Two things I’m finding particularly annoying in all the comment around Thursday’s Mayoral elections.
The first is the ‘Boris deserves a chance’ line of thinking – seen in a few places but most recently by me in Saturday’s Times. This annoys me not because I don’t think he does (see below) but because it’s a dangerously lazy approach to democracy. Either Boris has the character and policies to benefit London or he doesn’t - likewise with Ken. The line of thinking that tries to elevate ‘Time for a change’ (a particularly banal electoral slogan) into a reasoned case for the new guy or against the incumbent is weak and should be resisted whatever man you support.
The other thing I’m getting frustrated with is the partisan nonsense from the left that Boris is somehow dangerous or fundamentally unsuited to high-office. This din is getting louder with each poll suggesting Boris is well-placed to win. I might tolerate it from someone who was equally dismissive of Ken and high-minded about their politics, someone with no tolerance for the rebellious streak both men have in spades. But when advocates for Ken imply that Boris’ gaffes and obvious flaws are somehow more real and alarming than Ken’s you can dismiss it out of hand as partisan rubbish. For those who dispute this I’d draw their attention to a nice sentence in the same Times leader I linked to above:
The first is the ‘Boris deserves a chance’ line of thinking – seen in a few places but most recently by me in Saturday’s Times. This annoys me not because I don’t think he does (see below) but because it’s a dangerously lazy approach to democracy. Either Boris has the character and policies to benefit London or he doesn’t - likewise with Ken. The line of thinking that tries to elevate ‘Time for a change’ (a particularly banal electoral slogan) into a reasoned case for the new guy or against the incumbent is weak and should be resisted whatever man you support.
The other thing I’m getting frustrated with is the partisan nonsense from the left that Boris is somehow dangerous or fundamentally unsuited to high-office. This din is getting louder with each poll suggesting Boris is well-placed to win. I might tolerate it from someone who was equally dismissive of Ken and high-minded about their politics, someone with no tolerance for the rebellious streak both men have in spades. But when advocates for Ken imply that Boris’ gaffes and obvious flaws are somehow more real and alarming than Ken’s you can dismiss it out of hand as partisan rubbish. For those who dispute this I’d draw their attention to a nice sentence in the same Times leader I linked to above:
[Boris Johnson’s] eccentricities are, it should be remembered, basically harmless and inoffensive whereas Mr Livingstone's various attempts to summon up the political spirit of 1968 and cosy up to political thugs and merchants of hate most definitely are not.
1 Comments:
The � Boris deserves a chance �feeling is not entirely without merit . Politics is always far more to do with momentum than appears and in the case of London , the hidden Empire. Ken hold an web of patronage and back scratching in his fist .The pond needs stirring . He has presided over housing Policy that is turning the Boroughs into slums all of which entrenches Labour and poverty and in many ways that are opaque outside the capital has taken the Capital in a direction many feel has gone too far.
The cosy relationship between the GLA and the Labour Party in enforcing the Town and Country Act on the Boroughs as interpreted by the hard left some feel needs to be rebalanced as does the relationship between the Suburbs and the centre.
People are concerned about the extent to which Ken has his feet under the table and are rightly nervous about a democratic dictatorship emerging from bought votes . Otherwise I quite agree, the Labour campaign has been dirty and disgraceful from the start.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home