[center]I'm with the Captain and Coffeeking on this. AAAAARRRRGggghhhh indeed.
When I'm boss of everything the first to the wall will be the scores of mindlessly and myopically bureaucratic institutions and committees so beloved of 'large government'
Pity Gwynneth Dunwoody isn't still around. Gwynneth V Boris would have been far more interesting. The Transport Committee were crap. 1-0 Boris.
I strongly believe that about ten yrs in power is right for any administration. After that they tend to run out of ideas, stop listening to the people they serve and lose sight of their principles.
Boris was the first really credible candidate put up against Ken - the two factors together got him elected.
Remember folks he is not the clown that he cultivates as an image - he is a very clever chap albeit one with little common sense. At least he is not a dull grey man like too many of our politicians
RudeBoy - Member
Don't bother trying to disagree with Rudeboy. He's a numpty, to put it mildly, and not fit for the job. And you know it.
Personally I reckon the very existence of this thread - and the title used for it - says it all really. What a pathetic point over which to suggest that Boris isn't up to it (he may well not be, but his responses to this committee seem perfectly reasonable given the questions he was being asked). Shouldn't the question be, if Boris had done some of the ridiculous things Gordon has, how stupid would we be saying he was?
Why not just say what you mean, eh, chrism? Don't hold back, like...
Resorting to abuse proves you've lost the argument.
Boris is not fit for the job. Clear for everyone to see. Only a matter of time before he's forced to resign, anyway.
And make way for the Second Coming of Ken.
TJ, I used to have a similar view to you on this one, believing that he is not the clown he appears to be and that behind it all is a very clever guy. Indeed, there is a well read, well educated brain underneath the shock of blond hair (which could be tidier but which he purposely tosses around to appear a little more rakish). [i][b]Some[/b][/i] of his writing is good, albeit the writing for the Telegraph has to be a bit crap to allow for the readership.
Whatever about "...not being good at detail...", he's actually shockingly bad at most of it. I've seen footage of him at mayor's questions before (not just on the documentary) and the disdain with which he treats any questions, not just the difficult ones, shows, in one way, what a bad politician he is. He's too easily led by corrupt friends and accomplices to whom he shows some kind of stupid loyalty, when they lean on him for favours now that he's in the job.
Ah, ****, I could go on, sheesh, I had problems with Ken, but this guy is a joke...an absolute joke. If anything, it shows the kind of stupid things that can happen in elections after an administration has been around too long...like you say.
TandemJeremy - Johnson was [b]not[/b] "the first really credible candidate put up against Ken", Steve Norris was a perfectly credible candidate. In fact in the 2004 London mayoral elections, Steve Norris's share of the vote increased when the Tory vote nationwide decreased. In 2008 Johnson failed to increase the Tory vote in line with the increased support for Tories nationwide.
Far from being a "credible candidate", Johnson was very much seen as a "gimmick/joke candidate", in the same way as the monkey which was elected Mayor of Hartlepool in 2002 was.
By 2006 the Tories had realised that because of Livingstone's huge personal popularity (despite New Labour's very low approval rating) their only chance of defeating him was probably by offering the electorate a gimmick candidate who would distract them from policy issues. Amongst the candidate considered as Tory candidates were DJ Mike Read, shock jock Nick Ferrari, and actor Tom Conti.
Take away his amusing Hammer House of Horror first name, his funny Ken Dodd style hair, his Mr Bean composure, and his endearing 'British romantic comedy film' upper-class pronunciations, and who the hell thinks that Alexander Johnson would have stood a chance of getting elected ?
Some time ago I read a newspaper letter by an American who had been at Oxford with Johnson. He said that he had just witness a performance by Johnson on TV and was shocked to discover that Johnson was [i]still[/i] using the same bumbling eccentric act which he had used whilst debating at the Oxford Union. Well I reckon that the act has served Johnson well - as he goes through life amusing and entertaining people by acting like some sort of upper-class village idiot. It appears to have very effectively hidden from some, the fact that he is actually a totally useless ****. Well done Boris.
Apart from that TJ, where do you get your proof of Johnson's much vaunted "cleverness" ? Is it the fact that he knows words which haven't been used since the 1930s such as 'piccaninny' to describe black people ? Or is it simply that anyone who speaks with plums in their mouths must by definition, be very 'clever' ?
And since when TJ, has there been a 'limited shelf-life' on good policies ? You don't support for a candidate with crap (or non-existing) policies because 'it's time for a change', ffs.
.
On the issue of Transport ........ (btw,Johnson entered the mayoral race very wisely without any policies. However, pressurised to come up with [i]something[/i], he came came up with the 'Routemaster' idea. His most important idea and one which now appears to have absolutely no commitment to keep)
The GLA unlike the old GLC which had extensive responsibilities for issues such as housing and education, really doesn't have much in it's remit at all. By far and away the most it's most important responsibility and the one with the largest budget (£9.2billion) is transport. Indeed one of major arguments put forward for London having a city wide authority was the fact that it was absurd to consider that one of the world's largest capitals should not have a fully integrated transport strategy.
Punters such as crism might well be dismissive of the need to hold the Mayor of London - who has wide powers over TfL, accountable for it's smooth and effective operations, but as a Londoner I strongly disagree.
And to those who share Jonson's clear contempt for the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee, I would point out that most people realise the importance of having a democratically accountable body to keep tabs on the nation's transport infrastructure.
And no anotherdeadhero, I doubt very much that you had stopped to think that this was a cross-party committee before accusing it of attempting to 'make a party political scapegoat' of Johnson.
All Johnson had to do was convince the committee that he had done everything within his power as Mayor of London and chairman of Transport for London, to prepare the nation's capital for a highly predicted period inclement weather. He chose instead to act like a stroppy teenage who had been caught out and make smart-ar5e comments. Although his sum effort was probably indeed as he says, "I observed that it had started to snow."
.
I find it astonishing that whilst everyday punters come on here whingeing about the incompetence and alleged lack of accountability of politicians, so many are prepared to defend one who clearly feels an aversion to be being held accountable. I suspect that in this case he is being defended by some, for no other reason other that the fact that he is a Tory. And as the OP suggests, had he been a member of the Labour Party he would have been strongly denounced.
Also I suspect that like Dan Hannan recent speech, just the simple fact someone is insulting and offensive is hugely appealing. I reckon anyone who wants to study what is wrong with British politics today, should come to STW forum and observe the behaviour of those who reduce politics to the level of a reality TV show, and would probably being prepared to vote for a tabloid-backed Italian porn star with big tits.
Hmmm
I meant clever in that he is often underestimated as not being the dangerous right wing tory twit he actually is - he appears harmless but is dangerous. He is also clever in an academic way I think. High IQ but common sense and nous of a tree stump
I do not agree that Norris was a credible candidate. Totally lacking in charisma and did he not have to be pushed into standing?
Still - its all of little consequence to me being 400 miles away and IMO he can only damage the tories chances in the general election. At least he is not a dull nonentity
It was time for Ken to go. I am sure he will be back tho
Also I suspect that like Dan Hannan recent speech, just the simple fact someone is insulting and offensive is hugely appealing
Absolute nonsense. I've just listened to Hannan's speech again and all I heard was a cogent argument against Brown's public spending policy backed up with some economic statistics. Worst thing he called Brown was that he "sounded like a Breznev era apparatchik". Hardly very insulting or offensive
Hannan's speech was hugely appealing because he told the PM, in a very eloquent manner, exactly what a lot of us British electorate would like to tell him if we got the chance.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree TJ. I think that Steve Norris was indeed a very creditable candidate. He might well have 'lacked charisma' but since when should elections be decided on the basis of which candidate has the most charisma ? Despite his alleged lack charisma, I have no doubt that Norris would have been a much more competent and credible mayor than Johnson.
Certainly there is no doubt that he would not have appeared before the House of Commons Transport Committee and acted like some sort of prima donna playing to the gallery and staged a childish walk out.
More likely instead, he would have given a detailed account of the measures which he had taken as Mayor and Chairman of Transport for London to deal with the fully predicted chaos which was caused by the severe weather conditions.
Then maybe, the Transport Committee could perhaps have recommended central government provides more funds to cover the costs of necessary equipment - if this had be found to be wanting. Or maybe they could have recommended that the mayor be given enhanced powers to co-ordinate gritting resources between boroughs so that those that excess capacity could help those in particular difficulties ? Or maybe simply accepted that the Mayor had done everything which could have been reasonably expected of him.
However we will never know exactly what the Mayor of London and chairman of the Transport did in preparation other than "observing than it had started to snow", because the bumbling incompetent fukkwit, has all the credibility of the Hartlepool monkey and is more interested in nurturing his 'charisma' by acting like some sort of drama queen, than serving the needs of Londoners.
.
uponthedowns - Hannan's video became a YouTube chart-breaking sensation and unique Internet phenomenon, not because his 3 minute speech was an in-depth economic critique, but because it was perceived to have been rude, insulting, and offensive, to the British prime minister before a large assembly consisting of European politicians.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree TJ. I think that Steve Norris was indeed a very creditable candidate.
I bow to your knowledge. Its an awful long way from me and not very important so I don't pay that much attention to your funny little provincial mayor contests 😉
Abuse? Oh, you mean [b]your[/b] abuse which I quoted back at you 😆 😆Resorting to abuse proves you've lost the argument.
FWIW I'm not at all a fan of Boris holding high political office, just think this is rather a pathetic point to have a go at him about. Yes he should make sure London's transport works, but isn't it rather more important that it works on the other 1460 days of his term than on one day of freak weather - should they really be spending a disproportionate amount of money on coping with such conditions once every 15 years?
On the contrary - I'd suggest given the general political persuasion of this forum that exactly the opposite happens. If you're referring to the recent slating of GB, then that's because he's been rubbish, not because he's Labour - check out the general bad feeling towards him compared to how much everybody still loved Tony a few years ago (even I was a fan of his for quite a while). I'll point out that I'm not defending him in general, just suggesting that the committee and certain people on here have chosen the wrong thing to attack him over.I suspect that in this case he is being defended by some, for no other reason other that the fact that he is a Tory. And as the OP suggests, had he been a member of the Labour Party he would have been strongly denounced.
It depends what you mean by "creditable (sic) candidate". Try changing the "should" to "are" in your second sentence, and the answer is "all the time". He might well have been good at the job (better than either Boris or Ken), but sadly given our current media driven electoral system that didn't make him particularly electable.I think that Steve Norris was indeed a very creditable candidate. He might well have 'lacked charisma' but since when should elections be decided on the basis of which candidate has the most charisma ?
Abuse? Oh, you mean your abuse which I quoted back at you
No, you called me a numpty. I called Boris a numpty; I din't aim the comment directly at anyone on this forum.
I am very, very upset by that. Being called a 'numpty' is quite possibly the worst insult I can imagine.
😥
I'm so upset, I'm going to wear my pants inside out.
And build a little shrine to the Great Roy Hudd.
[img] 
[/img]
In my experience of emergency planning - its normal for plans for all likely scenarios to be prepared well in advance, and regularly dusted off and updated.
Then, when an event occurs, the prepared plan is pulled from the file and used.
Now, on that basis, the people who you would be looking for answers from would be those who were responsible for drafting and keeping those plans, and I'd be willing to bet they were appointed under a certain Newt fancier!
Funny also that the "usual suspects" are keen to blame Boris for something that happened when he's been in office for a matter of months, when they are still offloading the blame for half the UK's current problems on the prime minister before the prime minister before last!
Funny also that the "usual suspects" are keen to blame Boris for something that happened when he's been in office for a matter of months
I have to confess not reading this thread [i]that[/i] intently Ratty, but who's been blaming 'Boris' for "something that happened when he's been in office for a matter of months" ?
As far as I can see, he has been accused only of not fully cooperating with the Transport Select Committee.
And since [i]apparently[/i] the explanation why things went tits up is so easily explained Ratty, why didn't he put it to the Transport Select Committee, whilst simultaneously pointing out that he had worked his bollox off trying to rectify to problems.
Or was his sum input indeed as he puts it : "I observed that it had started to snow."
.
BTW - the article reports :
"[i]Mr Johnson said "huge effort and huge preparations" had been made to grit roads but snow had fallen on the grit and the compacted snow had made conditions even more difficult.[/i]"
In my area no attempts at all where made to grit bus routes before the snow fell - even the ones going through Central Croydon. In fact many bus routes were still not gritted days [i]after[/i] the snow had fallen.
I have no idea at all if Johnson is to blame for this failure, but obviously someone is ****ing responsible.
In my area no attempts at all where made to grit bus routes before the snow fell
Same here,and indeed just about everywhere in London.
Boris is Mayor, and in charge of transport stuff. It was ultimately his responsibility. The buck stops with him.
His response to criticism is both childish and unprofessional. He is quite clearly unable to actually cope with the task in hand, and almost entirely reliant on advisers, and orders from Tory party HQ.
Useless. My mate's mate Boris, what has been inside for all sorts of petty crimes, would do a better job. And you woon't trust him with a duvet.
gg,
Am I not right in thinking that the Monkey got re-elected? Also, that the head of TfL had answered questions just prior to Boris? In fact it seemed to me that one of the reasons that Boris was getting exasperated was that the committee were asking him questions that had previously been answered by the TfL guy, no? Also, do non of these Transport Committee types listen to the news - there were council officials from all over the place explaining why they CHOOSE not to have enough snow ploughs or grit to cope with 1 in 20 year weather events - it's not cost effective. Come on, get real, most people seemed to enjoy a couple of days off to have fun in the snow.
When Red Ken was in power I remember having to walk home 5 miles in the snow as chaos insued after snowfalls stopped ALL public transport- those werent the worst in 18yrs but funny how everyone forgets Ken's **** up then.
Funnily- I walked the 5miles with little difficulty as did everyone else.
Just out of interest - why TF should Johnson be held accountable by MPs of any persuasion?
London has devolved powers. The Mayor of London is directly elected by London voters, and whether he does a good job is for the London Assembly (to exercise oversight) and for the voters (to re-elect or sack him as appropriate). AFAICS, if he shows up for a committee of MPs, he's doing them a favour, not because he should be under any obligation.
(Not that he isn't a total tool).
Rudeboy "Britain did, it could be argued, need it's own 9-11. And it got one."
Is this the same rudeboy posting on here that thinks London should be bombed get back to the other thread and defend yourself for the above.
Rudeboy "Britain did, it could be argued, need it's own 9-11. And it got one."
Please tell me you didn't say that RB. Please?
If you did, a public apology is the least you could do.
Yes he did! I still cannot believe I read it.
Just out of interest - why TF should Johnson be held accountable by MPs of any persuasion?
Well I'll tell you konabunny - but only because you said you were interested.
It is normal in an advanced country for the state to ensure that there is a fully integrated transport infrastructure, including unsurprisingly, the capital city.
"It is normal in an advanced country for the state to ensure that there is a fully integrated transport infrastructure, including unsurprisingly, the capital city. "
That may be in the state's interest, but it's not the UK parliament's responsibility to do that - it's a devolved power. The part of the state that's responsible for that is the GLC. 😉
You just don't get it do you konabunny ? The transport infrastructure, including the infrastructure in London, affects potentially [b]everyone[/b]. Not only those who vote in the London mayoral elections.
When the snow brought chaos to London, the roads with commuter traffic coming into Croydon came to a complete standstill, for days. All the traffic trying to get out to Gatwick airport also came to a standstill, for days. I could go on but I'm sure that you get the picture.
The chaos effected the lives of thousands, if not millions of people who have no vote at all in the mayoral elections. A fair few I dare say, were undoubtedly not even British residents. Johnson isn't answerable to them. And I completely fail to see the problem with him being answerable to the Transport Select Committee who's role amongst other things, is the smooth and effective operation of the nation's transport infrastructure.
Unless of course, 'Boris' is a [i]very[/i] special person.
All the traffic trying to get out to Gatwick airport also came to a standstill, for days.
Define "days" for me, GG, given I didn't notice a particular problem with getting to Gatwick airport on the Tuesday?
Define "days" for me, GG,
Three.
Was due to start on a new site, couldn't get to work on monday and tuesday, was told that the work might be given to someone else if I didn't go in on wednesday, so I gave it a bash. Took me four hours to get from Croydon to Crawley (just next to Gatwick) it normally takes three quarters of an hour. Most of the time took getting out of Croydon onto the M23 - over three hours. And most of that time, was spent at not moving. All because of the snow. I will admit that Croydon was exceptionally badly hit - we had two major roads (on hills) still shut because of snow over a week after the snow had fallen.
"The chaos effected the lives of thousands, if not millions of people who have no vote at all in the mayoral elections. "
No, I get it, keep your hair on.
That's as may be - but you are affected by plenty of things every day about which you have no say. Just because Britian is affected by the US sub-prime mortgage industry, it's not the place of MPs to start grilling US financial institutions, however much they enjoy the opportunity to act tough and score points.
London transport is London's responsibility, and it's not the place of MPs from Northumberland or Ebbw Vale or even Maidstone to stick their nose in it - any more than it's Boris Johnson's job to exercise oversight over the UK Department of Transport (or whatever it's called now).
it's not the place of MPs to start grilling US financial institutions,
Erm.... n o ....... you're quite right - [b]well done ![/b] 😀
It is however, the job of the Transport Select Committee, if they so wish, to grill the Mayor of London.
Select committees have the power to "send for persons, papers and records".
The Transport Select Committee has in it's remit unsurprisingly, "transport". Johnson is chairman of Transport for London. For the Transport Select Committee to request that the chairman of Transport for London appear before them, is completely appropriate.
Get it now ? No ? Well too bad ....... I really don't think I can make it any clearer than that 😐
Took me four hours to get from Croydon to Crawley (just next to Gatwick) it normally takes three quarters of an hour.
So it wasn't actually at a complete standstill for days? From my experience on Tuesday, either a vast amount more than 3 out of the 4 hours was getting to the M23, or there was congestion holding you up, as the M23 was totally clear - not only that, but so were the back roads actually down at Gatwick. Given you could actually make it through, despite your hyperbole, how much of the problem was actually just numpties not knowing how to drive (as most of the problem was when we got similar conditions in Brum a year ago)?
Whilst it obviously wasn't good in Croydon, I doubt that your very local conditions particularly affected many non-Londoners.
grizzlygus - you can ramble on and miss the point all you want (in your glee at Johnson looking foolish - which is always a good thing but never a rare one), but all the same it's not UK politicians' mandate or interest to interfere with transport in London when that's a power reserved for London government, and it's undemocratic to do so. BJ doesn't answer to MPs, he's supposed to answer to the London Ass'y and London electorate. It was the same when Labour controlled the GLC under a Tory government, and it's the same the other way around.
We may just have to agree to let this drop, as this is so incredibly obvious and tedious.
Bottom line on Boris is that he's some higher powers punishment on the British for laughing when the USA elected George W.
So it wasn't actually at a complete standstill for days?
Yes it was.
What bit of, "I spent more time sitting in my car not moving, than moving" don't you understand ?
I am fully aware of the fact that the roads around Gatwick were relatively free, as indeed they were in Crawley. Crawley got comparatively very little snow. The M23 was hardly affected by the snow.
Croydon however, was very badly affected. Some roads in Croydon were still impassable [i]days[/i] after the snow fell, bringing traffic to a standstill.
By all means express your learned opinion about whether the chairman of Transport for London should appear before the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, but don't tell me what the driving conditions in Croydon were like. I know what ****ing snow looks like, and I know when a car isn't moving forward.
Please don't p1ss down my back and tell me it's raining ......... I might be a ****, but I'm not a [i]complete[/i] ****.
Obviously the "than moving" bit, which implied to me you spent some time doing that, when apparently you didn't.What bit of, "I spent more time sitting in my car not moving, than moving" don't you understand ?
I didn't - was quite happy to accept your explanation of the very local conditions "Whilst it obviously wasn't good in Croydon" - apart from misunderstanding and thinking you'd actually made it to Crawley on Wednesday when in fact traffic was still at a standstill.don't tell me what the driving conditions in Croydon were like.
I do wonder what it is you expected them to do that they didn't. If it was just the gritting, would that actually have helped a lot given the amount of snow you actually had?
[img] 
[/img]
Result! 😀
