One wonders what the reaction will be.

[andrewducker]

Boris Johnson, Conservative candidate for London Mayor has just spoken out in favour of cannabis being legal for medical use.

The Conservatives are notorious for their anti-drugs stance.

Will they publically distance themselves from him right before an important vote?

Change their official stance?

Or (and my money's on this one) say "Oh, it's just Boris. You know what he's like?"

Which, I suppose, is the advantage of having one of your more zany representatives stand for Mayor...

Comments

[cybik.livejournal.com]

where zany = irresponsible, idiotic, racist, homophobic?

[dougs.livejournal.com]

For symmetry, Labour would have to distance itself from their candidate, or say "Oh, it's just Ken. You know what he's like?"

Except that would never happen.

[andrewducker]

Well, they did kick him out.

Admittedly they let him back in again later.

[andrewducker]

You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Hang on - I hadn't heard the homophobic one before - link?

[cybik.livejournal.com]

He supported Section 28, and famously (in his book) compared gay marriage with the union of "three men and a dog". Later he said that he was completely against homophobia of course.

He defends himself here: http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1286

Personally I can't understand why anyone would think he was a good idea. He's quite amusing on Have I Got News For You, but the idea of him in charge of anything is, to me, laughable. Shame he's quite likely to get in, according to the polls. London will become a disgrace if that's the case.

[cybik.livejournal.com]

When they saw that he was doing a good job... ;)

Sure, he's done and said some stuff I disagree with, but the London transport system is better than it was and the congestion charge works. London is nicer to walk around now than it was some years ago.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Having watched the London Mayor special edition of Question Time last night (available on iPlayer), I fail to see how anyone can still consider Boris Jonson a credible candidate. He was frankly exposed as an idiot, promising the earth with no realistic chance of delivering it. At one point he basically stood there and said he would stop strikes on the tube by making the RMT union agree to a no-strike agreement. The fact the Lib-dem bloke agreed with Livingstone that there was a greater chance of aliens being found on a nearby planet didn't stop him promising to deliver it.

Also if you take any time to read his blog, it soon becomes apparent that beneath the blundering idiot persona lies a very right-wing, and frankly bordering on racist individual.

[figg.livejournal.com]

Oh and that time he promised to give the address of a journalist to a school friend.

He needed the address so he could send some violence around in relaliation for an article.

[figg.livejournal.com]

And this charlie brooker article is fantastic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/14/charliebrooker.boris

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I originally read that he was in favour of cannibals being legal for medical use.

I was wondering if that meant in the same sense as, say, rats are, or something else altogether.

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

Given that all polititians by their nature are untrustworthy idiots you can trust about as far as you can throw a miuntain does it matter? Vote against: then you scare 'em all.

[call-waiting.livejournal.com]

Given that all polititians by their nature are untrustworthy idiots you can trust about as far as you can throw a miuntain does it matter?

Even if this were true, yes it would still matter. Because the actions of those with political power affect people (that's why they call it 'power'). At the very base level, and even if they are untrustworthy idiots, it's the responsibility of every voter to attempt to determine the effects of their vote, and in order to do that, the characters of the representatives are of utmost importance, as their past performance and behaviour is probably a decent indicator for how they'll behave in office if elected. To put it simply: you get to pick between two different levels of each of untrustworthiness and idiocy.

I don't know what you mean by 'Vote against', and can only assume you mean abstention; in which case thinking that this makes a difference or strikes fear into the hearts of politicians is folly: an election is a competition of the votes of the voting populace. Non-voters are entirely irrelevant to them.