NationStates Jolt Archive

I was going to post this in the local elections thread. However, while the example of Boris' success in the mayoral election inspired this thread, I use it only as an illustratory example of what is an age old issue.

Firstly, let me make clear what I am not saying. I have no strong affiliation towards either the Labour or Conservative party (my sympathies are with the Lib Dems, despite their general uselessness, bless them, mainly because of their positive stance on LGBT rights and suchlike). So I am not arguing that the fact that people have voted for a Conservative is either particularly good or bad. Rather, I refer to the individual in question.

I believe that the candidature and victory of Boris Johnson casts British democracy in a very unfavourable light. To my mind, the selection of this bumbling, incompetent, incoherent fool as a candidate and his election by the wider public illustrates precisely what is wrong with democracy. He has been chosen precisely because people find his idiocy somehow endearing, regardless of the fact that he at times seemed confused about what his own policies were, yet alone how he would go about implementing them. Several of my friends who live in London openly admitted that they voted for him because "he's funny", and when asked about his position on any of the issues they are unable to reply.

Now ("at last", I'm sure you'll be thinking) on to the question that I have been reflecting upon. How can such disgraces be avoided in future? Intelligence tests for voters and candidates initially seem a good idea, but there has been so much research suggesting that it is difficult to come up with a test that is not culturally biased. Perhaps a test on the political institutions and main policy issues to ensure that people have at least a basic knowledge of politics? Or should we accept that even the hopelessly uninformed members of society have a right to have their voice heard?

We should forcibly elect people who don't want to be elected. Generally they cause less trouble and aren't (to begin with at least) after power for powers sake, unlike the majority of politicians who stand because they want power otherwise there would be no point in standing, so we might get some good done, at least in the short term.

I'm not a fan of Johnson, but he's not the fool you take him to be. I wouldn't underestimate him because of the character he chooses to portray himself as.

Personally, I find it disgraceful. Ken Livingstone was good at the job, whilst Boris Johnson has been elected solely on his looks. Ironically, his greatest claim to fame was being a popular game show host, and the current host (Brian Blessed of all people) is even madder, which would mean that he could be elected Prime Minister! British democracy is entering a worrying stage - roughly 1% of us apparently voted BNP, when it should hopefully be a minute figure! I guess so many people wanted Ken out that they voted for anyone who had radically different views.

I'm not a fan of Johnson, but he's not the fool you take him to be. I wouldn't underestimate him because of the character he chooses to portray himself as.

You are quite possibly right, though that would be probably the most left-field yet inspired sort of spin and character presentation I've ever seen! Perhaps he's just very perceptive of how the public as a whole responds to people. I guess its possible he's been playing us all, and is, ultimately a political genius. I kind of like that idea, actually

Personally, I find it disgraceful. Ken Livingstone was good at the job, whilst Boris Johnson has been elected solely on his looks.
His...looks? :confused:

British democracy is entering a worrying stage - roughly 1% of us apparently voted BNP, when it should hopefully be a minute figure!
What is 1% if not a minute figure?

You are quite possibly right, though that would be probably the most left-field yet inspired sort of spin and character presentation I've ever seen! Perhaps he's just very perceptive of how the public as a whole responds to people. I guess its possible he's been playing us all, and is, ultimately a political genius. I kind of like that idea, actually

Take a look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7376621.stm) article.

The bumbling quiz-show host isn't the real Boris at all. I suspect he's tired of that clownish persona and wants to show us the real Boris - orator, leader, heavyweight thinker. Those qualities are there in his personality; they just don't come across on telly.

It's a protest vote.

I pointed out a few years back that Nu-labour would take it up the old dirt shoe once house prices started to fall. And here we are.

Ken should have stayed as an independent.

To my mind, the selection of this bumbling, incompetent, incoherent fool as a candidate and his election by the wider public illustrates precisely what is wrong with democracy. He has been chosen precisely because people find his idiocy somehow endearing, regardless of the fact that he at times seemed confused about what his own policies were, yet alone how he would go about implementing them. Several of my friends who live in London openly admitted that they voted for him because "he's funny", and when asked about his position on any of the issues they are unable to reply.

But if the people want an idiot, they'll vote in an idiot.

The issue seems to be not so much that an idiot like Johnson can stand in for vote, but that people want someone like him as mayor.

I think it's a bad idea imposing sanctions like IQ tests on who can run.

Why should the government be able to choose who should and who shouldn't run against them? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have a free choice to elect, regardless of what the government thinks?

Democracy is by no means a perfect system but it's the best we've got.

"The people vote in idiots, we should just do away with elections all together"
What's wrong with the above sentence?

Personally, I find it disgraceful. Ken Livingstone was good at the job, whilst Boris Johnson has been elected solely on his looks. Ironically, his greatest claim to fame was being a popular game show host, and the current host (Brian Blessed of all people) is even madder, which would mean that he could be elected Prime Minister! British democracy is entering a worrying stage - roughly 1% of us apparently voted BNP, when it should hopefully be a minute figure! I guess so many people wanted Ken out that they voted for anyone who had radically different views.

His looks? Hummm...Boris doesn't do it for me, but then again, neither did Ken. But don't rule Mr. Blessed out at the next election cycle. Imagine the debates. Got to pity the fool who tries to speak over him.

There's nothing about having a high IQ or knowledge of political issues that causes intelligent voting all the time. Smart people are just as capable of throwing their votes away as anyone else.

You are quite possibly right, though that would be probably the most left-field yet inspired sort of spin and character presentation I've ever seen! Perhaps he's just very perceptive of how the public as a whole responds to people. I guess its possible he's been playing us all, and is, ultimately a political genius. I kind of like that idea, actually

I don't think it's left-field at all, it seems quite plausible. If you listen to him, and I mean really listen (which I admit is difficult through all his mumbling and complete buffoonary), he is a hard line conservative and always has been. He just lets his natural seemingly erratic nature come out and people watch him and go "isn't Boris funny!". We'll soon find out though...

Relevant quote by H. L. Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Many people want idiots. And many people want to control others when they have absolutely no right to do so.

Take a look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7376621.stm) article.

Thanks, that was a very interesting article that had slipped under my radar. I suppose even if this is true, however, one could argue in a sense that it is still concerning that someone who presents themselves as a buffoon, and who is perceived as such by probably the majority of his electors can find themselves in power. To put it another way, if the public didn't know his bumbling incompetence was an affectation, does it not still cast them in a very bad light for voting for him?

Even the idiot has something to say.

In a democracy, even the idiot must be permitted to say it.

Even the idiot has something to say.
In a democracy, even the idiot must be permitted to say it.


That‘s precisely the problem. Because the idiot must be listened to, we wind up being run be idiots, both in terms of the idiotic electorate, and the idiotic rulers they choose.

Johnson isn’t as stupid as he makes out, but he doesn’t seem to have a clear policy either. Some of his ideas are PR stunts to attract more idiots to vote for him.

Ken Linvingstone had experience and a solid track record and a clear idea of what he was going to do with the city (regardless of his political ideals). The logical thing to do was retain the person who already knew the job and had plans half way to completion. Democracy being what it is, the people decided to do completely the opposite.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for that stellar display of public idiocy. You may now wave goodbye to our the Thames stormwater capture programme and CrossRail.

An elected mayor is a big mistake for London. Whilst someone having the power to get things moving has been very good for us, leaving it to the vagrancies of the electorate is never wise.

*confused* Is Boris Johson the British spelling of George Bush?

Personally, I find it disgraceful. Ken Livingstone was good at the job, whilst Boris Johnson has been elected solely on his looks. Ironically, his greatest claim to fame was being a popular game show host, and the current host (Brian Blessed of all people) is even madder, which would mean that he could be elected Prime Minister! British democracy is entering a worrying stage - roughly 1% of us apparently voted BNP, when it should hopefully be a minute figure! I guess so many people wanted Ken out that they voted for anyone who had radically different views.

And who can we thank for this? Oh yes, New Labour. Having moved Labour to the political centre, and then spent over a decade vacillating, prevaricating and generally being a despibale demagogue, Mr. Blair has dragged the Tories to the political centre as well, hence increasing the profile, and legitimacy, or politically "extreme" parties and figures.

I think the thing about this election, coming to think about it, is not about Johnson or Livingstone. In fact, it wasn't just about London. Labour was severely beaten across England and Wales and I think the results from London reflected the the national trend. If it was just between Johnson and Livingstone, Livingstone would still have a chance of winning. But because this was Tory Johnson vs. Labour Livingstone, the scales were tipped.

Plus, some people would really see a breath of fresh air at City Hall, and Johnson was the most feasible to give it. A little bit of an incumbent fatigue.

And who can we thank for this? Oh yes, New Labour. Having moved Labour to the political centre, and then spent over a decade vacillating, prevaricating and generally being a despibale demagogue, Mr. Blair has dragged the Tories to the political centre as well, hence increasing the profile, and legitimacy, or politically "extreme" parties and figures.

Can you really blame Labour or the Conservatives for moving to the centre, using spin etc? Unfortunately, that seems to be how you win votes. It appears that the majority of people have no fixed ideological leaning, so can we really be surprised that all the parties gravitate towards a bland, inoffensive centre ground? Seems that we are caught in a vicious circle: the parties want to win votes so they go to the centre, leading to people becoming increasingly apathetic and disillusioned with politics, leading to a further decrease in the number of people genuinely engaged in politics with strong convictions, which in turn makes the political centre look even more appealing for the main parties.

those bendy buses Boris wants to scrap cost over £200M and he just wants to scrap them! errr...hellloo!!!?!?!

(Boris):sniper:

And who can we thank for this? Oh yes, New Labour. Having moved Labour to the political centre, and then spent over a decade vacillating, prevaricating and generally being a despibale demagogue, Mr. Blair has dragged the Tories to the political centre as well, hence increasing the profile, and legitimacy, or politically "extreme" parties and figures.

So you believe that the conservatives were politically extreme until recently then?

I'm not sure IQ tests will really help, or be very fair. I think political interest and understanding is something that should be encouraged at school, part of citizenship classes or something. I find it worrying when the news says it's a record turnout of only 45%. Though perhaps if the rest also voted it would turn into even more of a popularity contest.


Oh, L-rouge, your sig has a mistake in: 'then beat you experience' needs a 'with' in the penultimate position.

Oh, L-rouge, your sig has a mistake in: 'then beat you experience' needs a 'with' in the penultimate position.

LOL. I know, it's been like that for about a year now (really need a new sig) but you're the first to point it out!:D

LOL. I know, it's been like that for about a year now (really need a new sig) but you're the first to point it out!:D

A lot of us don't pay much attention to sigs...


fixed error in post for you...

A lot of us don't pay much attention to sigs...


fixed error in post for you...

yes, thanks for that

I agree that he looks like a complete idiot on tv, but lets give him a chance eh? You cant really judge how well he'll do at the job from a few minutes impression, so give it a few months at least, then feel free to deride him if you think he's doing a bad job.

And who can we thank for this? Oh yes, New Labour. Having moved Labour to the political centre, and then spent over a decade vacillating, prevaricating and generally being a despibale demagogue, Mr. Blair has dragged the Tories to the political centre as well, hence increasing the profile, and legitimacy, or politically "extreme" parties and figures.
John Major was a centrist long before Cameron was. Trends to the middle were a natural consequence of Thatcher's rule - next to whom anyone (except possibly Brown, in his capacity as her ideological successor) seems like a centrist.

I agree that he looks like a complete idiot on tv, but lets give him a chance eh? You cant really judge how well he'll do at the job from a few minutes impression, so give it a few months at least, then feel free to deride him if you think he's doing a bad job.
That's virtually impossible. Johnson was elected on a protest vote against the Labour national government. His only 'policies' are romanticising about routemaster buses and demagougery over the congestion charge - both of which aren't going to happen as the routemasters are well past their sell by date and too expensive to staff and run and scrapping the coingestion charge would bankrupt the city. As he's got no promises, there's no way to judge how well a job he is doing except to contrast him against Gordon Brown, and considering Mayor of London and Prime Minsiter are two different jobs, that's impossible, but that's what'll happen.

He'll probably be worshipped by the London media as a God, but he's nothing more than a demagouge.

Some of us remember what livingstone is about, his idea for curing congestion in the city was to impose a charge for every car/truck entering the area... good idea.... then its oh but we need to fight global warming so we'll put another £5 on the charge for all those nasty 4*4's and high powered sports cars instead of ordering all the lights in London council buildings turned off when they are not being used. (mind you, the government is just as bad at that one).

Now tory Boris has only been in the job a day and he's has'nt f**ked anything up yet:eek:

El-Presidente Boris
<<<who wont vote labour or tory or ld or bloody nazi party

As daft as Boris Johnson is, i think everyone should be able to vote/stand in political matters, and if people in london honestly believe that BJ is a good politician then let them vote for him. Personally i think the Liberal Democrats are the best political party in this country, and i hoped Brian Paddick would win, i dont live in london though, so if BJ is the disaster that i expect him to be, i can watch and laugh from miles away!

So you believe that the conservatives were politically extreme until recently then?

Politically extreme? No. Distinctly "right wing" and distinct from New Labour? Yes.

Please try subtlety.

And who can we thank for this? Oh yes, New Labour. Having moved Labour to the political centre, and then spent over a decade vacillating, prevaricating and generally being a despibale demagogue, Mr. Blair has dragged the Tories to the political centre as well, hence increasing the profile, and legitimacy, or politically "extreme" parties and figures.

And the Tories did nothing. Opposition my arse.

I agree mostly, although as Philos said, he's not a complete idiot, I mean he did have a good education and he does have shit loads more experience than any BNP member, I don't think London will descend into chaos because of him.

Politically extreme? No. Distinctly "right wing" and distinct from New Labour? Yes.

Please try subtlety.

But New Labour has done nothing but continue the economic middle ground policies of the Conservatives through the 90's, so to blame New Labour for forcing the Tories to the middle ground is erroneous as they were already there because of the back-lash that was beginning through the "distinctly right-wing" policies of 80's conservatism.

I agree mostly, although as Philos said, he's not a complete idiot, I mean he did have a good education and he does have shit loads more experience than any BNP member, I don't think London will descend into chaos because of him.

I certainly do not think him an idiot...but he is a walking gaffe machine.

The people he deals with on a daily basis are going to be accountants and lawyers...planning budgets and the like. Basically its numbers and Boris does not do numbers.

Unless Boris really gets his head straight which I honestly do not see happening he will be sacked. I give it two years.

But New Labour has done nothing but continue the economic middle ground policies of the Conservatives through the 90's, so to blame New Labour for forcing the Tories to the middle ground is erroneous as they were already there because of the back-lash that was beginning through the "distinctly right-wing" policies of 80's conservatism.

And do not forget how the Thatch paved the way for the Rev Smiler by removing main aspects of Cabinet responsibilities and positioned the PM as a more presidential role within Cabinet.

The people he deals with on a daily basis are going to be accountants and lawyers...planning budgets and the like. Basically its numbers and Boris does not do numbers.

This means he will probably just grant the economists more autonomy in the matter, which may not be too bad.

I agree mostly, although as Philos said, he's not a complete idiot, I mean he did have a good education and he does have shit loads more experience than any BNP member, I don't think London will descend into chaos because of him.
Most of the Mayor's responsibilities are carried out by bodies like TfL and the Police Authority anyway. Apart from appointing people to whatever body (which will be controlled by the Tory party and the London bureaucracy to a degree anyway) there's not much for him to fuck up.

This means he will probably just grant the economists more autonomy in the matter, which may not be too bad.

Can you say massive budget over runs? I'd rather have Red Ken running a project than Boris. What has he accomplished? Besides editing the Spectator?

Most of the Mayor's responsibilities are carried out by bodies like TfL and the Police Authority anyway. Apart from appointing people to whatever body (which will be controlled by the Tory party and the London bureaucracy to a degree anyway) there's not much for him to fuck up.

What do you think the Mayor does?

What do you think the Mayor does?
Appoints people to TfL, the Police Board, the Fire Board and the Development Agency, and approves their budgets/plans with the consent of the London Assembly.

