Boris? JP says "yes"

I know from one of my polls that some of you are already minded to vote for Boris in his campaign to be London Mayor, and will so cast that vote if you are eligible. I hope that the rest of you have since seen sense, and will join me in supporting Boris. If you were in the ignorant/clueless category, click here.

The reasons to vote Ken out are mounting*, but if you're still dithering about doing the right thing, you should check out Boris' speech. It's rather good.

So, the message is simple. Back Boris, and if you're lucky enough to be able to vote, don't waste the opportunity. To quote from the BBC,

Anyone registered to vote in London, irrespective of which party they support, can vote in the ballot which closes on 26 September. The result is due to be announced the next morning.


*EDIT: As Alasdair notes, this was a slightly spurious link, because I have no proof that Ken is to blame for the current Tube strike, and the post was more a rant about Bob Crow, anyway. However, Ken must have been involved somehow, and he is certainly one of those 'socialists' I loathe.

The fact is however, I have certainly heard quite a few negative comments about Ken, and a quick Google search revealed a few more unhappy bloggers. He's known to be "not everybody's cup of tea". I for one am not happy with the extortionate Tube fares, nor am I a fan of the new buses.

Interestingly, it is an article from The Guardian which gives me another good reason not to vote for him (if I could). Evidently it seems that he is demonstrating his ability to be economical with the truth, and his need to "spin". Threatened by Boris, are we Mr Livingstone?

Comments

Anonymous said…
You say that "the reasons to vote Ken out are mounting", but you link to a post where you merely speculate that Ken might be to blame for the RMT strike.

Can you see the gap in the argument? I don't think your blog will convince the undecided any more than if I just dismiss Boris as a a mango juice swilling toff.
Tue Sep 04, 03:30:00 PM GMT
JP... said…
I can see the gap in the argument - although Ken must have had something to do with the current Tube situation. I have attempted now to be slightly more rigorous, but won't pretend that I'm able to convince everybody. Maybe someone from London could do a better job (one way or the other).
Tue Sep 04, 04:33:00 PM GMT
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

the purpose of religion

One of the things which featured in the recent debate on this post is the idea that “religion should be about improving oneself”. This has got me thinking; ‘religion’ of course takes many forms, but in the vast majority of cases I disagree with this. To paraphrase MarkC, religion is certainly something which as a by-product might help with “improving oneself”, but however you measure self-improvement it is not the sole point, certainly not in the Judeo-Christian case. In fact, if your sole aim is to “improve yourself”, why waste your time playing around with the trappings of religion? Most religions are based around the idea of faith in God, and that, surely, is the point. Considering Christianity specifically, Jesus said “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself ” and so ‘religion’ should not be in danger of becoming all about wo...
Read more

atheism is a matter of faith, not science: the debate continues

Following the letters page in last Wednesday's Metro and the follow-up comment on this post I’m pleased to see that the beginnings of a debate are brewing, and I intend to use this post to pick up the baton again. Unsurprisingly, I’m going to start by responding to the aforementioned comment. I apologise if my tone was deemed to be a bit sharp, but I have no hesitation in defending the point I was trying to make. According to dictionary.com , faith can be defined as “belief that is not based on proof.” As there is no proof that God does not exist, belief that God does not exist (i.e. atheism) must be faith. Now, I take your point that “as human beings we are always revising and fine tuning what we hold to be true based on the evidence to hand, what we discover and our ability to determine what is probable or improbable.” To digress slightly, that is why switching on the Large Hadron Collider is going to be something of a milestone, as it could eit...
Read more

milk and sugar?

I've been debating with my housemate as to whether tea or coffee is more popular world-wide. We've both done quick web-searches, and we've both got results to match our different claims. I say tea, he says coffee. So, to settle the debate, it's down to you. Do you prefer tea or coffee? Please leave a comment below - one word is all it takes.
Read more