Always did (met him several times) and voted for him here in London until he decided to raise the cost of my car so I voted for Boris.

These days I like both of them but suspect my new opinion - don't vote; Democracy doesn't work - will hold strong. I've given up voting for the rest of my life. I suspect soon Democracy will be abolished anyway. A good thing; a disastrous political concept, allowing the public, who think in tabloid headlines and have slogan morality and no depth or knowledge whatsoever (and that includes me) to choose leaders is bound to end in tears.

he's won me over..after saying how dreadful Nu Labour and Blair were the other day ( who ITK still thinks were 'lefties' ).

In just over 2 years I will be able to vote, but I can't see myself ever voting for Red Ken.

JK2006 wrote:
I suspect soon Democracy will be abolished anyway. A good thing; a disastrous political concept, allowing the public, who think in tabloid headlines and have slogan morality and no depth or knowledge whatsoever (and that includes me) to choose leaders is bound to end in tears.

And the alternative?

Pumpkinhead wrote:
In just over 2 years I will be able to vote, but I can't see myself ever voting for Red Ken.

how old are you pumpkin ?...twelve ?

veritas wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
In just over 2 years I will be able to vote, but I can't see myself ever voting for Red Ken.

how old are you pumpkin ?...twelve ?


Hah .. If I have to wait just over 2 years to vote then I must be 15 (almost 16). Maybe you were getting me confused with my brother

Pumpkinhead wrote:
veritas wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
In just over 2 years I will be able to vote, but I can't see myself ever voting for Red Ken.

how old are you pumpkin ?...twelve ?


Hah .. If I have to wait just over 2 years to vote then I must be 15 (almost 16). Maybe you were getting me confused with my brother

I'm out of touch with voting laws

veritas wrote:
he's won me over..after saying how dreadful Nu Labour and Blair were the other day ( who ITK still thinks were 'lefties' ).

That's hardly brave or surprising, though, is it? Blair was booed at the last Labour Conference. As far as Labour politics go, Livingstone has always been as bad in his own way as Blair was. Livingstone supported policies that were so absurd they made the party appear unelectable; Blair supported policies that were so attractive to the party's enemies they made the party eminently electable. The two men merely occupied opposite extremes of the same problem. And as Livingstone retains a troubled adolescent's romanticised view of terrorism, he has blood on his hands, just the same as Blair - the only difference is that Livingstone, thank god, never got his hands on real power, whereas Blair, alas, did.

true..Ken is on the wacky side but Blair is still responsible for promoting a dreadful war and seemed to think George Bush Jr was an OK guy..which is a real worry.

I don't think we disagree. Blair got power, Livingstone didn't, hence one has done more damage than the other. Neither of them strike me as worthy of any trust.

Ken did lots of good things when he was mayor of London.

Created the travel zones which made London travel pricing much simpler,
created the congestion charge, cutting congestion and raising funds,
started the oyster card, making travel in London more affordable
Initiated the Cross-Rail London service, which will revolutionise travel across London.

What has Boris done

Banned drinking on the underground, no one ever did it anyway and there is no one there to enforce it (how many times have you been asked for your ticket on the underground)

Brought in the "Boris Bikes". Those that want to cycle in polluted London find imminent danger from traffic and pollution.

I left London prior to the first Mayoral election but did vote for a mayor in London to be there a year or so before. Would have voted for Ken, more because Labour rejected him (at the time!). He was really the only suitable candidate and Ken only really lost because the country wanted rid of Labour and particularly the dead duck Gordon Brown.

I still believe to this day Brown was only Leader because Labour wanted out of power for a period and he was the best opportunity to get out and let the Tories screw the country even further!

steveimp wrote:
I left London prior to the first Mayoral election but did vote for a mayor in London to be there a year or so before. Would have voted for Ken, more because Labour rejected him (at the time!). He was really the only suitable candidate and Ken only really lost because the country wanted rid of Labour and particularly the dead duck Gordon Brown.

I still believe to this day Brown was only Leader because Labour wanted out of power for a period and he was the best opportunity to get out and let the Tories screw the country even further!

Quite interesting Steve,and more than a few grains of truth I suspect.