Registered user login:

Is Boris faking it?

Brian Cathcart

Published 27 March 2008

A new, serious Boris Johnson is now being offered to the voters of London - thanks to the heavy stage-direction of Tory party minders.

Prominent on the home page of the Back Boris website (www.backboris.com) is a box counting down the days, hours, minutes and seconds to the London mayoral election. For casual visitors it presumably serves as a gentle reminder that 1 May is drawing steadily nearer. For Team Boris, however, the countdown is loaded with tension and emotion.

That, they tell themselves when they look at the numbers, is precisely how long we must maintain our total vigilance. That, measured to the second, is the still painfully extended period through which we have to make absolutely sure Boris does not say one of those appalling, offensive, stupid things he has been in the habit of saying all his life.

At the time of writing they are succeeding. The word from Conservative Central Office is that exhausted members of Johnson's staff turn up occasionally to touch base, shaking their heads in disbelief that they are still getting away with it. "It's hard to believe they are talking about a grown man," says one insider. "It's like teachers describing a very bright child with naughty ways who is somehow starting to behave himself in class."

Many might say it is even harder to believe that they are talking about the front-runner in the election for one of Britain's most important jobs: the man who may lead a city of 7.5 million that will soon play host to the Olympic Games, the politician who may control an £11bn-a-year budget that comes with surprisingly feeble restraints on how it is spent.

But so it is. In what could be called a postmodern joke by the Conservatives, a man with a lurid history of verbal incontinence is playing the 21st-century election game, with all its gaffe-traps and correctness tripwires - and he is winning.

The Svengalis of Team Boris are doing their bit, but we have to acknowledge first that the trick couldn't work without a superhuman effort of self-control by the man himself. It is something even he once thought beyond him. Only three years ago he told my colleague Sholto Byrnes in an interview: "The real point is that if I did try to acquire gravitas in a calculated and systematic way, I'd probably fall flat on my face. So I think, better to fly by the seat of your pants."

Now the flying is over and the calculated acquisition of gravitas is under way. "Boris is trying very, very hard to be serious," says Tony Travers of the London School of Economics, who follows affairs in the capital closely, "though personally I'm not sure he's very different underneath." A senior report er covering the campaign sees it the same way: "Boris has shown remarkable discipline. You can see that he has resolved some sort of inner conflict and is now struggling to achieve something in politics, in what may well be his last chance."

Like a man overcoming a stammer, Johnson has locked down that almost pathological compulsion to dazzle and shock whoever he happens to be talking to, which again and again has driven him to say the unsayable. He has also conquered his habit of either being late for appointments or not turning up at all.

But if the candidate is trying hard on his own account, the people around him are also straining every muscle. The joke on the campaign trail is that every time Johnson appears in public his chief minder, Lynton Crosby, keeps him squarely in the cross hairs of a sniper rifle, ready to bring him down the second his mouth runs away with him.

Crosby, who made his name helping John Howard to successive victories in Australia, and who ran Michael Howard's Tory campaign here in 2005, joined Team Boris after Christmas, adding some very expensive expertise to the mix. Though he is talked of as a master of the dark arts of election-fighting, his principal impact seems to have been straightforward. "He has injected urgency into the campaign," says that campaign reporter. "We're seeing swift rebuttals and quality attack lines every day. It's a professional operation of a kind we haven't seen before in a mayoral election."

Avoiding close contact

One trick, by the look of it, has been to expose the candidate as little as possible to close contact with the people most likely to lead him astray: his fellow journalists.

John-Paul Flintoff wrote amusingly in the Sunday Times of the struggle he had getting anywhere near Johnson, and my own efforts merely to catch sight of this supposedly tireless candidate also met with some frustration. His handlers showed little urgency in responding to the New Statesman, and when they did they insisted he was booked up, busy or concentrating on meeting campaigners. Next week will be better, they promised, in a jam-tomorrow sort of way.

It's not that he hides - he does all the set-piece debates, hustings appearances, television soundbites and photo opportunities - but there seems to be a keen awareness that the risks of any other form of exposure can easily outweigh the benefits. When Flintoff eventually managed to get close to Johnson he was treated with the sort of suspicious horror usually reserved for plague-carriers - and he was writing for a Tory paper.

It helps enormously that so much attention has been on Ken Livingstone: Team Boris can remain relatively policy-light while the incumbent is busy fighting off his critics, notably Andrew Gilligan at the London Evening Standard, our own Martin Bright, and others.

This increases the air of unreality about the Tory campaign. Day after day Johnson has been denying his known nature in the pursuit of gravitas, while carefully dodging unhelpful press exposure, and week after week he has escaped scrutiny because the heat is on Livingstone. He hasn't needed a Teflon coating because so little sticky stuff has been thrown his way.

And meanwhile, out of sight, an aggressive get-out-the-vote strategy is being hatched, which his handlers believe can tip the balance against Labour on polling day. It is precisely the kind of under-the-radar campaigning for which Lynton Crosby is known in Australia.

None of this is meant to imply that the candidate himself is an airhead. Johnson has been a successful editor of the Spectator and is manifestly shrewd, intelligent and articulate, so that when it comes to campaign debates he is well able to cope.

"Certainly we are seeing a more serious Boris," said another reporter covering the election. "He handled a grilling from Andrew Neil very well, for example, and Neil was out to give him a hard time." Johnson is also often good in meetings with voters and special interest groups, deflecting and disarming with his particular brand of bonhomous candour.

But still there is the disquieting knowledge that, as even his best friend is likely to admit, he doesn't do policy. Worrying about how the details of life might be tinkered with to bring benefits to large numbers of people has always been alien to him. When he talks about serious things such as housing or transport, his voice and expression are constantly fighting the temptation to put him at a distance, and to make his comments seem ironic and knowing or the topic daft. He only really seems to engage, in Victor Meldrew fashion, at the point where it might be entertaining, such as the threat posed by bendy buses to cyclists such as himself. There are plenty of policies, from reforming the congestion charge to increasing affordable homes (look at the website), and they even come with added Boris Johnson magic dust. The words "plethora" and "pristine" crop up; cyclists "dodge death", and the RMT union has its "thumbs on the windpipe" of commuters - all language familiar to readers of his Telegraph column.

But does Johnson care? Is he genuinely troubled, for example, by the prospect of a third Heathrow runway, which he says he opposes? Does he worry about the emissions and the noise and disruption that will affect people other than himself, as he now claims to? Twenty years of his journalism say no, and so do ten celebrity years in which he came to embody the idea that it was clever not even to bother understanding.

When Ken Livingstone says the mayoral election is not Celebrity Big Brother, he does so with a pained expression on his face. He knows that if it is Celebrity Big Brother, he is about to be ejected - he's quite a showman himself, but he has met his match in this Tory candidate. And if it isn't Celebrity Big Brother, then on the evidence to date it is about him, Ken, about his management style and about people wanting someone different now. No one is looking closely at Johnson.

And even if they start, Johnson is proof against a lot of things that would hurt another politician. If this Sunday's News of the World produced a scoop about him bonking another posh bird, London voters would think good luck to him. The one thing they would think twice about, though, is if he is guilty of a Jade Goody moment - some gross expression of patrician racism or some brutal quip about single mothers. Hence Lynton Crosby's sniper rifle.

This election is indeed a postmodern event, a personality contest in which the Tories have found a personality even bigger than Livingstone's (albeit one who, lacking known depth, may actually only be bigger in two dimensions).

It is the inevitable consequence, according to Tony Travers, of the presidential-style mayoral system confected by Tony Blair in the effort to distil local politics into a more entertaining form. And Travers believes it may even be the sort of contest modern voters really want.

"Britain is a postmodern country and London is its post-modern capital," he says. "Strip away the characteristics of today's Londoners and you won't find that at their core they are serious. They are hedonistic, and they are people who take the piss. And that's what Boris is, too."

Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University

Boris: the CV

19 June 1964 Born Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, New York

1969 Family moves to farm on Exmoor

1975 Goes to Ashdown House prep school

1977 Enters Eton

1983 Goes up to Balliol College, Oxford, to read classics

1987 Marries Allegra Mostyn-Owen

1989 Joins Telegraph as leader writer and EU correspondent

1993 Divorces Allegra; marries Marina Wheeler

1993 First child, Lara Lettice, is born; three more follow

1999 Becomes editor of the Spectator

2001 Elected Tory MP for Henley

2004 Appointed shadow minister for the arts

2004 Sacked from front bench for lying over affair with Petronella Wyatt

2005 Steps down from Spectator; appointed shadow minister for higher education

July 2007 Resigns from front bench; announces bid for Conservative candidacy for London mayoral elections

Research by Simon Rudd

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

46 comments from readers

tombp
27 March 2008 at 14:13

"Britain is a postmodern country and London is its post-modern capital," he says. "Strip away the characteristics of today's Londoners and you won't find that at their core they are serious. They are hedonistic, and they are people who take the piss. And that's what Boris is, too."

LOL!

knave
27 March 2008 at 16:03

Careful Brian you will get Boris's cheerleaders Martin Bright and Nick Cohen giving you kicking

BegbiesEvilTwin
27 March 2008 at 22:55

Is the "heavy stage-direction of Tory party minders" any heavier than that of New Labour?.

Meanwhile some light relief with the Boris Johnson quote generator:-

http://www.fandmpublications.co.uk/pages/borisjohnsonquote.h...

taghioff.info
28 March 2008 at 07:44

@knave

I am not sure if Bright and Cohen are fans of Boris, they are just very much un-fans of Ken.

Where are cybertiger, writeon and gruneo, it feels like the pub is a bit empty... (Sad, sad, sad, I think I need to take a break from blogging.)

Appropo the article, if Boris is indeed a post-modern joke, it is in the same way as (W) Bush is. On the eve of his first election, The Onion, an American satirical web-site predicted that Bush would plunge the country into war after war and then proceed to bankrupt it. Ha Ha. As Monbiot put it, sometimes things get so bad, it becomes impossible to satirize them any more.

Indeed, here is Boris himself revealing how funny he really is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgrZs4GXv4

He tells he would be a crook but for his incompetence, and we appreciate his public-school cultivated ability to take the piss out of himself.

He, of course, has no need to prove himself, because he was born at the top, and we take this as charming. Ken, always the underdog in his own mind, has none of that ease with himself, and we mistake that for arrogance.

How can we be so naive?

knave
28 March 2008 at 11:32

tag

am not sure if Bright and Cohen are fans of Boris

It was a joke

Your probably right about Bright.

Cohen I am not so sure. there is something of the night and right about that individual.

Cybertiger
28 March 2008 at 12:40

@ Rag, tag and bobtail's evil twin

"Where are cybertiger, writeon and gruneo, it feels like the pub is a bit empty... "

I vote we all go down to the Dog & Badger and play darts ... and down a pint ... or five. The dreadful BBC, Boris, Bright or Cohen? Where would you place your dart?

harold53
28 March 2008 at 15:32

What do you mean a 'new serious Boris'?

Who would seriously suggest sending motorbikes down the bus lanes, bringing back routemasters, climate-change denying, suggesting his racist comments were of no importance, suggesting pedestrians are dangerous - the list goes on. For Londoners, he's no joke.

Paul
28 March 2008 at 23:31

What planet are you on, Harold53? Boris isn't asking for revival of the slave trade or children to be sent up chimneys. He simply wants to allow - not "send" - motorbikes down bus lanes. If you know of any reason why they shouldn't use bus lanes, I can give you five why they should. I'm serious.

"Would you seriously suggest bringing back Routemasters?". Er, yes, a lot of people would. Seriously.

"Would you seriously suggest climate change denial?" Clarification needed here. Do you seriously suggest that the weather changes from one minute to the next, and has been doing so for millions of years? Yes. Do you seriously suggest it is wrong to question a new religion based on a group of politically-motivated scientists and a rich publicity-seeking American who failed in politics, backed by media desperate for scare stories and easy copy? Apparently you do, even though many millions of people - very serious scientists among them - seriously agree that global warming alarmism is the biggest money-making scam ever played on mankind.

"Would you seriously agree that Boris's racist comments were of no importance?" That presupposes the were racist. No chance they were light-hearted literary devices of seriously little importance?

"Would you seriously suggest pedestrians are dangerous?" Would anyone, least of all a prospective mayor, seriously suggest pedestrians as a whole are dangerous? Be serious now.

Harold, you seem to think everything Ken says is true because he looks serious when he says it. Use your brain, man, and stop being so serious. Read the last paragraph of the excellent article above and discover why the seriously gullible Left are a serious turn-off for a serious number of people who don't take life that seriously.

taghioff.info
29 March 2008 at 07:41

@Paul

"Do you seriously suggest it is wrong to question a new religion based on a group of politically-motivated scientists and a rich publicity-seeking American who failed in politics, backed by media desperate for scare stories and easy copy? Apparently you do, even though many millions of people - very serious scientists among them - seriously agree that global warming alarmism is the biggest money-making scam ever played on mankind."

A review of all publications by climatologists over an 8 year period found that 0, none of them, nicht, nada questioned the validity of human-induced global warming.

You may not take life seriously, but nature doesn't give a damn about that.

knave
29 March 2008 at 08:21

Paul you are been manipulated as much as anybody else. Remember Crosby is the king of negative campaigning who uses race to smear his political opponents. You think of yourself as an easy going political slacker who is an independent thinker but in reality your one of the sheep like everybody else. Who by the tone of the post is as serious as anyone else about his politics. Some are manipulated by the left and you by the right. Who feed on your fears and petty

hatreds. Crosby is master of that technique.

Crosby has turned the contest into negative slagging contest. where there seems to be a lack of positives on either side.

No chance they were light-hearted literary devices of seriously little importance?

So does that go for any racist remark.

Paul
29 March 2008 at 09:19

Taghioff: "A review of all publications by climatologists over an 8 year period found that 0, none of them, nicht, nada questioned the validity of human-induced global warming."

A statement like that quite takes my breath away. It is simply not worth trying to discuss the subject when in only the last hour or two I have read about 20 papers from variety of highly qualified climatologists, space scientists, geologists and academics seriously questioning global warming alarmism.

I do not fully understand your claim either. Is that a review of publications by climatologists, in which case what review? Or is is a review by climatologists of publications, in which case what publications and which climatologists?

No, Knave, I have not been manipulated by anyone. I read and I listen and I watch and I make up my own mind. The main difficulty is to avoid being manipulated by the global conspiracy of power-hungry politicians, job-dependent scientists, carbon-trade scammers and media pundits. They are the "sheep".

knave
29 March 2008 at 18:33

Paul you will follow the crowd like everybody else.

You just haven't realised it yet.

What ever is written in Mail or Standard reinforces your prejudices.

As for climate change I have an open mind. There is evidence on both sides. To dismiss some of the evidence for climate change as just alarmist is a strange closed minded view.

"It is simply not worth trying to discuss the subject when in only the last hour or two I have read about 20 papers from variety of highly qualified climatologists, space scientists, geologists and academics seriously questioning global warming alarmism"

You need to get our more and get a life. It's Saturday afternoon .

There is evidence for air pollution levels in inner cites that are linked to some serious diseases.

In fact you are far more likely to die early in a city than the country. So looking for controls on carbon levels might have the knock on effect of reducing air pollution.

Paul
29 March 2008 at 21:08

"You need to get our more and get a life." - Knave.

Is that really the standard of debate around here?

What really interests me is how, exactly, global warming doomsayers form their resolute opinion and from where, exactly, they get their information.

I meet various people who take man-made global warming as a fact, yet they clearly have no idea about basic chemistry, let alone the infinitely complex science governing our climate. One such person I spoke to last week seemed to believe that albatrosses strangled by plastic bags in the Pacific were a result of climate change.

