I read that the probable Tory candidate for Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has had his bid for election "spurned" by black MPs. Well, that's what the headline at al-Beeb ("Black MPs spurn Boris mayoral bid") says. What they mysteriously omit to mention until the second paragraph of the article is that the two black MPs who have attacked Johnson, Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler, are both from the Labour Party. Indeed, not only that, but they are both from the party's far-left fringe. And I would hardly say that for a Tory to find two Labour MPs to be opposed to his campaign constitutes "spurning". Nor, indeed, can I see that two far-left nutters represent "black MPs" collectively, as the BBC headline implies. Looks like yet another little example of BBC bias to me.
But, if one looks past the BBC's misleading headline, to the claims made by Abbott and Butler, then, well, one rather wishes one had stuck at the headline. Because the whole basis of their objection is the usual song-and-dance about "racism". That's right, Boris Johnson is, in essence, a veritable goose-stepping Nazi, just biding his time before unleashing a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Brixton (I mean, a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Brixton other than the one directed against the borough's white populace, which is ongoing). And what is the basis of this revelation? Well, Johnson once used the word "piccaninnies" in an article in 2002.
Well, so what? Until I saw that Abbott and Butler had kicked up a fuss about it, I had no idea that "piccaninnies" was even deemed offensive. And, frankly, it doesn't upset me that Boris Johnson has used the term, and it wouldn't make me any more or less likely to vote for him. But if anyone is so offended by the word, that they feel that they'd rather keep Ken Livingstone in power, then let them vote for him. That's what we call democracy, something that Abbott and Butler, both supporters of the Venezuelan dictator Chavez, may not know very much about.
I would also point out, that Livingstone's own conduct on racial matters has hardly been exemplary. Aside from accusing a Jewish journalist of being equivalent to a concentration camp guard, he has also literally embraced the terrorist-supporting Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. If Abbott and Butler were really interested in having a mayor who represented the people of London then they wouldn't be supporting such a man.
But of course, all they're really engaging in when they criticise Boris Johnson is party-political sniping, using their status as designated victims in an attempt to invest their attacks with a moral force that they would otherwise lack.
Personally, I am not great fan of Boris Johnson. I find his politics rather wet, albeit better than those of his friend David Cameron, and the buffoonish character he adopts irritates me, although he was good on Have I Got News For You. But, should I be living in London when the election comes round, then he will certainly have my second preference vote. Even a friend of Cameron's is a significant improvement on Red Ken.
In related mayoral news, I note that Brian Paddick has come out (boom boom) and professed a desire to come a poor third in the election (or, as he put it, to be the Lib Dem candidate). Paddick, it will be recalled, was the most senior homosexual police officer in the country, until he left the Met after falling out with his boss. Now he's working on a book about his experiences as a poor oppressed victim in the institutionally evil police force. Perhaps he could have Ali Dizaei as his running-mate...