Ken Livingstone - the case against

[Radar]

Not sufficiently serious? I thought they were fucking hilarious

And considering that even the UAE embassy have finally accepted that they have to pay the congestion charge (and 100K of outstanding charges ), they look spot on too I wonder how many other embassies have taken the same line and refused to pay ?

It has been reported by Ken that the current ambassador, Robert Tuttle, is the person who decided that they wouldn't pay but the US embassy said there was no link between his arrival and the decision

 

[nino_savatte]

Surely a case for putting Descartes before the horse?

 

[Descartes]

Unpaid congestion charge fines

United Arab Emirates £452,650

Angola £392,750

Sudan £274,870

Nigeria £140,620

Tanzania £136,280

Sierra Leone £135,290

South Africa £122,590

Zimbabwe £96,390

Kenya £96,010

USA £62,250

Total: £1,909,700

Unpaid traffic fines

Kazakhstan £23,870

Egypt £22,200

Saudi Arabia £21,980

Georgia £14,560

China £13,350

Turkey £13,230

Germany £12,280

Russia £11,410

Libya £9,850

Nigeria £8,750

Total: £151,480

Red Ken jumping on the band wagon again, He knows that the USA are not popular so, who does he pick on, not the people owing the most, what an absolute sleaze bag,

The sad thing, some of you guys think he a nice guy, ... Hughie.......

 

[nino_savatte]

So you would prefer Shagger Norris, then?

 

[nick1181]

Red Ken jumping on the band wagon again, He knows that the USA are not popular so, who does he pick on, not the people owing the most, what an absolute sleaze bag,

The sad thing, some of you guys think he a nice guy, ... Hughie.......

So what are your sources for that?

Because I'd say you were so hungry and desperate to undermine Ken that you're falling over yourself to grab the first bit of "evidence" that you can find on the web and treating it as gospel.

What is the size of the US bill right now. Today? What is the rate of increase?



Here's a hint :
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1748618,00.html
The US embassy currently owes £219,000 and has incurred over 1,500 penalty charges since January this year.

I make that a rate of increase of something like £73,000 a month.


Next

 

[Descartes]

Oh smart arse, by how much have the other embassys increased their parking and congestion charges.

In your rush to protect your 'hero' you are wearing blinkers and not taking into account the full picture.

Consider 1500 excess charges, in a period from January to say, march, 90 days, take out the week ends, no parking meters on Saturday,Sunday, and Bank Holidays, that equates to.... 65 days, that's £3369 per day in parking fees, now the number of cars.... someone is having a laugh. 23 offences per day.... Ohh Come on..

Is that a realistic figure? Someone is massaging the figures, but hang on, 15000 offences, 219,000 pounds that 146 pound per offence...

You cannot be serious. Oh and I forgot to take out New Years day, and if there were any bank holidays...

ROFL.. where did yu get those figures, from Ken, sounds about right..

 

[Descartes]

Did you read all of the article, LOL

Three other diplomatic missions owe more than the US: Angola, Sudan and Nigeria.

The UAE owed almost £500,000 in January according to the Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells. The fine it has agreed to pay represents a considerable discount on the total outstanding fines.

I like the comment, British Diplomats are expected to pay, that does not mean they do pay or are likely to pay.

 

[Descartes]

A comment on one of Red Ken's speeches...

So it was all the more depressing to hear him revert to type yesterday as he spouted the fatuous Left-wing mantras for which he earned his notoriety in the 1980s. While claiming that he felt no sympathy for the suicide bombers and (naturally) that "killing people is wrong", he resurrected the pernicious old doctrine of moral equivalence, beloved of the Left in the Cold War. "I don't just denounce the suicide bombers," he said. "I denounce those governments that use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy" - by which he meant Israel, and, one presumed, America.

So, too, he deployed the whiskery argument that western imperialism is at the root of all evil. If we had only left the Arab nations alone after the First World War, the mayor said, "and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this would not have arisen". This was Dave Spart at his most repugnant and most juvenile. Does Mr Livingstone really think that the legacy of the Great War is what drove the Leeds terrorist cell to commit their atrocities?

Is he truly blaming the murder of 56 commuters on the Balfour Declaration, and the 1920 San Remo Conference? And would the mayor be willing to tell the bereaved relatives of Shahara Islam, the 20-year-old from Plaistow who was buried on Friday, or of James Adams, 32, from Peterborough, and Monika Suchocka, 23, a Pole who was living in north London (both of whom were named as among the dead on Tuesday), that their loved ones would still be alive if not for the Treaty of Versailles?

This was the shabby, reptilian side of Mr Livingstone, the old-fashioned socialist playing to what he imagines to be the gallery. As it happens, I doubt there are many takers for this kind of drivel. "It's a complete lie, of course," said E L Wisty of one of his own political claims, "but you can't afford to be too scrupulous if you're going to dominate the world."

There is part of Mayor Livingstone that still aspires to world domination, or at least a much greater role in national political life.

But - as his pitiful behaviour yesterday showed - the bigger he tries to be, the smaller he gets.

 

[nick1181]

Oh smart arse, by how much have the other embassys increased their parking and congestion charges.

I don't have to. All I have to do is show that your initial statement that you based "what an absolute sleaze bag" was actually ill-informed.

Innocent until proven guilty remember? You're the one doing the accusing so it's up to you to find the proof.

And you failed.


Anyway, the statement "fatuous Left-wing mantras" from you paints you for what you are - a blinkered tory.

I expect you probably read the Daily Mail. Bye.

 

[Descartes]

I haven't and would not read the Daily Mail, and you are right always right but wrong again this time.

The moment you attack the messenger, you have lost the argument. the Cart before the horse and similar only show your abysmal lack of knowledge about the guy.

The guy welcomes Islamic terrorist, thanks the anti gay for writing to him, welcomed the IRA killers , what more do you need to see the true character of this guy.

He has some serious problems, a violent dispute with his pregant partner results in a friend who tried to intervene going to hospital with injuries.

But because he is seen as a Laddish character and all is forgiven.

As I said earlier, There are non so blind as those that do not wish to see.

 

[Bob]

Tiananmen comments alone would make me dislike Livingstone.

The poll tax riots were in no way comparable to the murder of up to 2,600 people (Chinese Red Cross estimate) by a brutal tyranny.

 

[Bear]

He sure ain't perfect - heck, you could even say he's human with the same foibles and failings as everyone else - but let's hear your credible, real-world nominations for an alternative mayor!

Who do you think would do a better job?

Simon Hughes. And I can't see Simon refusing to condemn China's human rights record or comparing tiananmen square to the poll tax protests either.

Ken Livingstone is a twat.

 

[Bob]

Number plates on bicycles?

See here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=171423

 

[big footed fred]

You, editor At least you seem to have your head screwed on right. (Which is more than I can say for Mr Livingstone - sorry, not a big fan of his).

But would Ken get a ban from the london assembly.

 

[potential]

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.



What you need to define, what is Ken responsible for? Apart from a huge expense to all Londoners.

hear ! hear !
we are going to pay for his knee jerk reactions for years and years to come
bus fares were 70p now its £1.20
taxi fares started at £1.40 now its £ 2..20
ken's motto other peoples money, and dont get me started on
that bob " loads-a-money" kiley...

 

[Monkeynuts]

bus fares were 70p now its £1.20

This is a popular myth, propagated by the ignorant and the short of memory.

Back in, ooh, 1999 or so, bus fares were around the £1.20 mark. Ken lowered them first to £1 and then to 70p as part of his strategy to develop bus services.

You are also quite wrong with your current prices. The Oyster fare is 80p (rising to £1 in the morning peak) and the cash fare is £1.50.

Still, why let the facts get in the way of your wee rant, eh?

 

[Iguana]

You are also quite wrong with your current prices. The Oyster fare is 80p (rising to £1 in the morning peak) and the cash fare is £1.50

And I have no problem with charging a penalty for using cash on buses. Everytime I get a bus in Dublin, which has only limited pre-pay systems almost everyone has to pay as they get on, as they don't get change they have to fiddle around getting the right money, or counting in their fare one cent at a time. Buses can be waiting 5-10 minutes at each stop while everyone counts out their fares.

Yes Ken is far from perfect. But out of all the politicians who are in positions which hold a lot of power he is amoung the best. Perhaps if the UK had a proportional representation electoral system* there would be a chance for a better candidate to come to power. But as it is most people here don't vote for who they really want, they just vote against who they don't want to see in power.


* For those who aren't familiar with this system it means that instead of just voting for the candidate of choice, you can vote for as many candidates as you choose in order of choice. The winner isn't the one with the most votes but the candidate whom a certain proportion of voters have chosen, either as first choice or as default.

In the UK that would mean that on a ballot with a Green, Lib Dem, Labour and Tory candidate, you could choose, 1 Green, 2 Lib Dem and 3 Labour. If the Green didn't get enough votes to win a seat your vote would then pass to the Lib Dem and if they didn't have enough to win your vote would pass to Labour.

Despite the fact that it takes longer for the votes to be counted, it is ultimately a more democratic system as it prevents a two party stranglehold and allows smaller parties a better chance of getting votes in the first place.

 

[Roadkill]

Ken should never have rejoined the Labour party. He's too close to the Blairs now, meaning that he's not speaking out (if he even wants to ) about things like ID cards, CCTV and police powers. IMO one of the best things that could happen would be for someone in Livingstone's position to tell Blair where to shove his authoritarian schemes: it'd get people thinking, at least.

Plus, he's been far too uncritical of the government's economic policies, many of which impact directly on Londoners. PPP, for example, is a national issue, but it touches on healthcare and education in London, and now on the tube as well.

But he has done a lot of good in many respects. He's better than the alternatives, IMVHO.

 

[PacificOcean]

Plus, he's been far too uncritical of the government's economic policies, many of which impact directly on Londoners. PPP, for example, is a national issue, but it touches on healthcare and education in London, and now on the tube as well.

To be fair he did take the Government to court to stop them forcing PPP onto the tube.

 

[Roadkill]

To be fair he did take the Government to court to stop them forcing PPP onto the tube.

I suppose so, but he's gone quiet on it more recently. Not that grumbling about it would do much good now...

 

[PacificOcean]

I suppose so, but he's gone quiet on it more recently. Not that grumbling about it would do much good now...

The way the PPP contracts were worded means no matter how badly Tube Lines and Metronet do, they cannot be sacked.

Ken might as well move on and make the best of a bad situation.

He has always been really positive when it comes to the gay community and he has done a lot for gays in London. Fow which he always gets my vote.

 

[Roadkill]

The way the PPP contracts were worded means no matter how badly Tube Lines and Metronet do, they cannot be sacked.

Ken might as well move on and make the best of a bad situation.

Exactly - although I'd rather see him carry on complaining about it!

He has always been really positive when it comes to the gay community and he has done a lot for gays in London. Fow which he always gets my vote.

With the exception of inviting to London that Islamist fruitcake who thinks gays should all be killed, I'd agree with that.

 

[squeegee]

PPP also allows public money on the Underground to be spent by paying private advertising companies millions of pounds to inform us of things. Like "Cycle More" "Oyster Cards are Cheaper" or the classic of classics, after the 7/7 bombings "One London" basically a message to the terrorists that We Londoners Are Not Afraid.

This kind of sickness on his watch makes me regard him with as much bilious hatred as Mr Bliar. Except that Red Ken goes on anti-war marches and pretends to be a man of the people, which makes him worse.

I voted for him first time on the back of his standing up to Thatch in the GLC. What I mug I was. Norris couldn't have made things much worse.

Ken stands up for cultural things like the RESPECT festival (not the political party).

But bendy buses that cause traffic jams and are totally incompatible with London roads. Well done Ken. I'm sure you can scrap those and use more public money to set up more meetings with more private companies to discuss another public information campaign that is tendered out and costs us more money.

This is what public companies do today, see Health and Education. And if Ken can't see this he's as dumb as the rest of 'em. Or as much of a knave, as Galloway might say.


Ken Livingstone?

 

[squeegee]

Recent campaign by You Gov to tell people that leaving litter out causes flies to buzz around (flash animation flies don't you know [picture of advertising exec saying "flash animation...it'll cost ya"]) cost £5million.

Waste of public money? Not saying Ken was directly responsible for this one, but as London Mayor he oversees enough of this government policy of using public funds to grease the palms of private companies.

It's legitimised corruption and it makes me sick

 

[kyser_soze]

PPP also allows public money on the Underground to be spent by paying private advertising companies millions of pounds to inform us of things. Like "Cycle More" "Oyster Cards are Cheaper" or the classic of classics, after the 7/7 bombings "One London" basically a message to the terrorists that We Londoners Are Not Afraid.

Umm, actually that campaign was was delivered in the most costly media market in the UK for less than you'd think. TFL get some concessions to use of Viacoms ad hoardings on the Tube' the TV campaign was largely limited to off peak slots, as was the radio campaign, and a large chunk of the online activity was bought on a performance basis.

Incidentally - YouGov is a private company that can spend money how it likes; and where exactly did you get that figure of £5million from? Creative and media buying? Was it a national or regional campaign? What media did it run in? How many creative executions were created? (FYI - a single flash 468x60 produced by one of the top 5 digital creative agencies will cost about £500-£150 per execution, depending on how long it takes to program)

Come back with some well informed criticisms about how the government spends money communicating messages like 'Don't litter' unless you can come up with some ideas of how to do it for nothing.

Descarte - you hate the congestion charge and all your anti-Ken rhetoric stems from that. Why don't you just come out with it and admit you're a London Toryboy with a massively polluting car? It'd be easier.