So can someone tell me how they acquire their facts? Is it from pronouncements by the IPCC, newspaper headlines, Al Gore's film, or just an assumption that it's true because the likes of Ken Livingstone say so?

knave
30 March 2008 at 07:49

Paul, yes that is the standard of debate. If you don't like it go back to back Boris website.

Look there is of evidence for global warming. Now listen.

Go to Google

Type in global warming evidence

knave
30 March 2008 at 07:52

Also there are no certainities in science . Popper falsification theory looks at any scientific evidence in that manner. To say global warming is incorrect is as bad as saying it does exist.

Cybertiger
30 March 2008 at 10:23

Paul says,

"So can someone tell me how they acquire their facts? Is it from pronouncements by the IPCC, newspaper headlines, Al Gore's film, or just an assumption that it's true because the likes of Ken Livingstone say so?"

Ken Livingstone says Dubya is the greatest threat to life on the planet. I believe the science is compelling.

Random
30 March 2008 at 10:44

The reason Boris has to watch his mouth is that ignorant journalists like those at the New Statesman have no idea about free debate, and reasoned differences of opinion. Journalists are not very good at understanding what he is actually saying. I have heard him condemned when what he has said is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that not only have the journalists not understood it, but they seem to believe that people can't put out certain political ideas.

Ken, on the other hand, seems to get a pass when he praises violent extremists, excuses terrorism, suppression of women and certain races and religions, or when he on the other hand claims racism when it is obvious there is none.

When you journalists can get a sense of perspective, listen to what is actually said and hold your friends to the same standards as your opponents, then we will get the full benefit of Boris's great intelligence.

taghioff.info
30 March 2008 at 16:31

@Paul

"A statement like that quite takes my breath away. It is simply not worth trying to discuss the subject when in only the last hour or two I have read about 20 papers from variety of highly qualified climatologists, space scientists, geologists and academics seriously questioning global warming alarmism."

You read very fast, but you must have missed this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Maybe you should stop and catch your breath.

taghioff.info
30 March 2008 at 16:33

@ Random

It is not New Statesman journalists who do it to Boris, he does it to himself. Go copy and paste the link I posted above, and watch him in action.

harold53
30 March 2008 at 17:33

Random - can you tell us what free debate there is on the london Evening Standard on the Mayoral election? How many postings are from opponents of Ken, rarely seeing anyone else even though they're sent in?

Your comments on what Ken has said is based on what the Standard and its journalists have said he's said, who they say he supports (not who he meets), rather than what has actually happened

Paul
30 March 2008 at 18:24

Harold53, when you state as fact that Random's view of Ken is based on what he has read in the Standard, you play a dangerous game.

I cannot speak for Random, but I have read all of Boris's books and his voluminous output of newspaper /magazine articles long before the Standard started its campaign - which, incidentally, is aimed not so much at promoting Boris as exposing the shabby dealings of Livingstone and his coterie, a legitimate function of the press.

The Boris Johnson I know reasonably well from his writing is not the one I recognise portrayed by his opponents. In fact they are two almost completely different people. I suspect Random feels the same.

Taghioff, thank you for the link, I've read that before too. You might like to check out the caveats it contains.

knave
30 March 2008 at 21:03

Paul and random you will find Ken has far more critics in the press than friends. Whereas Boris is the darling of the journo class.

I am impressed how much reading you say you do. Quite remarkable, do you have a job.

salvatore
30 March 2008 at 22:35

When will people get real.

Johnson may appear to be lightweight in some respects, but he is relatively free of the stuff that attracts sleaze, bitter and twisted, and sly practice etc allegations.

If he wins there can be no doubt that lots of talented people will want to help him.

On the other hand London could elect Ken in a fit to regard itself as a Mugabe style empire, and defy rational opinion in the rest of the country

It will be informative to see what happens..

taghioff.info
31 March 2008 at 03:28

@Paul

I have, and none of them contradict my position. Neither does anything contained in the IPCC reports. Do you have links to the peer reviewed articles by climatologists that support yours?

@Salvatore

"Johnson may appear to be lightweight in some respects, but he is relatively free of the stuff that attracts sleaze, bitter and twisted, and sly practice etc allegations."

It is depressing to repeat oneself, but here goes. Salvatore, he admitted himself on national television to being close friends with a convicted fraudster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgrZs4GXv4

Paul
31 March 2008 at 11:01

Taghioff, it is equally depressing to read such a shallow interpretation of friendships. Boris's detractors talk as if he sought out and nurtured a friendship with a convicted fraudster, and did it for personal gain. The truth is very different; he knew Guppy as a schoolmate from their early teens. Their freindship was sealed long before Guppy became mixed up in the insurance fraud for which he served five years.

Boris has been loyal to his childhood friend, although I don't suppose he condones for a moment what the guy did. He also came clean about the reporter incident, which was, I suspect, nothing more than him trying to get rid of an irritating schoolfriend.

Where the Left get it so hopelessly wrong is that most people admire loyalty and honesty - however misplaced - a great deal more than the lies, spin and cover-ups that have blighted New Labour since its inception. It is why they see Boris, for all his faults, standing head and shoulders above the narrow-minded party slaves who would sell their grandmother for a vote.

BegbiesEvilTwin
31 March 2008 at 15:24

The reason Boris is so popular is that he seems to have a personality and that's what mayoral campaigns are good at promoting.

If we take Labour, Ken was quite a personality in the late 70's and early '80's. Since becoming mayor he's hardly been visible and he really has been boring. The inevitable consequence is that any fool with a personality could be put up against Ken and is likely to lose the election.

The claims of neocons are counterproductive to Labour's cause for the simple reason that Blair -with Brown's backing- supported the neocons in their invasion and occupation of Iraq. If this Labour government didn't actively support Bush, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, it would have been impossible for them to have even tried to attempt UN backing. The fact thet they did so was only done with (as the Katherine Gunn article indicates).

Face it. Brown and Blair went out of their way to help the neocons that you all are so obsessed about. And Ken Livingstone doesn't have any problem with it either. If he did he would run as an independent just as he did previously.

taghioff.info
01 April 2008 at 04:39

@Paul

"Where the Left get it so hopelessly wrong is that most people admire loyalty and honesty - however misplaced - a great deal more than the lies, spin and cover-ups that have blighted New Labour since its inception. It is why they see Boris, for all his faults, standing head and shoulders above the narrow-minded party slaves who would sell their grandmother for a vote."

No Paul, I understand the conservative concept of friendship all too well, I have Jewish relatives. Loyalty is a fine thing, it is a thing of love, an unbreakable bond, a noble sentiment, the stiff which a good society is built on.

But it is also the stuff of Mafias. This is what organised crime is built on also. It is the old-boys networks, the free-masons, jobs for the boys. The "mistake" of the left in not grounding its politics in these particular and rather arbitrary bonds of affiliation, is to give people a chance to succeed whoever they happen to know.

You might notice that Boris did not feel very loyal to the journalist, and by implication may not really feel that loyal to the public at large. This is the stuff of sleaze and corruption, which is still by far and away a conservative center of excellence within the UK.

Paul
01 April 2008 at 07:56

Dream on, Taghioff. If only socialism was able to achieve such noble aims.

I'm afraid you're on particularly dodgy ground here when the Livingstone empire is shot through with cronyism and favouritism, Old boys networks, new boys networks. What's the difference?

knave
01 April 2008 at 09:31

Paul I hope you make the same allowances for Livingstone in regards to friends.

Sounds hypocritical if you don't.

knave
01 April 2008 at 15:44

Sorry I'm just posting here because antileft was scaring the s**t out on me on Martin's blog.

knave
01 April 2008 at 17:06

Paul if you think that antileft is rational then I do fear for your judgement even your sanity.

knave
01 April 2008 at 17:29

Paul you are quite remarkable young man

"only the last hour or two I have read about 20 papers from variety of highly qualified climatologists, space scientists, geologists and academics seriously questioning global warming alarmism"

Given that it takes 30 seconds to bring up each article. That means it took you 3 min 35 seconds to read each scientific paper.

Your a prodigy son.

Einstein said I it took 2 days for fully undrstand each paper given to him.

It took you 3 and half minutes for each one.

I salute you.

knave
01 April 2008 at 17:42

I am sorry it would take you about 6 minutes for two hours.

Not so good but still a remarkable achievement.

Well done and are you a savant.

123andrea
02 April 2008 at 14:31

To get us back on track:

Boris Johnson voted for the invasion of Iraq, opposed the Kyoto treaty, supports George W Bush, discussed having a journalist beaten up, and has said various racist and homophobic things (not "light-hearted literary devices" as Paul, presumably light-heartedly, claims).

If Londoners knew what he was really like he couldn't be a contender in the mayoral election. Thus the Tory campaign is desperate to babysit him, keep him off "Any Questions", and generally shut him the hell up.

If you don't want his reactionary Tory rubbish in charge of London then spread the word about his politics. And I suggest you support Ken Livingstone as the alternative.

BegbiesEvilTwin
02 April 2008 at 16:38

And Ken is happy to stay in a Labour Party whose leadership bent over backwards to support Bush.

123andrea
02 April 2008 at 17:08

You obviously haven't noticed, BegbiesEvilTwin, that Ken Livingstone represents the considerable section of the Labour Party that did *not* support the war. Do they not deserve spokespeople? Are they all supposed to run screaming from their own party just because a neo-liberal clique has taken it over? You shouldn't give in so easily.

But what is your point? That we should all go and vote Boris or what? There is a choice of two candidates for Mayor and it's obvious which one New Statesman readers should prefer.

To suggest Livingstone "doesn't have a problem" with the right-wing line of New Labour, as you do earlier, does not stand scrutiny.

Paul
02 April 2008 at 23:58

123Andrea, I can't help raising a chuckle when I read yet another copy & paste job like yours. The same old stuff about Boris doing the rounds, like some dreary tune with a long reprise.

Is that the best you can do? Oh, you forgot about when he pulled a girl's pigtails at primary school.

Each of these accusations can be explained in a positive light but there's simply no point in trying here. The Left are not open either to reason or reasonableness when at the heart of it lies class warfare of their own making.

taghioff.info
03 April 2008 at 04:27

@Paul

"If only socialism was able to achieve such noble aims."

It does, go and look at Sweden's social mobility statistics, they are far better than those of the land of the "free".

"I'm afraid you're on particularly dodgy ground here when the Livingstone empire is shot through with cronyism and favouritism, Old boys networks, new boys networks. What's the difference?"

Do you remember Dame Shirley Porter and Jeffrey Archer? You do not sound like a young man, so I suppose you must. They were found to be corrupt for direct personal gain in a way that Livingstone's bunch aren't, and New Labor in general simply aren't.

Simply put, the old boy's network is generally more corrupt. For instance, it is socially acceptable for them to phone each other and suggest having a journalist beat up, can you imagine Mandelson phoning Hain to say that?

taghioff.info
03 April 2008 at 04:38

@123andrea

I think there is a confusion between pragmatists like Ken and other sections of New Labour, who are broadly speaking willing to make compromises with international finance in order to achieve on a few social ams, and those that buy into the idea that American Military force is an effective and even desirable guardian of democracy.

The former is a type of real-politic on the left, the latter is a Neo-Conservtive myth, one that ignores Europe's role as the leading democratizing force in the world, despite or rather because of its avoidance of military force as its primary mode of power.

Ken is a pragmatist and not a Neo-con. Some may feel he bends over for the city too much etc... but basically he has got things done. He has never bought in to the American idea of Democracy growing out of the barrel of a gun, partly I suspect, because as a working-class boy made good, he has put a lot of effort into educating himself about the world.

