Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 254

Thread: Bojo

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noel emits View Post
    London buses are good - they've improved loads in the last ten years, cheaper too I think. Just wait till yer 65 tom then you can be like a 12 year old again.
    my last point was a bit tongue in cheek, but i can't wait regardless! agreed that buses are ace now - i used to avoid getting them like the plague because of how infrequent they were, but i never seem to wait long now. and they're miles nicer than the tube, obviously.
    in the eyes of the lord i drive a spaceship.

  2. #32

    Default

    yeah i think i am actually going to vote this time

    i think ken's been fantastic as mayor (cctv in london is insane though i'm not sure if he has anything to do with that)

    i really hope he ups the congestion charge to about 50squid a day, i cycle usually, and if not take the bus, and its great - buses are great now, so much better than the tube

    boris and the evening standard can take a hike afaic

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    524

    Default

    you could have knocked me over with a feather, back in 2000 when I was living in London and was told I could vote for Mayor. Residency alone was enough! I think that's pretty cool.

    I'd like to watch the heads explode in the US if residency was enough to give you the right to vote in local elections (it might be true for some but i've never heard of it)..

    I did vote for Ken, and watched the bus system and traffic improve markedly too. can't remember now what I thought of his other policies

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    I think it's a smart move for the tories to run Boris - they've identified that there is something sentimental about Londoner's and their support for Ken and they hope to tap into that with loveable buffoonish Boris who is so funny on 'have I got news for you'.
    Disagree, I think the tories are thinking too short term. Boris is the Tory's dubya candidate - an antidote to a charasmatic, iconoclastic politician who can win on those terms, but no-one's given any thought as to how good he will actually be in the job.

    Difference is that once the republicans got GWB into the white house it was job done, whereas the tories have to use Boris's victory (if he does win) as a springboard to power nationally.

    I just can't see Boris being able to run London with catastrophically ballsing it up. The tories have gambled that he'll either discover a sense of maturity once in power that he has hitherto completely lacked, or that they will have enough leverage on him to limit any idiocy he might get up to. Pretty big gamble on both counts I would say.

    Boris is the Tony Benn of the tory party, and they have given him a clean shot at becoming the most powerful tory politician in the country. In the long term, it's suicide for the tories, mark my words.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    643

    Default

    FWIW, i like Ken, he's the only politician I've ever voted for, but he's been in power too long. His stupid feud with the Evening Standard does my head in. He might as well be pissed off with the clouds for raining on him.

  6. #36

    Default

    To be honest, I fail to see the rational either. Boris might win -- he is indeed a Tory GW -- but surely no one in the Conservative Party actually thinks he can successfully hold office. Madness...

    But then, I'd have said the same about Ken, and he still seems pretty popular.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabba Flamenco Crossover View Post
    FWIW, i like Ken, he's the only politician I've ever voted for, but he's been in power too long.
    Agree with that. I'd favour a two-term statutory limit. The misused LDA funds (if true) reflect very badly on him and are typical of what happens when a politician is in office too long. Still think, broadly, he's been an excellent mayor. There's is not one single other politican in the country who would've had the bollocks to see through something as massive and potentially catastrophic as the congestion charge.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,579

    Default

    "Agree with that. I'd favour a two-term statutory limit."
    I don't agree with that at all. If people keep voting for someone then why shouldn't they be allowed to stay in power? Also, it removes any accountability from someone when they are in their final term.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackerjack View Post
    Agree with that. I'd favour a two-term statutory limit. The misused LDA funds (if true) reflect very badly on him and are typical of what happens when a politician is in office too long.
    I don't think I know about this - what (allegedly) happened, briefly?
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackerjack View Post
    Agree with that. I'd favour a two-term statutory limit. The misused LDA funds (if true) reflect very badly on him and are typical of what happens when a politician is in office too long. Still think, broadly, he's been an excellent mayor.
    Aren't term limits also an encouragement to corruption? Think about what happens in the US when the president gets to the end of his allowed term of office.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    I don't think I know about this - what (allegedly) happened, briefly?
    Google thisislondon, Andrew gilligan and Lee Jasper and take a large pinch of sodium chloride. Broadly (and allegedly), grants have been made from LDA funds to several rather nebulous organisations, some of which have folded in the very same year without ever filing that year's accounts. Lee Jasper is suspected (by Gilligan, at least) of being matey with some of the organisations.

    I should stress the Standard and Gilligan are not to be trusted. But Jasper is, erm, now how can I put this.......?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleRich View Post
    I don't agree with that at all. If people keep voting for someone then why shouldn't they be allowed to stay in power?
    But incumbency creates its own power (particularly when you hold it for that long, and probably half the city's people of power are your appointees). Once in a while the playing field needs levelling. Checks and balances are essential in any democracy.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Aren't term limits also an encouragement to corruption? Think about what happens in the US when the president gets to the end of his allowed term of office.
    And the richest crims in the system all get mysteriously pardoned?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1184118.stm

    Yeah, there is that drawback. But ultimately you have laws to deal with corruption and I'd rather trust in them.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    6,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackerjack View Post
    I should stress the Standard and Gilligan are not to be trusted. But Jasper is, erm, now how can I put this.......?
    ...not to be trusted either?

    I still can't believe he got away with this shit without being hauled over the coals:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/education/1398628.stm

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackerjack View Post
    But incumbency creates its own power (particularly when you hold it for that long, and probably half the city's people of power are your appointees). Once in a while the playing field needs levelling. Checks and balances are essential in any democracy.
    One argument (which I'm sympathetic to) is that term limits create a situation where the incumbent no longer needs to worry about re-election, and eventually reaches a time where the costs of impeachment are greater than the costs of doing nothing. Therefore, watch almost any US president, Dem or Rep, start handing out favours one year from the end of his two terms.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •