Boris Johnson wins London mayoral race

[Osem]

John Prescott was the son of a railway signalman and worked as a steward, a waiter and a trade union official before entering parliament. His humble origins, socialist beliefs and dislike of the privileged classes didn't stop him emulating some of the behaviour he so roundly condemned them for.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Osem

John Prescott was the son of a railway signalman and worked as a steward, a waiter and a trade union official before entering parliament. His humble origins, socialist beliefs and dislike of the privileged classes didn't stop him emulating some of the behaviour he so roundly condemned them for.

i thought he was manufactured from two buckets of dog turds

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Indeed, but you said that you spent four years at a private school, and "know full well the contempt most of these snobs view "ordinary" people with"......and made it sound like you rubbed shoulders with the 'toffs'. Now you say that you didn't go to a school like Eton or Harrow, so that implies that you don't "know full well the contempt most of these snobs view "ordinary" people with"....

I'm just making the point that when I was at school in the mid 70s, which is when the present Tory leadership would have been at Eton, there was a definite sense of superiority over children from the local schools. And by far the worse examples came from the boys who families had inherited wealth, having a sense of entitlement to their position purely from birth. The school had its fair share of titled families, which had the House of Lords reform bill not passed, would have allowed them a seat on the Tory benches as hereditary peers. I certainly did not "rub shoulders" with any of them, nor did many of the other boys at the time, because as Ive already mentioned they believed themselves far superior to the rest of us. I have absolutely no problem with wealth inherited or worked for, but surly the people who hope to lead our country and represent us should have knowledge of what its like to live and struggle in the real world.

I think there is a danger in judging purely on appearances, after all that's how we got TB.

Trouble is when picking whom to vote for you cannot always know what you are getting UNLESS the candidates have been much in the public eye and even then you have to wonder how much is spin these days.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I think there is a danger in judging purely on appearances, after all that's how we got TB.

Trouble is when picking whom to vote for you cannot always know what you are getting UNLESS the candidates have been much in the public eye and even then you have to wonder how much is spin these days.

They are Salesmen pitching for votes. They have to con the people to vote for them, by promising the earth whilst having their photos taken holding babies and smiling to the camera. Awww, they can have my vote.

[slowcoach]

And as we have seen before, Murdoch will step in at the last moment and tell everyone who to vote for, as the average person has no brain of their own they will simply do it and then get back to watching the telly.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by slowcoach

And as we have seen before, Murdoch will step in at the last moment and tell everyone who to vote for, as the average person has no brain of their own they will simply do it and then get back to watching the telly.

Oh they'd love that to be true, trouble with these hacks is they reflect public opinion, they'll support who ever has a clear lead, notice most still aren't fully supporting the tories still, even though labour is now all but unelectable

[frogstamper]

Murdoch will go where the power is, in China his a communist, in the US his a republican and at the moment in Britain his unsure. The Sun supported the Tories all through the 80s and early 90s until it became obvious Labour were going to win in 97. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Sun has an epiphany and suddenly starts supporting the Tories again in the near future.

[punky]

The poor sod is getting slaughtered left, right and centre for his first policy. Its all rather personal. The unions are complaining that staff now have to confront people drinking, but wouldn't they have to if passengers were smoking, trashing the carriages or otherwise being anti-social? I think they are jumping on him because:

a) they have to complain on behalf of their members whether they need to or not to justify their existance

b) He's Tory, posh, wealthy and eccentric.

He's pledging more PCSOs on transport but i'd rather see more BTPs instead. Still anything's better than nothing.

I think he's getting a really undeserved rough ride because of his character. That's really out of order. The guy hasn't done anything wrong and people have condemned him and are being extremely nasty. Still he has a great spirit and has pledged to plough on regardless. People wouldn't have responded this way to Red Ken, but then again the old lush wouldn't be able to go that long without a drink.

Originally Posted by Gavin

The poor sod is getting slaughtered left, right and centre for his first policy. Its all rather personal. The unions are complaining that staff now have to confront people drinking, but wouldn't they have to if passengers were smoking, trashing the carriages or otherwise being anti-social? I think they are jumping on him because:

a) they have to complain on behalf of their members whether they need to or not to justify their existance

b) He's Tory, posh, wealthy and eccentric.

He's pledging more PCSOs on transport but i'd rather see more BTPs instead. Still anything's better than nothing.

I think he's getting a really undeserved rough ride because of his character. That's really out of order. The guy hasn't done anything wrong and people have condemned him and are being extremely nasty. Still he has a great spirit and has pledged to plough on regardless. People wouldn't have responded this way to Red Ken, but then again the old lush wouldn't be able to go that long without a drink.

I think he's right about the banning of drink on the trains and tube but has just perhaps not got the right people on board about it first.It just needed a bit more thinking and planning for.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Gavin

The poor sod is getting slaughtered left, right and centre for his first policy. Its all rather personal. The unions are complaining that staff now have to confront people drinking, but wouldn't they have to if passengers were smoking, trashing the carriages or otherwise being anti-social? I think they are jumping on him because:

I have a friend who is a bus driver. The problem with confronting drunks (and I suspect the reason for the complaints) is that drunks can turn violent very easily. He himself got threatened with a kicking because he woke up a drunk when the bus had terminated and gone back to the garage.

[punky]

You could easily have those problems with non-drunks though. You could say that the smoking ban is unenforcable but i've not seen anyone smoke on public transport for years.

I know exactly what will happen though. Come June the tube drivers will strike claiming they have an 'extra' job to do and would require a requisite rise in salary. Oh joy.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Gavin

You could easily have those problems with non-drunks though. You could say that the smoking ban is unenforcable but i've not seen anyone smoke on public transport for years.

The fact is that people who are drunk are more likely to turn violent than those who aren't. That isn't an anti-drunk rant (I would be a massive hypocrite if it was), and I don't think drink makes people violent. There *is* evidence however drink does bring out repressed violent tendencies in people..

[punky]

I do agree... Which is why its better to separate people from alcohol on public transport, help them sober up rather than let them drink and make them worse.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Problem appears to be most "professional" politicians have never had a "real" job - they tend to have been political aides, researchers, journalists, etc (imho).

I dont know about my MP's history but I am not happy she has now employed by BT as a part time member of their board when she is still representing my area in parliament, in my opinion her pay justifies her MP role been a full time job.