Monday, July 16, 2007

Boris Johnson - the people’s politician

Cranmer is delighted to hear that Boris Johnson MP has decided to enter the race to become Mayor of London. At last, the Conservative Party has found a high-profile, intelligent and personable politician who is also a Conservative supporter of considerable pedigree.

Cranmer has no idea what Mr Johnson’s policies are, but he (almost) invariably speaks and writes manifest common sense. And he has a rare gift for a politician – he is lovable. No matter what his faults and failings – and these have been broadcast far and wide - there is something profoundly warming about his personality. In an era where the medium is the message, Mr Johnson is a very portly medium indeed, through which the message of Conservatism may be amply expounded.

And everyone has heard of Boris. Like Diana, he has the aura of first-name familiarity about him; not such a one that may breed contempt, but one that endears people to him; one that makes people feel that they somehow know him. There is something cultic about him; to use the vernacular, he has mojo, he creates his own mystery which inevitably yields a loyal following. In that sense, Boris is the people’s politician, and God knows that modern politics desperately needs politicians with whom the electorate wants to engage; politicians who can lead and create disciples.

London is tired of Ken Livingstone’s manipulation, evasion, cunning and deceit. The antidote is a straightforward dose of honesty and commonsense. As far as Cranmer is concerned, no-one but Boris can rid us of the anti-Semitic appeaser of Islamism and promoter of all that is corrupt and rotten. Ken Livingstone has to go, and Boris is without doubt the man to excise from London that odious specimen of humanity.

43 Comments:

Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

Interesting how you've juxtaposed the term 'islamism' with 'rotten' and 'corrupt'.

For the sake of clarity, would you be so kind as to elaborate upon your understanding of what 'islamism' means. People seem to have different opinions as to what or whom this term may be associated with.

16 July 2007 at 12:13  
Anonymous Guidos Doppelgaenger said...

Perhaps reading in context is worthwhile:

London is tired of Ken Livingstone’s manipulation, evasion, cunning and deceit. The antidote is a straightforward dose of honesty and commonsense. As far as Cranmer is concerned, no-one but Boris can rid us of the anti-Semitic appeaser of Islamism and promoter of all that is corrupt and rotten. Ken Livingstone has to go,

The subject of much of the paragraph is one Ken Livingstone and he seems to bear the brunt of opprobrium. Perhaps by evaluating Ken Livingstone and his behavioural traits you query might be answered ?

16 July 2007 at 12:30  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

"The subject of much of the paragraph is one Ken Livingstone"

I know that.

"Perhaps by evaluating Ken Livingstone and his behavioural traits you query might be answered ?"

Don't think so.

I had specifically asked Cranmer to elaborate upon his own understanding of what Islamism is.

16 July 2007 at 13:19  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

His Grace is not at your beck and call, and is not subject to your demands.

If you understand the purpose and meaning of conjunctions, you may arrive at enlightenment.

16 July 2007 at 13:28  
Anonymous Miss jelly Bean said...

She waits patiently, determined to get a reply.

A century later: still waiting...zzzzz.........

why must you be so stubborn cranmer?
insufferable!

p.s. I've already been 'enlightened' by Voyager.

16 July 2007 at 13:36  
Blogger Peter Kirk said...

he (almost) invariably speaks and writes manifest common sense.

Does that include what he said about Liverpool? Well, he did apologise, after being told to.

16 July 2007 at 13:45  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Kirk,

His Grace did say 'almost'.

Miss Jelly Bean,

His Grace is delighted to hear that Mr Voyager has been the cause of your enlightenment. Now all you need to work on are patience and humility.

16 July 2007 at 13:48  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

I see that you take great delight in criticising and downgrading my character.

I think you mistook me when I 'asked' you for your opinion. It was merely a request, not a demand.

Would you have preferred me to have added 'please'?

How about 'pretty please with a cherry on top'?

16 July 2007 at 14:28  
Anonymous John Fisher said...

"excise from London that odious specimen of humanity"

Rather intemperate language for a man of God Cranmer! Almost fascistic some would say ...

This sort of abuse really doesn't become you.