This is in stark contrast to Boris, who seems to take his position in society utterly for granted, hence all the tomfoolery.

taghioff.info
03 April 2008 at 04:50

The left does not seem completely out of ideas...

http://www.policy-network.net/publications/index.aspx?id=102

123andrea
03 April 2008 at 11:19

Paul: "The same old stuff about Boris doing the rounds, like some dreary tune with a long reprise."

Er... yes. Because they sum up the difference between the candidates. "Each of these accusations can be explained in a positive light". Beating up journalists? Supporting George Bush? Voting for the war? And you think you can dismiss these ghastly politics with snide remarks?

But then, policy was never one of the pillars of Boris's campaign, was it? That's what Brian Cathcart's article is all about.

Paul
03 April 2008 at 14:49

OK Andrea, let's deal with each of these in turn

"Beating up journalists". No one beat up a journalist, let alone journalists.

"Supporting Bush". Some people do, you know. In what particular area?

"Voting for the war". And admitting he regretted it, which shows more honesty than most other politicians.

And your earlier accusations...

"Opposed the Kyoto Treaty". On the perfectly sensible grounds that there's no point in bankrupting ourselves with sacrifices that will barely register on the global thermometer when the biggest polluters, China and India, continue unabated. Not allowing yourself to be arm-twisted into signing a treaty based on mass hysteria doesn't mean you do not recognise the problem or are not prepared to pursue other, more effective, solutions.

"Has said various racist and homophobic things". Labels, labels. A great many perfectly normal, level-headed people see those few words and sentences - a tiny part of his voluminous output over two decades - as nothing more than humourous literary devices. Political correctness has not yet performed a humour bypass on the entire population, thank God.

You see, Andrea, I do not write people off on the basis of a few ill-chosen comments. Unlike some others, I do not label Ken Livingstone a racist because of his "concentration camp" jibe any more than I label Boris a racist for using the archaic term "picanninies" in a whimsical context.

It's down to your perceptions of the whole man. You, it seems, start from the premise that Boris is a racist because he's blonde and public school, and are looking for the tiniest clue with which to reinforce that prejudice. In the same way I could have Ken labelled as a south London barrow boy with a chip on the shoulder.

However, when I hear Ken at a public meeting say emphatically that London should throw its doors open to all diaspora from the middle east, I begin to get a very clear picture of the kind of man we're dealing with. That's not racist - its plain reckless.

TheElitesWin
05 April 2008 at 09:34

infowars.com where the real eye opening events are disgusted!

papigosh
06 April 2008 at 14:00

As we head for a sure recession, (now this is a word everyone would avoid because it is true) Londoners must ask themselves, do we go for a clown who would take us on a roller coaster ride to certain ruin or go for a man who inspite of his eccenticities has been known to deliver where and when it counts?

This is not a game. George W Bush played his game card including clowning his way to the presidency and see were he led America to. Too late to go back to Al Gore or John Kerry. So many have lost their homes and more importantly their lives in a war that was not supposed to be. This 'war' assured him the presidency but cost the American people their lives and homes.

Back to London. A contest between Ken and Boris is a no brainer. We can afford to clown before election day but on election day, clowning ceazes as we do know where it hurts. George W Bush has ensured that.

BegbiesEvilTwin
07 April 2008 at 02:57

123andrea: Livingstone left Labour for less significant reasons in the past.

taghioff.info
07 April 2008 at 14:43

@Paul

""Opposed the Kyoto Treaty". On the perfectly sensible grounds that there's no point in bankrupting ourselves with sacrifices that will barely register on the global thermometer when the biggest polluters, China and India, continue unabated. Not allowing yourself to be arm-twisted into signing a treaty based on mass hysteria doesn't mean you do not recognise the problem or are not prepared to pursue other, more effective, solutions."

Oh so Boris is backing Contraction and Convergence then is he? Because both China and India (and Germany) are seriously considering it...

I am not sure am convinced by your argument that Boris is making a principled stand on climate change, I think he is, like so many on the right, following the tune of the rich and powerful.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?