Will the real Boris Johnson please stand up?
Friday, April 18, 2008 Tom Utley, a former winner of Forest's Smoker-Friendly Journalist of the Year Award, has written an interesting piece about his friend Boris Johnson in today's Daily Mail. Like many people (including, I suspect, Tom Utley), I cling to the hope that Boris will eventually have the courage of his convictions to say - consistently - what he really believes without backtracking, hours later, into Cameron-speak.
The truth is, Boris Johnson faces a very tricky balancing act. Even people like me - who love his quirky, amiable persona - have been praying that he would abandon the "buffoon" act and become a "serious" politician. This he is clearly attempting to do. The danger is he goes from one extreme to the other and becomes yet another boring, identikit politician with nothing interesting to say and no reason to vote for him.
Anyway, read the full Tom Utley article HERE. My advice, for what it's worth, is "Vote Boris". His heart's in the right place even if, on occasion, his mouth isn't. There's nothing to lose if Boris becomes Mayor of London. In the long run, there may be something to gain.
Reader Comments (28)
Tom Utley has always been one of my favourite journalists, straight and to the point, and always humorous.
I agree with his appraisal of Boris, but I hate to think of how the majority on here will pull both him and Boris to pieces.
A week or so ago, Boris was the sworn enemy of most on here, and why? Because they had read a fake email purporting to have come from Boris himself, in which he allegedly said that he has done an about turn, and now supports the ban.
Roll on a week, and fresh evidence starts to emerge which shows that Boris never said any of that stuff, and in fact he doesn't supports the ban at all, and thinks that people should have more choice.
Big rejoicing all round, including from those who only a few day earlier had wanted to string him up from the nearest lampost. But hold on, within a few hours of that statement being issued, Boris' campaign team issued yet another statement, in which he now, apparently says that his earlier remarks were his own personal opinion, and did not reflect his official views.
Back came the local villagers again, this time armed with flaming torches, wanting to burn the house of Boris to the ground. For they had now found out that the evil Doctor Cameronstein was the real creator of the Boris monster, and everything the Boris monster said or did was as a direct order from Doctor Cameronstein himself.
I cannot tell you what the outcome will be, as this is only the third episode, but you must ask yourself, what will the villagers do, will they destroy the Boris Monster and his master the evil Doctor Cameronstein? And if they do, who will take over at the castle? Will it be the old caretaker, Igorstone, or will they all be destroyed, and the castle crumble to dust as small groups of warring factions fight it out amongst each other in order to claim the treasures which are allegedly buried there?
Watch what happens in the next episode of this amazing tale of corruption, deceit, and greed.
An interesting article but I think Mr Utley has also missed the point entirely.
Ken Livingstone was elected first time around because he was not mainstream and was a thorn in the side of Tony Blair's Labour. It was an opportunity for the populace to give Blair a bloody nose without having to allow the Tories to run the country. People took the post of mayor as a bit of a joke and Red Ken was the man for the job.
Voters again want to show their displeasure with Labour but Livingstone is a Nu-Labour darling so they will not vote him back in. Johnson was chosen for the candiditure BECAUSE he was not the Tories first choice and because he is abit of a buffoon and Jack The Lad. Now that he is travelling on the Cameron Line the fun of voting for him has gone and the disgruntled are stuck with voting for either of these two partymen, finding another off the wall candidate or not bothering to vote.
My guess is that the turnout will be even lower than the last election and because Johnson has been shown up to be just as much of an unprincipled politician as the rest Nu-Labour Ken will be re-elected.
Oh dear Micheal, you are truly one of the villagers aren't you.....
It is not just his flip flopping over the smoking ban that disappoints me. He stated that he wanted an online referendum to discover if the people wanted the borough councils to decide whether the ban should be amended. Referenda are for politicians who do not have the bottle to make difficult decisions and stand by them and if he advocates referenda before he is even elected then it shows him to be unprincipled and spineless. See what way the wind blows.
