Go, Boris!

"An investigation by UK magazine The Architect's Journal found that Heatherwick was present for at least five meetings with London's mayor Boris Johnson or deputy mayors prior to the contest. The AJ also claimed that a manager for government body Transport for London (TfL) had reported irregularities in the design competition.

"It's now abundantly clear that the design competition that Transport for London held in early 2013 was nothing of the sort," AJ deputy editor Will Hurst told Dezeen.

"Every scrap of evidence that has emerged suggests that mayor Boris Johnson – who is also the chair of TfL – had already decided on designer Thomas Heatherwick because of prior lobbying by Garden Bridge champion Joanna Lumley," he added. "It is an alarming thought that a major design contest, especially one funded by the public purse, could be so manipulated and distorted by political pressure." "

People in the North East went to prison for similar favouritism in the 1970s or 80s. This does not make Boris a good person. It also does not make him suitable to take over from Cameron as PM.

he didn't hide the reports very well, if you know about it Djen

Which is the predominant question, POGS?
Bags premise is that politicians can be good people even if you do not agree with their politics. I disagree with that. I do not believe that Boris can be a good person. He was a pretty poor mayor of London, buffoonery even in the council meetings. He hid reports on air quality and how it affected schools in poor districts, and gave big contracts to his friends. That is not being good. That is illegal, and should go to court.

Political leaders cannot and should not be separated from our opinion as to whether they are good people or not.

Everything they do both at a personal level and political level has consequences.

They can of course be a brilliant parent, or friend but if their political policies give misery or death to many, either domestically or internationally I cannot separate the two. Ideally of course a political leader is good at all levels.

Don't let him near any lady bunnies- not with his reputation!!!!

The rabbit we are adopting from the RSPCA, is called Boris. He is large and also likeable!
DH has made him a large run for the garden, and hung "No.10" on it, as we're sure that's where he'll like to be.

on the Andrew Marr Show last week John Major said that Boris was very likeable indeed.Some people just are, regardless of the fact that you agree/disagree with anything they say.

Yup!

thatbags

I just find it predictable that the predominant question in your OP isn't being answered .

It's pure bloody irony bags. .

I'm sure no other politician gets advice in how to present themself, dj [sarc emoji]

He was 'good enough' to be elected as mayor for a second time. He must have something that appeals to voters and I don't have such a low opinion of most voters that I think it's only his buffoonery that appealed.

pogs,

He wasn't that good as Mayor of London, lots of his ideas have been vanity projects and he has completely messed up the roads in some area. He is skilful at avoiding answering questions with a straight answer, he often just bluffs / jokes his was out of awkward situations. I agree he has a a good sense of humour, but then so have lots of people, doesn't make them good politicians.

I rest my case that bags.

I have mentioned this comment before and I can't remember which two well known women it was between so I will make up a similar rhetoric between friends , let's say Hilary Clinton and Theresa May for the purpose of political opposites.

Theresa " I wish all Democrats were like you Hilary"

Hilary "That's because I'm the only Democrat you take the trouble to speak to Theresa".?


Hilary

Well that is rubbish (no disrespect to you Tegan, not shooting the messenger!)
Like him or not, Johnson is a consummate politician to his fingertips . After all, he ran one of the major cities in the world for the last 8 years. He is every bit as much of a politician as for instance the Mayor of New York or any other major city and a heck of a lot more experienced than most! Of course many Tories don't like him, he has a better mind than the county grandees and is not afraid to speak it.
Decades ago, a significant proportion of the Tory die-hards didn't trust or like Winston Churchill. How wrong they were.

The Conservative Party People [sound like a pop group don't they] that I spoke to yesterday said the trouble with both Boris and Gove is that they're just journalists not politicians [they probably worded it better than that] and had no time for either of them. Me and the local Tory Party; 'besties'#who'd'v'thoughtit [although I did manage to slip in a 'come the revolution' comment which didn't go down too well ]..

Ambition is fine thatbags, it's what you do to achieve that ambition that matters. My feeling about Boris Johnson (and he is by no means the only one but this is who we are discussing) is that he is willing to say or do almost anything to achieve his ambition. Consequently he is not a politician I would wish to depend on.

Yes, I've read the whole of the article. I see it as Boris trying to show he can be serious, despite his past proving otherwise.
What I also noticed from the article is that the author was giving Johnson advice on how to present himself, so hardly dispassionate, then.

In the introduction to his biography of Churchill, Boris Johnson says this
Character is destiny, said the Greeks, and I agree. If that is so, then the deeper and most fascinating question is what makes up the character
He was talking about Churchill, of course, but the same applies equally to Johnson himself.
I heard him speak 2 years ago at Althorp Literary Festival and he was of course highly entertaining. What was also apparent was that he is exceedingly bright, totally focused, and the "affable buffoon" exterior hides an incisive mind and a core of steel lacking IMHO in bioth Cameron and Osborne.

Did the criticisers read the article? Is Boris simply lying, in your view, about what motivates him politically, apart from ambition?

BTW, I'm presuming ambition in someone one approves of is allowable, though not in someone one disapproves of. Forgive me if that impression I've picked up is wrong.

as someone

I think the view that someone who doesn't live up to one's own judgmental standard of moral decency—with no let or leeway for human 'frailty'—is someone who cannot be called a good or a decent human being, that view, in my view, is not very decent or humane.

Does that mean that I cannot regard the persons expressing such a view as capable of decency or goodness, of being good guys in many ways? Fortunately for them, it doesn't mean that.

Wasn't Boris born in USA? - this means he could be the running mate of Trump!

I still cannot see Boris as a good guy. I see him as trying damage limitation, and wishing he had not said and done such silly things in the past, but never good.

The OP asks

"Are people you've often disagreed with politically still good people? Can they be seen as having good motives even when you disagree with their politics?"

I would hope so and I would hope that most rational people could feel that way too.

It is very difficult to leave behind your knowledge of a politician and talk about his/her personality away from the political arena. I think you can only go on an instinct/gut feeling as to your perception of another human being and for the most part we, the people, can only ever get to see our politicians through the media, which has an opportunity to
try and mould an image of our politicians according to it's particular persuasion/political entrenchment .

As for the media entrenchment it has to be accepted that if you only read a newspaper you believe wholeheartedly gives you the only truthful information you need, only agree with the t.v programs that suit your own political view then you become somewhat brain washed albeit voluntarily. Likewise any voter that states they would never vote for any other party, engages heavily in activism to my mind will not 'for the most part' shift away from taking the obliged party line. You see and hear that in interviews or comments from the latter group as there is often a mantra, a repeat of the exact same words, the sound bite, propaganda. The definition of 'Spin' after all is ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.

It is very hard to look past all these vested interest groups/parties but I think most people have woken up a bit to the 'subliminal' message they try to bombard us with and do accept that behind every politician there is a human being. If anybody thinks one party is saintlier than another, one party has more humorous characters than another, one party has kinder souls than another , one party is devoid of having it's good, the bad and the ugly then they are deluding themselves.

There has to be a dividing line for our politicians between their political persuasion and their personality away from the job. Yes I can disagree with someone's political view but still think they he/she is a good person. Likewise I believe a politician can have good motives even if I don't agree with them. If I didn't then I would be a tad worried about my own sanity.