Get fucked, Boris

[GratefulApe]

It's fucking irritating though if you ever want to drive in London. At least if it was a gridlocked mess, I'd have more incentive to use public transport.

[Ambient Sheep]

Yeah and now he's introduced the congestion charge. What he giveth with one hand, he taketh away with the other.

Yeah, heaven forfend that he should actually let traffic in the capital move around a bit easier while using the profits from the money raised to help improve public transport and build safe routes to school for children.  Not to mention ultimately helping to save the planet.  The utter utter fucking bastard!

Seriously, I can understand that you may not think much of him or his policies (especially since he extended the zone), even if I may disagree with you over some of them, but that "wants to take revenge on society because he was bullied as a child" line sounds quite bizarre to me.  Is that documented anywhere (that he was bullied as a child), or was that just wild conjecture on your part?  :-)

[MissInformed]

Is that documented anywhere (that he was bullied as a child), or was that just wild conjecture on your part?  :-)

Never mind that, is it documented anywhere that he "wants to take revenge on society"?  That'd be a helluva manifesto-killer!

[Suttonpubcrawl]

Yeah and now he's introduced the congestion charge. What he giveth with one hand, he taketh away with the other.

I never understand why people get so worked up about the congestion charge. What kind of fucking idiot drives into central London on a week day anyway? You have the tube, buses, trains, DLR, cycling. Why would you need to drive into central London when you've got all those alternative options? If you occasionally do need to make the journey then spending £8 isn't that big a deal, seeing as it's something you only very rarely need to do. If you want to get from one side of the zone to the other, the ring road takes care of that very nicely.

Tell me GratefulApe, what is so terrible about the congestion charge? Is driving into central London something you even do that often? And if so, why?

[GratefulApe]

No, it's wild conjecture really; I have no proof that Ken was bullied. But - and feel free to call me a cynical old cunt - I think that a lot of politicians aren't necessarily driven to seek power and influence out of the goodness of their hearts or some altruistic principle. Most are driven by greed for money and greed for control over others; they see things they personally don't like and they seek to stop, change or destroy them. Of course, that's not necessarily a bad idea, but obviously there are terrible things which need to be changed, but a lot of the time it seems to stem from personal feeling, nothing based on evidence. I find it quite odd that some want to have power over others, and a lot of MPs seem to be closet bullies and those seeking to rectify their own inadequacies, and that can drive them to do more harm than good. Obviously there are politicians who do want to do good, but I don't believe in this good-hearted altruism. People like Patricia Hewitt, David Blunkett, Peter Mandelson, even Alastair Campbell (I know he's not an MP), and of course the legions of Thatcherite politicians, seem to me to be entirely driven by financial greed and a bullying principle, to make everyone conform to their own way of the world. You could say that everyone suffers from this, and fair enough, but not everyone is given the power to influence and effect other people's lives quite so profoundly.

Sutton wrote:

Tell me GratefulApe, what is so terrible about the congestion charge? Is driving into central London something you even do that often? And if so, why?

I don't live in London right now, but when I go, I do like driving around in the central parts, and I want to live there in the future. I resent having to pay even more to drive around; driving a car is already an expensive venture. More worringly, is that it could be extended to other cities (obviously it started in Durham, but apart from there), and to use as well-worn conservative phrase, it seems like a slippery slope. It seems like a very retrograde policy to try to stop people using something that is fantastic - a car, which is an amazing thing and we're lucky to be able to use such a machine in our daily lives. At the moment, it's a small matter, because I can drive in the countryside or anywhere else, but if anything, I'd rather it be contained to Durham and London.

[rudi]

Completely unlike Boris saying whatever it takes to get elected throughout his life, the complete;y non-yeehaw bullying social clubs he's belonged to and, let's not forget, his deep-rooted altruism that has driven his desire to become an MP in the first place.

I drive around central London a fair bit, and, due to the congestion charge, I can actually drive rather than sit and seethe.

[23 Daves]

From a purely environmental perspective, Ken Livingstone has worked with and consulted with environmental campaigners and members of the Green Party.  Boris, on the other hand, thinks it's marvellous that George Bush failed to sign the Kyoto agreement, and seems to have some rather woolly views on the topic otherwise.