Furthermore,I lived in Lambeth when the borough councils had complete autonomy and central government exercised no controls. We had the perverse situation of paying a huge poll tax whereas the people on the other side of the street paid none at all because they lived in Wandsworth. The reason- Wandsworth shut all it's libraries, sports and community centres whereas Lambeth kept theirs open. The result was that the Wandsworth residents used the facilities that the Lambeth ones paid for.
If he wants to be mayor, then he should be looking at ways to improve the lot of all of Londoners and not be at the behest of your postcode. He plainly does not believe in a coordinated approach to the problems of London and wants to wash his hands of any policy making while enjoying the trappings of office.
Maybe the villagers are right!
Here's something might be of interest?
http://backboris.com/video/18_04_08_election_broadcast.php
Radio 4's PM show has just broadcast an interview with Boris. Eddie Smug asked if "saving people from cancer and the effects of secondhand smoke" was not more important than Boris's desire for more localised decision-making.
Boris was more than a tad diplomatique in response... he didn't challenge this dishonest orthodoxy, but did seem exasperated by it. He stuck by his view that it is more appropriate for these matters to be decided via licensing-laws rather than by top-down diktats.
Thank you Basil, and that folks, is from the proverbial horses mouth.
p.s. I didn't mean you of course, Basil. I meant our smoker friendly horse, Boris.
Peter, I'm afraid your patronising village/castle/Frankenstein analogy does not convince.
Boris Johnson says that pubs and clubs are better places since the smoking ban came in. Do you seriously interpret that to mean that, officially, he is against the ban?
Face the facts.
Johnson is dilly-dallying between being an eccentric and being an identikit PC politician. And that dilly-dallying means he lacks courage in his convictions, which means you can't trust a word he says.
If he was sincere, he wouldn't be fannying around trying to identify which "line" will get him the most votes. He'd simply be speaking his mind.
Well Col, maybe we should follow your line, and get Red Ken back in for another 4 years then.
You obviously do not live in London!
Or back the fourth largest party, UKIP.
Their admirable MEP Gerard Batten really would clean up London and make it a better place to live in. His plan to abolish the corrupt congestion charge and residents' parking permits, alone, would make a big difference and save a lot of money. Congestion charge money goes to the firm which runs it - no benefit to the people of London. Take time to read Batten's manifesto.
Yes, Peter, voting UKIP could take votes from the Tories but it would show all the big three that people see nothing to choose between them. I feel it will make little difference to Red Ken as he already has the vote all tied up neatly through insisting on a second choice vote. He has been busy and thorough and got much of the immigrant population tied into voting Labour. Apparently one in five of the population are not even registered to vote and the registration procedure is a bit complicated and must be done well beforehand. How many people knew about it?
So, in additon to Ken having been able to manipulate and organise the voters, we are left with the question - who will be doing the counting?
Residents who do not want us to lose our identity as a nation might as well show their dislike of the Lisnon Treaty by voting for UKIP and showing support for keeping U.K. Independance. Red Ken already has this election all sewn up.
I wish I was wrong. I wonder how many London residents actually read this blog?
I sincerely hope that you are wrong Margot, although I do have this nagging suspicion, and horror, that you are going to end up being proved right.
I do admire you for sticking to your guns about UKIP, even though you know that I do not endorse them. It is not that I do not like their policies, as their two main policies I think are admirable, but that is where we differ, because I do not see any other real policies coming from them. I know they do have other policies, as I have been on their website, but there doesn't seem to be any major items that I could see, that would make me think, "wow, that's a good idea"
I do not agree with everything the Conservatives have to say or offer, but I still think that they are the only way to defeat Labour.
My idea is that if and when Labour are hopefully defeated, surely the winning party will have to study where Labour went wrong, and why they won? If they look at all the disgruntled voters, then hopefully they won't want to go down that same line, and if this happens, then maybe, just maybe, freedom with be restored to us once again.
Oh, Peter, I wish I shared your optimistic view of a politician's nature. If I did then I might even vote Tory at the next general election.
