Ken Livingstone - the case against
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
T & P said:
On a 37% turnout in 2004.
Labour Party Livingstone, Ken 685,541
Conservative Party Norris, Steve 542,423
Liberal Democrats Hughes, Simon 284,645
I wouldn't call that overwhelming support. I reckon most tax payers can't stand newt boy; if there's any justice he'll end up getting lynched when council tax payers end up having to pay way over the odds for the Olympics. '£20 a year on your council tax'...Chinny reckon....
miss giggles
an unknown quantity...
T & P said:
He can have my vote for that alone
The question to be asked, Can we afford Mr Livingstone and his cronies.
The increase in Council Tax to pay for the Mayor and his gang, the palatial buildings used as offices, the 'contribution' towards the Olympics campaign and all this before the huge money loss of the congestion charge,
Are you aware that the company running the Congestion Zone is promised a set figure per month, when that figure is not reached, Guess who pays?
The soaring cost is over one hundred million pounds to date and increasing... wow. think of how much good you could do with that.
Can we really afford Mr Ken Livingstone?
On his past history, getting rid of Pigeons in Traf square, a failed court action, we paid, the continueing cost of Hawks, cleaners etc etc who were never there before Ken got in and the number of tourists visiting Traf Square has dropped.. wow, Get rid of the pigeons and the Tourists. But wasn't getting rid of the pigeons supposed th attract more tourists?
The arrogant insults to everyone around him while he pays lip service to the minority groups,
When he usurped the elected candidate in the original GLC elections he made the comment, 'you vote for the party and not the individual' , Well I think we should find someone else becaue it has become the carriage for a poerson and not a party.
The increase in Council Tax to pay for the Mayor and his gang, the palatial buildings used as offices, the 'contribution' towards the Olympics campaign and all this before the huge money loss of the congestion charge,
Are you aware that the company running the Congestion Zone is promised a set figure per month, when that figure is not reached, Guess who pays?
The soaring cost is over one hundred million pounds to date and increasing... wow. think of how much good you could do with that.
Can we really afford Mr Ken Livingstone?
On his past history, getting rid of Pigeons in Traf square, a failed court action, we paid, the continueing cost of Hawks, cleaners etc etc who were never there before Ken got in and the number of tourists visiting Traf Square has dropped.. wow, Get rid of the pigeons and the Tourists. But wasn't getting rid of the pigeons supposed th attract more tourists?
The arrogant insults to everyone around him while he pays lip service to the minority groups,
When he usurped the elected candidate in the original GLC elections he made the comment, 'you vote for the party and not the individual' , Well I think we should find someone else becaue it has become the carriage for a poerson and not a party.
I think he rocks. He's the one of the only politicians who come remotely close to saying things that badly need saying.
This reminds me of the foreign-funded political party's attacks on Chavez. Focused on trivial and illogical little smearlets. I mean pigeons in Trafalgar Square? Come on, that's just desperation.
This is another example of this weird habit that people of a vaguely liberal persuasion have of attacking their own camp. They would far rather attack someone who's views cooincide with there's about 70% of the time than someone who's don't coincide at all.
"I'm sure we could find someone better". The fact is, there isn't anyone remotely better anywhere near, so if you join forces with The Daily Mail et al, and successfully undermine Ken Livingston, you're going to wind up with a tory.
This reminds me of the foreign-funded political party's attacks on Chavez. Focused on trivial and illogical little smearlets. I mean pigeons in Trafalgar Square? Come on, that's just desperation.
This is another example of this weird habit that people of a vaguely liberal persuasion have of attacking their own camp. They would far rather attack someone who's views cooincide with there's about 70% of the time than someone who's don't coincide at all.
"I'm sure we could find someone better". The fact is, there isn't anyone remotely better anywhere near, so if you join forces with The Daily Mail et al, and successfully undermine Ken Livingston, you're going to wind up with a tory.
citydreams
on the road again
T & P said:
There once was a rather generous benefactor who in trying to save having his glorious country's name dragged through the mud offered to pay off the US ambassador's back-charges. That was until he was told by TfL that the total bill now comes to a slighlty less modest £400,000.
citydreams
on the road again
Descartes said:
Of course they are, they're running a service whether people use the congestion charge area or not.
The Congestion Charge contract runs out in 2008/2009 and will be going out to tender on OJEU.
What's the story with "Liberty & Law", the crowd that have referred Ken to the standards committe twice now. The US ambassador/parking crooks incident, plus the 2012/go work with the ayotollahs.
Are they a bona-fide civil liberties group with legitimate concerns, simply using Ken to elevate their own press profile or is there a more sinister agenda being followed. There are quite a lot of press releases on their own site, but little mention of them elsewhere.
I take this crowd aren't related to the well known Liberty either ?
Stephen
Are they a bona-fide civil liberties group with legitimate concerns, simply using Ken to elevate their own press profile or is there a more sinister agenda being followed. There are quite a lot of press releases on their own site, but little mention of them elsewhere.
I take this crowd aren't related to the well known Liberty either ?
Stephen
Radar said:
I'm not sure I'd call it a crowd exactly - it looks from their website as though they're actually one person - Gerald Hartup
Gerald Hartup is a freelance journalist and the director of Liberty and Law, which he set up in 2002. He is a political campaigner of over 20 years experience with the Freedom Association where he was its director until 1999.
The Freedom Association was composed of such luminaries as Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, misc Lords and Baronesses.
http://www.tfa.net/ffigh.htm
I take you are unaware of the lengths that Mr Livingstone went to rid the square of the pigeons.
In his crusade to clear the square He first wanted to stop the grain sellers, so, instead of going to speak to the people, no, heavy handed, send the Police in to move them on.. could not do that, took the guys to court, with the legals fees paid for by you and I, that is if you pay the Council/Poll tax... court order dismissed, then started legal action, high court, barristers, clerks, writs served and loads of money and ... would you believe it, lost....
Then, approached the grain sellers and asked how much to stop. sum agreed and they moved on but in his infinte wisdom, forgot that the Northen terrace of Traf square does not come under Mr Livingstone... Opppss.... where do the pigeons go to be fed by the tourists...... well. lets start all over again and all the time you and, most definetely, I pay for it.
Well, I could think of a number of better things to spend my money on. How much would have been consumed in time, legal fees, research, application, court time, number of staff, police time and for what?
Consider the other Europen Squares, how many have lavished money on a failed project to get rid of the pigeons?
The number has drastically reduced but the obsession with Pigeons.. how does that rate in the great Metropolis?
The desperation? on my part for reporting it or the mindless chaseing of a bird.
I have no affection for Mr Livingstone's lack of principles, his motivation, his partner beating, his racist attitude and, most of all, a complete inability to tell the truth.
The charade with the traffic signals around the congestion zone to underline his flawed argument, his sudden deafness to the business people arguing against it, and the list goes on.
They are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
nick1181 said:
They're filthy.
It's not about the reason, it's the crass and inept manner of resolving the problem and just throwing money at it to make it go away.
The whole isue could have been resolved if our Mare had the slightest inkling of logical appraoch.
The london tubes, another throw money at it, bring in an American and sort the problem but again, crass, inept and without an iota of business acumen.
When Ken was in power he brought in a lower tube fare program but expected the London Boroughs to contribute the difference. The london Borough of Bromley said, why should we, we are not served by the Tube system, our residents do not benifit, and took the Mayor and his colleagues to court, result Ken had behaved in a totally undemocratic fashion, as per norm, and got his wrist slapped. Whole scheme shelved, the cost, well, lets not talk about that.
What you need to define, what is Ken responsible for? Apart from a huge expense to all Londoners.
The whole isue could have been resolved if our Mare had the slightest inkling of logical appraoch.
The london tubes, another throw money at it, bring in an American and sort the problem but again, crass, inept and without an iota of business acumen.
When Ken was in power he brought in a lower tube fare program but expected the London Boroughs to contribute the difference. The london Borough of Bromley said, why should we, we are not served by the Tube system, our residents do not benifit, and took the Mayor and his colleagues to court, result Ken had behaved in a totally undemocratic fashion, as per norm, and got his wrist slapped. Whole scheme shelved, the cost, well, lets not talk about that.
What you need to define, what is Ken responsible for? Apart from a huge expense to all Londoners.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Descartes said:
I know Caligula offered his horse as consul in Rome while he was emperor, but I had no idea that Livingstone had changed his gender and has now become a horse.
cemertyone
Well-Known Member
Harold Hill said:Why single out the American Ambassador and not any from the 55 other embassies refusing to pay though?
He`s not just having a go at the septic tanks though is he..
From todays Guardian..
" The major of London, Ken Livingstone, has persuaded the United Arab Emirates embassy to pay £99,950 to settle thousands of outstanding charging fines. The Arab states diplomats had run up more penalites than any other embassy,owing more than £452,000, but have agreed to pay the charge in future
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
if they 'can't stand' him to the extent you'd have suggested, surely they'd have got off their arses and taken the ten minutes necessary to vote him out in 2004. there were no shortage of candidates, and 2nd time round the main oppo party's campaign wasn't torpedoed mid-campaign by criminal scandal, and the 2nd alternative was a well-known long-standing inner london figure, not a nonentity.tippee said:On a 37% turnout in 2004.
Labour Party Livingstone, Ken 685,541
Conservative Party Norris, Steve 542,423
Liberal Democrats Hughes, Simon 284,645
I wouldn't call that overwhelming support. I reckon most tax payers can't stand newt boy; if there's any justice he'll end up getting lynched when council tax payers end up having to pay way over the odds for the Olympics. '£20 a year on your council tax'...Chinny reckon....
In fact, he won by a very clear margin.
so let me translate yur post to you into what you really meant; you can't stand him, and you HOPE 'most taxpayers can't stand' him, with no hard and fast reason to give cause for that hope.
Bad news for you; londoners like ken more than the alternatives. he seems a real person, for one thing....
citydreams
on the road again
Descartes said:
His job is defined by statute.
I think you need to ask yourself:
1) is life better in London since Ken came to power?
An over resounding yes in every department
and 2) was there anyone that could have done a better job?
no. not a chance. no way.
I disagree with the "public policy, private partnership" mantra which now looks impossible to imgagine any other way. That's life. There was no choice.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
it should be noted the tube PPP was imposed on ken by sheer ministerial bloodymindedness
citydreams
on the road again
Hollis said:Crikey! Have you been posessed by Tony Blair?
Look guys, it was a difficult choice, and the best we could do.. .. ..
Unfortunately the challenges facing London need instant answers. They're never going to look pretty against high-brow idealism.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte said:I know Caligula offered his horse as consul in Rome while he was emperor, but I had no idea that Livingstone had changed his gender and has now become a horse.
Surely a case for putting Descartes before the horse?
Similar threads
