« Tories are 24% ahead | Main | Accommodation in Birmingham »


"There are many great Latin textbooks, but I would single out Kennedy’s Shorter Latin Primer."

Yes an excellent book that I am sure others as well as myself used to deface so it read "Shorter EATING Primer"! ;-)

When he says "will create extra kinetic energy" and seems to want air conditioning at any costs, this says to me a misunderstanding of the problem.
It's possible he's using air conditioning as a general term to mean any air cooling which would be ok, but it just sounds like because people have decided that aircon is the answer then that is the solution.
I think I just get a bee in my bonnet over this because I spend my time on hot tubes thinking up ingenious cooling systems (that probably wouldn't work)

Also, not wishing to throw my toys out of the pram, but wasn't there 3 or 4 of us that asked about motorbikes in bus lanes? Couldn't have that been tagged on the end of the bendy bus question if you felt asking about latin was so important?
Bit late now, but I was asking to get his general opinion as ken would like to refuse to accept that bikes existed. You see TFL posters around showing all modes of transport but not motorbikes.
It does make you feel like your a rebel outlaw as you ride through the city, which can be fun but shouldn't have to be like that.

Vintage Boris gag on BBC1 last night. Talking about his mother's lineage;

"I am from a family of Alsace-ions".
"Thats the place, not a family of dogs".

Yes, London Tory I too laughed at that! Last night's programme was fascinating and one of the best things was watching the expressions on Boris's face as the story unfolded and his cries of "Cripes" and "Stone The Crows"! The account of Ali Kemal's demise was incredibly moving and I could see exactly why this was a subject that Boris's Grandfather would never discuss.

I too am someone with what could be called a "mongrel" background and if anyone didn't see the programme I would urge you catch it on iplayer!

Editor - Thanks for selecting my question on planning and tall buildings. A fine choice of questions.

Wandering a bit, as others have, onto last night's "Who do you think you are?" BBC TV programme on Boris's ancestry, I thought it was wonderful. For those who did not see it, as well as the moving story of his Turkish great grandfather who was killed by a lynch mob, the Alsation/German side revealed, through an illegimate line, that Boris is directly descended from George II (King of England and Elector of Hanover). From henceforth, he shall be known in our household as King Boris I of "the King" for short. It was priceless and, if available on BBC play again, please watch it.

Before anyone says he should be concentrating on being Mayor rather than making TV programmes, I think this was the project that delayed his campaigning last Nov/Dec (and its showing was then delayed because of his election campaign). It was worth delaying his campaign for!

Thank you for responding to the English flag related enquiry.

Having given it some thought I can see why the cruciform crusader related symbolism might be a problem. Even more serious is the possibly that a passing Russian helicopter gunship might mistake City Hall for the Georgian embassy.

I have concluded that the red cross should be removed altogether and that the remaining background would then be a suitable symbol for the nation formerly known as England.

Thanks for using my question on the Thames Estuary airport.

He, of course is correct in saying that Heathrow cannot be expanded without upsetting somebody, but how is a whopping great new super airport shoved into an environmentally sensitive area any different? Once again, I suspect the political disadvantages of the proposal are going to be more compelling to him than cost, time scale etc. PPCs and MPs in Kent are already gearing up to oppose Boris at the next election on this issue.

He also misses the point entirely in his comparison to the London sewerage system. We already have a busy international hub at Heathrow. There are proposals to where the new runway and terminal would be sited, with assessment of the environmental impacts. There is nothing wrong with thinking big, but when there is a real proposal on the table, ready for the off, it just seems barmy to start afresh.

" Brickbats please to us rather to Boris if that was the case."

OK, one brickbat coming right up! Firstly I should declare an interest- I was one of the questioners, and transport geography is a special interest of mine.

Four of us asked about the congestion charge. This is an issue Boris tried to face all ways at once over during the campaign. Now he is safely installed in City Hall, he has still failed to give any kind of straight answers about what he intends to do. Even when the recent report showed the charge isn't reducing congestion, and is only raising revenue because of the fines, he still tried to face all ways at once.

