Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Boris to make a bid for the leadership"
Awww, ad-hominem when asked for evidence to backup a subjective opinion that was called out - my heart bleeds
I don't believe many of our PMs have truly been 'PM material' - but perhaps you could list a few qualities you think essential and then, list a few people who hold such qualities that you'd like in said position?
Still, given your prior responses when asked for evidence, I won't hold my breath
Does yer mum know you've got hold of her PC, you virginal geek?
No one as tedious as you could possibly have got laid
Feck me, not only a cretin, but a tedious one with it.
If you think Boris is PM material you need your head examined.
Awww, ad-hominem when asked for evidence to backup a subjective opinion that was called out - my heart bleeds
I don't believe many of our PMs have truly been 'PM material' - but perhaps you could list a few qualities you think essential and then, list a few people who hold such qualities that you'd like in said position?
Still, given your prior responses when asked for evidence, I won't hold my breath
No. St. Georges was bad enough, but what's happening in the Nine Elms area /close to the new Sainsbury's supermarket is much, much worse. Of course towers are the way forward
No. St. Georges was bad enough, but what's happening in the Nine Elms area /close to the new Sainsbury's supermarket is much, much worse.
Of course towers are the way forward, but these are really cheap and nasty, jerry-rigged and horrible looking.
All built under the tosser's watch.
Or see what's happening around Wembley Stadium - same sort of thing, nasty, horrible and cheaply built.
At least they bring down those nasty helicopter thingys.
Thank goodness the wharf is not going the same way.
Why should towers be the way forward? Who wants to live in one? Why not just say that only UK passport holders can buy UK property - and only one each.
"A final decision was made by the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in 2005 and the tower was approved, against the decision of the planning inspector and despite warnings from Prescott's own advisers that it “could set a precedent for the indiscriminate scattering of very tall buildings across London”.
Try again
Also, in large cities - you think towers are not going to become the new normal due to the population increasing in the area and in general?
No. St. Georges was bad enough, but what's happening in the Nine Elms area /close to the new Sainsbury's supermarket is much, much worse.
Of course towers are the way forward, but these are really cheap and nasty, jerry-rigged and horrible looking.
All built under the tosser's watch.
Or see what's happening around Wembley Stadium - same sort of thing, nasty, horrible and cheaply built.
Actually it didn't. The city has changed under his mayorship for the worse.
He allowed the development of cheaply built, inappropriate towers in areas that it didn't suit.
Walk around Vauxhall (one of many areas affected- but I was there this w/e so it sticks out) to see the damage he has wrought.
"A final decision was made by the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in 2005 and the tower was approved, against the decision of the planning inspector and despite warnings from Prescott's own advisers that it “could set a precedent for the indiscriminate scattering of very tall buildings across London”.
Try again
Also, in large cities - you think towers are not going to become the new normal due to the population increasing in the area and in general?
Actually it didn't. The city has changed under his mayorship for the worse.
He allowed the development of cheaply built, inappropriate towers in areas that it didn't suit.
Walk around Vauxhall (one of many areas affected- but I was there this w/e so it sticks out) to see the damage he has wrought.
He didn't have a choice.
The Communities secretary can overrule the Mayor of London. The MoL has very few powers.
One reason why Ken Livingstone was so hated is that he found good people in his teams that could find loopholes in national government policy to implement things.
London survived Boris, the UK will survive you - don't (actually do) let the door hit you on the way out!
Actually it didn't. The city has changed under his mayorship for the worse.
He allowed the development of cheaply built, inappropriate towers in areas that it didn't suit.
Walk around Vauxhall (one of many areas affected- but I was there this w/e so it sticks out) to see the damage he has wrought.
Leave a comment: