Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Boris Johnson is seemingly the marmite of politics; only a great deal less healthy. The only thing that unites people’s attitude to Boris Johnson is that they actually have one.
So much so, that on a recent visit to my local pub in the ‘rather drab North London suburb of Barnet’ (thank-you for that pat on the back Times newspaper…) I actually found a friend of a friend’s enquiry of ‘who’s Boris Johnson anyway darling?’ quite refreshing, rather than adopting my usual despairing attitude towards this level of apathy. This is because to me, the election of Boris Johnson as London mayor on the 1st of May 2008 represents the epitome of political apathy in this country.
Personality, rather than politics, overwhelmingly dominated the campaign.
Personality, rather than politics, overwhelmingly dominated the campaign. It can be argued that personality has always been central to the London Mayoral elections ever since the position was established in 2000, as indeed it can be said for politics as a whole.
Ken Livingstone was not affiliated to any political party when he first ran for the position, having being expelled from the Labour party after Frank Dobson was favoured as their candidate; the fact that Frank Dobson finished third in that race to become mayor, when Labour was enjoying a landslide majority in the House of Commons, demonstrates that the British obsession with party politics is not so prevalent where the London Mayoral elections are concerned.
Ken Livingstone was no longer the cheeky underdog of a politician that he had been as leader of the Greater London Council during the 1980s, when he was first elected Mayor in 2000. Although he was a well-known personality, he was synonymous with an ideology as ‘Red Ken’ and had already established himself as a serious politician, capable of the responsibility entailed by holding a position of considerable power.
The same cannot be said of Boris Johnson. Perhaps people just wanted ‘change’?
Whilst change is a generally a good thing, change for change’s sake is not. The same rule applies to personality. Most of Britain’s ‘great’ leaders are associated with a strong personality, Churchill, Attlee and even Thatcher (if we are to accept she is actually human), though these were accompanied by strong policies and knowledge of leadership.
What I find mot remarkable about the 2008 Mayoral election, is how the seemingly jovial personality of Boris Johnson was used to disguise the fact that he was lacking in any policy to bring about progressive change in the Capital, apart from the ‘radical’ idea to ban the consumption of alcohol on the tube of course (which has already been slated by the leader of the TUC).
Though I must be careful when talking about change in reference to Boris Johnson, as comedian Paul Merton quipped that Boris ‘will be the perfect person to lead London back to the17th century’. That statement may be a bit hyperbolic and even unfair, though I find the idea of Boris representing a new era in politics hard to buy into-his policy ideas seem to amount to ‘efficiency’ and ‘value for taxpayer’s money’ i.e. typical Tory manifesto policy that has been tried time and time again.
Despite being a boring and overused cliché, ‘style over substance’ is an appropriate observation to use where Boris Johnson is concerned. The American approach to politics is upon us. Nonetheless, as a Liberal Democracy, we must respect Boris’ democratic right to be mayor; so I say let him get on with his job, and good luck to him…but even better luck to London!
You must log in to submit a comment.
