The Student Room Group

One week to go - Tories on 8% lead - London Mayor 2012 POLL

Scroll to see replies

Reply 140
Original post by meenu89
You're a secret fan aren't you? Just admit it.


God yah, bloody hell, fantastic, great, gosh, crumbs, er, er, crikey, yes, hmm, where were we, oh yes, gosh, brilliant, fab.

(Tosses blonde hair, tries to look macho, fails, dishevelled grin, 3m female voters faint and press the "Yes" button.)
Reply 141
Original post by Mr Disco
Clearly Adolf Hitler had more objectionable aims than Boris Johnson.

My comparison was what you might call an "overload objection". You appear willing to overlook the fact that Boris Johnson is a dangerous bigot with an agenda which seems fueled by absolute contempt for the working classes because he has floppy hair and a speech impediment.

I am suggesting that it is morally wrong to do this, just as it would have been morally wrong to overlook Hitler's agenda and vote for him on the basis that he had a funny mustache.

Not as great a moral transgression, perhaps, but nevertheless still wrong and an objectionable decision.


Seriously?

Boris Johnson is not a dangerous bigot. He is a politician with perfectly reasonable views and beliefs which you just happen to disagree with.

And having seen interview of him on television and his appearances on a few panel shows he was genuinely funny, which is beside my point as my original statement was not meant to be taken seriously.
Reply 142
Original post by NR09
Seriously?

Boris Johnson is not a dangerous bigot. He is a politician with perfectly reasonable views and beliefs which you just happen to disagree with.

And having seen interview of him on television and his appearances on a few panel shows he was genuinely funny, which is beside my point as my original statement was not meant to be taken seriously.


I think he carefully (sometimes it slips a little) poses as a centrist, liberal kind of a guy, good natured and moderate, eager to serve. The reality behind the facade? It's fairly clear that like Cameron, who adopts much the same public political poses (albeit with a different style altogether), Johnson is a neo-liberal, arch-right extreme anti-socialist, who's primary aims are to feather-bed the already-wealthy, defend the primary instruments of late capitalist destructionism (hedge funds, insider-dominated markets, corrupt banks, etc), attack the poor (higher fares, getting rid of public services, selling off council services, etc) and generally "shrink government" (code for hand over control to monopolistic corporations who return your favours in various discreet and non-discreet ways).

The only thing that's stopped it being much, much worse than it has so far has been the fact that Cameron didn't win the election outright and Johnson's room for manouver in London is therefore limited. He also wants to replace Cameron so is playing the long game.

An internal spat within Toryism about precisely how far to go (should we just starve the already-poor, or deny them healthcare? Reduce educational provision, or bar them from Universities altogether? Get rid of the unemployed by making them slaves for Poundland or herd them into labour camps?) is the only interesting difference between "Boris" and "Dave".
I will be voting for Boris tomorrow.
Reply 144
Original post by I'mBadAtMaths
I will be voting for Boris tomorrow.


I wouldn't be shouting about that, as according to some people on this thread voting for Boris Johnson is about as evil as supporting child pornography and raping a disabled puppy :wink:
One day left.

Remember to vote for Boris. He's an absolutely first rate chap.
Reply 146
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
One day left.

Remember to vote for Boris. He's an absolutely first rate chap.


How do you know?
Original post by Fires
How do you know?


Met him once in London outside my university, he was just walking past. Stopped to shake hands with everyone when we recognised him. Came across as very passionate and energetic.

Plus, it actually seems he cares about people like me - aspirational, ambitious, hard-working.

None of the other parties really appeal to me.

Ken just seems to think I'm a bottomless money supply to subsidise the poor.
UKIP are too anti-europe.
The Greens are far too left-wing in terms of economic policy to ever get my vote.
The BNP are insane.
The Liberal Democrats cannot be trusted (not that I'm a fan of their policies).
I have no idea what the independent candidate stands for.

All in all, Boris is a clear winner for me.
Reply 148
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Met him once in London outside my university, he was just walking past. Stopped to shake hands with everyone when we recognised him. Came across as very passionate and energetic.

Plus, it actually seems he cares about people like me - aspirational, ambitious, hard-working.

None of the other parties really appeal to me.

Ken just seems to think I'm a bottomless money supply to subsidise the poor.
UKIP are too anti-europe.
The Greens are far too left-wing in terms of economic policy to ever get my vote.
The BNP are insane.
The Liberal Democrats cannot be trusted (not that I'm a fan of their policies).
I have no idea what the independent candidate stands for.

All in all, Boris is a clear winner for me.


Oh that must be the reason then, you met him one time and kinda liked him.

Well, (sigh of relief!), at least you aren't some Tory stooge working for their ad agency slaving away tirelessly supporting Tory causes on forums like TSR. Phew!

Boris is just the usual scheming self-serving politician under a thin (but artful) disguise of jovial buffoon, pitched to appeal to the British liking for self-deprecation.
Original post by Fires
Oh that must be the reason then, you met him one time and kinda liked him.

Well, (sigh of relief!), at least you aren't some Tory stooge working for their ad agency slaving away tirelessly supporting Tory causes on forums like TSR. Phew!

Boris is just the usual scheming self-serving politician under a thin (but artful) disguise of jovial buffoon, pitched to appeal to the British liking for self-deprecation.


It's not just the fact that I liked him as a person. His policies benefit me.

Surely that is an adequate reason to support him?
Reply 150
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
It's not just the fact that I liked him as a person. His policies benefit me.

Surely that is an adequate reason to support him?


The "policies benefit me" (emphasis on the ME part) is pretty much the standard reason for voting Tory. Bugger everyone else, as they say. No such thing as Society. Devil take the hindmost. Let them eat cake. Screw you before you screw me.
Original post by Fires
The "policies benefit me" (emphasis on the ME part) is pretty much the standard reason for voting Tory. Bugger everyone else, as they say. No such thing as Society. Devil take the hindmost. Let them eat cake. Screw you before you screw me.


Surely everyone votes for policies that are beneficial to them? There wouldn't be must sense in voting for something that was to your own detriment.
I've never lived anywhere near London but more of this please:


Ping-pong is coming home!
Reply 153
Original post by NR09
I wouldn't be shouting about that, as according to some people on this thread voting for Boris Johnson is about as evil as supporting child pornography and raping a disabled puppy :wink:


I think you've missed the point. The person was saying it is wrong to vote for someone just because you think they're funny (liking their personality), instead of voting for someone because you agree with their policies; but I assume you agree with Boris'/Conservative policies anyway.

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Surely everyone votes for policies that are beneficial to them? There wouldn't be must sense in voting for something that was to your own detriment.


I will be voting for parties that have policies that are beneficial for people who are less well of than me and therefore need more of a helping hand.
Original post by Silkysam
I think you've missed the point. The person was saying it is wrong to vote for someone just because you think they're funny (liking their personality), instead of voting for someone because you agree with their policies; but I assume you agree with Boris'/Conservative policies anyway.



I will be voting for parties that have policies that are beneficial for people who are less well of than me and therefore need more of a helping hand.


Why shouldn't they just help themselves? I don't think giving them money is really going to help long-term.
Reply 155
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Why shouldn't they just help themselves? I don't think giving them money is really going to help long-term.


It's much harder for some people to help themselves than others. Giving them money alone won't help them get out of their situation in the long run, but it will help them out in the short term if they are in a particularly difficult situation. The money and other provisions (i.e: good, quality education, help with C.V's and finding jobs etc.) will help them out in the long run.

I personally want the money I (will presumably) earn in the future to be taken off me to help people less fortunate than me. Also I would hope other people would be kind enough to help me out if I was in a difficult situation.

I'm a believer that most people who are on benefits are there through no fault of their own and the state should do its best to help them.
Boris has better ideas...end of.
Reply 157
I'm surprised to learn that the BNP are beginning to branch out, whats more scary is that the great british public are beginning buy the mumbo jumbo they claim.

I agree all parties have their faults, but to decide who to vote for is quite difficult. They all break promises, they fail to really represent the nations view. Oh and they are awful at explaining new rulings and legislations to the public, we seem to have to work it out ourselves.

For me personally, creating more jobs, reducing anti-social behaviour and controlling immigration, review taxation cuts, are the big factors which will decide who I put a tick for.
Original post by Silkysam
It's much harder for some people to help themselves than others. Giving them money alone won't help them get out of their situation in the long run, but it will help them out in the short term if they are in a particularly difficult situation. The money and other provisions (i.e: good, quality education, help with C.V's and finding jobs etc.) will help them out in the long run.

I personally want the money I (will presumably) earn in the future to be taken off me to help people less fortunate than me. Also I would hope other people would be kind enough to help me out if I was in a difficult situation.

I'm a believer that most people who are on benefits are there through no fault of their own and the state should do its best to help them.


I may be willing to agree with you on this point, however, I don't think the state ought to be responsible for them. I think liability should arise only where it can be shown that someone has caused their situation; I don't believe in having a duty to pay for someone when you are in no way connected to them.

I just cannot see how it is fair that A must give money that they have worked hard for to B simply because B is in a less fortunate position, when A is in no way the cause of the position of B. It just seems to be patently unfair on A. If A wishes to do this, I certainly think he should have the right to do it - and that is the purpose of charity. But to force him to do it seems unfair.

Can you see my point?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 159
I'm going to be voting Webb (UKIP) first preference; Boris second preference.

As for the GLA ballot, I'll be voting Conservative for the constituency seat and UKIP for the London-wide seat.

Quick Reply