And another thing: does Mr Johnson's personal conduct not worry you at all - considering your previous post on the Sanctity of Marriage?

16 July 2007 at 15:29  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr John Fisher,

Mr Johnson is Roman Catholic. His errant conduct is subject to the rules and regulations of absolution. Although his personal conduct does not diminish his political skills.

Yet His Grace is more concerned by your defence of Mr Livingstone. His Grace might think that the personal and professional conduct of that man might cause you to reconsider your advocacy on his behalf.

16 July 2007 at 15:48  
Anonymous John Fisher said...

Cranmer,

I'm certainly not defending Livingstone, or indeed his politics, but I do think churchmen should avoid getting as carried away as you sometimes do.


I note your admiration of his "political skills" rather than his political principles - on those grounds one could just as well vote for Livingstone!

16 July 2007 at 16:45  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Fisher,

Then that is divergence between us. His Grace wishes that churchmen would get rather more carried away than they are wont. And, of course, there was no suggestion that 'political skills' alone are of merit. To remove that phrase from the entire context is somewhat misrepresentative.

16 July 2007 at 17:19  
Anonymous m.d. said...

What does it matter if Cranmer meant that Islam is "rotten" Jellybean, or is Cranmer not allowed to give an opinion? He is only using the kind of rights which you yourself ride the wave of until it contradicts your own beliefs. Perhaps you should re-think the self-imposed position of Islamic policewoman (ironically a position which would be vehemently unavailable to you as a woman in the real world) and accept that Islam isn't going to be pandered to on a Christian blog! Islam sucks, there I said it. Now I fear for my life. Well done Islam. I think you need to question the integrity and validity of a religion which claims to be peaceful, when upon criticising it, you run the risk of being killed.

16 July 2007 at 17:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

but I do think churchmen should avoid getting as carried away as you sometimes do.

Yes, you were most unwise to confide in Richard Rich....

16 July 2007 at 17:48  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

Firstly, I never accused cranmer of calling Islam rotten. Even if he had, I don't plan on issuing a fatwa against him. He has the right to express whatever opinion he wishes to do so.

Secondly, it's very strange of you to state "is Cranmer not allowed to give an opinion?" when I've explicitly stated that I want to know his opinion and understanding of the term Islamism.

"Islam sucks, there I said it."

Three cheers for m.d! He's now acomplished his long life mission.


By the way Cranmer, I'm still waiting...patiently....

16 July 2007 at 19:10  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace, I know you are mysterious and only ever give us the pleasure of your company now and then, making you all the more intriguing.

But poor Miss Jelly Bean did ask nicely if you would explain what you understand to be Islamism. Please, would you consider indulging her... just this once?

To defend the evil Ken, he does have a good heart I think. He is just sometimes blinded by leftist views. But what of his defence of speaking to Qaradawi? His defence is that when you are at a standstill with an opposing group, one must find leaders amongst the opposition who are most accommodating to one's position and talk with them. Is there not some truth in that? Or perhaps not. I am undecided myself.

16 July 2007 at 19:40  
Anonymous Catholicus said...

Agree with your Grace - BJ is a great choice to see off Red Ken. Didn't know he was a fellow RC (Are you sure?). [Digression: Of course the very term 'RC' is an Anglican smear against us, trying to imply that we are idolaters of a foreign power. We are simply Catholics, members of the universal Church whose HQ happens to be in Rome. Digression ends]

I like the way Yr Grace implicitly obliquely absolves Mr Johnson from his sins!

But just want to say when I posted recently I came up as 'Anonymous' again, although I want to appear as 'Catholicus'. Used 'Google blogger'. Hope you can fix it for me and change 'Anonymous' to 'Catholicus' above my posts.

PS Would also be most honoured if Yr Grace wd deign to read my belated posting - sent on July 11 but not picked up until today - on the Pope's 'theological terrorism'.

16 July 2007 at 20:21  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Catholicus,

Your name appears to be fine. You are most welcome and now recognised as Catholicus.

His Grace is quite sure Mr Johnson is of RC stock. It would be somewhat of a relief to be able to stop referring to papists as the oxymoronic Roman Catholics, but the latest pronouncement by His Holiness, with the inference that Anglicans have no right to declare their belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, rather inclines His Grace to emphasise the point.

His Grace is now merely an 'ecclesial community' - not even a church - and this he considers to be a 'smear' (since you use the term) against Protestants worldwide.

Ms Snuffleupagus,

If Miss Jelly Bean had asked nicely, she would have received a response. By using such phrases as 'would you be so kind as to elaborate', and the rather pointed 'I had specifically asked Cranmer to elaborate' inclines one to suspect a certain insistence and a presumption of superiority. And this was followed by evident sarcasm.

But since you enquire, one only has to observe the odious professing 'leaders' of Islam who arrive in London as VIP guests of Mr Livingstone, to understand what His Grace means by Islamism.

16 July 2007 at 20:39  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

"a certain insistence and a presumption of superiority."

I presumed no such thing. I was quite honestly intrigued as to know what you might define Islamism to be. I regret that I have offended you with my 'evident sarcasm'. It was unintentional.

16 July 2007 at 21:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

To defend the evil Ken, he does have a good heart I think.

I very much doubt that and you think he has a good heart is a peculiarly mixed metaphor. Livingstone is a cold, calculating politician whose career progressed from lb technician to demagogue by knifing people in the back - he is wholly self-interested and self-absorbed.


We are simply Catholics, members of the universal Church whose HQ happens to be in Rome.

I do so prefer Protestantism where there is a role for God and none for Rome

16 July 2007 at 21:40  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

If Boris was in the Bible, it would be the bit called the "Apocrypha".

We all believe in Boris, as a sort of benign intellectual conspiracy. Real life may intervene at some point, so please beware.

Elsewhere, I have gone on record as vowing to publicly eat my nipples if Boris wins, becomes the Mayor of London and lasts a year.

The last thing London needs is a personality, so how about Michael Gove? He seems a decent enough chap.

16 July 2007 at 22:08  
Anonymous John Fisher said...

Cranmer,

I think we're still at cross-purposes: I mean to say your descriptions of politicians can get rather lurid and personal when you don't agree with their policies. I recall a recent bitter character attack on our erstwhile PM.

But I'm glad you get carried away about politics in general - I read your musings every day.

16 July 2007 at 22:18  
Anonymous billy said...

Peter Kirk said...
he (almost) invariably speaks and writes manifest common sense.

Does that include what he said about Liverpool? Well, he did apologise, after being told to.

1:45 PM

He was told to apologise; it did't make him wrong.

16 July 2007 at 22:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If Boris was in the Bible, it would be the bit called the "Apocrypha".

Qu'est-ce que c'est que ça?

Que veut dire ?

16 July 2007 at 22:41  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

If I lived in London and so had a vote, I'd vote for anyone who had a chance of ensuring I never again had to listen to that snivelling whiney nasal drone.

I despise him.

16 July 2007 at 23:12  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace, thank you.

Miss Jelly Bean, His Grace is gracious to have replied. I know you do not mean to offend, and you speak to His Grace as you would any of your friends. But I think it might be wise to think of His Grace as someone who is older than you, and alter your speech accordingly.

Voyager, I am not sure that Ken is self-interested and self-absorbed. His congestion charge suggests he is a man who is on a bit of crusade for what he believes to be right. His love affair with Islam again suggests the same thing. His hiring of Lee Jasper and his continual support for everything Diane Abbott does, again suggests he enjoys taking the side of those he considers to be the underdog. He is blinded by leftist ideology and believes there is always a good guy and a bad guy and naively thinks the so-called down-trodden to be good. Israel is in the position of power so it must be bad. Black boys are failing at school, so teachers must be doing something wrong. And so on.

He is simply uncritical in his thinking, a little stupid and conventional. I don't think he is calculated. If he were calculated, he wouldn't get drunk and get into fights. He is too careless for calculation.

16 July 2007 at 23:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Islam is an evil, violent, nightmare of a religion.

2) Boris is just another posh buffoon with no real chance of success in the Mayoral election.

3) Livingstone is the worst of all possible worlds as well as an unreformed antisemite of the first order.

4) Us Londoners deserve better than both Boris or Ken and also deserve to be free of the constant threat of Islam and its' self exploding, adherants.

17 July 2007 at 00:50  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

At first, I wasn't that keen on a seemingly 'upper-class buffoon' standing for Lord Mayor of London. But, as it seems that he has already got the Left well and truly rattled by Monday evening, I say ...Go Boris, go on my son.

You are absolutely spot on Your Grace, when you compare Boris with Diana. For all his faults, he has the potential to be both loved and admired, as well as having the proclivity for speaking 'common sense'.

17 July 2007 at 01:56  
Anonymous Steven_L said...

George W is free next year, now he'd sort London out! GW rocks!

17 July 2007 at 02:21  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Probably ...so will Robert Mugabe, but I think we'll pass on that one.

17 July 2007 at 02:37  
Anonymous Voyager said...

His congestion charge suggests he is a man who is on a bit of crusade for what he believes to be right.

It is not his congestion charge. It was the only means of finance given to the Mayor of London in the legislation creating the GLA....in short the only tax-raising power permitted.....when logic suggests London needs a City Income Tax and a City Hotel Room Tax.

London has far lower levels of car ownership for obvious reasons, but people drive for security as much as anything with public transport being more dirty and more dangerous

17 July 2007 at 06:04  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager-
Ken is always talking about the environment and supporting schemes to help improve it. Are you suggesting that all his rants about it (including everything he says about the congestion charge) are purely an invention in order to scam money off Londoners?

I'm not saying he is right. But he does BELIEVE in something, namely the environment, the evildoing of Israel, the championing of the working class and immigrants etc.

London's transport system also costs a fortune and it forces you to risk your life. No doubt Ken feels he is making it safer by meeting with all those VIP guests.

An electric bicycle is my suggestion.

17 July 2007 at 07:23  
Anonymous Voyager said...

But he does BELIEVE in something, namely the environment, the evildoing of Israel, the championing of the working class and immigrants etc.

The word you have capitalised is the one that is inappropriate in this context

17 July 2007 at 10:47  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Boris is a left-footer; well you learn something new every day. It still doesn’t endear him to me; apart from his obvious charm he seems to blunder from one cock-up to the next and is more a figure of fun than an intellectual force to be reckoned with. Still, left-footer, who’d have thought?

17 July 2007 at 12:24  
Anonymous sunscreen said...

You used the word 'mojo'. I don't think you're supposed to do that.

17 July 2007 at 17:29  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager - Why inappropriate? In capitals because I can't figure out how to italicise in the comment box.

17 July 2007 at 22:23  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager - Why inappropriate? In capitals because I can't figure out how to italicise in the comment box.

17 July 2007 at 22:23  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Inappropriate because Livingstone "believes" in nothing - he is a neurotic self-obsessed charlatan

18 July 2007 at 07:31  
Blogger Newmania said...

Well said Voyager . I shall be lending my supprt to the swelling ranks of Borisians

18 July 2007 at 14:59  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager - You must argue your case, not just state it. I am happy to be convinced but you have not said anything to persuade me.

18 July 2007 at 23:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

but you have not said anything to persuade me.

I have no interest in doing so. There is no benefit to me in persuading you of anything, and it is presumptuous of you to think I submit evidence for your adjudication. I trust alighting from your high horse will not be injurious to your self-regard

19 July 2007 at 10:11  
Blogger Hierophant said...

Having had the pleasure of sitting at the same table as Boris at a dinner a couple of years ago, I can assure Your Grace that he is a man of considerable intellect with sound political principles, which he protects from the common gaze with the affection of a buffoon.

As an aside, I should record that I have also met his father, and that the father is considerably more bonkers than the son.

I remain your humble and obedient servant etc...

19 July 2007 at 17:44  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

OK Voyager. Just trying to engage you in conversation. The benefit is always entirely personal when building a persuasive argument. Any evidence provided would not be just for me but for anyone reading this blog.

There is also a personal gain when one demonstrates good manners. You might try it out one day.

19 July 2007 at 23:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older