If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The difference in votes between the two was small, and had the Lib Dems not put much-liked Paddick as their candidate, Boris would have probably not won.
You haven't answered my question by the way. Are you a Londoner who will be affected by the result of the mayoral election, or just a torybot who opposes the Labour candidate to London mayor simply because he feels it's his duty as a good tory?
Johnson is clever and uses his bumbling persona to get away with things (like cheating on his wife) that would sink other politicians. People who think he is a "nice guy" are deluded, which is all part of the plan.
I don't understand that bit, with second preference voting, if people really didn't like Boris then second preference votes would have gone to Ken?
I don't like the way you talk about 'torybots' either, everyone is entitled to their opinion on who they think can run the country best and unfounded generalisations about people who vote one way or the other I think are uneccessary.
What rubbish (with some nasty generalisations thrown in). Ken lost because he couldn't get enough first and second preference votes. Paddick was squeezed out not because he was a poor candidate in himself, but because he was facing two heavy weights.
Londoners voted out Ken, not Tories living outside the city. And the reason they threw him out is because more of them thought they'd prefer Boris to him.
It is not a question of "how bad Ken must be, when people choose Boris". The tory candidate won, the labour one didn't, end of. Ken is not the worse man for losing to Boris, nor do "most" or even many Londonders despise him as Runnymede appears to be interpreting his defeat as.
I suppose after many years in the wilderness some tories feel the need to gloat. Fine. But let's not pretend losing an election (and not by a huge amount either) automatically means the candidate is hated and despised by most voters.
And I am still curious to know why people who don't live in London, and are not affected by the policies of its mayoral office, should be so ecstatic about who wins or loses the contest (if it is the case they don't live in London).
It is as simple as that. If you don't vote you don't get a say - to say they abstained suggests people didn't like hime enough to bother to go to the polling station (and is in the realm of counter-factuals - we don;t know who the abstainers would have voted for). But in the end more people voted for Boris than voted for Ken. Whinging about how it's not really that simple and saying Tory voters are bots doesn't change that fact.
And I agree he's possibly not hated and despised (though despite Thatcher winning three people still claim she was), but definetely less popular than his opponent. 6% is a big enough margin in electoral terms to be significant
And as for people not living in London having an interest I guess it's the same reason those of us who don't live in the US have an interest in who the President is. The success of London is integral to the success of the UK and it matters to people all over the country who runs it.
I do live in London, I ignored your question because I didn't see the relevance of it.
I'm not interpreting Ken's defeat as meaning that most Londoners despise him, i'm interpreting your comments about Boris as meaning that most Londoners despise Ken.
You're the one who keeps slagging Boris off as a 'clown'. Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that if he truly is a 'clown', as you say, then most Londoners must have been pretty bloody fed up with Ken and his policies to vote for him. If he is as bad as you say he is, it would mean that most Londoners found the idea of Ken continuing as Mayor so abhorrent, so unequivocally sickening, that they were willing to vote for someone - anyone, even a 'clown', to stop that happening.
People wouldn't knowingly vote for a clown if they found the idea of more years of Mayor Ken even remotely tolerable.
Apologies if I came on a bit sharp on earlier posts. Good weather + plenty of beer make for bad message forum posting companions.
FAO Flashman; as for the relevance of being a local or not, I view taking an interest in general elections abroad rather different to local elections in Britain. There is the argument that some of the decisions of the US president affect us all in the long term, but even in those cases where it doesn't, such as Zwimbabwe for instance, I still wish for people to be governed by rulers who are not oppressors, abusers etc.
However local government can hardly be put in the same bag. If the people of any given borough, county or city in Britain choose to elect a Tory or any other (BNP excluded I must add) party candidate into power, I don't particularly care or feel happy/unhappy about it- it's their decision. That is why I have been surprised about the many cheers I've seen on various message boards about Livingstone losing, many of them coming from people who don't live or travel into London and have never been affected by the local policies introduced by Livingstone at any time.
Livingstone - of course, like Boris was gaffe-prone, cosying up to homophobic Muslims and making inappropriate remarks, isn't ideal. And Livingstone did some good - but it's time for change: there's the extensive network of cronies and advisors (many of who are on £100k+), the unfair extension of the congestion charge and the obsession with Hugo Chavez... Boris isn't perfect but pretty understandably a lot of people voted for any viable alternative to Livingstone.
And that's furthermore why the Tories did so well nationally - because in the public mind, they are now the viable alternative to Labour. I don't know where Labour will go from here - I'd be surprised if Brown goes before the next election but if he stays, I can't see Labour winning.
Should seagulls be given contraception?
These huge greedy birds are rapidly becoming a national menace. Living in close proximity to humans has made these creatures increasingly bold - we've all seen the blooming things harassing kids with bags of chips and the like. In fact people have been attacked around the country and in one case reported by the media a bloke with a dicky heart condition died after a ?dive bomb? swoop by a large gull.
We certainly don't believe in cruelty to animals, but surely some strategically placed seagull snacks with a little added contraceptive would reduce the numbers to a more reasonable level? Put the stuff wherever they congregate; on roofs and structures in seaside towns and also inland cities that have been invaded more recently by the pests, partly because there are rich pickings to be had from human waste. (And how about something similar for the pigeons?)
They are rats with wings ...dirty filthy creatures. There numbers have rocketed over the last few years cos of takeaway food and throwaway morons.
We have had some serious attacks on the Welsh coast requiring hospitalisation. Mostly elderly disabled and children who can't fight them off.
I've managed to mangle a couple over the last two years under my wheels ...but one a year aint good enough. Whatever it takes to reduce their numbers to almost zero will be welcomed by many.