Boris Johnson is Mayor of London

[JohnnyG]

Good stuff

As Boris probably won't be making many decisions I hope his backroom staff are up to the job, whereas old loveable Ken was just a dictator who ignored many voices when implementing some of his outrageously unfair policies.
As far as I'm concerned a change was needed and as long as Boris and his team actually listen I'm glad they're getting a chance

 

[dirtydog]

Well it's managed for the last 8 years hasn't it?

Ken has been responsible for much of the new office buildings which are needed in London - he changed the previously highly restrictive planning rules to facilitate it. Boris would have opposed it because he wants to preserve London as a museum and not have any new tall buildings anywhere.

 

[Mad old tory]

Intelligence is not the same as knowledge, experience and savvy.

Nope, but then he's also been an MP for seven years and a member of the shadow cabinet, so to say he has no political experience is a downright lie.

 

[dirtydog]

Nope, but then he's also been an MP for seven years and a member of the shadow cabinet, so to say he has no political experience is a downright lie.

I didn't say he had no political experience. He has no experience of being in power; no experience of running a large organisation and no experience of being a Londoner.

 

[Mad old tory]

Well it's managed for the last 8 years hasn't it?

Are you seriously trying to say Ken wasn't a poweful leader? If anything, he went too far with his cronyism etc.

 

[Lil old me]

No, having a degree does NOT prove someone is not an idiot. Although it depends how we define idiot.

Well exactly. However it does certainly show that Boris isn't a complete fool. They don't just hand degrees out...

Id say kens dealings with dubious regimes make him far more of an 'idiot'.


Finally, to all those saying well London is doing better than ever etc etc. Isn't that down to the UK's economic miracle more than anything else?! Theres only so much the Mayor can do to screw it all up.

 

[dirtydog]

Finally, to all those saying well London is doing better than ever etc etc. Isn't that down to the UK's economic miracle more than anything else?! Theres only so much the Mayor can do to screw it all up.

If Boris enacts his strict planning rules as he has alluded to in the past, you will see just what the mayor can do to screw it up.

 

[Freefaller]

I didn't say he had no political experience. He has no experience of being in power; no experience of running a large organisation and no experience of being a Londoner.

It's a fair comment, but do you think you REALLY need that?

Some people take things like this in there stride. I know I couldn't do it, but I have enough savvy and business sense that I've manage to go from a small 12-man company to being relatively senior in a mutli billion pound company employing several thousands of people.

Experience doesn't always necessarily mean you're better at a job.

 

[Richdog]

Are you seriously trying to say Ken wasn't a poweful leader? If anything, he went too far with his cronyism etc.

By "powerful leader" it brings to mind an inspiring figure who commands respect through exemplary leadership, not a loud-mouthed bully who refused to listen to what people actually wanted and enforce policies that many deemed completely unfair. Hitting ambulances with congestion fines? Give me strength.

 

[danza]

Goodbye Ken, you sucked ballzors.

 

[JamesU2005]

Over 1million people didn't think he sucked.

The only reason Boris won was because of the Conservative strong holds in the outer boroughs.

Near all inner city voted Ken.

Despite everyone hating Ken as a person, he did a great job for this city. I have personally seen a massive improvement in the past 8-10 years. I have lived here all my life and now worry for the state of this great city.

I'm counting down the days until the next vote.

 

[Lil old me]

If Boris enacts his strict planning rules as he has alluded to in the past, you will see just what the mayor can do to screw it up.

I leave you only with this comment from the times...

In many respects Labour is fielding a more right-wing candidate than the Tories. Livingstone is strongly pro-developer. In eight years he has done little to clean up London’s physical environment comparable, say, with Paris, Amsterdam or Barcelona. Instead he has pushed through a plague of speculative skyscrapers and what Rowan Moore of the Architecture Foundation calls “massive commercial developments . . . high quality, well maintained, privately controlled spaces outside which there is a sea of public grot”.

Livingstone seeks to concentrate more power in his office and curb the boroughs. Johnson prefers low-rise and conservation and would return planning powers to the boroughs. Livingstone is not keen on open democracy and criticism. He has blown some £2 billion on the London Development Agency run by his friends for purposes as opaque as they appear unaudited.

Sauce: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3779863.ece

 

[Vanilla]

I don't care what the reason behind Boris winning was. There is always some kind of theory about how someone got in power, how the events that lead up to the election affected the outcome, etc.

All that matters is Boris won. I think Ken was awful and i'm glad to see him gone.

 

[dirtydog]

I leave you only with this comment from the times...

Sauce: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3779863.ece

Ah yes from Simon Jenkins, avowed enemy of high rise buildings.

 

[Stan_Lite]

And it does matter how good ken was because hes the only comparison to use to find out if Boris is better!

Why do you need to make comparisons

Politics shouldn't be about comparison, it should be about performance. The new mayor should be interested in doing the best job he possibly can for London, not simply "Trying to be a bit better than the last guy".

Before anybody asks, I'm not actually gullible enough to think that's how the system actually works. Politics is about winning votes, which requires a party or candidate to convince the voters that they are better (or less bad) than the previous lot.
It's a sad way to run things really - after all, you wouldn't promote someone because he/she ran a successful campaign to prove his/her predecessor was a poor performer - you would promote on the basis that the candidate had proved they were capable of doing the job well, not less poorly than the other person.

 

[AGD]

I didn't say he had no political experience. He has no experience of being in power; no experience of running a large organisation and no experience of being a Londoner.

He ran The Spectator for 6 years which isn't small, I'm not saying it's the same as london but he was there managing many people everyday and firing people etc. Successfully running and keeping down costs in a private business is experience that the other two main candidates lacked.

We'll see now either way! It's bound to be entertaining and different.

 

[Spie]

Interestingly, Ken got more votes this time than he did in 2004

That's because there are more immigrants in London now than in 2004.

 

[Lil old me]

Ah yes from Simon Jenkins, avowed enemy of high rise buildings.

Enemy of the high-rise or not I think he does have a point, especially concerning the dubious contracts and centralisation of power away from the boroughs.

Why do you need to make comparisons

Politics shouldn't be about comparison, it should be about performance. The new mayor should be interested in doing the best job he possibly can for London, not simply "Trying to be a bit better than the last guy".

Before anybody asks, I'm not actually gullible enough to think that's how the system actually works. Politics is about winning votes, which requires a party or candidate to convince the voters that they are better (or less bad) than the previous lot.
It's a sad way to run things really - after all, you wouldn't promote someone because he/she ran a successful campaign to prove his/her predecessor was a poor performer - you would promote on the basis that the candidate had proved they were capable of doing the job well, not less poorly than the other person.

How do you rate performance with no scale to base it on? You can't just have some sort of abstract idea of performance. You simply have make comparisons.

 

[Richdog]

That's because there are more immigrants in London now than in 2004.

Yup, i'd wager almost every non-British person in London voted for Ken given thatt here was so much outcry about how bad Boris would be for multi-culturalism. In reality Ken was pandering to the minorities at the expense of others, and Boris has a more Australian outlook on things: they come here to integrate, not to dominate, and just be treated like anyone else with no preferential treatment given.

 

[Tommy B]

Boris has a more Australian outlook on things: they come here to integrate, not to dominate, and just be treated like anyone else with no preferential treatment given.

That is the only acceptable view. If anything the preferential treatment should be given to the indigenous population.