. Ken is such a polarising politician -- people either love him or hate him. He's not a "second choice" kinda guy.

 

[clapham_gull]

Because that's all these threads do turn into. Not even onto page 2 and we get the mention of Thatcher, the words evil and tory, the usual guff about being stupid if anyone votes Tory. Have we had any "class" comments yet?

Oh, I see you've done that for us. Nice touch.

Well who is to blame for that then ?

Sorry I've obviously been affected by how I remember the local Tories behaving in my village.

Yes just like that.

Problem is the Tories have never seemed to have taken this seriously. Were they even behind it from the start ?

 

[Buzzer]

I have to confess to being baffled as to how me quoting from the Daily Express can possibly be considered as some sort of subliminal lefty propaganda.

God knows what your reaction will be when I turn to the Guardian.

So...who's the Tory politician then? I can't find the quote on the Daily Express website but can find something similar on the BNP website where they state that it was an email from a Tory. Dunno who.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/04/03/gla-elections-voters-scent-blood/

Boris has quite rightly rejected this and refuted the BNP AND said that he wants nothing to do with them.

This is hardly a "Stop Ken" campaign in any orchestrated or semi-official way, is it? Just one Tory making one claim. Not exactly in the same league as your "MASSIVE STOP BORIS" stuff you're claiming to have wind of.

Nope - just a nice bit of shoe-horning the words Tory and BNP together into this thread.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Problem is the Tories have never seemed to have taken this seriously. Were they even behind it from the start ?

When the Tories cotton on to the fact that having Boris as the highest profile Tory in a position of power ANYWHERE will actually LOSE them the General Election, they'll drop him immediately.

Even the Evening Standard will be backing Ken in a couple of weeks.

 

[clapham_gull]

Nobody is yet considering the likely impact of the sex scandals that are bringing some colour to the campaign.

On the one hand, we have Boris denying his affair with Petronella Wyatt as “an inverted pyramid of piffle” but later being forced to recant when Wyatt’s mother revealed the affair had lasted four years and ended with an abortion.

On the other, we have Ken dismissing claims that revelations that he has five children by three different women will affect his mayoral campaign.


But maybe London is a mature democracy and this sort of tittle-tattle will count for nothing either way. As Ken says on the BBC website:- "As long as you don't involve children, animals or vegetables ..."

Don't forget the cigar case incident

Police probe Boris Johnson over cigar 'theft' - Telegraph

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Not even onto page 2 and we get the mention of Thatcher

Ken Livingstone was such a successful politician during The Thatcher Years, and such a strong proponent of good and worthy Socialist ideals as Cheap Public Transport For All, that Thatcher took it as a direct affront to her Greed Is Good manifesto and dissolved the whole Greater London Council layer of government.

Can't see any valid reason for anybody defending the indefensible meself. Oh well. Takes all sorts.

 

[Buzzer]

Well who is to blame for that then ?

Sorry I've obviously been affected by how I remember the local Tories behaving in my village.

Yes just like that.

Problem is the Tories have never seemed to have taken this seriously. Were they even behind it from the start ?

Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself now. I'm not knocking your preosnal experiences and fully understand that these things polarise views. But it seems that you now acknowledge that it's turned into a how much do you hate the tories thread.

In answer to your question, I'd say very seriously is how they take this election. It would be a major blow to Labour morale if Ken lost.

Archer was, is and will always be a piece of excrement. The man is a shite. An adulterous lying piece of scum. I will make no apologies for him and embarrased whenever he's seen and associated with the Conservatives. I think the Tories thought that London was never gonna be winnable, they didn't want a mayor anyway and hence Archer.

Norris was different. His politics were too left-wing for Duncan-Smith/ Hague/ Howard and it was only when it was clear that Norris had an outside chance of winning and was a credible candidate that thew Tories took note. I liked Norris. He seemd to be someone who genuinely cared and wanted to unite an ever divided London.

The Tories struggled with this election candidate-wise because they needed a BIG name. Ken was standing for Labour and Labour was happy. (Labour will struggle next time just like the Tories are now for a big name to come forward. Glenda Jackson perhaps?)

There were a few biggish names but the Tories needed a real big hitter. Up comes Boris. Yes, he plays the buffoon and comes across as the amateur (in the old meaning of the word) willing to give it a go. That seems to have struck a chord with the public. Perhaps it's the British psyche.

Anyhow, coupled with Ken looking tired, covered in scandal, Labour doing badly nationally I genuinely believe that Boris will win. He's left-wing enough for the neutral, he is getting his face seen in some less than Tory stronghold areas and he's seen asa a big name.

So...yes, I think the Tories are taking it deadly seriously.

 

[clapham_gull]

The night before the election last time, it looked like Norris would win. I seem to recall the Evening Standard thinking he would that evening. They were neck and neck.

His mistake ? I honestly believe him saying that he would abolish the congestion charge lost it for him.

 

[Buzzer]

When the Tories cotton on to the fact that having Boris as the highest profile Tory in a position of power ANYWHERE will actually LOSE them the General Election, they'll drop him immediately.

Even the Evening Standard will be backing Ken in a couple of weeks.

You keep making these ever more ridiculous predictions. Do you genuinely believe them because you appear to be talking with some authority on the matter but if you give them a second glance they're just risible.

By the way, I love the way you make these statements as if they are fact when really they're just conjecture. And weak ones at that.

 

[Gwylan]

We had exactly the same types of stuff on here before and after the local elections. Some people daring to question how it is that a trendy city like Brighton could defile itself into kicking out the ruling Labour group and installing shock, horror - Tories.

It's not that you lot don't think the Tories will win anything, it's just that you refuse to accept that they will. You don't like 'em therefore how can other people possibly like them. Ah well. You know best, eh?

If people can't be trusted to vote for the right candidate or are just too stupid to see your arguments then quite frankly they don't deserve to have a vote.

I don't see the parallel between the local council election and the London mayoral election. The Labour council was full of mediocre, time-serving, New Labour party hacks - they got their come-uppance at the election. I certainly didn't vote for them, frankly, they were lucky to get the votes they did.

Livingstone is certainly not mediocre, and he's certainly not a time-serving party hack or New Labour. Remember that he won the first election as an Independent and despite being the Labour candidate second time round, still took Gordon Brown to court. Whatever you can say about him, he's a man of his own opinions who doesn't slavishly follow the party line.

Boris on the other hand is a great laugh, a real character and despite his persona, a first-class brain but he can't resist putting his foot into it - which is why he's being kept away from debates and high-profile meetings in the centre of London.
He built up a big lead but sooner or later, people will twig they don't want him running anything.

I reckon it will be close but that Ken will do enough to hang on.

And for what's it worth, I think the Tories will win the next general election - but narrowly.

 

[Brian Potter]

Most of what has been posted on here has been from non-londoners (not suprisingly), and unless you actually live here it is difficult to actually guage the feelings towards Ken (with the obvious notable exceptions such as Clapham Gull).

My other half, when living in the shires, couldn't understand why I was not a fan of Livingstone. Now, having acutally lived in London for a few years its "that bloody idiot Livingstone!" And this comes from somebody who is a self confessed Liberal, never voted tory in her life, but has decided to swallow a whole lifetime of tory hating to ensure that Ken does not get back in.

Myself? Go Boris! It sucks under Livingstone, it will probably suck under Boris. But it will be entertaining!

 

[Dandyman]

Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself now. I'm not knocking your preosnal experiences and fully understand that these things polarise views. But it seems that you now acknowledge that it's turned into a how much do you hate the tories thread.

In answer to your question, I'd say very seriously is how they take this election. It would be a major blow to Labour morale if Ken lost.

Archer was, is and will always be a piece of excrement. The man is a shite. An adulterous lying piece of scum. I will make no apologies for him and embarrased whenever he's seen and associated with the Conservatives. I think the Tories thought that London was never gonna be winnable, they didn't want a mayor anyway and hence Archer.

Norris was different. His politics were too left-wing for Duncan-Smith/ Hague/ Howard and it was only when it was clear that Norris had an outside chance of winning and was a credible candidate that thew Tories took note. I liked Norris. He seemd to be someone who genuinely cared and wanted to unite an ever divided London.

The Tories struggled with this election candidate-wise because they needed a BIG name. Ken was standing for Labour and Labour was happy. (Labour will struggle next time just like the Tories are now for a big name to come forward. Glenda Jackson perhaps?)

There were a few biggish names but the Tories needed a real big hitter. Up comes Boris. Yes, he plays the buffoon and comes across as the amateur (in the old meaning of the word) willing to give it a go. That seems to have struck a chord with the public. Perhaps it's the British psyche.

Anyhow, coupled with Ken looking tired, covered in scandal, Labour doing badly nationally I genuinely believe that Boris will win. He's left-wing enough for the neutral, he is getting his face seen in some less than Tory stronghold areas and he's seen asa a big name.

So...yes, I think the Tories are taking it deadly seriously.

Agree that the Tories are taking it very seriously, although I'm amazed that a "One Nation Tory" like you should regard Johnson as "left wing".

The Tories have, on their terms, run a clever campaign clearly heavily influenced by their Aussie adviser. Johnson has run scared of any direct debate with other candidates, has secured the wholy one sided support of the Evening Standard (whose Metro contract is coming up for review, has issued sufficeint "dog whistle" messages on race and crime to his mainly suburban support and carefully avoided much beyond sound bites about his actual strategy for running a massively complex city.

I have no idea who will win, although second preference votes will I suspect prove crucial. Having lived in the capital for over 20 years, I can only hope it is not Johnson who I believe will be incompetent, bigoted and massively divisive.

 

[Brixtaan]

It's disgraceful the way Ken's name has been dragged through the mud (again).If he doesn't get the green light for another term and a knighthood then it will be yet more proof that this country is secretly run by tories,led by the royal family.

 

[clapham_gull]

Most of what has been posted on here has been from non-londoners (not suprisingly), and unless you actually live here it is difficult to actually guage the feelings towards Ken (with the obvious notable exceptions such as Clapham Gull).

My other half, when living in the shires, couldn't understand why I was not a fan of Livingstone. Now, having acutally lived in London for a few years its "that bloody idiot Livingstone!" And this comes from somebody who is a self confessed Liberal, never voted tory in her life, but has decided to swallow a whole lifetime of tory hating to ensure that Ken does not get back in.

Myself? Go Boris! It sucks under Livingstone, it will probably suck under Boris. But it will be entertaining!

Well I here both views - from car owners who hate the congestion charge yes.

But for people who use public transport and have seen the success of the Oyster card and the millions of (often empty buses....) you hear the opposite.

Personally I have mixed views, especially on what's been going on recently.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I take it Winston is not white caucasian?

EDIT

No he isnt...he is Duke McKenzies cousin

 

[Buzzer]

Agree that the Tories are taking it very seriously, although I'm amazed that a "One Nation Tory" like you should regard Johnson as "left wing".

The Tories have, on their terms, run a clever campaign clearly heavily influenced by their Aussie adviser. Johnson has run scared of any direct debate with other candidates, has secured the wholy one sided support of the Evening Standard (whose Metro contract is coming up for review, has issued sufficeint "dog whistle" messages on race and crime to his mainly suburban support and carefully avoided much beyond sound bites about his actual strategy for running a massively complex city.

I have no idea who will win, although second preference votes will I suspect prove crucial. Having lived in the capital for over 20 years, I can only hope it is not Johnson who I believe will be incompetent, bigoted and massively divisive.

"left-wing enough for the neutral"......I think Boris is like Blair. No real convictions other than wanting to be a politician and hence is sort of middle ground. But both are bloody clever at what they do. Paddick's like that too as far as I can see.

Trouble is, I think that conviction politicians tend to polarise opinion and are seen as turning off voters. Hence the media-friendly, conviction-lite stuff we get now.

 

[Brian Potter]

Well I here both views - from car owners who hate the congestion charge yes.

But for people who use public transport and have seen the success of the Oyster card and the millions of (often empty buses....) you hear the opposite.

Personally I have mixed views, especially on what's been going on recently.

Don't get me wrong, Ken has done some good things in his time, and the Oyster card is a prime example. The buses I think would pick up on occupancy in the suburbs if something was done about the anti-social behaviour. Personally I think it was a mistake to give all young people totally free travel at any time. I would have put some time restrictions on it. But I think what happens is that complacency sets in (as with the current Labour govt, and previously the Tories).I think Livingstone has now reached that stage. The fact that Boris is pushing him so close in this election may at least give him a kick up the arse and get him to focus on doing what he does well.

As somebody said earlier in the thread, there is a tradition in this country of putting up with one leader/party for so long, then going for change, even if it goes against some of their social principles.