Greens urge second pref for Livingstone

[nino_savatte]

excuse me? i am NOT supporting Boris 'the toff' Johnson in any way at all thank you, for the reasons you state!

The implication is that someone else will do "more for w/c people" than Ken. You don't make yourself clear at the best of times, durutti.

So which candidate will do "more" for w/c people?

 

[nino_savatte]

Paddick maybe (though I tink Vince Cable would be a better choice), Johnson no.

He's Lib Dem, since when have the Lib Dems represented w/c interests?

 

[Meltingpot]

Since 1906 and the genesis of the welfare state.

 

[nino_savatte]

Since 1906 and the genesis of the welfare state.

Er, no, you're referring to the Labour Representation Committee which broke away from the Liberals and became the Labour Party. This Liberal Party merged with the Social Democrats (formed by Labour dissidents in the early 80's) in the late 80's to create the Lib Dems (under Paddy Pantsdown). So, in my mind, the Lib Dems do not have the interests of the w/c at heart because they are a capitalist party who support free trade. Of course so are New Labour too.

 

[articul8]

I'm supporting him by not voting for him?

tacitly - by not backing the only candidate who could stop him

Johnson has also said that he doesn't want the extensions in planning powers Ken wants, which I have to say if appealing to me.

The reason Ken want additional planning powers is to make sure that the affordable homes we are lacking currently actually get built, without NIMBY councils like Wandsworth saying "no thanks, we only want luxury pads".

This is a good thing, no?

 

[durruti02]

The implication is that someone else will do "more for w/c people" than Ken. You don't make yourself clear at the best of times, durutti.

So which candidate will do "more" for w/c people?

apologies if i was unclear .. tbh i think that was your assumption but it is not important

so .. i would vote for none of them .. if i voted ( and politically i believe it is more important to organise than vote) and the iwca were standing i would vote for them ...

 

[nino_savatte]

none of the above .. if i voted ( and politically i believe it is more important to organise than vote) and the iwca were standing i would vote for them ...

So why aren't the IWCA standing a candidate?

You hate Livingstone but would you rather see Johnson in his stead?

 

[butchersapron]

Er, no, you're referring to the Labour Representation Committee which broke away from the Liberals and became the Labour Party. The previous Liberal Party merged with the Social Democrats (formed by Labour dissidents in the early 80's) in the late 80's to form the Lib Dems. So, in my mind, the Lib Dems do not have the interests of the w/c at heart because they are a capitalist party who support free trade. Of course so are New Labour too.

No, they're referring to the 1906 Liberal government which introduced some limited welfare provisions that are widely seen as laying the basis for the future welfare state (not by me though).

 

[nino_savatte]

apologies if i was unclear .. tbh i think that was your assumption but it is not important

so .. i would vote for none of them .. if i voted ( and politically i believe it is more important to organise than vote) and the iwca were standing i would vote for them ...

No, it wasn't "my assumption", you say something that could be taken any way and then you refuse to accept responsibility for it. That's a wee bit insincere, don't you think?

But the IWCA aren't standing a candidate. Why? The BNP are standing one.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, they're referring to the 1906 Liberal government which introduced some limited welfare provisions that are widely seen as laying the basis for the future welfare state (not by me though).

That may be the case but they didn't really represent w/c interests.

 

[durruti02]

So why aren't the IWCA standing a candidate?

You hate Livingstone but would you rather see Johnson in his stead?

i have no idea why iwca not standing

nino nino nino . i do NOT hate KL .. i think though he has become a right winger and do not support him .. i do not agree with the vote right to keep even righter out .. i take a bit of a anarcho view on it all ..

 

[butchersapron]

I haven't said that they did, i was merely pointing out that you were wrong and had misunderstood what meltingpot meant.

 

[nino_savatte]

I haven't said that they did, i was merely pointing out that you were wrong and had misunderstood what meltingpot meant.

I didn't "misunderstand" anything. The Liberal Party have not represented w/c interests in the years since. Have they? You're being somewhat disingenuous by saying that they are/were. Laying the basis for the welfare state isn't quite the same as actually representing the w/c - is it?

Just to add: the LRC broke away from the Liberals to form the Labour Party in 1906, taking with them those MPs who represented w/c interests.

 

[nino_savatte]

i have no idea why iwca not standing

nino nino nino . i do NOT hate KL .. i think though he has become a right winger and do not support him .. i do not agree with the vote right to keep even righter out .. i take a bit of a anarcho view on it all ..

I think you're confused tbh. In this post, you don't know whether you want a shit or a hair cut.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh good lord, off he goes

Meltingpot made a reference to the reforming 1906 Liberal government, you mistook this for the Labour party (and got your historical facts about this in a muddle as well). I point this out before you get yourself even more confused whilst also pointing out that i didn't think they ever had the intersts of the w/c at heart, and now you're pretending that you didn't get anything wrong and asking me why i think the liberals had w/c interests at heart. Astounding. Truly astounding.

 

[durruti02]

I think you're confused tbh. In this post, you don't know whether you want a shit or a hair cut.

just had a dump so i'm good there thank you though it is kind of you to think of my digestion .. my point is that i do not want a hiarcut in ANY of those barbers ..simple .. indeed i and others are trying to build new barbers while others just don't want to cut their hair at all man!

 

[nino_savatte]

just had a dump so i'm good there thank you though it is kind of you to think of my digestion .. my point is that i do not want a hiarcut in ANY of those barbers ..simple .. indeed i and others are trying to build new barbers while others just don't want to cut their hair at all man!

But if the IWCA opened a barber shop, you'd happily go along for a cut. Not very anarchistic though, is it? Voting, that is.

 

[butchersapron]

just had a dump so i'm good there thank you though it is kind of you to think of my digestion .. my point is that i do not want a hiarcut in ANY of those barbers ..simple .. indeed i and others are trying to build new barbers while others just don't want to cut their hair at all man!

But if you don't get a haircut in those barbers right this instant a man with a shaver will come round and cut EVERYONES HAIR OFF!!!!!

 

[nino_savatte]

Oh good lord, off he goes

Meltingpot made a reference to the reforming 1906 Liberal government, you mistook this for the Labour party (and got your historical facts about this in a muddle as well). I point this out before you get yourself even more confused whilst also pointing out that i didn't think they ever had the intersts of the w/c at heart, and now you're pretending that you didn't get anything wrong and asking me why i think the liberals had w/c interests at heart. Astounding. Truly astounding.

No one's confused, you're just not being very honest and we know why that is, don't we?

"Off he goes" could easily be used to describe you.

 

[durruti02]

But if you don't get a haircut in those barbers right this instant a man with a shaver will come round and cut EVERYONES HAIR OFF!!!!!

indeed

 

[articul8]

Just to add: the LRC broke away from the Liberals to form the Labour Party in 1906, taking with them those MPs who represented w/c interests.

Sorry Nino - this is simply wrong. The LRC was formed in 1900 and fought the Liberals in the 1906 GE. The LRC built its support primarily from groups which had already broken with the Liberals to fight the Taff Vale judgement (1901-) or groups which had never had any relation to the Liberals in the first place(like the SDF). The 1906 reforming Liberal government shifted to the left in part to meet the opposition of the nascent Labour challenge.

 

[scott_forester]

tacitly - by not backing the only candidate who could stop him

Right ... so yo're basically saying that Ken's campaign is run on the basis if you don't vote for for him you are basically backing Boris. I'm going to vote for the people I want to win end of. If Ken wants me to vote for him again he'll have to do a lot better than he is now.

The reason Ken want additional planning powers is to make sure that the affordable homes we are lacking currently actually get built, without NIMBY councils like Wandsworth saying "no thanks, we only want luxury pads".
This is a good thing, no?

Also removing my ability to effectively campaign against planning applications in my area that I disagree with. For example last year the people in my street sussesfully campaign against Croydon council pushing through a a planning application no one other than a developer and some councilors wanted. We could do this because if was pretty clear that at least two councillors wouldn't get back in next time if they let it get through.

By pushing taking the planning process out of the hands of the local elected representatives and centralising it behind a faceless bureaucracy benefits one group and one group only ... developers.

Policitians love centralising control and moving it away form the electorate and then complain people don't want to engage.

 

[articul8]

Right ... so yo're basically saying that Ken's campaign is run on the basis if you don't vote for for him you are basically backing Boris. I'm going to vote for the people I want to win end of. If Ken wants me to vote for him again he'll have to do a lot better than he is now.

I'm saying it is a contest in which there are two rounds - your 1st preference is down to you. If Ken is not your first choice vote for someone else you like better. But the second round is a straight choice. Boris's best chance of getting in is for people who vote for other centre/left parties to sit on their hands rather than give (critical and conditional) support to Ken in the 2nd round.

On the issue of planning I agree their should be a reasonable appeals process. But this shouldn't enable selfish middle class types - with greater ability to manipulate these processes - to block affordable housing developments in 'their' areas. London needs nurses, teachers, firefighters etc., and they need somewhere affordable to live. If central action is needed to deliver this, so be it- we used to be call it socialist planning

 

[cockneyrebel]

I point this out before you get yourself even more confused

Why patronise people like that? Why not just point out where they've got it wrong?

That's the trouble with the left, a lot of it totally patronises people all the time rather than trying to engage and listen.

 

[butchersapron]

Why patronise people like that? Why not just point out where they've got it wrong?

That's the trouble with the left, a lot of it totally patronises people all the time rather than trying to engage and listen.

Do fuck off. He invented a claim from me that i thought the liberals had w/c interests at heart, specifically in order to divert attention away from his mistake- as we all know nino never makes mistakes. I had actually already did what you suggest in two posts. And the lie from nino was his response.

 

[chilango]

Personally I'm against any kind of public endorsemnt of Livingstone by the Greens. As others have said I think we need to maintain clear water between ourselves and the ruling parties.

I'd have advocated an push to remind people of how PR works and to use their 2nd preference wisely.

 

[scott_forester]

On the issue of planning I agree their should be a reasonable appeals process. But this shouldn't enable selfish middle class types - with greater ability to manipulate these processes - to block affordable housing developments in 'their' areas. London needs nurses, teachers, firefighters etc., and they need somewhere affordable to live. If central action is needed to deliver this, so be it- we used to be call it socialist planning

I fundamentally object to more and more centralised Government it's the sort of thing that leads to ID cards, etc. Planning should be local, it affects local people. I don't trust City Hall not to full for lobbyng from slimy developers. I also believe that the more local your Government the better it is.

 

[articul8]

Planning should be local, it affects local people... I also believe that the more local your Government the better it is

Everything "affects local people" - all people are "local" to somewhere
Do you accept that certain "local" communities - say in affluent stockbroker belt, deserve a veto on proposals which would benefit society more generally?

I don't trust City Hall not to full for lobbyng from slimy developers. .

fair concern. but then can't local councillors be just as easily bribed? The curse of the "palmer chalmers"

I fundamentally object to more and more centralised Government it's the sort of thing that leads to ID cards, etc.

It might. Or it might lead to the NHS and the welfare state. This is a political question. "Localism" is no more a solution than is "centralism" in the abstract

 

[nosos]

I carry no torch for Boris and I think he is a bit of a dick sometimes but he is the best way of ridding ourselves of the arrogant racist tosser that currently occupies City Hall.

You want to rid yourself of an "arrogant racist tosser" so you vote for someone who talks about picanninies and their cananbilism and watermellon smiles?

 

[nosos]

I wish I still lived in london, I can't remember ever actually having an active desire to vote in an election before....