I don't always like Ken Livingstone, but over the last ten years he has come across as one of the least despicable Labour politicians. And when he says "If you do this, it will be a disaster" (as he did over privatising the maintenance on the underground) he's generally bloody right, but still somehow manages to pick up the flak anyway.  
"It's Ken's Fault!"
"Actually, I think you'll find he tried to stop this, but Gordon Brown pushed it through..."
"Yeah, but he's in power!  And he's a rabid leftie!  It's HIS fault!"

[GratefulApe]

rudi wrote:

non-yeehaw bullying social clubs he's belonged to

What bullying social clubs (apart from the Tories)?

Boris isn't excluded from any of the categories of a politician, being a liar and an adulterer namely. He wants to be the next Alan Clark, the rogueish scamp of Parliament, and he'll probably succeed, but Clark never rose to any great position. You can bet that if he were elected Mayor, he'd be mired in scandal and humiliation before his first year is out.

[rudi]

Exhibit A, M'Lud:

[GratefulApe]

Cameron, Boris...is that some Oxford club, yes?

They all look like fine young gentlemen to me, if rather prattish. Richer than everyone here, of course. What's the charge?

[Sheldon Finklestein]

That, for your information, is the Bullingdon Club, an Oxford drinking society for the obscenely posh, whose main entertainment is to rampage around the city, smashing up pubs and restaurants, before throwing a wodge of money at the commoners who own the places to make it all alright. If you wish to defend that, be my guest.

[rudi]

What he said.

[GratefulApe]

Oh right, not the Oxford Ingmar Bergman Appreciation Society then? That is quite cuntish behaviour, and indefensible.

On the positive side, they do pay for the damage. But they are cunts for doing it in the first place. No.3 looks like the leader.

Apparently, David Dimbleby was also a member.

[shiftwork2]

Who's the toff without a number?  Did he become a coal miner or a shipbuilder?

[Tetsuo: Ironmonger]

I don't live in London right now, but when I go, I do like driving around in the central parts, and I want to live there in the future. I resent having to pay even more to drive around; driving a car is already an expensive venture. More worringly, is that it could be extended to other cities (obviously it started in Durham, but apart from there), and to use as well-worn conservative phrase, it seems like a slippery slope. It seems like a very retrograde policy to try to stop people using something that is fantastic - a car, which is an amazing thing and we're lucky to be able to use such a machine in our daily lives. At the moment, it's a small matter, because I can drive in the countryside or anywhere else, but if anything, I'd rather it be contained to Durham and London.

A car is a marvellous piece of engineering, but as so many other people also happen to think that (or are just lazy), it makes sense to penalise those that make the air shittier for those that walk, cycle or wait at bus-stops. Which is another thing - buses should run on time, which is something you can't guarantee with heavily-congested areas. And those that can't afford or don't want cars shouldn't get shafted because of those that do, be it with their lungs or their time spent on public transport stuck in traffic.

I can't see this as an erosion of your civil liberties, I just think anything that puts the selfish or lazy off sitting in their car for an hour can't be a bad thing. And I hope this idea does take off in other heavily-congested parts of the country.

And fuck you BJ! Fuck you! Sinister tosser. That bumbling, pseudo-charismatic veneer is fooling nobody. I hope.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

You can bet that if he were elected Mayor, he'd be mired in scandal and humiliation before his first year is out.

That's no reason to elect anyone!

[GratefulApe]

I'm being positive.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

I don't live in London right now, but when I go, I do like driving around in the central parts, and I want to live there in the future.

So you want to cause traffic congestion and pollution because you "like" to? That's precisely why the congestion charge exists, so that people don't just go and clog up central London because they feel like it.

I resent having to pay even more to drive around; driving a car is already an expensive venture.

I resent having to go to work. I resent not being able to get pissed all the time.

It seems like a very retrograde policy to try to stop people using something that is fantastic - a car, which is an amazing thing and we're lucky to be able to use such a machine in our daily lives.

This is exactly the problem. People view using a car as their right. But a car isn't just a really convenient thing that makes life easier. Car use carries with it a whole load of other problems and you're just completely ignoring those.

[GratefulApe]

Sutton wrote

I resent having to go to work. I resent not being able to get pissed all the time.

Exactly! So shouldn't we aim to make a world where you don't have to go to work and you can pissed all the time? Where we can drive cars wherever we want without fear of harassment? (Presumably you don't just want to be a pisshead on the dole?)

A car is a mixed blessing, in the sense that in one way it is fantastic that we've mastered the combustion engine and now almost it is avaliable to most people (okay, granted, you have to be able to afford it), but it causes pollution and is potentially a dangerous weapon to pedestrians. But, at the risk of sounding fatalist, life is never going to be perfect, there will always be dangers and health risks and the more zealously we try to deny these, the less happy we will all get. This revived progressive, sentimental puritanism is exactly the kind of world Red Ken wants, and it's never going to fucking end; it's an endless striving for something which will never be fulfilled. And now I sound like Boris, thank you very much.

[boxofslice]

Of course the answer to all of this is to just destroy London. Yes millions will die but its fucking overated anyway.
In the words of Alan Partridge -  "Go to London! I guarantee you'll either be mugged or not appreciated. Catch the train to London, stopping at Rejection, Disappointment, Backstabbing Central and Shattered Dreams Parkway".

[Suttonpubcrawl]

Oh God, I was wondering how long it would take for some witty non-Londoner to start going on about how shit London is. I'm surprised you didn't add a tired Morrisism in there as well, that seems to be your style boxofslice. "London is full of fucknuts and arsecandles!"

[boxofslice]

Oh God, I was wondering how long it would take for some witty non-Londoner to start going on about how shit London is. I'm surprised you didn't add a tired Morrisism in there as well, that seems to be your style boxofslice. "London is full of fucknuts and arsecandles!"

Having lived in North London for 18 months two years ago i can say im fully justified in saying how shit is.

[Tetsuo: Ironmonger]

So shouldn't we aim to make a world where you don't have to go to work and you can pissed all the time? Where we can drive cars wherever we want without fear of harassment?

I think there's a world of diference between working, getting pissed, and driving cars that you're missing.

If all you want to do is sit in your car feeling smug that You Have That Right, at least invent an eco-friendly car that runs on liquidised Ken Livingstones, or whatever suits you.

[Famous Mortimer]

I can't take Boris seriously, but he's not Hitler, he's just a Wodehouse character, and it'd very funny to see him bumbling about London, being restrained by his advisors on all his hare-brained schemes.

Okay, false comparison - no-one's comparing him to Hitler, but by doing so yourself you're attempting to make any criticism of him akin to calling him Hitler.

Also, you're still desperately trying to portray him as this bumbling fool. Go and read that document again. He is not, he is a nasty right-wing bigot who happens to look a bit like a bumbling fool. There is a very large difference.

[Jemble Fred]

It's odd, but I find it genuinely shocking when people praise cars and are vocal about 'their right' to drive. My immediate reaction is that they may as well be talking about guns – cue inevitable 'now you're being ridiculous' retorts, but as I say it's an instinctive reaction. God how I despise cars – any legislation that reduces the number of them on the road is alright by me. Any legislation that simultaneously tries to improve public transport is doubly admirable. The importance of the promotion and drastic improvement of all public transport options in this country can't be overstated.

[jutl]

It's odd, but I find it genuinely shocking when people praise cars and are vocal about 'their right' to drive.

Yup I agree completely. I think Jeremy Hardy had it right when he said that the British has little sympathy for oppressed nations because the only sense of collective oppression we felt was related to speed cameras.

[Ciarán]

It's odd, but I find it genuinely shocking when people praise cars and are vocal about 'their right' to drive. My immediate reaction is that they may as well be talking about guns – cue inevitable 'now you're being ridiculous' retorts, but as I say it's an instinctive reaction. God how I despise cars – any legislation that reduces the number of them on the road is alright by me. Any legislation that simultaneously tries to improve public transport is doubly admirable. The importance of the promotion and drastic improvement of all public transport options in this country can't be overstated.

Here here! Couldn't agree more. (This is turning into Question Time, isn't it?)

[Ciarán]

The Arcade Fire were miffed that their dobros and autoharps got lost in transit to the gig...

[GratefulApe]

Famous Mortimer wrote:

Okay, false comparison - no-one's comparing him to Hitler, but by doing so yourself you're attempting to make any criticism of him akin to calling him Hitler.

Also, you're still desperately trying to portray him as this bumbling fool. Go and read that document again. He is not, he is a nasty right-wing bigot who happens to look a bit like a bumbling fool. There is a very large difference.

Yes it is a false comparison, and over-exaggerated to meaninglessness. But some of the responses to Boris have been piss-poor - not his views, not his career or his extra-marital shenangians, but his background. I realise that some people seem to think that what's referred to as 'inverted snobbery' is acceptable, or more tolerable than the snobbery exerted upon those of a working class background, but it's bollocks. It's utter hypocritical nonsense to sneer at someone just because they had a privileged upbringing, just as it is intolerable and stupid to sneer at someone who grew up on a council estate. Something I've never been able to understand - and it's not really from personal experience, because I don't come a background like Boris', far from it - is why people have a chip on their shoulder about public school boys or the like. It stinks of envy and a resentment of other people's perceived privileges, and it just makes you sound rather bitter that you weren't born into a rich family or didn't go to a famous school. Yes, of course, we should attack all the forms of nepotism, corruption and cronyism that stem from the privileged establishment, just as we should attack the cronyism that exists everywhere else, but to hate someone merely because they went to a fee-paying school is laughable, just as it would be absurd to despise someone because they went to a comp. It encourages exactly the same kind of snobbery and class division we should be trying to dismantle, and ultimately resorting to the same tactics that the 'upper crust' have used to belittle the working class, which is fairly pathetic behaviour, no matter what your background is. I won't deny that Boris certainly has benefitted more than others for going to Eton and Oxford, for being part of the Bullingdon Club and networking through his chums, but for fuck's sake don't attack him just for going to a boarding school. Going to a posh school and benefitting unfairly from it (that is, benefitting in ways other than on your own merit) don't necessarily go hand in hand, and obviously, things like cronyism and nepotism apepar in all classes and instituions. It's his political views and his personal conduct which are (arguably) appalling, not the fact that he went to a posh school. 

Sorry, that might be a bit off topic, but there seemed to be less criticism of his views in that pamphlet than there were of simply the fact that he is upper class. Anyway, to reply to your point. I'm not convinced he is a 'nasty right-wing bigot.' He's a showman, someone who has created a nice, digestible public image on himself - not least on HIGNFY - and he's obviously a bit of shock-jock, so to speak, likes to say the unsayable, like Clarkson or someone. He enjoys putting a bit of stick about. To call him a 'bigot' is to do a disservice to the members of the Tories who will probably never reach high office or even appear on TV, the former members of the Monday Club, the ship 'em and flog 'em racists, homophobes and mysogonists. I've read that document, and some of his views are dreadful, those motoring columns are ludicrous, but they're so over the top that it's hard to take them seriously at all. He's certainly not as offensive as many of the right-wing journalists - Littlejohn, Phillips, Hitchens, hell, even Bushell - but most of his views are, perhaps sadly, rather common right-wing Tory views. Others are rooted in stupidity rather than bigotry (the 'picaninnies' comment, for example), the kind of comments you might make between mates, but probably shouldn't let the greater public hear them. I find the views of the BNP far more worrying and offensive than Boris'. As unpleasant, ambitious, egotistical politicians go, Boris is not the worst; he's on the make, rather than trying to secure the top position, and he knows that controversial or counter-culture (well, y'know) views will get him more publicity than staying quiet and slowly climbing the greasy pole. His bid for Mayor seems more like the desperate attempt of a man who knows he has to keep in the public eye or die. However much I hate David Cameron, Boris isn't him; he's not as clever nor ambitious, nor realistic.

[Ciarán]

I think the point is, his upper class background is reflected in his view of the world. He's a Tory - the last thing they want is to, as you say, dismantle the class divide.