Ken rocks - he got the CCharge implemented, was stiched up on the whole PPP scheme and I'll be voting for him again.

 

[PacificOcean]

Umm, actually that campaign was was delivered in the most costly media market in the UK for less than you'd think. TFL get some concessions to use of Viacoms ad hoardings on the Tube' the TV campaign was largely limited to off peak slots, as was the radio campaign, and a large chunk of the online activity was bought on a performance basis.


Come back with some well informed criticisms about how the government spends money communicating messages like 'Don't litter' unless you can come up with some ideas of how to do it for nothing.

But what was the point of the campaign? Having seen the ad a few times I am baffled to what its acutally trying to say. We know London Transport exists. We live here.

And if you are seeing the ad on a Viacom tube site - then you are already using public transport - why advertise it?

 

[kyser_soze]

Why bother to advertise coca cola or pepsi? Surely we all know they exist?

TFL is in direct competition with companies whose combined UK adspend comes to something like £400mn PA - Ford, Peugeot, Citroen, BMW, Mercedes and the rest of them. They are selling the dream of freedom associated with private transport in everything that do. The TFL ads are selling the idea of public transport - the current ads for Oyster for example, while having some trite sections (altho the full length cinema executions are much better at recounting the narratives in those) ably demonstrate the flexibility having an oyster card gives you when it comes to travelling around London.

It's often difficult to quantify how effective advertising can be - what's far easier is what happens when you don't advertise. Coke tried it in the early 80s and within 12 months the brand was struggling both in terms of sales and most importantly, brand recognition.

And if you are seeing the ad on a Viacom tube site - then you are already using public transport - why advertise it?

Reinforcement and information - the ads on the underground will generally be for some aspect of using PT as opposed to 'Use public transport' - in many cases it'll be plugging how much cheaper using an Oyster card is which is of direct relevance to an audience using the tube who may still be paying full price for paper tickets.

 

[squeegee]

Incidentally - YouGov is a private company that can spend money how it likes; and where exactly did you get that figure of £5million from?

I emailed. It took awhile. I can print the unashamed response. The guy didn't answer whether the money was public money, but it was a national campaign and it was mainly on the web.

Ken may have got concessions, but it would still be cheaper if public bodies had their own internal system of advertising, would you not say? Not slick shit, who needs that. Just regular public information films.

So you work in advertising?

 

[squeegee]

Actually I forgot, in the follow up email he did admit it was public money. I know that Ken's not responsible for this one, but this is the kind of culture that has arisen from the nasty marriage of public and private. And I meant DirectGov not YouGov. Apologies.


"...Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded onto me to respond. I see my colleague has responded to your second point raised.

The campaign which we are currently running is a campaign for raising the awareness that many council services can be now accessed quickly and more effectively, through Local Authority online facilities. The campaign promotes 15 services, such as the removal of graffiti, removal of abandon vehicles, the recycling of garden waste, and the like, which are all issues that many residents of Local Authorities have concerns about. The campaign is a £5million campaign to assist Local Authorities to deliver these services more effectively and efficiently.

The Directgov website is purely a tool which we are currently using , in which individuals can use to report such issues in their councils. The Directgov website enables the visitor to put in their postcode and this will "deeplink" them directly through to their Council's website and to the relevant page in which they can find out how they can go about reporting the particular issue they are concerned about. The internet now plays a large part in the daily routine of people's lives, and people use the internet for a variety of different means, such as booking holidays, ordering books etc. What this campaign is designed to do is raise the awareness to the general public that they can also do online business with their local authority.

The point you raised about increasing the number of dustman men on the street is a valid one, and is one for individual Local Authorities to address, however, the concept behind this campaign, is if a residents wishes to report a problem, such as dumped rubbish, they can now inform the council quickly about this, and the council are then able to deal with this problem more effectively.

I trust this has answered your enquiry, but please feel free to contact me again, should you would like more information."


Department of Communities and Local Government

 

[scott_forester]

2. I get the impression that he made a rather rash promise to freeze them; the economics simply haven't worked out as he hoped. I very much doubt he's happy about the price rise.

My problem with the congestion charge here (and to be fair I don't have many objections to it) is that it's a tax designed to STOP cars coming into congested areas. When Ken set the level at a fiver he was hoping that it would stop a percentage of cars and leave enough to put more money into bus's.

Well what happened is that more cars stopped coming in than he expected so he got less money.

I assume that the majority of people who now come in do so for pretty valid reasons so they don't have any choice, so they are hiking the prices to make more money not to deter people from using the roads.

If you devlier stuff or have to start work at 2:30 in the morning you have no choice but use a car.