Ken vs. Boris: It's So On

And I think one of the huge barriers to reinventing socialism has been the nigh-desperate willingness to settle for being in "power" that characterizes the last 11 years' government, to the point where preferring the Labour party over any other feels like not much more than a salve to conscience or a kind of moral particularism to convince ourselves that we are "nicer" or some other inanity than other voters.

xpost Yeah I kinda think that maybe some kind of burgeoning environmental disaster might realign the political system when it gets pressing enough, but I'd prefer something to happen a bit sooner than that thanks.

Sorry that xpost was to Matt not Mark. Yeah "monolithic" is probably an inaccurate word here, the Tory vote represents a coming-together of diverse interests like any other party.

GIANT METEOR HEADING FOR EARTH, QUICK LABOUR CHANCELLOR, RAISE THE TOP RATE OF INCOME TAX!

If all these morons are voting against the C-Charge (which I'll wager many of them don't pay regularly as who can afford to park in central london every day); why did the vote for Boris who has pledged not to abolish it? (well nothing so direct but he certainly plans o keep it)

Impact of the Cloverfield monster attack on global macroeconomic policy, 2015-2045 (Oxford University Press)

I was thinking more of scarcities of natural resources or repeated serious flooding, but I can see how Lembert Opik could suddenly step up to the plate in the event of meteor attack.

One Cheeky Girl either side of him, manning the giant laser that is our last line of defence.

See that's the kind of government we can all get behind.

two huge and gaping holes in libertarian and/or free-market ideology: transport systems (how they get designed built maintained and improved) and the management of immigration <-- can either of these issues can be tackled without a giant big dose of nanny-statism? (in particular: how paid for?)

(incidentally UK socialist nanny-statism was constructed largely on the back of brit imperialist nanny-statism: a co-opting of institutions started by one side and converted by the other)

("nanny-statism" used in its objective and non-pejorative sense here -- ie as something that can be used to good or awful ends)

True free-market Liberals would have fully open borders immigration and emigration, efficiency of the market and all that, but I can't see that flying. Freemarketeers always cripple themselves by compromising their theories because of their personal nightmares.

I don't think true free marketeers necessarily have those nightmares, I think it's more a case of them often belonging to conservative parties that are an uneasy coalition of economic liberalism and old school authoritarians/hierarchists.

what i'm slightly getting at here is that the boris management of london has either to be

i: actual real libertarian freemarketism = will fuck up transport beyond any of our imagining
or
ii: some sort of (needs to be paid-for) big govt <-- i think under boris this will be in the form of massive wealthy suburbs welfare rather than inner city welfare and will thus NOT WORK given the demands of london as a whole but it DOES start to begin to rehabilitate the role of big govt (the issue being: WHOSE INTERESTS TO BE SERVED)
(iii: yes neocon imperialism also entails a rehabilitation of big govt, if only war- and occupation-related but i'm not certain that's gone so swimmingly that the left can move in and co-opt the attitude turnabout)

so ii. at least has the potential to include developments which are convertable from evil to good :\

(i'm using "welfare" semi-metaphorically)

i don't quite buy into the labour line that the mayoral election is a reaction against brown/the tax thing/labour in general, because a) ken/nu-lab was an uneasy afterthought at best; b) i get the impression the mayoral race has transcended party politics and is much more about individual personalities. that said: i'm observing this from a distance, and i could be completely wrong. (it has happened, once or twice, i'm told.)

Not completely wrong I don't think but considering how crushing the defeat was for labour nationally, and how narrow the defeat was for Ken, I can't believe that it didn't make a difference to the outcome. That cunt Gilligan's entire raison d'etre (yes i am a twat for employing that term) these past months has been his vendetta against the national party. Stick it to Labour by sticking it to Ken. Why wouldn't individual members of the public (at least, enough of them to swing it to Boris) be prepared to make the same point?

(sorry don't mean to derail the discussion but it's a bit above my head as it is)

More straws to grasp at: at least this bad news has provoked interesting posts from mark s and Matt DC, whose government-as-ideologically-neutral*-management-bids suggestion switched on a few lightbulbs of recognition for me

(* neutral/interchangeable/noncommital because any kind of content makes for a less universally bidder-friendly tender plan)

Sad to think that if Ken had stayed independent... but as a non-Londoner I couldn't begin to work out the effect of anti-Labour sentiment on his vote.

Thank goodness Ken has gone and we now have a mayor who seems to put London before himself. The ridiculious emmision charge will go, along with bendy buses. Good Luck Boris

[Fed_Up_With_Idiots], London, United Kingdom

Recommended by 85 people

I don't really mean ideologically neutral, but there's a presumption of neutrality, an imaginary ideological centre and consensus that people just don't notice because it's become so all-pervasive.

I don't think Ken would have been able to get as much out of central government had he stayed independent. How Boris interacts with ministers will be interesting to watch.

One of the most painful things about ken livingstone loosing is that it was porbably the last chance we had to elect someone who at least once had an ideology.

Not trying to start a fight, but that doesn't seem like much of a reason to vote for anybody. Straw was supposed to be some raving Lefty in the 60s, god help us.

The memories I have of ken from growing up in hackney in the 80s make it seem like he was fighting a lefty battle of rourkes drift against the spear waving thatcherite hordes.

I was definitely a Livingstone fan in the 80s. Perhaps the most relevant thing to the mayor's job I could say about him now is that you feel that he really does love London, which isn't a vibe you get from BJ.

no ken was always basically a shapeshifting pragmatist, very very shrewd -- possibly the greatest "politician" (good and bad senses) of our age (since wilson maybe? but wilson leaned on the power of his party a lot more, and in the end achieved less*, and did a lot more harm to it: ken worked with a lot less heft behind him -- the more i think about this, the more i think he actually held back the tide of generic anti-labour voting on thursday, just not enough... no wonder he looked so tired and wan last night, he was shafted by brown's haplessness and the deep damage blair's done the party)

*this depends a bit on how much of ken's achievement on transport survives -- if none, then his achievement will be spectral also

This is fucking shocking shite from the BBC.

But disaster loomed again, when a tape surfaced of an old Oxford friend Darius Guppy, who had been convicted of fraud, asking him to help locate a witness.

Hmm. Locate a witness? Or provide an address so someone could be beaten up to warn them off Guppy?

But the best bit was:

His headmaster at the school which Prince William and Prince Harry were later to attend, Sir Eric Anderson, was also Tony Blair's housemaster during his schooldays at Fettes - often dubbed the Scottish Eton. Sir Eric could spot similarities between the two future politicians."Both of them opted to live on their wits rather than preparation," he told Mr Johnson's biographer, Andrew Gimson.
"They both enjoyed performing. In both cases people found them life-enhancing and fun to have around, but also maddening." But unlike Mr Blair, Mr Johnson did not rebel against the system.

WTF? Blair? Rebel? The person who wrote this - Brian Wheeler - is a fuck cockhead of the highest order. It's a disgrace of a piece.

His academic records prove him to have powerful intellect,

Boris started as he means to go on by nearly falling over, tripping on the scenery, as he started his first press conference.

The last post from Mark S there absolutely correct. Would Ken have served his own interests better by remaining outside the Labour party throughout his two terms? He may have won last night if he had, imo.

Today, I've found myself suddenly remembering that this has happened over and over: " . . Oh, shit!"

Had the same experience when Major got back in.

post-poptimism thort:
what are the economics against decent after-midnight transport for (hip young) londoners (ie not me obv -- i was home by 11.50 -- but some of you)?

can boris lock in the ultra-young "post-ideological" vote by delivering this? (am assuming there is a post-binge-britain dimension to this discussion which even phantom-libertarian boris will have to pay mind to) (<--- haha a old person too-often kept awake by noisy boozy youngsters writes)

The only city with true 24 rail transport is new york and new york can do it because It has a lot of 3 and 4 track lines so trains can be diverted for maintenance. The tube has to shut down overnight as there is no way of closing off sections for maintenance whilst still keeping the system running in dome form.

Night buses have been improving over the last 8 years, although I suspect that improvement is restricted to inner London .

haha "dome form" <--- only too true

The Paris metro runs til around 2am on weekends.

Running till 2am on weekends is well within the realm of possibility, but would be expensive, should be done though.

no! clubbers must take one for the anti-boris team

more express night buses

my Dad thinks the result had more to do with who was most entertaining than party politics

your dad is part of the problem

Ken would still have lost against Boris as an independent, there would have been another Labour candidate in there splitting the vote, plus there were very Ken-centric charges made against him.

entertainment/novelty was #1 reason for voting boris, is the impression i get

That'd be why Labour did so strongly elsewhere on Thursday?

... is dissapointed with all londners, i mean boris really?
... says chin up Londoners, let's all have a revolution.
... is wondering how stupid people can be! Boris??!! You fools!
... thinks London is 42.48% full of cunts.
... is very proud of London. (I think this one is sarcastic)
... thinks all the whiney fucks complaining about Boris are middle-class working-class wannabes. Stay out of my city.
... thinks you voted for Boris
... aaaaargh not boris - what the fuck is going on in london.
... is now thinking of staying in brighton.
... is not thrilled about having Boris as mayor.
... is thinking of moving.
... is gutted.
... voted for Ken, it's not his fault.

seriously i think entertainment/novelty is QUITE A LOW-RANKING REASON: much more relevant are -- in no special order -- general country-wide vote against labour/brown (re economy), vote "for change", vote re transport issues (suburbs vs inner city -- see ed's map upthread), vote re (euphemism alert) "multi-cultural issues" (also possibly suburbs vs inner city) (tho as i said before i'm not an expert on the cultural demographics of the satellites and the burbs and may be talkin bollox on this one)

of much more minor import: specific gilligan/enrique-esque anti-ken stuff (lee jasper, hugging islamist hoodies, "anti-semitism"); the "boris is fun" factor; bendy buses

general country-wide vote against labour/brown (re economy)

that's the trouble with being met-elite - it's hard to imagine enough people voting against Lab as opposed to just 'hurrah the Tories are credible again', if you know what i mean (if we're saying Labour picked up that many votes under Blair from people who would normally vote Con)

really tho, how many voted Ken last time and Boris this time?

bit muddled there i know - presumably more votes 'against ken' this time from people who didn't vote last time (more than votes 'against boris' surely)

Chap, if they're status updates of your mates then we have a mutual f-book friend (the second one on your list).

What has obviously made the specific gilligan anti-ken stuff more effective is the apparent lack of anything pro-Ken anywhere. As far as I could make out, absolutely nobody stuck their neck out and said 'weeeell, you have to vote for this guy or you get boris'. Just a simple 'don't vote boris'.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/boris.jpg

What will Gilligan do for an encore? And how will he be rewarded for his toadying?

http://borisjohnsonfacts.com/

Chap, if they're status updates of your mates then we have a mutual f-book friend (the second one on your list).

Lou1s B@ym@n?

The very one. One of those people who reassures me London will stay sane...