I'm so disappointed

[Borg Refinery]

The highly imperfect Saville-loving Starmer is a true complete & utter twot-face

It's amazing that Nu Old Nu Labour have put that horrid being in power... welcome to faceless neoliberalism in the Westminster party, which multiple posters here - both Lab and Tory want to preserve at any cost; they're even willing to sacrifice themselves for the economy some of em'...

Patman thinks Starmer is the answer, srv thinls Starmer is the answer but is so completely dishonest he can't even admit it, Toots thinks Tory sycophancy is the answer but denies it, several others think Bojo hasn't gone far enough and wish that he would try much harder to kill off the oldies.. 

[Borg Refinery]

Some are speculating that BJ is less than fit hence his witless connigitry on display in the commons and elsewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/29/is-boris-johnson-really-fit-as-a-butchers-dog

He has a standard of BS to keep up but doesn't seem to be mabaging it very well; even by those standards as I noted elsewhere, the twot is more incompetent than the Kardashians and makes them look useful by comparison.. 

[Borg Refinery]

Trying to drown a debate with colourful single object charts isn't helpful.

So graphs demonstrating evidence are nothing more to you than 'colourful single object charts'.

That says so much.

It demonstrates Ken's inertia effecting Boris' performance, and Boris's failed policies if you bothered to look. But you aren't even interested are you?

Better, I suggest, to have compared London figures with overall trends for England and Wales over the Johnson period. Like poverty, I think London would have shown improvements over national figures.

Go on then.

I don't understand why you're citing Stoke Newington — nor do I recognise your portrayal of it. You make it seem like an area from way back before I was born (1981).

Only if you were a sheltered type who goes to the spence bakery everyday. You really don't know yourown town do you?

Complaining it's now improved over 40 years seems perverse...

Social and ethnic cleansing is perverse? I agree.

Toots, you cannot criticise your own party and it's leader without the likes of Dynamis and Thomas heaping crap onto you and telling you you need to own it.

The idea that you can support a party but be critical at the same time is lost on them.

So you're upset that I (gently) criticised you on the other thread and now start crying that I'm bullying you?

That's pathetic, but I can start bullying you if you want.

I certainly have not misjudged anyone. They're exactly as much of a waste of space as I expected..

[T00ts]

Toots, you cannot criticise your own party and it's leader without the likes of Dynamis and Thomas heaping crap onto you and telling you you need to own it.

The idea that you can support a party but be critical at the same time is lost on them.

I think that's irrelevant. I criticised one speech not the Conservative party. Perhaps it's different in Labour where dissenting seems to be a hanging offence. I don't need to own anything as you put it. That doesn't even make sense. I am certainly not here to be bullied for my point of view.

Hey, we may be political opponents but I am on your side on this. I myself am constantly being attacked by one or two of the usual suspects for not owning every aspect of Labour past and present - even the bits I disagree with - just because I am a member.

I just saw the same kinds of criticism deployed against you for disagreeing with a speech.

None of us who join or merely support a political party have to own everything it ever says or does. We retain the freedom to disagree.

I simply saw you coming under attack in similar ways to me for daring to be critical as if that is somehow not allowed. As if our support for something means we have to own every single thing regardless of whether we agree or not. Which is ridiculous nonsense of course.

I am actually defending you against your critics here. You have the right to be critical of your own side. We all do. However much some want to suggest that this is illegitimate.

When I can be bothered to spare the time I will continue to be critical of anyone or anything in my party I disagree with, and will not be silenced by any who think this wrong.

Apologies my back was up and I try hard not to drop my standards. Still no-one is perfect. 

[srb7677]

Toots, you cannot criticise your own party and it's leader without the likes of Dynamis and Thomas heaping crap onto you and telling you you need to own it.

The idea that you can support a party but be critical at the same time is lost on them.

I think that's irrelevant. I criticised one speech not the Conservative party. Perhaps it's different in Labour where dissenting seems to be a hanging offence. I don't need to own anything as you put it. That doesn't even make sense. I am certainly not here to be bullied for my point of view.

Hey, we may be political opponents but I am on your side on this. I myself am constantly being attacked by one or two of the usual suspects for not owning every aspect of Labour past and present - even the bits I disagree with - just because I am a member.

I just saw the same kinds of criticism deployed against you for disagreeing with a speech.

None of us who join or merely support a political party have to own everything it ever says or does. We retain the freedom to disagree.

I simply saw you coming under attack in similar ways to me for daring to be critical as if that is somehow not allowed. As if our support for something means we have to own every single thing regardless of whether we agree or not. Which is ridiculous nonsense of course.

I am actually defending you against your critics here. You have the right to be critical of your own side. We all do. However much some want to suggest that this is illegitimate.

When I can be bothered to spare the time I will continue to be critical of anyone or anything in my party I disagree with, and will not be silenced by any who think this wrong.

[T00ts]

Toots, you cannot criticise your own party and it's leader without the likes of Dynamis and Thomas heaping crap onto you and telling you you need to own it.

The idea that you can support a party but be critical at the same time is lost on them.

I think that's irrelevant. I criticised one speech not the Conservative party. Perhaps it's different in Labour where dissenting seems to be a hanging offence. I don't need to own anything as you put it. That doesn't even make sense. I am certainly not here to be bullied for my point of view.

[srb7677]

Toots, you cannot criticise your own party and it's leader without the likes of Dynamis and Thomas heaping crap onto you and telling you you need to own it.

The idea that you can support a party but be critical at the same time is lost on them.

[patman post]

Trying to drown a debate with colourful single object charts isn't helpful.
Better, I suggest, to have compared London figures with overall trends for England and Wales over the Johnson period. Like poverty, I think London would have shown improvements over national figures.

I don't understand why you're citing Stoke Newington — nor do I recognise your portrayal of it. You make it seem like an area from way back before I was born (1981). Complaining it's now improved over 40 years seems perverse...

[Borg Refinery]

You are deluded. Most of that was simply inertia from Red Ken's time in office (incl the gentrification as the gnome points out).

Stoke Newington is now the snobbiest bucket of shite on planet earth, where all the normal folks have been socially (and ethnically) cleansed out. All they want is rich grauniadista liberals from other parts of the country -The cleansing of stokey with rich outsiders from other parts of the country befuddles me, can't imagine how that's considered ok to just cleanse people out.

I suggest the art of moving into management is to build on and take advantage of the good while whittling away the damaging.

So normal people are now 'damaging' and only rich people should be allowed in?

Two examples of that in London would be the Boris boost of the Olympics, and getting rid of the highly unsuitable bendy buses

1) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.voanews.com/archive/olympic-games-hurt-business-london%3famp

https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/olympics-opportunity-cleanse-city/

2)
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-bendy-bus

Boris was good for London. He may not have been the best there could have been, but he was the best available, and exceeded expectations.

If you say so. Like I said - Ken was the opponent; he won on 36% of the vote in 2004 and was never that popular but IMHO not the worst mayor in terms of policy.








https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41822965

https://fullfact.org/news/london-2012-what-boris-johnsons-record-crime/

"Those trends clearly show that robbery offences have grown in every year since 2008, and are higher today whether you compare it to Ken's last year or at the end of Boris's first year. There is however a secondary question of how great the Mayor's influence over crime rates really is.

In addition, crime continues to fall as it has done consistently since at least 2002. The rate of decline has decreased since 2008. Again, we can't necessarily attribute this to the current Mayor's policies."

I doubt there's any big city in the UK that hasn't seen an alteration in the profile of its residents and an overall improvement in its environment.

Agreed.

I can only guess at past injustices or misfortune that coloured your view of Stoke Newington

Some of which you have pointed to yourself - you know what it was like in the bad old days. It was really bad. It was really racist too. It was very violent.

A kid from my school called Etem Celebi got shot and killed for no reason at all. And under Boris, knife crime went up in his last two years.

You say you care about the plight of underprivileged folks of minorities and stuff but your favourite mayor certainly didn't give a flying F@@@.

but why N16 should excite you so much now when it's in line with the whole route, from Edmonton, Tottenham, through Dalston and on to Hoxton and the City, that has seen immense improvements in local amenities and the environment.

Tottenham was still rough as feck last time I went there, not too long ago. I don't know how Edmonton has changed.. Of course Dalston and Hoxton are super gentrified now.

I mean Tottenham is always a few events away from rioting. You can feel the rage boiling over on the streets all the time, are you honestly suggesting to me that's changed? I find that difficult to believe.

So who's cleansing people out and moving in liberals and/or Liberals?
GE voting shows N16 to be overwhelmingly Labour — despite a bit of Conservative support on Hackney Council from Stamford Hill...

Well yeh, Labour are largely liberals.

My ward of Lordship had a horrifyingly racist Tory councillor (who switched to Labour later) who made a racist remark to a black person.

Because they are PC and don't want to upset the Orthodox Jewish vote, this was simply overlooked.

The place is fecked mate honestly, with such blatant hate simply accepted, why would any fecker want to live there?

[papasmurf]

Much of it is classed as affordable

Classed as does not mean in reality it is.

[patman post]

Places get "gentrified," which means the people who lived there are forced out because of "redevelopment," making the housing unaffordable as are the "boutique," shops.

There are new builds in Hackney — a lot on previously derelict commercial land, factories and warehousing, such as around Dalston Square. Much of it is classed as affordable and offers shared ownership.
There's also refurbishing, which doesn't just mean increasing value by a few landlords, but also bringing properties up to a decent habitable standard. Too many people still live in substandard accommodation with negative affects to health and well being. Keeping them in such conditions though some misguided affection for the old poor salt of the earth working class seems to take some convoluted thinking...

[papasmurf]

As opposed to people living in a place because they have to and not because they want to and, in turn, making neighbourhoods neglected and unloved...?

Places get "gentrified," which means the people who lived there are forced out because of "redevelopment," making the housing unaffordable as are the "boutique," shops.

[patman post]

You are deluded. Most of that was simply inertia from Red Ken's time in office (incl the gentrification as the gnome points out).

Stoke Newington is now the snobbiest bucket of shite on planet earth, where all the normal folks have been socially (and ethnically) cleansed out. All they want is rich grauniadista liberals from other parts of the country -The cleansing of stokey with rich outsiders from other parts of the country befuddles me, can't imagine how that's considered ok to just cleanse people out.

I suggest the art of moving into management is to build on and take advantage of the good while whittling away the damaging. Two examples of that in London would be the Boris boost of the Olympics, and getting rid of the highly unsuitable bendy buses. Boris was good for London. He may not have been the best there could have been, but he was the best available, and exceeded expectations.

I doubt there's any big city in the UK that hasn't seen an alteration in the profile of its residents and an overall improvement in its environment. I can only guess at past injustices or misfortune that coloured your view of Stoke Newington. but why N16 should excite you so much now when it's in line with the whole route, from Edmonton, Tottenham, through Dalston and on to Hoxton and the City, that has seen immense improvements in local amenities and the environment.

So who's cleansing people out and moving in liberals and/or Liberals?
GE voting shows N16 to be overwhelmingly Labour — despite a bit of Conservative support on Hackney Council from Stamford Hill...

[Borg Refinery]

That's unreadable Toots, but I caught the glimpse of the word rant, how apt. 

[Borg Refinery]

He completely ruined London.

Now I know gentrification loving wine bar types might be fond of that, but normal working class Londoners were not. He liked to pat his mates on the back and was, as Toots notes, full of it. All he ever did was feck up everything he touched.

Londoners simply preferred him to the alternative of Red Ken who had zero public image with his embrace of Chavez etc, so it wasn't really a contest for them; was a one horse race.

Boris Johnson was the figurehead London needed and wanted.

Far from ruining London, he boosted the Olympics effect and kick-started its legacy. He set the foundations of London's Silicon Roundabout and East London Tech City, the murder rate halved, poverty was reduced (Hackney, Barking & Dagenham, Tower Hamlets, and Newham moved up Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government"s index of multiple deprivation**), built 100,000 affordable homes (more than Livingstone), cut road deaths by 43% (UK reduction was 29%), etc, etc, etc.

Personally I don't understand the point of fondly promoting anything associated with lack of wealth and social position while, at the same time, despising the efforts of communities wanting to improve their environment and local facilities...

**The 20 most deprived local authorities are largely the same as found for the 2010 Index, but the London Boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham and Haringey have become relatively less deprived and no longer feature in this list
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015
Statistical release - main findings

You are deluded. Most of that was simply inertia from Red Ken's time in office (incl the gentrification as the gnome points out).

Stoke Newington is now the snobbiest bucket of shite on planet earth, where all the normal folks have been socially (and ethnically) cleansed out. All they want is rich grauniadista liberals from other parts of the country -The cleansing of stokey with rich outsiders from other parts of the country befuddles me, can't imagine how that's considered ok to just cleanse people out.

PS:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-boris-johnsons-broken-promises-as-london-mayor

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/14/boris-johnson-london-cycling-deaths

QED.