I don't think that they'll stop to learn any lessons. I think that they'll blunder on, looking at two terms of office, the first spent making sure that they get back in, the second spent planning their exit strategies, hoping that their political careers guarantee a cushy future.
(I watched Boris, Ken and Brian on "The Politics Show". It was, quite frankly, utterly depressing.)
Thanks, Peter, and thanks for not pointing out spelling mistakes. The old eyesight is not so good these days.
To give UKIP a fair hearing, you would have to study more than just a brief glimpse at their website. I hope you have watched the video "Remote Control" on their website. Politics apart, it gives a real look at the corrupt voting system within the EU. Just a hasty show of hands, no time to think, no real counting. How quickly they have taken control of us and our three established political parties. And all done through a friendly trading agreement which nobody could object to.
I agree that UKIP have not managed to get MPs into our own parliament yet. But they concentrated their initial effort and limited resources in going straight to the heart of the problem - which is the EU. It is good that the British people, by free vote, have chosen so many UKIP MEPs above our other political parties to represent us in the EU.
As to whether they would be competent to govern us if they were elected into our U.K. parliament [if it still exists when the next election is finally granted to us], I, for one, think they are. There are many more like me who have taken the trouble to really study the way they would do it. They are common sense practiacal people and would certainly have more money at their disposal when we stop having to pay billions each year into the EU funds.
The next general election is some way off yet. In fact, to my mind, there could be doubt whether we will ever again have a free election and a free vote.
My hope is that some experienced Members of Parliament will see the disastrous road we have been taken so far along already; have the courage of their convictions, and change to UKIP. It would be an enormous career gamble, but if they look clearly at it - what have they got to lose? Their futures are by no means certain as things stand.
Meantime, I agree with you that we, by hammering home the enormity of this corrupt world-wide smoking ban, not to mention the infamous Lisbon Treaty, may be able to influence the reasoning process within all three political parties. The smoking ban, based as it is on lies, is comfortably supported by all three brain-washed main political parties. There will be many within UKIP who are equally brainwashed but their principal of allowing businesses to run themselves according to how they interpret market forces, would soon put a stop to the closure of pubs and clubs and the resultant unemployment.
Big Pharma et al have disturbed a sleeping giant and although it can be brushed over by the EU controlled main three parties, we smokers are decent law-abiding human beings So are our non-smoking supporters. Rest assured that, Continent by Continent, central Big Pharma et al, have not yet attained Globalisation and the predicted Orwellian 1984.
By the way, watch out for Gordon Brown's recent offer of free health screening for everyone between ages 40 to 74. I predict that this will become compulsory under EU Law. In will come Big Pharma [again]. and compulsory medication will follow. A very neat way to cull the expensive-to-maintain elderly population.
Meantime, I agree that a vote for the Tories as against Labour MAY result in a better thinking process among MPs, but how long can we afford to wait?
Meanwhile, keep up the good work and your undoubted integrity. Pity you have such a plastic man young Tony Blair look-alike as your leader. Big mistake there - created by spin.
Where is our Churchill?
I've just read the reply from my MP to a letter that I sent to her in which she seems to state that the purpose of the ban was to discourage active smoking in order that the NHS saves money - little to do with passive smoking!!
I don't know how to scan so I can only quote:
"The reason for the smoking ban is the level of cases that the NHS deal with that are a direct consequence of smoking."
She goes on to say that the working population is shrinking relative to the percentage of elderly people who require a great deal of health care which will be increasingly difficult to fund.
"In order to help ease the pressure on future generations it was decided in the manifesto 2005 that a blanket ban on smoking in public enclosed places should be established. This would aid people who were and are trying to quit smoking and help prevent secondary smoking for workers in the service industry."
Oh, Joyce! However are you going to reply to this?
So typical of the brain-dead people who are actually running our country. Well - ruining it I should say.
The message seems to be don't get sick or, if you do and it's self-inflicted, don't expect the NHS to treat you because the money will have been earmarked for those who require treatment or care through no fault of their own. As many people have said already smoking is just the start...