I know questions were limited to 15, but one was spent on asking about Latin textbooks (hardly something in the remit of a mayor who's main powers are in the field of Planning and Transport!!)

Hi Comstock

Ita erat quando hic adveni.

In answer to JR's question, 'Boris' wrote:

I see no harm in spending a Sunday evening writing a column. It doesn’t impede my duties as Mayor at all. I am quickly finding out that the sheer scale of this job is wider, deeper and more intense than I ever imagined ... My day is scheduled to within an inch of its life, and I want to squeeze as much as I can out of my time as Mayor in order to get things done. There is so much to be done, on transport, on the environment, on housing and most crucially on knife crime ... this is the biggest and best challenge I have faced in my professional life and I am throwing everything I have into it.
This answer is so loopily disconnected (and dishonest to boot), I have to ask: did Boles oversee its transition? Still, when Labour inevitably force him to choose between the two, we'll soon enough see which one Boris 'enjoys' most: the public sector job he was elected to do, or the private sector job he has elected to.

Interestingly, both Boris and Brown will be in Beijing for the closing ceremony and the climax will be the official handover to the UK. Will it be our Prime Minister who gets the 1.5 billion TV audience? Nope, our very own Conservative Boris has got the gig.

Tee hee, just how grumpy will Brown be? About as grumpy as he has just been in Afghanistan:

‘Mr Karzai, who faces numerous challenges to his own leadership, made the quip as reporters pressed the British Prime Minister over his relationship with David Miliband.

“Cabinet ministers plotting is nothing new. We have it in Afghanistan - although not my foreign minister,” Mr Karzai remarked.

Mr Brown looked irritated by the persistent questions, repeatedly insisting “It is a good relationship. We get on with the job.”

12:25PM BST 21 Aug 2008

I don't see why ACT thinks Boris's answer on his journalism was loopily disconnected and dishonest. He is saying that he is totally dedicated to the Mayoralty during all normal working hours, and no doubt much beyond them (and making points to show that) whilst writing his Tuesday morning Telegraph column on Sunday evenings (readers of his column will know that this is his copy deadline, as he has told us). Someone like Boris does not need to spend a large part of the week writing a column, even if it offends socialists that he may be paid more than his Mayoral salary for doing so.

I do think there is some potential for the column to embarrass him because of a loose remark being used against him (I slightly cringed at the "Sod Skegness" headline a few weeks ago), but the idea that he does not, or should not, have time is silly. Furthermore it lets him let off steam and keeps his hand in. If he loses the Mayoralty election in 2012 or 2016, it's much healthier if he has another job to go back to than aping the pathetic performance of Ken Livingston, turning up to the public gallery for Mayor's questions, already lobbying to stand again next time, and generally behaving as if his whole life had depended upon being Mayor.

Long live King Boris.

I'm surprised my question asking how the Mayor could help London's small businesses, especially markets, didn't get through yet a silly question on flag-flying did.

God knows (and most ex-Telegraph folk too), Bojo doesn't bust a gut bashing out the copy. The point here is essentially an ethical one: should an elected politician be so financially beholden to an outside paymaster? If Boris is allowed to be a newspaper columnist as well as Mayor, should Cabinet members be allowed to do the same? After all, there's nothing special about doing a 'media' job surely? So if you're arguing that there's some greater principle at work here than merely Bojo's bloated self-interest, why not let cabinet members be FTSE100 directors whilst they're also government ministers? Or work for TV companies? Or do whatever they feel like doing for as much as they can get from whoever they can get it from, on top of their government job?

I don't know about you, but I think the current rules preventing them from doing so are there for a very good reason. And when Labour this parliament brings in legislation obliging Boris to choose between the Twins' moolah, and, being pitifully public sector-paid Mayor of London, the question won't be, 'which way will Boris wobble?' The answer to that is obvious. No, the question is, which way will Dave ending up whipping the boys and gels when the legislation comes to the House? To stand up and bravely make the case that Boris, uniquely, should be allowed to keep on raking in the Twins' lolly, or to accept that the London mayoralty should be brought into line with all other comparable posts (government ministers at Westminster, their devolved equivalents, civil servants &c)? My bet: Dave will crumple about a fortnight into this one and say that Boris has to choose. So start reading up now on the procedures for how a Mayor who quits is replaced. It'll be painfully relevant in about 6 months time.

Well, ACT, I am probably wrong to rise to your goading, but here goes. First, if he had to choose, I am sure he would choose the Mayoralty. To suggest otherwise is even sillier than your original point.

Second, this is a local government position, not a Minister of the Crown. Local Councillors, Council Leaders (even now with "cabinet" salaries, so far as I know) are not prohibited from having non-conflicted outside jobs. There is no conflict of interest here unless the Mayor were considering a Planning Application involving the Telegraph group. If there ever were anything of that nature, he would stand aside for that individual decision as with any other conflict of interest.

If you are really suggesting that the Labour Government is going to introduce special primary legislation on this point to deal with the London Mayor alone as a special case ("The Boris (Amendment) Bill 2009"), you have an even more warped idea of its legislative priorities than I do. If you are suggesting that there should be a general ban on any local government elected official, or perhaps just on those receiving a "cabinet" salary, on any outside work, then I certainly hope that the Opposition would vote against it.

ACT - your points are a combination of a vain attempt to score silly party political points with transparent jealousy. You can't make up your mind whether you most resent Boris because he won the election, has a much larger income than you, or is descended from a King of England. Probably all three!

While I enjoy ad hominem abuse just as much as Londonder obviously does, he has left out a fourth possibility for my motivation: namely, tediously, I've just written what I actually believe to be the case? I know saying what you believe strikes 'Roons as being absurdly old-fashioned, but there we are. And as far as the Bill goes that tidies up the loophole that allows Boris to do what, quite rightly, Brown, Salmond et al are prevented by law from doing, I'm sure Dave will mouth your position for at least the first week or so. Then he'll fold. He'd be mad not to, and whatever else Dave is, he isn't mad, or especially brave.

"And as far as the Bill goes that tidies up the loophole that allows Boris to do what, quite rightly, Brown, Salmond et al are prevented by law from doing,"

Why quite rightly?
I could see if you are cabinet then there's little job you could take that wouldn't end up with many conflicts of interest, but this isn't the case with Boris.
I'm with 'Londoner' in thinking that your posts just sound like (not saying you are, I'm not that offensive) typical leftie envy or socialist like confusion because the amount of time worked isn't directly proportionate to the income.

What you're arguing is that, it's okay for Boris do a 'media' job. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue that Boris could also be eg a director ICI, or MD of a merchant bank, or chairman of Man Utd, while mayor. Now I have to admit I don't understand why you draw this implied distinction (assuming you do - anyone who feels the Mayor of London - or government or devolved ministers - should be free, on top of that position, to take on whatever additional paid work they want, please do step forward and say so, and why).

Now let's be honest about this, it's hardly as if the twins lack 'interests', not least in London, where the bulk of their corporate activities are based (the hotel, the paper, the magazine, the property holdings and the investments). And Boris is, as we can agree, quite literally in the pay of the Barclays. I'll put this another way: if Ken were still Mayor of London, whilst at the same time holding down as a job the Secretary Generalship of Unison or some red Chinese sinecure, let alone receiving Bojo's salary from more-than-slightly strange offshore multi-millionaires, people on this site would have been among the loudest in their complaints (and rightly too).

I'm not sure how or why this red herring of 'envy' comes into it. I don't begrudge Boris a penny of what he bilks out of the Barclays. But just as it would be completely wrong for Alex Salmond, say, to behave as Boris has done (even his staunchest defenders, surely, will admit that his complete silence on this subject - his absolute intention to resume his Telegraph work - during his election camapign was hardly Boris' finest hour?), it's not right now either. One of ConHome's worst faults in the silly tendency to praise fellow Tories whatever they're doing. Believe me, Boris certainly wouldn't repay your tribalism if you found yourself in a jam and appealed to him as a fellow Tory to help you at any discernible cost to himself (cf McGrath).

