Based on their performance in their respective offices - do you think that Boris Johnson would make a better PM than David Cameron?

[sp1814]

Sorry if the question seems a but 'Londoncentric'.

Curious to hear how these two are perceived by Tory and non-Tory supporters.

[Canary42]

Let's face it, anyone would be a better PM than Dave "we're all in it together" Cameron. At least Boris gives the appearance of being in touch.

[jno]

this is just the controversies Boris has been involved in

http://en.wikipedia.o...Johnson#Controversies

Can't seriously see him representing Britain to the world; foreign leaders wouldn't be able to trust him as far as they could spit him.

[FredPuli43]

None of those 'controversies' amount to much. If that's the best his enemies can do, there's not much to worry about. Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson.

Not sure who David Cameron is. Johnson has some charisma and is something of an iconoclast, which makes a change from the usual run of candidates or Tory leaders.

[MoonRocker]

Any PM can only be as good as their majority or lack of it allows so we don't really have any common reference points for comparison. For what it's worth though I would prefer Boris.

[jno]

matter of trust, FredPuli. Londoners regard him as a scamp. On a world stage I suspect he'd rank somewhere down there with Berlusconi: only to be taken seriously with a great effort of will.

[Ric.ror]

It would really be funny if it wasn't all so tragic

[askyourgran]

Boris is no fool, but he is too much of a loose cannon to take over as PM. I have to admit Cameron is way down in my estimation, there seems to be a lack of decent candidates for both parties imho.

[modeller]

I don't think you can equate running a country with running a city. Boris is a maverick and is prepared to have a go with new ideas. Londoner re-elected him so I assume he must be getting most things right. However he is not a team player and a PM has to be able to carry his party with him.
I wonder if we ask the opposite question ' Could Cameron run London ?'
I don't think so . A mayor needs charisma and a more common touch. Cameron lacks both.

[jno]

modeller, while I think you're correct, the French have form: Chirac was mayor of Paris, Sarkozy mayor of Neuilly, Hollande mayor of Tulle. The admin experienced involved may be useful in trying to run a country.

[Quizmonster]

Twice in recent weeks we have heard the exculpatory "X is X" statement by Tories about Tories. "Nadine is Nadine" supposedly excused the maverick MP, Dorries, for her comments an the "posh boys" etc. Now, above, we get the "Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson" version.
I mention this solely because, when Tony Blair said, "John is John", re Mr Prescott's behaviour, Tories tried to laugh the statement to scorn as a complete failure to understand the truth about the matter complained of.
Why the difference?
(Fred, I base my belief in your political sympathies solely on the basis of things you have actually written here on AnswerBank.)

[FredPuli43]

And Churchill was Churchill, QM. A man who wouldn't toe the party line, got political exile and who 'liked a drink'. And not always remembered for his diplomacy. The point of the exculpatory remark is that the other qualities of the man make him suited to the job, and , moreover, the people know what they are getting. "Not sure who Cameron is" is antithetical.

I voted for Ken Livingstone, though not when he was standing against Johnson. Not sure how this fits in with your conclusions about my political affiliiation.

[emmie]

Not sure he would right now, but i reckon there is a lot more to Boris than Cameron, personality and charisma, which he has in abundance, than Dave who seems as humourless as it's possible to be. But we don't elect politicians because they are funny, but someone who will do what it takes to get the country on it's feet. It hasn't happened, but suggest that with the shackle that is Nick Clegg, who seems even less funny than Cameron, would be taken off, then perhaps Cameron could get on with the job in hand. It might be Londoncentric, but as it happens it's where most of the money comes in, either via the City, or indeed where foreign investors flock to.

[Quizmonster]

And there's another thing that amuses me about people with right-wing sympathies...the notion that Clegg is a "shackle". They seem not to have grasped that, if it were not specifically FOR Clegg, the Tories wouldn't be in a position to do anything at all. The date must surely be coming up soon that marks when Cameron will have been an unelected Prime Minister for longer than Gordon Brown! He may well already have passed John Major's stint in that role.

(My apologies, Fred, if I have misjudged your views. However, over the years, I cannot recall ever having seen anything from you favourable to Labour.)

[sp1814]

I'm not a Tory voter, but I am (and always have been) a Londoner. My impression of Boris is that he's a harmless, slightly batty maverick...but that might just be great PR.

Whether he has the chops to run a country, or more importantly, whether he has the 'detail eye' to control a party...I don't know.

He'd make a very capable party whip though.

[modeller]

jno # the French have form: Chirac was mayor of Paris, Sarkozy mayor of Neuilly, Hollande mayor of Tulle.#

I don't know much about the French system but I think all these persons were presidents not prime ministers. France has a president plus a separate head of government so the president can be independent more like a mayor. France also has all their departments and regions which over which mayors have far greater control so I imaginea French mayor would have far more experience when it came to running the country.

[youngmafbog]

However the Tories got there Clegg is still a shakle, how can you say otherwise. The fact they would not be in power wirthout them is irrelevant to that particular argument.

As for saying something favourable about Labour, well I think
....

still thinkning

.....

still thinking

Nope, give up,can't think of anything to say faourable about labour.

[Quizmonster]

You give up too easily, Youngmafbog. Think on! I could link you to various web-pages that reveal masses of Labour achievements, but I won't bother for obvious reasons. Have you ever been ill, for example? Right...which party created the NHS? (And you might care to consider which party is in the process of wrecking it!)
Cameron surely knew that he would have to temper the worst excesses of his Toryism when he created the coalition. It's a weird form of thinking...ie yours...in which it is possible to consider the very thing that got his chosen leader into position as a stumbling-block!

[emmie]

The NHS is a leviathan that needs major pruning.
Labour then is not Labour now. Had Blair been in power in the 1940's he would be considered a Tory, with his credentials and ideas.
The Labour party of old, the one that had fire and guts has long gone.
Clegg is a leg iron, i would rather Cameron lost last time out the blocks than formed this half baked u turns coalition.

[emmie]

if you think that the Tories have started privatising the NHS think again.
When Labour were in power, at least three of our local surgeries were sold to an American health care company. Who incidentally have now gone and sold one of those surgeries on, whilst the other two are waiting to hear what their fate.
The tenders for those surgeries went to the private American Health care company because they were thought secure by the PCT, even though the various groups of GP's who had run these respective surgeries put in better and less costly bids. Now it's coming home to roost as patients have been turfed out, so this was the responsibility of New Labour, not the people currently in power.
That is a small snapshot of what has been happening across our borough.

[bazwillrun]

Labour have done more damage to the NHS than the Torys could even dream about.