I believe it's being shown on TV this evening.
As a quick overview (based solely night's performance):
Johnson: Had fleeting moments of greatness where he looked and sounded like a leader. Had a strong grasp on his policies in key areas (mainly crime) and seemed to have some pretty simple yet effective solutions. Was a bit sketchy on areas that aren't traditional core Tory ground.
Let himself down by getting angry a coule of times and losing his temper. In his defence, a black genlteman did get up at one point and say "Boris, you had to write an apology letter in the Evening Standard last week for saying black people have smaller brains...". That pissed me and Boris off a bit. It was clarly rubbish, he never said anything of the sort, but as soon as someone says something like that it often sticks, even if it's not true. I'd give his performance a 6/10.
Livingstone: Answered the questions very very well, and managed to pretty successfully deflect allegations regarding Lee Jasper and corruption. Didn't do himself any favours by coming across as very smug and arrogant. Fair play to him, he knew his lines on most issues, but his delivery of these lines made him look complacent at times.
Paddick: A thorn in my side if ever there was one. I seriously like this man. He comes across confident, clever and well briefed. He also 'looks' the best; he is always well turned out, sits up straight and son. I just wish he would work for a 'serious' Party. His policies don't stand up, but his performance was very strong.
Interestingly, before the cameras were rolling whilst Boris and Ken were hidden in their dressing rooms rehearsing, Brian was walking around very casually and relaxed chatting to audience members. I got to go the drinks reception afterwards (BECAUSE I'M REALLY IMPORTANT) and I had a brief chat with him. His people skills are absolutely spot-on, he was friendly and confident and, even though I made it quite clear at the start that I wasn't going to vote for him, this didn't change his approach towards me one bit. A true gentleman in every sense. Due to a few dodgy policies I can only give him a 7.5/10.
So there you go. In a perfect world, i'd take Boris's policies, Ken's unquestionable love of London and everthing else from Paddick. On balance though, it's policies that change lives, so it has to be Boris for Mayor.
I'm pissed off at Boris
He seems to have gained momentum the whole way through his campaign until now, perhaps the most crucial stage. Can't see Paddick stopping that odious cunt Livingstone winning.
It is on tonight, 10.40pm
you wanted Boris to win?
I'd prefer it to Ken, yes
Its a lesser evil scenario
I'm not overly enamoured with Ken
but if Boris wins it will be a deeply depressing day
For you perhaps
But maybe not for me.
Politics, eh?
oh well
I've never met anyone who takes Boris seriously before, apart from GG.
In all honesty
I'd vote for some sort of Hitler/Satan/Samanda hybrid creature over Livingstone
fair enough
Maybe I'll just vote for the mental English Democrats man
The one who looks like he's in a failed boyband?
nice
link
http://www.voteenglish.org/
surely the lack of a ringing Tory endorsement from you
is as damning as it gets? i do think you've damned Boris with faint praise there. as a lefty that's fine by me.
My question would have been:
"Why does the Mayor of London election get a higher billing on the news than some other stuff that is more nationally notable"
But I could probably answer it.
"8 million poeple live there."
Which would easily be countered
with a snotty question about Scottish MPs sitting in two parliaments
Hmmm. I wonder why that is the case?
Before this goes into an independence debate, I really like Britain the way it is - but I wish that there was either the BBC or nothing - none of this shitty "Scottish" bollocks up here.
Case in point is MotD (which I watch religiously) being culled and replaced by some scottish "football".
I didn't say it would be a fair question!
because the result
will have wider implications?
sounds similar to normal
and i would agree from what i've seen in the past. Boris really does need to learn not to shout every one down though. it was embarrasing on the bbc debate, and leave ken stood there with that annoying smug grin on his face knowing that boris will be his own downfall, and the lib dems never win anything.
This is true
But then televised political 'debates' are a joke. He'd probably have to shout to even get a point across
It was VERY pantomime last night.
Boris definitely had the most supporters there though by a long, long way. I think they bussed in the Henley Conversative Future (in fact, I think they actually did. Which is funny, because none of them even live in London!)
true
the presenters can quite clearly decide who they want to come accross most impressively, but he hasn't dealt with them very well, and in order to be a leader, you have to be the best at doing whatever is put in front of you.
i'm glad i don't get to vote in this, as i don't really want either of them in power, though i guess ken for me is the lesser of two twits, but is he really?
all in all, i hate politics!
I'm dreading election day
Still haven't decided who I'm voting for, although I've decided which candidates I won't be voting for
Has Boris
sorted out some sensible transport policies yet, other than the bizzare idea of not only scrapping bendy buses but building new routemasters?
Serious question btw, since that's the only real transport policy of his that seems to get any publicity.
Taking bus passes off 'naughty' children?
^ This is one of my favourite Boris policies.
Because I genuinely believe it will work and make the busses a more pleasant environment for all.
it is a good policy
but i see them black riding quite a lot when i am in london.
Kids were fucking about on buses
long before they were free, it will make fuckall difference
The same defeatist approach
could be applied to absolutely all social ills
^This.
There's was crime before we had police, so why bother having police?
the idea, for those that don't know, is that under 16s who currently have free bus travel will lose it if they partake in anti-social behaviour on busses. They can earn their free travel back (or 'pay back London' as the scheme is called) through mild community service: cleaning up graffiti, pickling up litter that kind of stuff.
Even if the kids themeselves don't care, the parents will who suddenly they have to pay for their child who has lost his free travel. This will then, by extenstion, hopefully restore discipline in the household as the parents discipline their child (which is who should be disciplining). It should be said though that this last part is a nice bonus, and no the main principle behind the policy.
All the kids seem to fuck around on buses, though.
I don't think they really care because at the end of the day their parents will pay their bus fare instead and if their parents had any ability to reign the fuckers in they'd behave in the first place. So the result is just some extra money for London Transport.
All?
Nah, thats a massive exaggeration. Even if this policy doesn't work out as such in a preventive sense, I have no problem with anti-social behaviour on public transport being punished. Can't see why anyone would.
Okay, the kids I refer to are the ones travelling to and from school
or in groups. Not the ones with their parents.
I would describe 'fucking around' as making my bus journey annoying by making ANY NOISE WHATSOEVER!!!
Frankly, I don't kow what the 'worst' kids get up to. What are you thinking of here? I ask that honestly because you know, even without their phones playing music, they're still FUCKING IRRITING LITTLE SHITS. No question. Only someone with no other choice gets on a buses with the school run.
Hehe, true.
I quickly gave up on the bus and started walking to work. But I would have thought with much of Boris's attention being on crime levels in London, it is the more serious offences that will be the primary target of such a policy.
Well this is the point.
The kids fuck about because the parents don't care. If the parents had to pay for their children all of a sudden then they might take a bit more interest in their children's behaviour.
And, as you say, even if it doesn't work, there'll be a bit more money in Transprt for London's coffers to create a better service for the rest of us.
It's win win win. It seems as though you, like Johnny, are implying we should do nothing as there will always be dickheads out there...
Nah, I'm not implying we should do nothing at all.
I think children should pay a flat but cheap rate as they did in my childhood, when it was 5 or 10p or (gasp) 15p when adult fares were a lot higher. I don't really see any need for free travel unless your parents are on benefit.
MOST kids shouldn't even need to travel far to school. I didn't. A walk of a mile isn't massively hard going, I certainly didn't think so.
But I'm just saying it's not a massively great policy for that reason. As I just said above: what is the mythical 'misbehaving' point at which we remove their rights to free travel? It's just messy. Boris is too chicken to just remove the free travel entirely.
Sadly
In the rest of the known world - kids still fuck about on buses they actually PAID to get on.
Time to go to Specsavers Quentin - your seriously nearsighted.
the answer is clear
raise money from naughty children having to pay the fare and spend the money on ninja conductors
Superb
Works from every angle!
for a brief overview of Boris's transport policies
see here:
http://www.backboris.co.uk/policy/transport/index.php
How can you talk seriously about this oaf?
He even looks like a confused 'tard at the top of that website of his.
Are you all fucking mad?
Ugh
People who will vote for Boris just because he is 'funny looking' and people who won't vote for Boris just because he is 'funny looking' are slight variations of the same kind of idiot
Are you deliberately trying to look stupid?
Because you're doing a pretty good job.
As a northerner, could you please leave this thread.
I'm from London Toryboy
Johnson, though quite entertaining is a fool of a politician - well known for inconsistency and mis-management.
At least in this city we do not select potential candidates for local government based on how recognisable they are - otherwise we'd have Mani running the town, wouldn't we?
I've not lived in London for a decade or so but what I have seen Ken do there on at regular intervals has been fairly impressive. I'm fairly sure voting Boris is going to sink your city further into the mud.
Living in a democracy as we do,
you are entitled to your incorrect opinion.
Come on
is that the best you can do?
<3 U
Its also good to see ####guavara being a git again, the world is back to normal
So looking through
Basically either undoing stuff that's already been done and proved relatively successful - e.g. decrease capacity on key bus routes back to double decker levels, or doing things that are already being done - increasing police, bus tracking, trying to find a way of doing tube air-conditioning, bringing Oyster into all London rail stations, support the long term infrastructure projects etc.
There are, to be fair, a few policies that seem to be his own - no £25 congestion charge and suchlike, and stuff like extending the freedom pass sounds great, but there's an awful lot of money to be found to fund this set of policies.
You didn't give Ken a mark out of 10?
The London Paper's pro-Ken section last night was showing how the YouGov poll was now putting Boris 'only' 6% ahead of Ken, though in line with the latest MORI poll, it seems.
Ah, no it seems I didn't.
I'll go with 7/10. Handled himself well, smugness stopped him achieving any higher.
I think Ken's clearly a better Mayor for London.
It's a unique role in which he is uniquely qualified, in my view. I mean I can imagine Boris Johnson running as the leader of the Tory party and getting there but Ken Livingstone as possible PM ever? You've got to be joking. Not that he'd try.
Boris' reasoning for trying to this role is entirely wrong. The reason Sam's liking Paddick more is because he's there on the same platform Ken is: a person who wants to be London Mayor and who considers London important.
Boris is really just a political opportunist whose entire campaign has been run from a position of "Anti-Ken", which is a ludicrous stance. It's all about the Tories trying to score one over on Old Skool Labour and fuck all to do with what's best for London.
fucking hell!!
I agree!
I don't see that being Anti-Ken is ludicrous at all
Infact, it makes a whole lot of sense if you don't want your city being turned into his personal fiefdom
It doesn't make sense because it's not about winning votes
and it's not about making changes for strong logical reasons.
The bendy bus thing is a good example of this: get rid of them and spend billions (probably) on creating a slightly different version of a regular double decker bus, and then pay two people to run it because that's what Ken got rid of!!!111
Paddick is not Anti-Ken but he is an alternative. And that's because he's formulated his own policies based on what he thinks is best.
Incidentally can you tell me what marks London out as Ken's personal fiefdom for you?
In an ideal world, I'd agree for you
And for the record, I'm not yet sure Johnson is going to feature on my ballot. I'm not a fanatical Toryboy, or indeed a Tory at all.
What really has done it for me with Livingstone was the issues regarding his race advisor, Lee Jaspar. Regardless of whether or not any of the allegations made turn out to be true or not is largely irrelevant, seeing as racial and social cohesion aren't really supposed to be matters for City Hall, are they? They are already specific advisors and positions in place to deal with these issues and the associated insitiutions (I think that JacobJones, being a lot smarter and more experienced in the area once went into detail on it). The way that Livingstone addressed the London Assembley when the Jaspar allegations came up were also outrageous.
What I do really like about Paddick is his seeming commitment to hiring the best people, rather than cronies (which Livingstone is definitely guilty of and I suspect Johnson would also do), for advisory positions. I'm pretty sure he'll figure on my ballot, but I'm unsure of some of his policies so haven't yet decided if he'll be my 1st or 2nd choice.
ESSAY!
Ye-ea-ah...
I'm not really sure I get much of this 'personal fiefdom' stuff, thhough I agree that the Jasper allegations look fucking shit. But it's not like he's exercising massive control over London that he didn't have. Really the only things to actually affect us are his policies, which haven't been (in my view) bad.
I'm sure once Boris is in power we'll be reading similar tales of corruption or whate-have-you, so in those areas I'm not even sure I see him as being 'Anti-Ken'.
Yeah, but he has policies in areas
which don't come under a Mayor's jurisdiction and I really don't understand why he has been allowed to get away with it. It also worries me that there is no limit to how many times one candidate can run for Mayor, but thats an aside.
Maybe Johnson will get up to similar mischief. But thats just conjecture. The simple matter of fact is that Livingstone HAS operated in areas of policy that are not to be operated in by a Mayor.
Perhaps,
but he's also got a good track record overall and policies that continue on that line. For that, I personally would be able to live with things like the Londoner - I see the scrapping of dozens of new buses nowhere near the end of their life for a few populist votes as a far bigger waste of money.
It worries me that many people aren't voting based on policies, but on the two main candidate's personalities. Whatever people keep saying, it's basically come down to a contest between "Red Ken, wot done ok, but he's a bit rubbish really." and "that Boris bloke off the telly, who's a bit stupid and rugby tackled that German".
Which sadens me :(
Perhaps my disdain for Livingstone
isn't necessarily born of policy, but rather principle. I'm not willing to allow him carte blanche on the grounds that some of his policies have been successful (I'm a fan of his commitment to the environmental/congestion cause). Doing so flouts the principles democracy is supposed to be built on just as much as voting on personalities does. In my opinion anyway...
Yeah, the post I meant to put addressed that
but unfortunately it didn't come though!
What I intended to say is that it's actually something that the Tories (as the main opposition) could have capitalised on properly by putting up a credible candidate that doesn't have the personality. As soon as Boris was picked, the contest was always doing to be about "Ken" vs "Boris" rather than about what's best for London - every thread on DiS about this election demonstrates that entirely.
Almost any other Conservative candidate would be able to win with the combination of decent (or even populist, I guess) policies and attacking Ken's flaws. By contrast, this one seems to be doing it based on a combination of both types of policy and his personality. If that's how they felt they could best win, then fair enough, but it's really doing London no favours IMHO.
This is very true
I think Livingstone and Labour have made a similar error of judgement, insofar as that plenty of people who would usually happily vote Labour won't do so because of the 'personality' of their candidate
It's a problem, though, that Boris gets in on that
rather than policies, which was my point.
You know I really want to know more about this whole Lee Jasper thing. Like why the papers aren't going on about Livingstone creating departments that his role isn't meant to cover.
I remember JacobJones talking about this but it's odd that no one SAYS anything. Or does the Standard rant about it all the time? I don't feel qualified to discuss this because I don't understand how it could have happened, really...
And I agree with that point
but in real terms there isn't much that can be done about it.
I REALLY don't get it. I've repeatedly looked into the roles that a Mayor is supposed to play and the policy areas he is supposed to be involved in, and absolutely no list race/social relations. Its just as if no-one cares he is exceeding his bounds...
This
would certainly seem to be the case from what I have seen.
Why does everyone seem
to think that Paddick is great, but no-one gives him a hope in hell of winning/wants to vote for him? (this is just the rough idea that i get)
Is it because people are voting according to party rather than candidate? (sorry, i don't know, this might be the accepted norm?)
I don't think he stands a chance
because he'll get too many 2nd choice ballots and not enough 1st
I think it is because Ken and Boris
are inevitably going to dominate (not that many people really care about the ins and outs and just vote based on more simplistic factors) and are such divisive characters that decisions will be based around that axis. I like Paddick but I can't cope with the idea that Boris will win so I am voting "tactically" to stop that outcome. It's saddening not to be able to vote with my instinct but it's the lesser of two evils.
Johnson
is currently riding around Westminster on a bus sponsored by the soaraway Sun. Seems that Rupert Murdoch has picked his puppet.
Not exactly: the London Paper seems to be pro-Ken.
Very odd.
Yes, especially given that Boris was on the front page of The Sun today
99% of Brits want the death penalty back?