What I've done is simply to make two predictions, and ask one question: 1.) Labour will amend the relevant legislation this parliamentary session to make Boris choose between his Telegraph dosh and being Mayor; 2.) Boris, in keeping with his silence during the campaign, will take the money and run. And the question is, how long will Dave put up a fight against this legislation in the House? Not very is my suggestion, and for once that's not a criticism of him. It's Boris who has selfishly put Dave on the spot, not the other way round.

Where's this implication come from?

If the other director/chairman jobs took a few hours of his spare time then I've no complaint there either.

I thought ken wrote for some socialist rags and that propaganda sheet that we paid for.
Was it OK for him to do that as long as we were paying as it was then part of the Mayor's job - if someone else is paying then it's not part of the job and so he's a "part time mayor"??

Again, I'm not 100% sure why you're, in effect, asking me to defend Ken. Ken was easily the worst person to be elected to any serious political office in this country in, what, well over a hundred years? So is there any chance we could dispense with these slightly weird diversions? The point remains very simple: should someone holding down the high public office (which mayor of London certainly is) also be in receipt of an outside income, and one so greatly is excess of his official salary to boot? I, for one, think it would be intolerable for a cabinet member to have pulled the stunt Boris has, and for a variety of reasons, I'm fairly sure it's going to be put a stop to this parliamentary session. And that's a good and Tory thing which we should all support.

OK, well I think it's a good thing and I'm fairly sure it won't be put to a stop anytime soon and that's a good and Tory thing which we should all support.

I wonder if Boris and David Cameron losing Ray Lewis could be the worst moment so far in Boris’ mayoralty. I still tend to think this was an excellent appointment. There may be aspects that got overlooked in the controversy – e.g. the money that Mr Lewis had borrowed had been willingly given and that he had repaid the whole amount with interest, and as for him not being a magistrate, Mr Lewis had been invited to become a magistrate and had done the training but had not yet been sworn in. Perhaps Ray Lewis was hounded out for political reasons and because he is a keen Christian, and that he isn’t sufficiently ‘politically correct’. Whatever the truth, he may have had an imperfect past and doesn’t claim to be perfect, but can no reformed person ever hold public office? Possibly not if one is a Conservative and a Christian?

Mr Lewis’ work through his Academy is known to have turned around many boys in the E End from violent and dysfunctional family backgrounds - just the type of person needed it seems to deal with the increasing gang and knife crime etc in London. But maybe he is too unconventional for the politically-correct liberal-left forces which even our Party seems too spineless to stand up to. Perhaps Boris can still find a way for Ray Lewis to serve London, even if not through political office.

Wow! You really chose the difficult questions. This will enhance your reputation for hard-hitting journalism.

ACT - I will accept for a moment that your concern about Boris's Telegraph column is high principle, and that you have a special insight/knowledge into the Government's intentions on this. Quite a big assumption to assume both simultaneously, but there you are.

Are you saying that this legislation you expect will be purely related to the London Mayor? Or that it is going to relate to all elected people in local government? Or, if somewhere in between, where are you/they drawing the line and why?

If it is basically just for the London Mayor. don't you think:
(a) that people might think there are higher legislative priorities? and
(b) that people will just think it's spiteful against Boris and that it would be better to leave it to Londoners to decide when they come to vote on his re-election?

If your information is well founded, it strikes me as a very silly idea from some back room PR person which is very likely to misfire. No change there then.

If Boris never said he would continue with a column, anyone who thought it so important should have asked him. He never said he wouldn't. To have volunteered it would have been odd, particularly as he may well not have been offered the continuation until after the election.

I for one am amazed that he took the column up after winning the election. I think it sums up his entire approach to the election, to politics, and to this job.

Cameron should have told him it wasn't on. But I'm sure as has been said here the Labour Party will step in and force the question. There is no way Cameron will want to throw away votes for Boris Johnson.

As far as learning Latin is concerned, I'm not too sure if this will help Boris in Beijing.

I do know however that CRI now broadcast in Esperanto.

You can see at http://esperanto.cri.cn/

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker