The Independent is rather enjoying itself retailing the latest gaffe from the gaff-prone Boris Johnson. Describing him as "the good time politician with the amiable air of a man who never cracks under pressure", the paper joyously tells us the completely lost it today.

After months of stressful campaigning in the run up to May's London mayoral election, he finally let his rival, Ken Livingstone get under his skin. In a crowded lift, in front of three witnesses, the Mayor met the ex-Mayor in a nose to nose confrontation, and called him a "fucking liar" three times over. He was, reputedly, red with rage.

View full article here

"....But what an indictment this is of our politicians and our electoral system in general, when the vote goes not to the preferred choice but the one who is least detestable. So often though, that is precisely the choice confronting the electorate … and they have the nerve to call this democracy...."

Umm... there ARE some other candidates available. And there is always the option of not voting at all.

If what actually happens is that the voters hold their noses and vote for the 'least detestable' of the two major parties, ignoring the other options, I might venture to say that that would be an indictment, not so much of our politicians, as of our people....

Yes, I would not argue with you on that.

The London mayor is the head of one of the EU's nine English "regions". The "regions" are the method by which Brussels is Balkanising the United Kingdom. The job of mayor is, therefore, an EU construct that is part of a process designed to chip away at this country. That's why I reject even the notion of the London mayoralty, just as the people of Newcastle et environs rejected the North-East assembly. But the capital fell for it and voted to be a part of the EU's plan to divide and conquer, as did the Welsh and Scottish.

What of the incumbent London mayor? Boris Johnson is "actually quite europhile", according to Christopher Cook who shared an office with him (quoted in Sonia Purnell's biography).

Stanley Johnson, his father, worked for the EU Commission for years (something environmental) and was then a pro-EU Tory MEP*. One cannot visit the sins of the father on the son but one can ask how far the fruit falls from the tree, especially if the fruit went to an EU school in Brussels.

Jo Johnson, the only one of the clan in Parliament, is as unapologetically pro-EU as you'd expect from a former FT hack sired by one of Brussels's useful idiots.

Then there's Leo Johnson, "a Partner in PwC’s Sustainability and Climate Change team, and Co-Founder of Sustainable Finance Ltd, now a part of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Group."

The sister, Rachel, edited an anachronism called The Lady and became the story in her own right when she wrote an article about her 15-year-old daughter's bikini waxing.

If the rank-and-file Tories are looking to this clan for their next Great White Hope then they are even stupider than any of us imagines. How many more times will they fall for euro-faux-bes?

So: I won't be voting for someone from a europhile family, who is a europhile himself, in a contest for an EU job designed to kill the UK.

* From his own blog: "He is a former Conservative member of the European Parliament (MEP) where he served (1979-1984) as Vice Chairman of the Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. He has also worked in the European Commission (1973-1979) as Head of the Prevention of Pollution division and (1984-1994) as Senior Adviser to DG Environment and as Director of Energy Policy."

This article from Kevin Myers about "Boris" is worth a read:- Boris Johnson is more than a philanderer for whom women remove their knickers with ease, as men do the equivalent

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/colum ... 57331.html

Just a couple sentences makes grim reading...We were told of a meeting between him and Prime Minister Cameron to discuss the future budget of London. Cameron had with him a private Treasury briefing paper containing the range of figures that he would reasonably settle at. Johnson made a lunge for the paper, and the two men ended up rolling around the floor as the Mayor of London tried to forcibly seize confidential government figures from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It's all a huge lark for these wankers...

Richard, you missed a trick :

Public holding on to Boris
for fear of something woris.

Alan Douglas

This complaint to a single objective function, separately chosen by each individual voter, is one that I cannot approve (though I do see one way of understanding it).

Several in the MSM and blogosphere have argued the same over the Alternative Vote (AV), or Single Transferable Vote (STV): that it provides voting for the least unacceptable candidate rather than the most favoured candidate.

This is total bunkum.

Voting systems that provide ranking (such as STV, or its AV variant for single seat constituencies) allow voters to provide more information than is supported under First Past the Post (FPTP). Though the issue is somewhat complicated, there is an explanation of this in my comment on Samizdata. [Note: if the link direct to my comment does not work for you, search for "April 17, 2011 10:29 AM".]

I do accept, however, and even very strongly recommend, that voters should have the option of an official abstention, interpreted as a vote against all (remaining) candidates and a call for a new election with new candidates.

Back to Richard's point, the choice of the voter should be according to what they wish, however that is determined. Whether it is love for one candidate or visceral hatred of another, or the more ordinary mixed and less extreme preferences of the vast majority, that is the private business of each individual voter. That does not stop political parties or others from noting and acting on a more general view of what or whom voters might be persuaded to vote for (ie public opinion), in their selection of candidates or of policy.

In part of my work (decision theory by machine), it is a necessary part for the best decision by machine (usually in support of purposes chosen by people) that there be a single objective function and that the decision be made by maximising that single objective function.

There is no known better way for machines to 'think'; this is known by extensive and diligent search (including study of the parallel of the human brain and human decision-making). All attempts are futile, to avoid a single function that combines all features or characteristics into the decision: so in elections, features both of the advantages and the disadvantages of each candidate. This is because there is an implicit and unavoidable combination forced by the making of a decision.

That voters vote and vote according to their own judgement is the most important thing.

That politicians try and restrict that vote (by being against official abstentions and against AV/STV) is politicians voting for the benefit of the current political class (and hence a pretty obvious motivation). We do not need to extend that by politicians deciding that we can only vote for reasons that the politicians judge 'desirable': that is desirable benefit for them; it is not desirable benefit for us.

So people should back off wanting to constrain (or even know) the reason underlying the choice of each voter, whether it is by FPTP, AV or otherwise: that is not part of democracy. More choice, and more effective and detailed communication of that choice, would however make our democracy better, including an official abstention (and AV/STV).

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

Clarence is right...voteing for any Mayor, is voteing for the EU's construct and the UK's destruction.

"Ken Livingstone, is even worse – both as a human being and a politician"

Livingstone human? I don't think so. Boris, whatever his faults, clearly is - but Livingstone? No - more like something that crawled out from under a stone.