But New Labour has done nothing but continue the economic middle ground policies of the Conservatives through the 90's, so to blame New Labour for forcing the Tories to the middle ground is erroneous as they were already there because of the back-lash that was beginning through the "distinctly right-wing" policies of 80's conservatism.

Taxation is radically higher than under Thatcher. Radically, radically higher. In any case, omitting economic deregulation, Thatcher's policies were distinctly "right wing"; any politician who sought to restore capital punishment and distance themselves as far from the EU as possible is to the right of the British political spectrum.

And do not forget how the Thatch paved the way for the Rev Smiler by removing main aspects of Cabinet responsibilities and positioned the PM as a more presidential role within Cabinet.

A situation which can be both bad, and good. It predicates the success of the state on the suitability of the PM, demonstrating a commendable faith in democracy.

Appoints people to TfL, the Police Board, the Fire Board and the Development Agency, and approves their budgets/plans with the consent of the London Assembly.

Meetings. Lots and lots of meetings and lots and lots of numbers. With as you say..the above people. Of course how hands on he will be is up to Boris...but if he does not get it right he will either be up to his neck in debt and get fired or viewed as such a complete buffoon that he'll get fired.

I really cannot see this working.

Does anyone know what the provisions are to remove the Mayor?

I
Now ("at last", I'm sure you'll be thinking) on to the question that I have been reflecting upon. How can such disgraces be avoided in future? Intelligence tests for voters and candidates initially seem a good idea, but there has been so much research suggesting that it is difficult to come up with a test that is not culturally biased. Perhaps a test on the political institutions and main policy issues to ensure that people have at least a basic knowledge of politics? Or should we accept that even the hopelessly uninformed members of society have a right to have their voice heard?

People are not stupid. They know what they want. If they want a half-payed off maortgage at 30, and proper hospitals, they'll vote for that. If they want a massively millitarist colonial government, with expensive deregulation that hands economc and political power to the rich, then they'll vote Thatcher.

What is important is to inform people what they are voting for- the media has the most important responsability in a democracy, even ahead of vote counters.

Voting is no substitute for democracy.

On the OP, no one has the responsibility to prove their fittness to vote, partly because there is no adequente test to prove qualification for voting, and partly because voters should only have to have a stake in the country in question (and be able to prove that they understand basic concepts like, well, voting): and therefore there should be no voting age.

Labour probably wouldn't take as much of a beating in the General Election if he follows a few more left wing policies ("tax the rich until they squeak" springs to mind) for the next two years. Brown's almost bound to lose the election anyway, but at least he might keep the grassroots from letting the Tories get a landslide. Labour need some time out of power to get in touch with voters again.

Incidentaly, in Ynys mon (Angelesy, I'm not sure if the English spelling's correct) all four major party in wales (the 3 english ones and plaid cymru) gained seats.

Meetings. Lots and lots of meetings and lots and lots of numbers. With as you say..the above people. Of course how hands on he will be is up to Boris...but if he does not get it right he will either be up to his neck in debt and get fired or viewed as such a complete buffoon that he'll get fired.

I really cannot see this working.
Nah, I think there are enough officials and bureaucrats to keep the twit in order, even if he is generally useless.

Does anyone know what the provisions are to remove the Mayor?
If he doesn't attend meetings, he getsw fired. Apart from that, I don't know. I can't find anything in the GLA Act referring to any kind of impeachement procedure.

A situation which can be both bad, and good. It predicates the success of the state on the suitability of the PM, demonstrating a commendable faith in democracy.

When the mechanisms of State do not gell with a new direction taken it makes things complex. One by-product are more nonsensical laws that are ill defined (like the extreme porn (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/) legislation).

Nah, I think there are enough officials and bureaucrats to keep the twit in order, even if he is generally useless.

which will cause friction which will make for stupid office politics which leads to the slippery slope to mega over budget Olympics.


If he doesn't attend meetings, he getsw fired. Apart from that, I don't know. I can't find anything in the GLA Act referring to any kind of impeachement procedure.


Yeah same here...could not find a thing.

He has meetings...he also has to prepare reports and appear before committees and give presentations and all sorts of fun stuff...if ever there was ever a better opportunity to do a reality/fly on the wall show this is it....LOL