On Oct 22, 12:08 am, John B wrote:
The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

Speak for yourself. I live in a london borough and I voted for Boris.
I want someone who represents me - a white middle class male - not
some borderline corrupt closet commie who's only interested in right-
on minority causes.

B2003

On Oct 22, 12:07*pm, Boltar wrote:
The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

Speak for yourself. I live in a london borough and I voted for Boris.
I want someone who represents me - a white middle class male - not
some borderline corrupt closet commie who's only interested in right-
on minority causes.

But (assuming you mean an Inner London, ex-county-of-London borough)
you're in a minority - Ken won the majority of votes in Inner London
and lost because of the strong Tory contingent in places like Bromley.

Did you somehow fail to notice that - like the vast majority of
politicians - Ken is, err, a white middle-class male? And I wouldn't
personally class the massive focus on transport improvement that was
the primary characteristic Ken's time in power (both in the 1980s and
the 2000s) as a right-on minority cause.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Oct 22, 12:26 pm, John B wrote:
But (assuming you mean an Inner London, ex-county-of-London borough)
you're in a minority - Ken won the majority of votes in Inner London
and lost because of the strong Tory contingent in places like Bromley.

London is where its currently defined municiple borders end , not at a
convenient point for left wingers. If you want just the historical
london then you should go back to roman times which would give you
the City itself, ironically a truer blue tory area you'll not be
likely to find anywhere in the country.

Did you somehow fail to notice that - like the vast majority of
politicians - Ken is, err, a white middle-class male? And I wouldn't

He may well be , but he's of the standard self hating liberal type you
find dotted all around the left wing pseudo intellectual arena.

personally class the massive focus on transport improvement that was
the primary characteristic Ken's time in power (both in the 1980s and
the 2000s) as a right-on minority cause.

Can't say I noticed. The tube was just as crap as ever and even more
expensive when I thankfully could give up using it to commute earlier
this year.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

London is where its currently defined municiple borders end , not at a
convenient point for left wingers. If you want just the historical
london then you should go back to roman times which would give you
the City itself, ironically a truer blue tory area you'll not be
likely to find anywhere in the country.

I may be mistaken but I think the actual residential voters in the City have
gone Labour several times. (Although didn't Boris carry the City this time?)
There are only about 7000 voters, from recollection mainly key workers and
nursing students. Very little of the City's "truer blue" tendency is
residential. I'm reminded of the 1940 US Presidential election which was
billed as "Roosevelt vs. Wall Street." Roosevelt carried the Wall Street
precinct by 3:1. (Literally, the voters were a businessman, an engineer, a
caretaker and his wife.)