State Of London Debate 2009

borisknit.jpg

“All you Olympic sceptics will be Olympic maniacs by 2013.”

Booo.

“No we won’t!”

Cheers.

“Oh, I am confident you will.”

Booo.

Cheers.

Such was the lively, almost pantomime atmosphere at the 9th State of London debate, which took place at the QEII conference centre on Saturday. Hundreds of Londoners packed into the hall to quiz the mayor about his first year, and the untold joys his continuing tenure will no doubt bring. We won’t go into the ins and outs of the debate; the full discussion is available to download from LBC. Instead, here’s the briefest of sketches to give you a flavour.

Boris played an absolute blinder. Pivoting around a steaming cup of tea, the mayor delivered a 45 minute stand-up routine that encompassed transport, the economy, Olympics, crime, housing and ping pong. Between each of these key issues, we were treated to learned monologues on the chemical makeup of chewing gum and the sorry state of rugby in London’s schools (a ‘dearth of elliptical balls’).

The economy was a central theme of his opening remarks. The mayor believes that the capital is flourishing despite the recession. “Those who said London would be worst hit six months ago have been proved wrong. The opposite is the case,” he claimed. When asked to back this up, he offered that “The Big Mac is better value in London than anywhere else in the world. Including Ukraine and Brazil.”

Both Boris and the audience were keen to talk transport, not least because all Tube lines into Westminster were closed on the day of the conference. The Mayor re-emphasised the need for both Crossrail and the Tube upgrades, to much applause. Unsurprisingly, cycle provision was also high on the agenda. And we learned that if money was no object, BJ would extend the DLR to Dagenham, build extensions to the Croyden tramlink, add a third bore to the Blackwall tunnel, make streetscape improvements to the whole length of Oxford Street and extend the Northern Line to Battersea. He also promised to ‘actively block’ a third runway at Heathrow, but we’re not sure he has the personal bulk to pull that one off.

Unfortunately, or entertainingly, depending how seriously you take these things, the self-righteous c*nt brigade were in attendance in large numbers. One chap was ejected and several booed into silence for shouting out inane or misplaced comments repeatedly. But Boris knows his public. He’s jeered and cheered every morning on his cycle to work (where once the commonest cry was ‘You Tory tosser’, he now more regularly hears ‘Giz a job’). He handled a sometimes hostile audience well, and seemed to have the support of most in the room. It’s still too early in his mayoralty for serious backlash or majority disgruntlement. Perhaps in two years this debate will have more meat and fewer gags.

  • RachelH

    “Played a blinder”? “Stand up routine”? And you wonder why he infuriates people who think he doesn’t take the job seriously – or why tourists ask questions like “isn’t your Mayor an idiot?” (see comment #4).

  • Dave

    Or, alternatively, he could have just been trying to diffuse the destructive, unhelpful contributions of the “self-righteous c*nt brigade”.

    In these types of event, the tone of discussion is inevitably driven by the audience. And as most critical commentary on Boris’s performance seems to be based around foot-stamping sandpit invective these days, it must be sadly inevitable that he has to stoop to an equally banal level in order to address it. If anything has spoiled the potential for meaningful debate at this event, it is the childish attitude of those who are *still* smarting over the fact that he was elected (more than a year ago), and cannot see far enough past that to resist the temptation to turn up at such a debate for the purpose of repeatedly blurting out “inane or misplaced comments”.

    Having said that, my opinion on the tone of the debate is about as well-informed as the opinion of anyone else who wasn’t actually there to witness it – pretty irrelevant, in other words.

  • markle

    Dave – I’m not sure how many such events you’ve been to before, but at any meeting like this, regardless of political colour, there will always be people willing to be disruptive to try and make a point, usually on a completely unrelated matter on which the person speaking or being questioned can do little about. I’ve seen sit-ins, walk outs and heckles, as many times from people of the same political colour as the person speaking as from people at the other side of the political spectrum.

    I am growing very tired of any genuine critique of Boris being written off as “sour grapes” from Ken aficionados. It seems to be a classic approach – smear your critics rather than actually address issues. It’s an easy cop out for Boris and his supporters.

    It’s got nothing to do with sour grapes, and everything to do with the fact that a lot of his mayorality seems to be focussed on low-cost high-publicity measures (Thames Eastury Airport (let’s be honest, never going to happen, but a cheap consultation looks good), parks funding, tree-lined streets, etc) rather than any real vision or committed funding or major capital projects for the city.

  • Dave

    Markle – I’m genuinely fascinated by your response here. In part, because I share your frustrations, but from a different viewpoint.

    I should make it clear that I am not a Boris fan. I didn’t vote for him. But I am regularly both amused and annoyed at the knee-jerk attitude that many people adopt just at the sound of his name. You talk about smear – well that’s how I see most of this knee-jerk criticism of Boris. It dumbs down any level of discussion to the level of blind criticism and name-calling.

    On one side, I find it amusing that some people can treat politics so much like supporting a football team that they are prepared to trash-talk the other side *regardless* of what they do. On the other side, it frustrates me that we can never have any real discussion of important issues, as the anti-Boris brigade just seem to want to drown out any discussion with puerile hectoring and insults.

    Based on this, I am (quite sincerely) curious how your viewpoint on this indicates ‘smear’ by the pro-Boris camp (or, in my case, the anti-anti-Boris camp, if that makes sense).

    Take the comments on this post as an example. How does calling Boris “an idiot” (and linking to another site that has been specifically set up for the sole purpose of trashing him) constitute “genuine critique of Boris”? Seriously – do you really expect this sort of name-calling to be treated as “genuine critique” that deserves some sort of highbrow response?

    And based on this, who is “smearing… instead of addressing issues” then? The only criticisms of Boris here (i.e. referred to in the article and the first comment) seem to be: (a) booing from the crowd; (b) “inane and misplaced comments”; (c) calling Boris “an idiot”. Are these really the “genuine critique” that you refer to? They sound more like “smear” than anything else on this page, from my perspective.

    The only “genuine critique” that I’ve seen on this page is in the last paragraph of your comment. But that has arrived *subsequent* to my criticism of the previous name-calling that we’re becoming so accustomed to.

    So, in terms of “smearing… instead of addressing issues”, I think that the anti-Boris crew really need to look in the mirror before they launch that accusation at anyone else. They shouldn’t really criticise others for “smear” until their previous arguments have started to focus on issues rather than insults.

    If you stop treating name-calling as “genuine critique”, you might just manage to get a foot onto the moral high ground that you are trying to claim.

  • RachelH

    (I should probably point out – I linked to Boriswatch for the sole purpose of proving I wasn’t making the story up.)

    I actually find that to get to the point where you can debate what Boris has/has not done, you need to get beyond the attitude of “oh, he’s brilliant, look how funny he is!”, as if that’s a qualification for running the city – and where my frustration came from in the earlier comment. He’s done a few good things – the living wage as opposed to minimum wage is something that’s deserving of being called a blinder. But he’s getting away with ‘low cost high publicity’ measures because he’s doing the equivalent of distracting us with coloured handkerchiefs.

  • Dave

    Fair enough.

    I guess there’s a part of me that wonders what is the cause and what is the effect in this situation, though. Maybe if his ‘knee-jerk’ critics were prepared to raise their objections more constructively, he would treat their objections more seriously.

    Then again, maybe not. Who knows?

  • http://undefined Davester

    I think “low cost high publicity” hits the nail on the head perfectly. It’s hard to get angry over the policies initiated by Boris’ administration and so it’s easy to see why people might see critisism of him as not having merit. The big problem with Boris is the things he hasn’t done – the important projects that he has cancelled and the lack of any important projects.

    He knows that he can announce trivial schemes (used instruments) and float ideas he has no intention of following through on (Boris Island, living bridge) in the papers and because of the media arrangement of free papers and a right wing paper that he will get better coverage for them than if he pulled a blinder and managed to get a great tram service installed at half price.

    A good example was the hundred great spaces scheme that Ken was going to put hundreds of millions towards. The scheme gets announced in the papers that we’ll get loads of squares etc. “Great, we could really do with some improvements”, says your average guy reading on the tube, “but that sounds a lot of money”.
    Boris scrapped the scheme and announced a very similar one. Only this time he was awarding a massive £6k per borough (maybe enough to get a bench and plant a tree?) but because of this style of reporting your man on the tube gets the impression the same thing will be done as per Ken but sees no mention of expense.

    Voila, a situation where the smart thing to do is underinvest.