Boris for Mayor!

[Hawq]

Boris Johnson is to enter the race to be the Conservative candidate for London mayor in next year's election.

Mr Johnson, one of the best-known MPs, has confirmed that he wants to take on Labour's Ken Livingstone.

He said he had been "overwhelmed" by the support he had received. He has resigned as a shadow minister, but he is to remain MP for Henley.

Mr Johnson is likely to face a number of rivals to be Conservative candidate. The deadline for hopefuls was noon.

In a statement, Mr Johnson said: "I have been overwhelmed by the support I have received from so many people across London."

'Fresh ideas'

He added: "London is an outstandingly varied and beautiful place and it deserves a proper debate. I want to bring fresh ideas to the capital and offer a new direction for Londoners.

"I believe that the Mayor of London should keep things simple and direct his or her intellectual energy at the core problems that affect people's everyday lives."

If he is shortlisted as the Tory candidate, he said he would put forward detailed proposals later in the summer.

"Even the greatest cities have further greatness in them. I will stand for a greater London and for putting the smile back on London's face," said Mr Johnson.

The confirmation brings to an end a long search by the Conservatives for a big name candidate with a realistic chance of beating Ken Livingstone.

'Electric' contest

But Tory MP Ed Vaizey,who is close to Mr Johnson and Mr Cameron, said a contest between Mr Johnson and Mr Livingstone would be "electric" and would boost voter turnout.

"Boris finds it quite hard to resist a challenge and I think taking on Ken would be the kind of 'big beast' challenge that would be very attractive to Boris," he told the BBC.

The deadline to apply to be the Conservative mayoral candidate is noon, but the party says it will not name candidates yet - it will be up to them to promote themselves.

They will be considered by a committee who will put forward about ten candidates for interview by an electoral college of London Conservatives this weekend.

A shortlist will be drawn up of between two and five candidates to go forward to an "open primary" of all London voters, closing on 26 September.

The winner is likely to be announced at the end of September.

Mr Johnson had been shadow higher education minister before launching his mayoral bid, and was previously editor of the Spectator magazine.

He has been a frequent guest on television shows such as Have I Got News for You, and has come under fire in Liverpool and Portsmouth for critical comments he made about the cities.

source if I lived in London I'd vote Boris for mayor, hell I hope he wins it just for the laughs it may provide

[Sir Savant]

What is a Shadow Minister?

[az_bont]

What is a Shadow Minister?

In the UK, and other countries with Westminster-style governments, a Minister is equivalent to a Secretary for a Executive Department (e.g. United States Secretary of Defense).

The Leader of the Opposition, which is the leader of the party with the second-highest number of votes (currently David Cameron, Conservative Party), will also create their own Shadow Ministers, which mirror the positions of the ones who form part of the serving government.

If you're interested, Boris Johnson was the Shadow Minister for Higher Education.

I think this may be where our two political systems differ quite considerably--every member of the Cabinet (and therefore Shadow Cabinet) is an elected Member of Parliament. Personally, I think this makes a lot more sense, at least from the point of view of it being more democratic.

Of course, we also have an unelected upper house, including some people who simply inherited the position from a long line of ancestors stretching back more than 700 years, so, you know--swings and roundabouts, and all that.

[DaMadFiddler]

What is a Shadow Minister?

That's what happens when a Minister (of any sort) abuses the power of the Triforce, and is trapped in spirit form between the Light and Dark Worlds.

[not just souLLy now]

What is a Shadow Minister?

That's what happens when a Minister (of any sort) abuses the power of the Triforce, and is trapped in spirit form between the Light and Dark Worlds.

And you said the joke in null was the nerdiest thing ever...

[Sir Savant]

What is a Shadow Minister?

In the UK, and other countries with Westminster-style governments, a Minister is equivalent to a Secretary for a Executive Department (e.g. United States Secretary of Defense).

The Leader of the Opposition, which is the leader of the party with the second-highest number of votes (currently David Cameron, Conservative Party), will also create their own Shadow Ministers, which mirror the positions of the ones who form part of the serving government.

If you're interested, Boris Johnson was the Shadow Minister for Higher Education.

I think this may be where our two political systems differ quite considerably--every member of the Cabinet (and therefore Shadow Cabinet) is an elected Member of Parliament. Personally, I think this makes a lot more sense, at least from the point of view of it being more democratic.

Of course, we also have an unelected upper house, including some people who simply inherited the position from a long line of ancestors stretching back more than 700 years, so, you know--swings and roundabouts, and all that.

Weren't they phasing out the Unelected House of Lords? Or is that the House of Commons? As in the positions are no longer hereditary.

[az_bont]

Weren't they phasing out the Unelected House of Lords? Or is that the House of Commons? As in the positions are no longer hereditary.

The House of Commons is the elected lower house, and the House of Lords the unelected upper house, though it is now very much the case that the House of Commons is the more powerful of the two, as they have long had the power to force legislation through the House of Lords by having two separate votes a year apart. This has been used to enact legislation unpopular with the Lords (such as harmonising age of consent for homosexuals and banning fox hunting). This power has only ever been used seven times, although there have been a few cases where the threat of it being invoked have caused the Lords to pass legislation they had previously rejected.

They've wittled down the number of hereditary peers to 92, out of a total of 731, by getting all the ones that were there to vote amongst themselves for whoever should remain. This was always intended as a temporary measure, with the eventual plan to scrap hereditary peers completely. This, however, was only a part of the widescale reforms still to come. The problem is that nobody has any idea where to go from there. In March, the Commons voted (in principle) in favour of either an entirely elected upper house, or 80% elected and 20% appointed.

There has previously been talk of abolishing it altogether, and still a sizeable portion who want it to remain entirely appointed, which I would be inclined to agree with. There seems little point in voting twice, when all that will happen is that the vast majority of the population will vote for the same party as they did for the House of Commons. The nature in which they are appointed also means that they are less likely to buckle under the pressure of the tabloids, are generally professionals in their fields who can better scrutinise proposed legislation, and more recently, they seem to be much less willing to sacrifice long-treasured civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. I've heard a few Americans state that they are happiest when the two chambers of Congress are not controlled by the same party, as one acts as a check on the powers of the other--with things as they are now, that will always be the case in the UK.

[Roofus]

more recently, they seem to be much less willing to sacrifice long-treasured civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

I realize that there aren't many terrorist attacks over there, but surely even you Brits are aware of 9/11.

[Hawq]

Not as many as in the old IRA days but we have some, unfortunately the last PM saddled us with 'human rights' laws & guidelines which helps to keep the measures we need to fight terrorists tucked away in a closest somewhere where noone can use them. Just look at any possible civil liberties loss needed as a loss of 'human rights' (for either us/our officials or the terrorists) and theres no chance of it ever happening the way things stand at the moment.