One article cited as proving Johnson's "support" for George W Bush actually has him describing the President as "serially incompetent", a "cross-eyed warmonger" and "maniac" whose re-election in 2004 was "the most dismal awakening of my life". A quote about his "fanatical" backing of the Iraq invasion comes from a pre-war article that condemns the Blair Government's "cynical and ludicrous" attempts to scare the public about Saddam's alleged WMD and says: "If we are really concerned about the weapons of mass destruction, then let the UN [inspection] process work itself through." The report condemns Johnson's support for the Iraq war, nuclear power, more private finance in the NHS, and large-scale cuts to the civil service as a "real threat" to London's "progressive consensus" without saying these are also Labour Party policy.
A Compass spokesman declined to comment on specific issues but said: "We
stand by our report and our analysis."
Do read the whole article as it is as compelling an analysis of political chicanery as you are ever likely to find. It's almost a fisk!
60 comments:
Lefty think tanks telling porkies for Labour, the Smith of it.
He called Black people 'Piciannies'!!
How can that be defended?
This article doesn't refute one of the the main points at all - which is that from an anti-racist, pro-multicultural perspective, Boris Johnson has made a number of dubious quotes, as outlined in the Compass report.
As D.Lawrence has said "Boris Johnson is not an appropriate person to run a multi-cultural city like London. Think of London, the richness of London, and having someone like him as mayor would destroy the city's unity. He is definitely not the right person to even be thinking to put his name forward.
"Those people that think he is a lovable rogue need to take a good look at themselves, and look at him. I just find his remarks very offensive. I think once people read his views, there is no way he is going to get the support of any people in the black community."
Why? Because when the Macpherson report came out, Boris was upset by a "weird recommendation that the law might be changed so as to allow prosecution for racist language or behaviour 'other than in a public place'."
Indeed, he went as far as to claim that "Not even under the law of Ceausescu's Romania could you be prosecuted for what you said in your own kitchen," he wrote. "No wonder the police are already whingeing that they cannot make any arrests in London. No wonder the CPS groans with anti-discrimination units, while making a balls-up of so many cases."
What a thing to say when instiutional racism was being taken seriously for the first time after so many tragedies
Heh! I see that mentioning Boris has brought Ken's supporters quoting verbatim from their talking points memos out of the woodwork yet again!
Uhoh.. Thought Police arrive enmasse.
I am surprised we have time to even discuss Compass's spinning of Boris Johnson when there is anarchy all around us.
Thank goodness Cameron's Conservatives never exaggerate or put a spin on things...
Oh wait... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6971932.stm
more 'police whingeing' presumably
"What a thing to say when instiutional racism was being taken seriously for the first time after so many tragedies"
It was a perfect thing to say. The idea that private thought should be made into a crime should never go unchallenged. That's something I certainly look for in a political leader. While everyone was jumping on the institutional racism bandwagon, Boris had the thoughtfulness to take a step back and consider what was being implied.
To be fair to Compass, they have actually responded quite thoroughly: http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=838.
Hello - the Evening Standard won't put up my link to the actual Compass Report with their article, so I thought I'd post it on here:
http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/compass/documents/BorisJohnsonCompassFileFINAL.pdf
If anon 4.10 is not being ironic,then it is one of the most anti libertarian postings ever.So much for free speech.
I haven’t seen these articles, but I must say that I have noticed an increasing tendency in politics to assert, when one is being attacked, that the opposition is clearly in “fear.” We Lib Dems, for instance, frequently console ourselves with the thought that all the negative comment surrounding Ming Campbell is evidence of how much he is “feared” by Labour and Tory. I find myself having to remind them, from time to time, that there might be an alternative explanation.
Anyway, all I really want to say is that if Boris Johnson becomes Mayor of London, I shall kiss Donal Blaney's arse.
He claimed South Africa under Mandela was a "Black Tyranical Rule".
Couldn't see him unveiling the statue with one of the greastest of our generation the other day.
And fear him.....some people just don't like others spouting racial slurs.
Iain Dale - If your a tory he'll defend you!!
Dizzy: 'Uhoh.. Thought Police arrive enmasse'
And start spamming board's with the same rubbish.
Anonymous of 4:10pm has posted the same thing on the Compass [http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=838], and the Evening Standard websites and now here.
what is a "Piciannie" anyway, and how can anyone possibly be offended when they don't even know what the word is....
Sloppy trolling and sock puppetry.
It's not the thought police - Boris can say what he likes.
But if people are aware of what he's said, they may choose not to vote for him.
Anon II (may I call you Richard?), that really is a very worrying statement. Would you have preferred that particular suggestion from Macpherson to have been made law?
Two anonymous comments hardly counts as en masse, Dizzy.
That said, this is hardly a surprising turn of events. Boris is a journo by trade and known to be a tad gaffe prone, which makes mining his past writings for iffy looking quotes an obvious, if utterly banal, strategy.
I've not seen the full text of the 'picaninnies' comment and so can't comment fully.
I did, however, see the full article where he was referring to Blair visiting the Congo, part of which was put up as supposed evidence of Boris being less than enlightened on the subject of race.
It was patently obvious on that occasion that he was writing satirically and sending up the general spectacle of the visit and not the Congolese people, as I suspect the picaninnies reference was made in much the same vein.
you were right iain. look how worried the gravy train nulab scum are. bog toff trolls nobody here is going to fall for your childish rubbish. the only people who might fall for this crap will be on a street corner somewhere. twats
Left wing politics - as performed by Gordon Brown's Labour party - is a fundamentally dishonest practice.
Most of the key individuals - such as Brown - were far to the left two decades ago, but discovered the only road that the British people could be lead to socialism on was one they didn't know they were travelling on.
Hence New Labour.
They are strangers to the truth and to honour. They serve only themselves.
Their key competences are lying and mud slinging. Their driving force is a blind belief in themselves and the fact they create the world around them with their words and thoughts v- all evidence to the contrary is to be ignored.
Hence they have no problem with a hatchet job on Boris. It who they are - its what they do.
what a surprise,
"The report, produced last week by the Labour pressure group Compass, was the longest item of the night on the BBC's flagship London news programme. "
and re
:from an anti-racist, pro-multicultural perspective, Boris Johnson has made a number of dubious quotes, as outlined in the Compass report.
based on his comments that it was a
"weird recommendation that the law might be changed so as to allow prosecution for racist language or behaviour 'other than in a public place'."
Shock horror, politician doesn't want complete control over our thoughts, what a racist. Clearly anyone who doesn't want thought police locking people up for thoughts expressed inside their own homes is a danger to multiculturalism. RACIST!!!! EVIL TORY!!
To anon troll #1, Johnson did not call black people picaninnies, he wrote an article mocking the neocolonialism of Blair, jetting around the world like some 19th century 'big white chief'. The language was used as imagery to help evoke his CRITICISM that Blair was a patronising colonialist behaving in an outdated manner. The words were redolent of a bygone era; you would find similar wording in many reports from a hundred years ago, and that was the intent. It's quite clear from the article.
Sorry anonymous 4.10, are you saying that it should be possible to prosecute someone for what they say in the privacy of their own kitchen?
Thought so.
I know the rabid left want to paint BJ as a racist. Of course they do. What they are failing to address is the point that he makes; namely, that you won't beat racism by making it illegal to say racist things, and that part of freedom is accepting that people are free to think and say things you don't like.
I know you think they shouldn't be. But that's okay. You're free to think like a fascist, see?
The trots are scared shitless of him.
If they really want to play dirty, Ken will be in real trouble as the shit that floats around him makes Blair look straight.
Even his meek and mild Wikipedia entry details actions and words that should disqualify him from running a public toilet, let alone London
Private Eye has started calling them Comspart and featured a stupid list of things he might have written aged eleven.
The joke is that they really have no interest whatsoever in the supposed faux pas ( ies) of Boris.They work for a company that hopes to get further juicy contracts out of the public purse and in typical Smith Institute Labour fashion. They almost certainly do not live in London and they will simply repeat what their paymaster have told tem to in the hope the mud will stick.
There is evidence that some of it will so we are likely to see a vicious and bitter campaign which was always Ken Livingstones best plan.
There is little point in engaging with such anons who probably do not even write the material or understand it . We need to have a good look at why Comspart are so keen to help Livingstone obvious but only wiuth regard to the typical wastefulness of ken .
They are just prancing clowns. If someone paid them more to say the reverse they would
The author of the Compass Report Chukka "Chukka Khan" Ummuna is a known stooge of the Labour Party who is trying to fast-track his way up the greasy pole. Mere details like factual accuracy won't worry him.
"Livingstone invited to London, and physically embraced, a man who campaigns to have gay men executed. Livingstone – not fit to be London’s Mayor."
-Graeme Archer, http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/08/graeme-archer-l.html
Since the previous anonymous post is straight from Compass, where the author squeaks that he has sent the same to the Evening Standard, perhaps Mr Archer's observation above deserves a greater airing?
I can't imagine the left fearing Boris, but if attacking someone means you are afraid of him I can provide dozens of quotes showing Iain Dale must have been shitting himself in fear of john Prescott.
Let Boris be Boris, I say, the more often the better.
The Compass article today says that they have demonstrated the points listed below.
Surely, majority of reasonable people in London would agree with Boris on most of the points.
1. Boris Johnson supported the Iraq war
2. Boris Johnson supported both the election of George W Bush in 2000 and his re-election in 2004.
3. Boris Johnson opposed the Kyoto treaty on climate change and supported George Bush’s opposition to it
4. Boris Johnson strongly supports nuclear power
5. Boris Johnson, on more than one occasion, talked about black people as ‘picaninnies’, he has referred to Africans as having ‘watermelon smiles’, and claimed that the original inhabitants of Uganda were capable of only ‘instant carbohydrate gratification’.
6. Boris Johnson said that in South Africa under Nelson Mandela there was established the ‘majority tyranny of black rule’
7. Boris Johnson was prepared to discuss with Darius Guppy, who was later convicted of fraud, having a journalist Stuart Collier beaten up
8. Boris Johnson opposed the introduction of the national minimum wage
9. Boris Johnson opposed full pension rights for part time workers
10. Boris Johnson is against the Social Chapter of the EU and against its provision on paternity leave.
11. Boris Johnson is opposed to the congestion charge
12. Boris Johnson supports both fox and stag hunting
13. Boris Johnson opposed the repeal of Section 28 and Labour’s ‘appalling agenda’ of the teaching of homosexuality in schools’.
bob piper says "Let Boris be Boris, I say, the more often the better." I'm reminded of similar sentiments expressed about Prescott - after he had punched someone.
Let the anonymous Lefties be anonymous Lefties and rail at Boris. They obviously only have "attack mode" to react to a maverick whose charm is that he speaks his mind, regardless of whether it sits comfortably with the politically-correct "received wisdom" of the times. Most people hate this nonsense of being told what to think. They don't see malice in what Boris has said. These attacks will raise both his profile and his polling numbers. Excellent.
"He called Black people 'Piciannies'!!"
Oh the unmitigated horror, they're scarred for life.
Get a life (and a name to post under).
Anon 5.47
Do you think then the "minority tyranny of white rule" should have been replaced by the ‘majority tyranny of black rule’? No? Because neither did Boris.
"Boris Johnson is opposed to the congestion charge" Quite right too. Why should rich buggers in their Mercs and BMW's be able to swan around London, when the working man can't afford to? Right on, Socialist Worker brother Boris....
"Lefty think tanks telling porkies for Labour, the Smith of it."
and
"They work for a company that hopes to get further juicy contracts out of the public purse and in typical Smith Institute Labour fashion."
They are a left-wing pressure group not a think tank.
Iain, the total inability of the Evening Standard to refute the Compass report on Boris Johnson is shown by the fact that since 4 o'clock this afternoon it has been blocking all posts to its website on the issue. See the pile of up of comments on the Compass website of people who have attempted to post to the Evening Standard and been blocked.
In fact what the attempt of the Evening Standard to reply has shown is that the Compass report cannot be replied to - because it is true.
Far from people being scared they know that the Tory party is going to be greatly damaged by having Boris Johnson as its candidate for London and know an opening when they see it. The complete inability of the Evening Standard to reply, and its attempt to block any comment, gives total further confidence. Anyone who previously wasn't sure now knows that the Compass Report can't be replied to.
Every time someone raises the Evening Standard report just say 'why are they blocking the comments on it.'
Boris will never beat Ken.
The Tories have attacked Ken for decades. Few politicians were bullied so badly by the right wing press of the Thatcher years.
He who lives by the sword...
Oh look, it's the 'voice of the people' Bob Piper idling away the afternoon on Mr Dales diary.
Rather than slag off Boris,why don't you use your time positively to promote Ken Livingstone to us?
I'd be rather intrigued to see what unique selling points you can produce for us.
Go on - you know you can do it!
You'll be telling me next he wasn't s******g Petronella Iain.
Jasmine at 6.34pm -
The opposite could of course be true - The Evening Standard may not wish to publish positive comments in Boris's favour.
Yak40
"they're scarred for life"
Racism does scar, especially when it gives support to thugs with knives. Elected politicians need to set set a tone - the white racist governors in the South of the USA did not carry out the lynchings, but their policies and words encouraged them.
You could also make your blogger profile public or post under your own name before attacking others for wanting to be anonymous!
Anonymous (whoever you are), since you ask, the use of the word picaninny can easily be defended:
Picaninny is a pidgin word form which is probably derived from the Portuguese pequeninho (meaning "little") via lingua franca. It is widely used in Melanesian pidgin and creole languages such as Tok Pisin of Papua New Guinea, as the word for "child" (or just young, as in the phrase pikinini pik, meaning piglet). In Sierra Leone Krio the term pikÃn refers to child or children. In Nigerian and Cameroonian Pidgin English, the term used is "picken". In Chilapalapa, a pidgin language used in Southern Africa, the term used is "pikanin". In Surinamese Sranan Tongo the term pikin may refer to children as well as to small or little.
You may wish to read more into it than that, just as the rest of the world infers that you are anonymous because you are a coward.
Some of their stuff on Boris does seem to be over-egging the pudding rather.
That aside, anonymous @ 5.57pm makes a good point.
Compass is not a "left of centre think tank" as Iain claims. It's a pressure group, one which explicitly states that its primary focus is the Labour Party. Indeed, as their website clearly states, to be eligible to be a full member of Compass "you must be a member (or be eligible to be a member) of the Labour Party (i.e. you must not be a member of another political party in the UK)".
As such, describing it as a think tank is disingenuous. A think tank, like Policy Exchange for example, is obliged to refrain from involvement in party politics. Compass isn't one of those.
Seems as though my comment too has disgracefully been blocked from the Evening Standard's website (showing that perhaps they, not Compass, are afraid of a challenge), here's what I attempted to say:
As Seumas Milne set out in the Guardian this week, this week’s unveiling of a statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square brings into sharp relief the differences between Johnson and Ken Livingstone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2158619,00.html
As Milne wrote: ‘Yesterday, Nelson Mandela was guest of London's current mayor, Ken Livingstone, at the unveiling of his statue in Parliament Square, where he was hailed by the prime minister as "one of the best-loved men of all time". Hardly an event that Johnson, who described South Africa under Mandela's leadership as a "tyranny of black rule", could have hosted with any credibility - or that Mandela would have very likely been comfortable to attend.’
There is a total contrast between Ken Livingstone, who is a longstanding anti-racist and anti-apartheid campaigner who has worked hard to deliver a statue of Nelson Mandela, and Johnson, who in addition to his reference to "majority tyranny of black rule", has used phrases such as ‘piccaninnies’ and ‘watermelon smiles’ to refer to black people, has written of Africa that “The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more”, and has said the colonial powers were right to plant coffee, cotton and tobacco in Uganda because “If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain”.
This kind of talk is disgusting rubbish, revealing a right wing and reactionary mindset. We should strongly oppose the idea that someone who talks in this way could become mayor of a city with the biggest black community in Britain and a fast-growing African community.
The question that should be directed at Gilligan and the Standard is why they are not putting the person who holds these views under the kind of relentless spotlight they have often deployed against Ken Livingstone. Perhaps the concerns of those who might regard these views as objectionable are of no interest to Gilligan.
Boris will win anyway.
Magic our Boris!
Chris adnan the reason your comment is boring and irrelevant is because you do not wish to discuss the offending word you just want to keep repeating it in the hope that it gains credibility. We have discussed the context you do not wish to perhaps because it is beyond your ability to understand but more likely bwcause you are another of Kens stooges paid by the long suffering tax payer to do his dirty work.Mandella is , I think , able to take your parochial concerns in his stride but corrupt Ken and his relationships with the IRA the Chinese a various despots not to say his ongoing laothing of Israel and the Jews make him a joke to America and the Western world where we do business .In fact all of the London business community who despair that our City is represented by such a child .
I wonder what gay London is going to make of his encouragement of Islamic fascism to collect a few votes ?
Everyone understands that Compspatrt have raked 20 years of polemichal journalism fopr naughty words and the process is a ptiful waste of time
I think you misjudge Londoners if yout hink they are all such bed wetting po faced gimps as you
There is nothing good that can be said for Ken. Hence the silence
"into sharp relief the differences between Johnson and Ken Livingstone."
I notice Milne glosses over the fact that of the two, only Livingstone has welcomed and appeared with a fervent homophobe and anti-semite. Presumably you agree that Livingstone could not be seen at a gay rights or Jewish rally?
Chris adnan
What a waste of blog space
You trots cannot accept that anyone with an alternative view is either allowed an alterntive view, or can be right
I guess you've never lived in Africa - for the bulk of the sub saharan population, life is far worse now than in colonial days.
South Africa is on the brink of melt down. Just look at Zimbabwe and how Mbeki is dealing with it.
Mandela appears to be a pretty decent chap, but never had a word said against Winnie when she and her crew were murdering their way through Soweto.
What trot/pc types simply do not understand is that there is sod all difference between tribalism and apartaid. Neither by the way is right, but you trots only psot it when the skin colour comes into it (racism perhaps?)
Boris will be a great Mayor of London.
OK, so let's see if I've got this right. It's quite all right for Compass to just make s**t uo (sorry for lowering the tone, Ian, but 'spin' is far too polite) because:
1) Boris is a bastard. (If that's true, surely there's more than enough evidence without distorting the quotes you do use.)
2) Tories are bastards. (Ditto.)
3) Anyway, Tories do it too. (If 2) holds, why the hell are behaving like people you hold in contempt? And even if true, isn't "mummy, everyone's doing it" rubbish moral reasoning from children, and intolerable in adults?)
4) No matter how distorted, they're fundamentally accurate in the broader context. (Hum.. so 'sexing up' the case for War on Iraq is bad but this is different.)
5) And, last and most certainly least, there is no 'truth' anyway. Pontius Pilate call your office, because Compass has a job offer you can't refuse.
Looks like Tony Blair has left the building, but his spirit remains.
curioushamster wrote:
As such, describing it as a think tank is disingenuous. A think tank, like Policy Exchange for example, is obliged to refrain from involvement in party politics. Compass isn't one of those.
How about an obligation to refrain from (not to put too fine a point on it) blatantly making shit up? A lie of omission (or hacking quotes so far out of context they're unrecognisable) is a lie nonetheless, and if "involvement in party politics" gets you a pass, why bother holding anyone in politics to any standard of truthfulness at all?
Who is Richard Irons ?
Am I right in thinking that the standard of political debate in this country is rapidly deteriorating?
I blame Alistair Campbell who started the rot with his bullying, coarseness and dishonesty.
Much of what passes for debate now consists of little more than identifying the enemy (e.g. Tories) and impugning their motives.
It was not always so. When Winchilsea impugned the Duke of Wellington's motives (over Catholic emancipation) he was 'called out' and faced pistols at dawn on Wimbledon Common. They took such accusations seriously in those days.
CuriousHamster said...
Compass is not a "left of centre think tank" as Iain claims. It's a pressure group, one which explicitly states that its primary focus is the Labour Party. Indeed, as their website clearly states, to be eligible to be a full member of Compass "you must be a member (or be eligible to be a member) of the Labour Party (i.e. you must not be a member of another political party in the UK)".
As such, describing it as a think tank is disingenuous. A think tank, like Policy Exchange for example, is obliged to refrain from involvement in party politics. Compass isn't one of those.
OK, I hope I've missed something here but does "involvement in party politics" now give pressure groups a licence to (not to put too fine a point on it) just make shit up? Sorry, but I'm old fashioned enough to think lies of omission (or distortion via judicious cut-and-paste and use of the delete key) are still lies - and if you're going to give Compass a pass on this, why hold anyone in political life to any standards of truthfulness whatsoever?
Boris has the X factor where it counts - on the ballot paper.
Ken's lot want to watch it. Even now teams of sharped-eyed researchers are all over Livingstone's clearly anti-semtic work when he was involved in the Labour Herald newspaper.
Try this Ken quote
'There is certainly a case for suspecting the hand of the forces opposed to the Palestinians. The Zionists were particularly upset by the role the Labour Herald played in winning the Labour Party to an official policy to support the recognition of the PLO.
The fact that smear about me are being led to the 'Jewish Chronicle' on a fairly regular basis suggests that agents of the Begin government are active in the British labour movement and press at present.'
Yes, Ken could see 'zionists' - ie 'the international jewish conspiracy' - under every bed and even in Mrs Thatcher's cabinet of the time.
http://www.workersliberty.org/files/zionism_1.jpg
According to the worker's liberty leftwing website...
September 1981: Livingstone launches Labour Herald with Ted Knight and Matthew Warburton as joint editors. A Workers’ Revolutionary Party full-timer, Stephen Miller, is installed as editor.
Labour Herald is financed by the WRP (an extremely crazy kitsch-Trotskyist sect), which is being financed by Libya, Iraq and other Arab benefactors in return for uncritically supporting them in its press and for providing Arab governments with spy-reports on Arab dissidents and on Jews prominent in British life.
http://www.workersliberty.org/files/begincartoon.jpg
Livingstone is raging anti-semite and uses minorities as a tool against a) anything jewish and b) to wind up middle england sensibilities.
Take a look at TFL's debt and the multi-coloured, jammed up, over-signed, fenced-in, massively polluted sh*t hole that's been created in central London, and you'll also see he couldn't organise a blow job in the back of cab.....
now then...
1. Boris Johnson supported the Iraq war
Ken is a still a member of the party that actually went to war.
2. Boris Johnson supported both the election of George W Bush in 2000 and his re-election in 2004.
I'd like to see the quote - but then he is also quoted in the ES today fairly slagging off Bush after the iraq cock-up. Not a fan for a few years.
3. Boris Johnson opposed the Kyoto treaty on climate change and supported George Bush’s opposition to it
Kyoto is doesn't encompass Russia, India or China and is as much use as a bendy bus. And anybody who actually has to compete industrially - rather than spend a lifetime consuming tax payer's money rather than creating it - should be wary of Kyoto. It's old uni-lateral disarmament argument re-spun.
4. Boris Johnson strongly supports nuclear power
As does Labour - which has been sent back to consultation drawing board, but still wants it. Mr Livingstone is still a member of Labour.
5. Boris Johnson, on more than one occasion, talked about black people as ‘picaninnies’, he has referred to Africans as having ‘watermelon smiles’, and claimed that the original inhabitants of Uganda were capable of only ‘instant carbohydrate gratification’.
The quotes are from a satirical piece brilliantly pointing out the neo-colonialist and patronising sub-racism of Blair and the other 'saviours of africa'. Er, we're all 'original inhabitants' of africa - this bit doesn't make sense.
6. Boris Johnson said that in South Africa under Nelson Mandela there was established the ‘majority tyranny of black rule’
Mmm. Maybe, but a feel a serious lack of context here.
7. Boris Johnson was prepared to discuss with Darius Guppy, who was later convicted of fraud, having a journalist Stuart Collier beaten up
Michael Howard, speaking on BBC4 last week, said when he was barrister for the Archway motorway project of the 1970s, he had to physically step between Ted Knight and Ken Livingstone and the inspector at the public enquiry 'to prevent either Knight or Livingstone' physically harming the man, who had been chased through the building.
I also felt the Guppy comversation sounded like a fob-off to an old friend who'd gone mad.
8. Boris Johnson opposed the introduction of the national minimum wage
Mmm. might be true. Hasn't upset the apple cart in a rising economy, but has the black economy grown massively as a result?
9. Boris Johnson opposed full pension rights for part time workers
And?
10. Boris Johnson is against the Social Chapter of the EU and against its provision on paternity leave.
The Tories dropped their opposition in May 2004, because it was too hard to untangle it from the rest of the EU 'treaties'.
11. Boris Johnson is opposed to the congestion charge
Quite right. The system installed by Livingstone, against the specific advice of Derek Turner (he told me so himself) is a disaster. Instead of raising £200m per year at £5, it raises £89 at £8 per day and costs £150m to run. 62 percent of income goes to capita. If you're going to have a c-charge, it should be on in the morning from 7-10am and that's all.
12. Boris Johnson supports both fox and stag hunting
As do very many other EU countries.
13. Boris Johnson opposed the repeal of Section 28 and Labour’s ‘appalling agenda’ of the teaching of homosexuality in schools’.
It took Labour 6 years to repeal it, and only then because it felt that local councils were no longer loony-infilltrated that it could be done without militant activists trying to make cheap sexu-politic points using young children as a battering ram against Middle England. Funny how gayness is now utterly, utterly mainstream - something that managed to develop under Section 28...
Anonymous said...
He called Black people 'Piciannies'!!
How can that be defended?
Red, 'im a say.......
Bwoy anonymous, me Muddah, when we back a yard, she a halways call we 'pickneys'. Dis piciannie? What disa mean?
Big up an' 'nuff respec' fe de Boris.
'im is dread man.
Compass is a ginger group. Not particularly loved by any sector of the LP - apart from the few who don't mind them being a sitting on their hands alt.new.labour chatterati.
real.new.labour call them trots and in the sense that they're never satisfied and don't accept collective decisions that's the case.
More of a group blog/wank than a think tank.
The Boris piece was clearly rather careless. Thank goodness Andrew Gilligan and Tory Bloggers are never guilty of carelessness!
Fact that it was careless does not mean that Boris doesn't have a baker's dozen and the rest of gaffes to his name.
Anon 5:47pm has a sound list of 13 Bozz facts.
There are more. Londoners in general are not ready for a Swiftian satirist (but of the far right).
For those who want to know how terrified the Evening Standard is of any examination of its ‘refutation’ of Compass’s report on Boris Johnson the following chronology may be useful.
Approx 10am 31st August. Evening Standard appears with Andrew Gilligan article claiming to ‘refute’ Compass report on Boris Johnson together witha supporting editorial.
Approx 11am 31st August. Compass posts on its website a reply to the Evening Standard (http://compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=838) . It points out that the article and editorial have not be placed online by the Evening Standard, and challenges it to do so in order that readers can examine it. This challenge is picked up online.
Approx 2pm. Evening Standard places Andrew Gilligan article online and allows comments. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410465-details/How%20Boris%20quotes%20were%20spun/article.do?expand=true#StartComments)
Approx 3.30 pm Gavin Hayes of Compass posts comments recommending Evening Standard readers to read the whole Compass report and giving a link to it. The Evening Standard removes the link.
Approx 4pm. Evening Standard stops taking comments on its website. It is known that people are posting to it as a number of people attempting to post comments to the Evening Standard also post them to the Compass website – which posts them.
1st September 7am – Evening Standard website remains firmly closed for comments, as it has been since 4pm the day before, on the Andrew Gilligan article.
Only one explanation fits these facts. That the Evening Standard cannot place its attempted ‘reply’ to Compass online for examination because it knows it will be refuted – as Compass had already done on its own website.
Iain, far from being a ‘compelling... analysis of political chicanery ‘ the Evening Standard had to suppress the discussion of Andrew Gilligan’s article after only two hours in order to prevent it being taken apart by readers.
PS Andrew Gilligan, as a journalist, will of course be calling for the Evening Standard to open up comment on his article online. Or will he?
Iain Dale will, of course, call for the Evening Standard to open up comment on its article online after closing it down after only two hours. Or is he scared to?
craig ranapia -
"if "involvement in party politics" gets you a pass, why bother holding anyone in politics to any standard of truthfulness at all?"
Quite. It was for that exact reason that I clarified Iain's untrue statement regarding the status of Compass.
I specifically didn't defend Compass because I've not looked into the report in sufficient detail to make an informed comment on its accuracy/inaccuracy. I do know for sure that the claim that Compass is a think tank fails your "standard of truthfulness" though.
re anon
He called Black people 'Piciannies'!!
How can that be defended?
...
It cant but it better than hugging a hoodie aka Call me Dave, or doing a Bernard Manning and an saying I love em all black, white, paks, coons etc.
One thing you can say about the left is that they're focused on the aquisition and retention of power. Nothing is too sleazy or underhand in their pursuit of power.
Still, to be this obvious so soon must mean they're afraid of Boris :)
Post a Comment