Ken vs. Boris: It's So On

the media is only part of the "ridiculous overmoralising". people wouldn't buy rothermere titles if they didn't go in for it themselves. because he looks like an idiot and because no kids were involved, BJ's serial shagging is probably less of a liability. large swathes of london are made up of not so liberal types -- not that ken doesn't go in for ridiculous overmoralising or a certain form when it suits him.

There's always the Darius Guppy stuff

The only reason there were no kids involved in Boris's shagging is because he paid for an abortion. They're both potential liabilities on this score, which is why they've agreed not to attack along these lines.

I like Ken's statement and can't see why you have a problem with it

I hate BJ, like KL, so perhaps that explains my attitude

actually, KL's siring all these kids makes me like him all the more, given the woes and worries catalogued on 'Do You Want To Have Kids?' thread -- on a issue said by all to be scary, he has been courageous ... 5 times

Think of his poor womb.

i need to do some serial shagging before i stand for mayor in 2012

probably should do that before i become very fat too

johnson isn't so fat these days, and livingston never has been as far as i know

they can have as many rugrats as they like provided they all have to carry oyster cards if they wanna ride the bus for free

large swathes of london are made up of not so liberal types

How many of these people are likely to be voting for Ken? I mean, it's a pretty calculated comment masquerading as an off-the-cuff joke, Ken knows that *his* support is unlikely to be eroded that much.

has it been revealed yet as to which way do BJ/KL wipe?

pinefox, i guess it's because "As long as you don't involve children, animals or vegetables they leave people to get on and live their own life in their own way" the use of vegetables seems to make mock of the notion that we should try to not to "involve" children.

we don't know what they're "involved" in in his case so maybe he was editorializing too far anyway.

and for someone who regards driving a big car as immoral, it's a bit rich.

How many of these people are likely to be voting for Ken? I mean, it's a pretty calculated comment masquerading as an off-the-cuff joke, Ken knows that *his* support is unlikely to be eroded that much.

-- Matt DC, Friday, April 4, 2008 4:46 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

yeah i see that, but to win elections you need to reach outside your base? i don't know -- if i were a politician i probably wouldn't go out of my way to pointlessly alienate potential voters but he seems to do alright.

and for someone who regards driving a big car as immoral, it's a bit rich.

he has 5 kids with different mums so that he wouldn't have to drive them to school all in the same car innit.

everyone seems to be glossing over the possibility of these children being ken/newt hybrids

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/Aliens-newt.jpg

That's some sick shit dude.

so you think his statement suggests paedophilia is OK, and that's why you don't like it?

I don't think that's what he was trying to say.

'immoral' is a strong word, but KL is correct to think that some vehicles are more needlessly polluting than others, and has been bold in trying to do something very practical about this problem. I'm glad about this and I think it is another reason to vote for him. (exact results, nuances and implications of congestion charge no doubt = a complex topic in itself)

I think it's maybe more immoral to do unnecessarily terrible things to the natural environment than to have consenting relationships with other people, which change and end, and are, I would generally think, private

so you think his statement suggests paedophilia is OK, and that's why you don't like it?

no.

i don't know what he means by 'involve' tbh, hence my scare-quotes.

pinefox are you trying to say that you're going to be voting based on the candidates' abilities to apply practical and effective strategies to improve the living standards of london, as opposed to who has fewer illegitimate children?

I think banry thinks fathering kids "involves" them, and he has a point. But yeah, kudos to Ken for introducing a tax that disproportiantely affects poor people.

I think it's maybe more immoral to do unnecessarily terrible things to the natural environment than to have consenting relationships with other people, which change and end, and are, I would generally think, private

-- the pinefox, Friday, April 4, 2008 4:58 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

ech, either it's private or it isn't pinefox! i'm, as i said, indifferent; so i'm not going to moralize about it either way. the car thing is purely about revenue and of not much significance to the fate of the environment. calling it "unnecessarily terrible" is hyperbolic -- the difference between big and small cars doesn't justify it. i don't and can't drive so i'm ok saying this, i think.

but i thought "small cars" are getting a reduction in the fees.

£2 reduction in fees compared to likely average income of big car/small car owners = lulz, insult, injury

So BJ took coke as a teenager. Rich bastard.

exactly

I think it's time someone posted that picture of teenage toff Boris at Oxford!

wonder when cameron will have to take this particular plunge

What a haircut?

There seem to be nuff fuckwits in this country who like the firm smack of patrician authority for the poshness not to be an ish.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_1/CameronEton_600x539.jpg

Oh god, yes.

No 7 is the best, he's some kind of uber-toff.

£2 reduction in fees compared to likely average income of big car/small car owners = lulz, insult, injury

don't understand this bit.. explain?

Nah, 5 is the toffiest toff. I want to know who the unnumbered dude next to Boris is - he's definitely the most attractive. I guess he never ended up in politics.

no 7 is DAN from alan partridge

I swear my brother went to school with no. 6.

xxxpost

The charge disproportionately hits people on low incomes, like all indirect taxes, right? So giving peeps a reduction for smaller cars still means people on lower incomes pay more, as a proportion of their income, than wealthier people who are likely to be driving big cars and will happily pay a pittance for their right to do so.

Or can afford to buy another smaller car just to get cheaper drive round London fees.

I keep seeing that new Citroen advert and thinking it's a Tory PPB.

I don't understand Banriquit's POV

pollution is bad and it's generally good when people try to do things to stop it

terrible things happen to the natural environment, as result of human actions; it is not in the least hyperbolic to say this

It's a congestion charge, not a pollution charge.

so what you're saying is that they're not making a big enough step in the reducing small car + hit big car thing?

reducing fee for small car i mean

Pretty much every tax that isn't income tax disproportionately affects the poor - some people have more money to use to their advantage than others; unfortunate, but that's the way it is for the time being. The congestion charge is not a Thatcherite ploy to fleece the less fortunate, it's a way of disuading people from using private vehicles in Central London, which is a good thing. A handful of people are hit unfairly hard by it, I'm sure, but that's unavoidable, and I'm convinced it remains a postive thing for the city on the whole.

and the charge is about driving through the congestion charge zone still, right? i guess poor people who live within the congestion charge zone gets it bad..

pollution is bad and it's generally good when people try to do things to stop it

terrible things happen to the natural environment, as result of human actions; it is not in the least hyperbolic to say this

-- the pinefox, Friday, April 4, 2008 5:26 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

three separate justifications exist for the charge: congestion (the original justification), revenue (paddick says this is ken's real reason), and the environment -- ken's current public justification.

restricting transport in central london is less than a drop in the ocean in terms of global warming. it's nothing. to quibble about big or small cars is even more absurd.

far far far more has to be done -- you sound like a puffed-up idiot saying it's 'not in the least hyperbolic' to think that making drivers pay a few quid to drive in a few square miles of one city matters a damn.

I generally don't like indirect taxation because of this bias against poorer people, ken. I don't live in London and I don't know what an ideal solution would look like, but I'd say if cities are serious about reducing traffic pollution they'll have to be more draconian i.e. near-compulsory park and ride schemes; and if you go the pay to play route then yeah there should be a system that's closer to being equally discouraging for all drivers.

So I disagree with chap then but I'm basically a socialist.

B: I'm not quibbling about big or small cars - I know nothing about them

I think that policies that reduce driving / traffic / pollution, anywhere, are good

and that it may take bold politics to achieve these, and KL has done that

no, it's not in the least hyperbolic to say what I said, which was: humanity does terrible things to the only planet it has - this is a fact. so it's good when someone tries to reverse or limit these in any way

sounds like you don't think any of us should do anything, pro-environment, in our own lives. OK, up to you, but others will differ

you don't sound very nice, above - that's a pity, and quite surprising to me

I have socialist leanings myself, I just think singling out the CC as being part of some malevolent Capitalistic agenda is absurd. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think the intent behind it is good.

xpost

I don't care about intent, I'm interested in effect. Indirect taxation seems very, very unsocialist to me.

The environment, for some people, has become a kind of "somebody please think of the children!" trump card. But capitalism has played a good healthy part in fucking it up, so I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of a little bit of capitalist tinkering providing a serious solution: it's more profitable to pollute.