"Tony Polson" wrote in message


Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. He is shaping up to be as much of a
thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.

With one key difference: Ken never had ambitions beyond London politics,
but Boris does. This makes him a rival for whoever is leading the Tory
party, whereas Ken never had any leadership ambitions outside London.
But it might also make him more careful (ie, he probably won't do the
rightwing equivalent of Chavez type deals).

On 15 Jan, 13:29, "Recliner" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote:

Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. *He is shaping up to be as much of a
thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.

With one key difference: Ken never had ambitions beyond London politics,
but Boris does. This makes him a rival for whoever is leading the Tory
party, whereas Ken never had any leadership ambitions outside London.
But it might also make him more careful (ie, he probably won't do the
rightwing equivalent of Chavez type deals).

You'll note in my separate reply to Tony's post that I don't quite
agree with his simplistic analysis of Boris, but anyway regarding your
points...

I think Ken did once have ambitions beyond London, but they had gone
by the time he was elected Mayor in 2000.

Your point about Boris and his ambitions is true in my mind. I think
that at least some of his actions in London need to be viewed through
the national lens before they can be fully comprehended, as for at
least some of the time he is playing over the heads of the Londoners
in the stalls to the national audience in the grand circle (and
occasionally throwing a line or two in the direction of the opulent
box dwellers).

"Mizter T" wrote in message

On 15 Jan, 13:29, "Recliner" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote:

Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. He is shaping up to be as much of
a thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.

With one key difference: Ken never had ambitions beyond London
politics, but Boris does. This makes him a rival for whoever is
leading the Tory party, whereas Ken never had any leadership
ambitions outside London. But it might also make him more careful
(ie, he probably won't do the rightwing equivalent of Chavez type
deals).

You'll note in my separate reply to Tony's post that I don't quite
agree with his simplistic analysis of Boris, but anyway regarding your
points...

I think Ken did once have ambitions beyond London, but they had gone
by the time he was elected Mayor in 2000.

Obviously it's hard to say for sure, but I don't think Ken ever showed
much interest in anything other than ruling London. He executed a coup
to get the top GLC job, and hung on to it tenaciously thereafter.

He only became an MP when he was forcibly evicted from the GLC by
Maggie, and then didn't do any of things he'd need to do to start
climbing the ministerial ladder. As soon as there was the chance to
become mayor of London, he leapt at it, making very clear that he was
going to stand and do his damnedest to win, regardless of what the
Labour party thought or did to him.

All very different to Boris, who'd never shown much previous interest in
London politics, and who had to be persuaded to stand. And only well
into the campaign did he show much interest in winning.

Your point about Boris and his ambitions is true in my mind. I think
that at least some of his actions in London need to be viewed through
the national lens before they can be fully comprehended, as for at
least some of the time he is playing over the heads of the Londoners
in the stalls to the national audience in the grand circle (and
occasionally throwing a line or two in the direction of the opulent
box dwellers).

Agreed. he's also made clear that he has no intention of doing the
mayor's job for more than eight years, and as he's too young to retire
in seven years time, one has to assume he has other ambitions (beyond
some lucrative non-execs).

"Mizter T" wrote
I think Ken did once have ambitions beyond London, but
they had gone by the time he was elected Mayor in 2000.

Exactly right. After Mrs Thatcher scrapped the GLC, Ken stated that only the
house of Commons could really achieve anything; however, after a couple of
years as a back bench MP, isolated even within Kinnock's Old Labour, he soon
realised that there was no 'guaranteed' way of achieving his ends, then he
turned his attention back to more local aims.

Boris is 'old tory' just as much as Ken is 'old labour'; he is loyal to
those who voted for him, and has his own agenda. I suspect his differences
with the National Tories are smaller than a few news stories might suggest,
and when/if Lord Snooty gets elected, he'll work much more closely with
them.

At the moment, he has power, they don't - and he's not going to waste
opportunities, simply to please Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

However much of a Tory Boris is, he ain't stupid, and he recognises that
London needs those awful socialist ideas like public transport. One reason
why Lord Snooty has to keep saying that many of Boris' plans are 'local
issues' up for local decisions (eg anything remotely connected to congestion
charging).

London will always be a 'special case', and it's no surprise that Boris'
policies differ from Ken's only in superficial ways. So far, at least.

Boris' re-election manifesto will be a joy to behold ;o)
--

Andrew

Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence
Nightingale
Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale
Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale?
Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse

Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper