Johnson to land Uxbridge has been backed from 4-1 to 7-4 with PP.There is a simple matter of geography at work here.Uxbridge offers maintaining links with the chumocracy but most of all it is close to Eton and its' playingfields.
How will Boris's advocacy for a new airport (presumably at the expense of Heathrow) go down in Uxbridge? Will constituents prefer less noise or fewer jobs?
Does it matter? He'd win the election even if he proposed a nuclear power station for the constituency.
Besides - the airport commission has sunk this idea below the waterline in any case.
Not necessarily, but Boris's only real chance of getting the leadership is in 2015 off the back of a Cameron (and Osborne) defeat, so it makes sense he want's to "be around" just in case...
I also wonder if he thinks that he might well lose the Mayoralty in 2016 if he fights it, and doesn't want to be seen as a 'loser'. If he hadn't got another job to go to the obvious question would be 'why don't you stand for a third term' - that question now goes away of course.
David Herdson - the 3 people who read the Guardian?????? You mean the 3 who buy it surely. It's one of the world's most popular newspaper websites. Many of those readers will be from outside the UK, but it's domestic influence should not be dismissed.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
Any Tory who can win in London while there's Tory-led government doesn't have that big a problem with connecting with voters. I think Boris may have other problems (not seen as sufficiently 'serious', for example), but out of touch? No, I don't think so particularly.
David Herdson - the 3 people who read the Guardian?????? You mean the 3 who buy it surely. It's one of the world's most popular newspaper websites. Many of those readers will be from outside the UK, but it's domestic influence should not be dismissed.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
Any Tory who can win in London while there's Tory-led government doesn't have that big a problem with connecting with voters. I think Boris may have other problems (not seen as sufficiently 'serious', for example), but out of touch? No, I don't think so particularly.
Yeah, absolutely. Boris wouldn't have an issue with being out of touch with ordinary people in the same way that Farage doesn't. They're both clearly "posh", but they both are savvy enough with their image management to build an image around that that's still appealing to voters, unlike the airbrushed "Dave" Cameron
It's an excellent post. One difference, however, remains and will remain the existence of film footage of the more recent world wars. Even so, they too give both distance as well as immediacy: when you see so many reconstructions and re-enactments, how much more value can be placed on footage of the real thing when the people in the pictures are anonymous or famous only as historical characters, whose story and endings are well-known?
For a long time, I've thought that WWs 1 and 2 should really be numbered '4' and '5', after the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, all of which were world wars as much as WWI was - yet the first two are largely unknown in Britain and the Napoleonic conflict known only through the eyes of Wellington and Nelson.
So yes, they will be not forgotten, but filed away in the history of 'horrible things that happened a long time ago when the world was a different place'.
Surely one significant difference between wars before 20th Century and the two big ones in it was that those two were fought by armies composed of soldiers (etc) of conscripts. Very few countries had the sort of universal conscription seen in WWI & II earlier.
To an extent, but only to an extent. WWI was famously fought in Britain by a professional / volunteer army until 1916 and while most other principal countries routinely had national service, this didn't necessarily equate to fully fledged conscription in the first instance.
In any case, I wouldn't mark that out as a defining difference, rather one of detail. What marks a world war to me is one involving all or most of the great powers of the day, where they re-engineer their economies and government priorities to the greatest extent possible within their domestic limits, with the overriding objective of maximising their military capacity.
I think one of the problems Boris will have is he will no longer be able to be all things to all people. He won't be able to be Telegraph Boris for one newspaper and Evening Standard Boris for another.
Johnson to land Uxbridge has been backed from 4-1 to 7-4 with PP.There is a simple matter of geography at work here.Uxbridge offers maintaining links with the chumocracy but most of all it is close to Eton and its' playingfields.
How will Boris's advocacy for a new airport (presumably at the expense of Heathrow) go down in Uxbridge? Will constituents prefer less noise or fewer jobs?
For a long time, I've thought that WWs 1 and 2 should really be numbered '4' and '5', after the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, all of which were world wars as much as WWI was - yet the first two are largely unknown in Britain and the Napoleonic conflict known only through the eyes of Wellington and Nelson.
The Thirty Years War (1618-48) was confined to Europe, so I wouldn't call that a "World War".
Yes, I accept it's a Euro-centric view and not entirely consistent. However, non-European powers were involved and the economic resources of the Americas were certainly called on to a great degree, so I do think it's justifiable. On top of which, the death and destruction of the affected areas - much of central Europe - was greater than anything seen before or since on the continent, including the 20th century world wars.
Not necessarily, but Boris's only real chance of getting the leadership is in 2015 off the back of a Cameron (and Osborne) defeat, so it makes sense he want's to "be around" just in case...
I also wonder if he thinks that he might well lose the Mayoralty in 2016 if he fights it, and doesn't want to be seen as a 'loser'. If he hadn't got another job to go to the obvious question would be 'why don't you stand for a third term' - that question now goes away of course.
I thought way back around 2008 or 2012 Boris pledged he wouldn't do more than two terms as Mayor anyway?
I realise what Boris say's and does are often two different things...
BTW, Boris getting the Tory leadership would have a couple of added bonuses - Simon Heffer would explode in fury, while we could see Michael Portillo looking even more bitter and resentful than he already is every week on This Week.
Iff Boris wants to be Tory leader he needs to show he can successfully run a major ministry/shadow it well.
Such as Health or Defence.
Isn't being Mayor of London roughly an equivalent status to a cabinet minister?
Your point is certainly valid if the Tories stay in government after the election; if they're in opposition, however, it's a very different skill-set required for the party leader.
That said, even in government, the skills required to be PM and those required to successfully run a department are far from equivalent.
(not seen as sufficiently 'serious', for example),
Beneath the jocularity there is a mind like a steel trap. He is the only politician I have ever seen turn Paxman to jelly.
That's as maybe but he may still have a problem with being *seen* as not sufficiently serious.
Agree. You want someone who, in the cold light of day (and not just because he's been caught out doing something naughty) exudes calm and good sense. All three leaders and even Farage has this a bit, but Boris has spent too much time creating a rules-less I'm a maverick kind of guy.
Those kind of people are unpredictable and we Brits don't take to that for our PMs.
David Herdson - the 3 people who read the Guardian?????? You mean the 3 who buy it surely. It's one of the world's most popular newspaper websites. Many of those readers will be from outside the UK, but it's domestic influence should not be dismissed.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
Any Tory who can win in London while there's Tory-led government doesn't have that big a problem with connecting with voters. I think Boris may have other problems (not seen as sufficiently 'serious', for example), but out of touch? No, I don't think so particularly.
Yeah, absolutely. Boris wouldn't have an issue with being out of touch with ordinary people in the same way that Farage doesn't. They're both clearly "posh", but they both are savvy enough with their image management to build an image around that that's still appealing to voters, unlike the airbrushed "Dave" Cameron
Where do you get the ''Dave'' from? I notice you put it in speechmarks for effect. But whats your point? The only PM who actually said 'call me xxx ' as opposed to 'Prime Minister' was Brown (as pointed out in a biography). So really you are making up an episode in order to make a facile point. You want to pretend that Cameron is airbrushed but some other favourite of yours is not.
David Herdson - the 3 people who read the Guardian?????? You mean the 3 who buy it surely. It's one of the world's most popular newspaper websites. Many of those readers will be from outside the UK, but it's domestic influence should not be dismissed.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
Any Tory who can win in London while there's Tory-led government doesn't have that big a problem with connecting with voters. I think Boris may have other problems (not seen as sufficiently 'serious', for example), but out of touch? No, I don't think so particularly.
Yeah, absolutely. Boris wouldn't have an issue with being out of touch with ordinary people in the same way that Farage doesn't. They're both clearly "posh", but they both are savvy enough with their image management to build an image around that that's still appealing to voters, unlike the airbrushed "Dave" Cameron
Where do you get the ''Dave'' from? I notice you put it in speechmarks for effect. But whats your point? The only PM who actually said 'call me xxx ' as opposed to 'Prime Minister' was Brown (as pointed out in a biography). So really you are making up an episode in order to make a facile point. You want to pretend that Cameron is airbrushed but some other favourite of yours is not.
I'm getting it from the interviews with his wife before the 2010 elections for one.
Boris and Farage certainly aren't favourites of mine, and I guess it's possible that you have a completely different perception of their public images to me. I certainly can't back mine up with any objective evidence. But to me it very much seems like Boris and Farage have managed to incorporate their poshness into images that the public largely find appealing, in a way that's not the case for Cameron.
Comments
Cameron's defeat would be as much Osborne's, they will both be finished in that situation.
Besides - the airport commission has sunk this idea below the waterline in any case.
Whatever happens in 2015, I don;t think tory MPs will want more cameroonism after he goes.
The window for a bye election is getting fairly narrow, even with one of the incumbents making way, but could it still be possible?
Beneath the jocularity there is a mind like a steel trap. He is the only politician I have ever seen turn Paxman to jelly.
Regarding his hair, as unpredictable as he is, according to his family.
Such as Health or Defence.
In any case, I wouldn't mark that out as a defining difference, rather one of detail. What marks a world war to me is one involving all or most of the great powers of the day, where they re-engineer their economies and government priorities to the greatest extent possible within their domestic limits, with the overriding objective of maximising their military capacity.
He's a classicist, he'd make sure the history syllabus was accurate and appropriate.
It is truly worrying because of the education system some people in this country don't realise Hannibal was a truly inept military commander.
I realise what Boris say's and does are often two different things...
BTW, Boris getting the Tory leadership would have a couple of added bonuses - Simon Heffer would explode in fury, while we could see Michael Portillo looking even more bitter and resentful than he already is every week on This Week.
Your point is certainly valid if the Tories stay in government after the election; if they're in opposition, however, it's a very different skill-set required for the party leader.
That said, even in government, the skills required to be PM and those required to successfully run a department are far from equivalent.
And Thatcher.
Those kind of people are unpredictable and we Brits don't take to that for our PMs.
Is my belief.
The only PM who actually said 'call me xxx ' as opposed to 'Prime Minister' was Brown (as pointed out in a biography).
So really you are making up an episode in order to make a facile point. You want to pretend that Cameron is airbrushed but some other favourite of yours is not.
Boris and Farage certainly aren't favourites of mine, and I guess it's possible that you have a completely different perception of their public images to me. I certainly can't back mine up with any objective evidence. But to me it very much seems like Boris and Farage have managed to incorporate their poshness into images that the public largely find appealing, in a way that's not the case for Cameron.