I suppose I could take issue with her statement that
"Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causing many diseases and reduces quality of life and life expectancy."
or this one
"Many smokers think that smoking helps relieve stress but in fact ex-smokers are more likely to have better mental health and be happier."
I suppose I could check back to find evidence that the professed reason for the ban was primarily to protect against ETS. I could perhaps argue that smokers cost the NHS less in relation to non-smokers and that there is little point in us all leading health-obsessed lives which end in years in care because of diseases of the mind that offer a quality of life that none of us would want.
I could ask her if the Government would mind if I volunteered for euthanasia because I don't want to live for God knows how many years being bullied and harangued about my health and working ever longer hours to pay ever increasing taxes!!!
I wonder if this is another reason for the Government's enthusiasm for unlimited immigration - the indigenous, working, population isn't breeding enough so an immigrant population will make up the shortfall!
May I also just say that in my opinion, the rationale expressed in the reply is that of a government that is profoundly unfit to govern -it has squandered and mis-managed, perhaps, billions of pounds of our, the taxpayers', money but places responsibility for the consequences squarely at our feet.
"In order to help ease the pressure on future generations it was decided in the manifesto 2005 that a blanket ban on smoking in public enclosed places should be established."
Joyce, I hope you remind your MP that there was no such undertaking in Labour's 2005 manifesto. That "commitment" was to John Reid's partial ban. The only people in the country who voted for Hewitt and Flint's total ban were a few hundred MPs. Only the ""Liberal" "Democrat"" manifesto promised total verboten.
She, very helpfully, highlighted the relevant paragraph on page 66 of the 112 page Labour manifesto that she enclosed with her reply. Of course the paragraph refers to the promised exemptions, which seems to have slipped her notice. My letter to her did mention that the blanket ban was in breach of Labour's manifesto pledge.
It's academic now, anyway, from Labour's point of view. Would we really expect this Government to have the moral decency to honour a pledge that a Court has ruled is not binding?
As far as I'm concerned Boris can dilly-dally as much as he likes as long as that 'thing' Livingstone isn't voted back in.
If he gets the Muslim vote which he is trying every trick in the book to get, then I'm afraid Tory, UKIP or any other party are onto a hiding. I dread to think of what's to come if this rotten to the core scumbag is re-elected. No, definitely don't rule him out
Joyce, perhaps you should say to the MP that smokers taxes keep the NHS up and running, therefore what is the plan if/when every smoker decides to quit.
No I fear she's saying this because the NHS is abused by health tourists and overloaded by all the asylum seekers/migrants here. It doesn't help that the judiciary are compliant and perverse, the other day a judge ruled that failed asylum seekers should have the same access to the NHS as everyone else.
We have been stuffed by the EU, the government, judiciary, police and every other public service. The wealthy, nothing seems applies to them, those on benefits are mollycoddled by the state, those in the middle that work are treated like something the politicians trod in.
I'd like to see riots on a bigger scale than those of the poll tax ones, something has got to give one way or another, because of the greed, corruption and intrusiveness of politicians and vested interested parties, it has to be stopped, democracy no longer applies here, so something else is needed.
They're now trying another experiment to squeeze money out of people, in Oxford, I think it is, if someone leaves their engine running for longer than 1 minute the local Nazi Enforcers will issue an on-the-spot fine, this is in the name of saving the planet. One day one of these enforcers will push someone too far and will end up being hurt badly, and I say the good, the quicker the better. Plus now 500,000 are going to be asked in a national survey about their sex lives, the government need it to help them set policy. The Stasi, and even the Gestapo didn't go as far as this.
I wish the government would offer the indigenous a re-location get get out of this cesspit of a country. Plus compensation for loss of our way of life & freedom. They should be prosecuted for Reckless Endangerment for what they've done to us.
The last paragraph should have read, A Re-location Package.
Joan: I reckon we "aint seen nuthin yet".
Just wait until Brown's kind offer of free health check for all between 40 and 74 becomes compulsory. Then the prescribed medication which follows will become compulsory. Seems that when the EU and their police force take over this country, anyone disobeying EU Law can have their pensions or benefits stopped. So it will be a case of kill them with prescribed medication or starve them to death. We'll still be allowed to smoke, of course, provided it is done in wide open spaces and in extreme discomfort. No doubt cigarettes, by then, will cost £10 a packet throughout Europe.
I wonder how many of our goodly MPs really understand what the Lisbon Treaty is all about.
Joyce: I wouldn't waste your valuable time replying to that moronic MP. You would have to keep such a letter very short. I doubt she has much of an attention span - especially if she is an ex-smoker who forced herself to give up. You could try a pleasant face-to-face meeting with her, though. as I wouldn't give much for her chances up against the formidable Joyce.
When the weather improves and at a time of my own choosing, I certainly intend to have a quiet lady-like chat with my own local MP - whoever he or she might be. I did this with our former MP, Michael Howard, and what a fatuous waste of time that turned out to be.
Onwards and upwards, though. We must keep on pecking at the canker in whatever ways we can.
Oh dear - just decided it's high time I found out who our local MP is. What a shock! It is still the fatuous Michael Howard.
This just shows how disinterested in politics I was until this unbelievable smoking ban woke me up and brought me back into real life.
So I have just read his weekly article in our local paper. He mentioned that Tories will have a free vote on the question of whether scientists will be allowed to place human DNA in animal cells. He said he hadn't made his mind up yet but ended, "Whatever I decide, I will not please everyone and am bound to upset many of you. That, I am afraid, is the nature of the job you elected me to do."
So there speaks one of our great leaders of men!
No, Michael you were not elected to make your own mind up about which way you will vote on anything at all. You were elected to ask your constituents which way they would like you to vote.
Given your opinion of my MP, Margot, you might appreciate that she thanks me for my letter which she says she received on the 17th; her reply to me was dated 15th! Perhaps clairvoyance is a gift bestowed on MPs in which case she might even now be clearing her desk in the Commons!
I dread these free votes that MPs seem to having more and more often. I don't trust them to take the time and trouble to ensure that they fully understand all the issues and we know how susceptible they are to aggressive, single issue lobbies.
Yes, Joyce, and in the interests of chronological accuracy, I should add that my newspaper is a fortnight old.I bought it precisely to find out who my MP is at present. Didn't get around to looking until yesterday.
Michael Howard's regular weekly column is whimsically entitled "Commons Touch". The rest of that column consisted of his visits to watch the local football teams playing. [Not needed, Michael, there are Sports Pages at the back].
I agree with you Joyce regarding these so-called "free votes" that the Tories keep giving themselves. On the subject of the Embryology Bill, Michael prissily complained that the government refused to give a free vote to their MPs on some of the more controversial aspects of this Bill. [Nothing new there then]. He stated, in a hurt voice, that surely this should be a matter of conscience.
No, Michael, more a matter of public opinion, I would have thought?
The whole parliamentary pantomime remains as an EU controlled charade. The Labour MPs are forced to obey the Whip. The Tories dance about making a show. The obedient Lib-Dems make a quick tot up of the likely outcome and then, if safe, abstain. If not safe, obey the Labour whip.
Parliament is run in much the same way as the EU Parliament. The outcome is a foregone conclusion before proceedings even begin.
Anyone interested in how the EU Parliament works should watch the video "Remote Control" featured on the UKIP website.
Apart from looking like a joke, call me dave really went to stomac churning proportions the other week when he brought the cameras into his home to show us a day in the life of himself and his family. talk about big brother.what was that supposed to achieve, that we all should aspire to wooden floors and state of the art kitchens overlooking a leafy garden, puleease! I agree with margot only I think he has a face like a baby's well slapped ars. I'll never know why david davis wasnt elected at least he looked like a man.
Having said all that and as a change of govt is vital I would'nt hold it against him,