On 22/06/2011 17:54, Robin9 wrote:
Arthur Figgis;120738 Wrote:
On 21/06/2011 21:59, Robin9 wrote:
-
I've never liked the man. I first heard about him when was a senior
police officer in Lambeth. He was in the news quite a lot and I got
the
impression that this was by design. He got a lot of publicity by
adopting a tolerant policy towards the drugs trade and he was not
averse
to being interviewed about this on the radio.

Later he resigned from the police force and again secured masses of
publicity. He was soon announced as the Liberal Democrat candidate for
the Mayoral election. His campaign seemed to consist mainly of making
some rather obvious snide remarks about the other two parties. He had
nothing new or constructive to say about the two big issues the Mayor
Of
London has the means to tackle: housing and transport. I sensed that
the
main reason he wanted to be Mayor was to be able to settle an old
score
with Ian Blair.

All in all I formed the opinion that Brian Paddick was a
publicity-seeking, self-serving weasel.-

So what we need is a politician who doesn't want publicity, campaigns on

something other than "well at least I'm not him --", has real answers
to complex and long-standing problems, has no grudges, and is not a
self-serving weasel.

Could such a person actually exist on a non-trivial stage in a modern
popular democracy?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

What we need is a public-minded individual who recognises that publicity
is useful but is not an end it itself,

So the voters wouldn't have heard of him, while they would all know the
bloke off the telly.

and who has analysed both the
issues facing London and what powers the Mayor really has and who has
consequently worked out what issues the Mayor should concentrate on.

While the person is working out the issues, his evil opponent is telling
the world how he bites the heads off kittens, and the mud sticks (if it
didn't, people wouldn't throw it).

Does such a paragon exist? Of course. We have innumerable good,
conscientious people in this country. Unfortunately, because they are
good and conscientious, they will never be adopted by the established
political parties whose members want candidates who share their own
mean-spirited prejudices and priorities.

More likely that such a person couldn't survive. Would a "good,
conscientious" person even be willing push themselves forwards at the
right opportunity (see any committee in human history)? Would they want
to put their family through it?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK