Bright's Blog
Politics uncovered by Martin Bright, New Statesman political editor
No one is born to rule
- Posted by Martin Bright
- 24 January 2008
To call Ken Livingstone to account is not to attack Labour, or support the Conservatives - quite the opposite
There is nothing more unattractive than a politician who thinks he is born to rule. This is as true of Boris Johnson as it has been of so many Conservative politicians in recent memory. David Cameron and George Osborne try their hardest to hide it, but Eton, Oxford and a tidy independent income make it difficult not to believe that the world owes you an oath of fealty. Even with his new haircut, Johnson, who shares the same pedigree, still has the look of a man accustomed to service from the lower orders.
This is why Labour politicians must never become so arrogant that they think they are no longer answerable for their actions. This is why Ken Livingstone's reaction to the allegations in the Channel 4 Dispatches, The Court of Ken, screened on 21 January, is so disappointing. Livingstone risks becoming as arrogant in power as his historic adversaries in the Tory party, by systematically refusing to answer the questions we have raised about the way he spends public money and the electoral activities of his close circle of advisers.
Right up until the point of transmission, the mayor attempted to browbeat Channel 4 executives into dropping the film by suggesting that it was being shown too close to May's mayoral elections. Over the weekend, his office tried to smear the reputation of Atma Singh, a brave whistleblower who appeared in the film, for being a threat to national security. His crime: objecting to the mayor's policy of support for radical Islam and refusing to meet members of the Metropolitan Police who feel the same way.
Claims conceded
On the morning after transmission, the mayor changed tack. At his weekly press conference, instead of dismissing the central claims in the film, he conceded they were all true. He admitted that he did indeed drink whisky at Mayor's Questions at ten o'clock in the morning, but as a form of self-administered treatment for bronchitis. Yes, he said, his staff would not be allowed to do the same, but that was not his decision, but the London Assembly's. He then alluded to Winston Churchill's wartime drinking, a sure sign that he is beginning to have delusions of grandeur. Believe me, Ken, you are no Winston Churchill.
He also admitted that a campaign was conducted against Trevor Phillips's candidature as head of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights from within City Hall, just as we said in the programme. But he saw no problem with that. Most seriously, he admitted that his advisers, paid from the public purse, had worked on his personal campaign for re-election in 2004. Just to be clear, that's public money from tax payers of all political persuasions being used as a de facto donation to the Livingstone campaign. At first, he justified the campaigning, writing of articles and fundraising because he claimed it took place outside office hours. But Glen Goodman, a reporter from ITV's London Tonight, pointed out that emails he has seen had been sent from the "KenforLondon" campaign to the mayor's advisers during the working day. Livingstone then shifted his ground again by saying that it was impos sible to define when his advisers were technically at work, because they worked such long hours.
The mayor has created a problem for himself here, and his advisers will not be thanking him for his candour. Perhaps Livingstone believes it is perfectly proper to use advisers earning more than £100,000 from the public purse to work on his election campaign. Such behaviour would be completely unacceptable in Westminster, but then City Hall has few of the checks and balances of our national political institutions.
It is now for the Electoral Commission and the Standards Board of England to decide whether Livingstone and his advisers breached the rules. At present, it looks as if the mayor believes he is untouchable. The institutions designed to hold him to account must prove they can do their job - and that includes the London Assembly, which has so far failed to rein in the mayor's excesses.
Legitimate investigation
It has been suggested that the political editor of the New Statesman should not have become involved with a project that could have a grave effect on the electoral chances of Labour's candidate. I do not accept this. Labour politicians should not receive special treatment The Channel 4 documentary was an entirely legitimate investigation into the office of Mayor of London. The only incumbent of that office is Ken Livingstone. We found serious structural weaknesses in the mechanisms designed to hold the mayor to account. This would apply to anyone elected to that position. The point is that Livingstone has a unique position in the British political system and he should not be immune to scrutiny.
Livingstone needs to get real and so does the Labour Party. Attempts by the mayor's office to distract people from the damning claims contained in The Court of Ken have not washed. This was not a party political broadcast for the Boris Johnson campaign; I am not driven by a personal dislike of Livingstone, although as a result of our investigation I now think that he is unfit for office. It is not a campaign led by the Daily Mail and the London Evening Standard: the Guar dian and the Observer have both run leaders calling on Livingstone to justify himself.
He has now accepted that the claims in the film are true. His latest attempt to shrug them off will not wash. It is not just pro priety, but the appearance of propriety that matters. No one is born to rule.
Post this article to
61 comments from readers
-
jenny
24 January 2008 at 11:32 Nice try at twisting things around, Martin.
But the concerns people have raised with your documentary have not been because of a view that there should be "special treatment" for Labour politicians.
Rather, they found your programme an unbiased piece of propaganda, empty of genuine scrutiny, with no counter argument offered and no similar programme planned on Boris Johnson; and all this from someone who on the day of the show itself declared an explicit political aim of ‘booting out Ken’.
In addition, I don’t think that it is unreasonable for New Statement readers to be disgruntled that with the real choice being between Livingstone and the Thatcherite Boris, the name of the New Statesman is being used to undermine Ken.
There is a wide choice of right-wing rags, so we have every right not to expect a supposedly liberal and progressive journal to follow a similar path.
-
alanbrownfield
24 January 2008 at 12:17 You are aware that people can watch the press conference on the web for themselves right?
You were done Bright.
-
JamesF
24 January 2008 at 12:59 How ridiculous, of course i believe no-one is born to rule but people who are ambitious and believe from an early age that they should prepare themselves as best as possible for the challenges of power have a great advantage, they have the time to think things through, time our twenty four hour media doesn't allow politicians nowadays.
-
Liam2008
24 January 2008 at 13:46 If Boris sweeps to power in May, it is you, Martin, and other supposed representatives of the centre-left, like Kate Howey and Nick Cohen, that will have won it for him.
How sad that you seek to discredit one of the only genuinely Social Democrats in power and hand it to a right-wing buffoon who will only grant yet more political freebies to the super-wealthy in our increasingly divided city.
Ken has dramatically changed the bus service in his years of Mayor, and it is amongst the best service of its kind in the world today. Thanks to the introduction of PFI on the tube by Gordon Brown earlier in the decade, he hasn't had the opportunity to do the same for the tube. But, given the chance, I believe he will.
He introduced the Congestion Charge, an act of political courage that so many supposed 'progressive' politicians would shy away from out of fear of the hysterical right-wing press.
But, like Boris and his 4x4 driving chums down the Kings Road, I don't suppose you care much for any of that.
So thanks Martin, for hammering yet another nail in the coffin of social democracy.
-
Ideas
24 January 2008 at 14:12 Martin, your intervention is nothing but an attempt to distract Londoners and the media from Ken's outstanding progressive record of government for London.
Given that you have declared your opposition to Ken's re-election, I don't know why people are giving so much time to your partisan rants.
-
podilato
24 January 2008 at 14:28 I am ceratinly no fan of Ken Livingstone but this documentary basically accused him of being a politician. For all the Livingstone 'excesses' you could probably add a few noughts to the figures of similar deals done by New Labour. Ken has been corrupted by power but he is quite small fry compared to the legalised corruption of New Labor.
Also, another thing I objected to was the portrayal of Venuzuala as a dictatorship with scenes of protests and injured police officers in the background. And then quoted someone from a Venuzualan business lobby group about 'human rights'. This sort of biased reporting belongs on the BBC, not Channel 4.
-
gino
24 January 2008 at 14:29 mr bright it seems wants the mail and the evening torygraph sorry standard to elect our mayor we must not let this happen
-
epitomy
24 January 2008 at 14:32 Martin. I have watched the press conference (it is available online on the London government website)and I have concluded that you have become more of a spin doctor for the Boris machine, than a serious journalist.
Take your allegation that Ken tried to browbeat C4 into dropping the documentary as it was too close to the Mayoral elections. What Ken says in the press conference is that he would not be interviewed for a documentary that was so clearly biased, where his comments could be edited, so he offered to be interviewed by you live on tv for one hour. What were you scared of? Worried your allegations would not stand up to scrutiny?
It is fantasy to state that Ken has conceded to your allegatons. In the press conference, at one point a journalist questioning Ken on one of your allegations starts laughing mid-sentence, and is joined by other Journos who laugh at it also. (you are seen walking in late to the press conference so you wont have seen this bit unless you were diligent enough to watch the entire event like the rest of us). You fail to mention this in your piece.
The choice for those who want a progressive Mayor is between Ken and Boris- the whole upshot of your piece is based on ousting Ken, which means you are firmly now in the Boris camp. No one is fooled by your "i dont know who im voting for" line. Your approach will repulse the majority of your readers and means you should be considered ex-left, together with Cohen. ('what's left?' - neither of you any more).
You jump from the tedious (he drinks whisky) to the ridiculous (Atma Singh should have kept his job despite refusing to meet the police on combatting terrorism - imagine the screaming standard headlines if Ken had kept him on the payroll.)
I agree that no one should receive special treatment by the media - so where is the expose of Boris' comments akining gay marriage to beastiality, opposing kyoto, supporting war, pleading clemency for Conrad black etc etc?
Or wider, the Tories desire to abolish the freedom pass (ken wants to make it completely free at all times) Boris' opposition to Ken's demand for 50% affordable housing, (now the number one concern of Londoners).
See its obvious: fight the election on genuine policy and track record, Ken wins. Your crime is exposed. I call it a crime because installing Boris on the back of this media coup plot will mean a return to a thatcherite regime, and you are its all too willing chorus line.
Your problem is that so much of what you say is baseless, that most Londoners will start thinking this debate, and its promoters such as yourself, are tired and tedious, especially when there is so little to substantiate it.
Unless you get your act together, stop spinning and start balancing your journalism, your name will become shamefully synonymous with the Tory coup for Boris in the same way that Gilligan's name is shamefully synonymous with exposing David Kelly. The kiss of death to any serious journalistic career surely?
I guess youll be rewarded with a lifelong career with the standard?
-
Diane Abbott MP
24 January 2008 at 14:38 Martin is being disingenous. The media campaign against Ken is being led by the right wing press. And this is not a new campaign. It is a continuation of the vitriolic campaign they have waged against him since 1982. And their reasons have not altered. Fundamentally they are opposed to Ken's politics. Their problem in 2008 is that the issues that Ken has always stood for( race equality, gay rights, dialogue with the IRA etc) are now so mainstream that even the Tories support them! So they have to resort to character assasination.And this is the campaign that Martin Bright has signed up for.He is correct to point out that the London Assembly has few real powers over Ken. But this was the deliberate intention of Tony Blair. He originally nursed the hope that the Mayor would be an "apolitical" businessman like Richard Branson. The last thing he wanted was grubby polticians having any say. So it strange of Martin Bright to argue that the Assembly's lack of powers is a Trotskyite plot when this was actually a deliberate intention of government. Maybe he should read some of the debates in Parliment at the time the legislation was passed. Martin is free to write whatever he likes. But this must be the first time in its history that the New Statesman has had a political editor who is a leading light in campaign whose clear intention is to get a Tory into office.
-
JD
24 January 2008 at 14:42 May I suggest you now hand this issue over to Guido Fawkes who has done a superb job of ridding us of Peter Hain? I think it will save time.
JD.
-
WorriedEarth
24 January 2008 at 15:08 In choosing to back Boris - which is the effect of all of this - Bright is backing a man who would be a disaster for the environment.
Whilst Ken has lead the world in inivotive strategies against climate change, Boris this week came out in favour of a whole new airport for London!
This confirmation of Boris' complete disregard for the threat of climate change comes as no surprise as he opposed the Kyoto Treaty.
-
redharry
24 January 2008 at 15:13 What about other people who associate with dodgy right-wingers. After all Bright has allied himself with the warmongers, neoconservatives and Islamophobes of the Policy Exchange such as Dean Godson and Michael Gove. He is supported here and at the pro-war Observer by the increasingly deluded Nick Cohen whose use of the term Islamofascism only proves his lack of understanding of either Islam or Fascism.
Amazingly Bright says, 'Labour politicians should not receive special treatment ' Unless they are called David Milliband, when they get the comfy amchair treatment. pull the other one Martin.
Finally I'd like to know why Martin Bright thinks he can ignore so many of the points put to him in this and the previous post. Is it because he can't put up with the same level of scrutiny as he expects of others, or because he has no answers?
-
bystander
24 January 2008 at 15:21 Pity about the moronic comments about Boris Johnson et al in the first paragraph. Otherwise a reasonable article.
-
NorthernMonkey
24 January 2008 at 15:30 Martin, I've got absolutely no support for you.
Your aim is to throw out one of the most successful and visionary social democrats in power for a long time and replace him with a Thatcherite. And not a very intelligent Thatcherite at that.
The New Statesman is no better than the Evening Standard these days.
-
Reithspins
24 January 2008 at 15:56 Martin
I must say I admire you for rising above the hysterical tribalism of most commentators here and doing a professional journalistic job on a matter of huge national interest.
Despite the wailing from the hard left here, honesty in politics is far more important than political affiliation and good investigative journalism is sometimes all that stands between citizens and corruption - whether from left or right.
-
newsed1
24 January 2008 at 15:57 Amazing. The drift of these comments is that because 'Ken' has part of the team for so long, the centre-left shouldn't be held to account.
As a working-class Tory who reads the NS, I have to say this makes fro very unpleasant reading. Blind tribalism always goes rotten and Ken has long shown he can't control himself.
In brief, the C-charge has ended both not speeding up the traffic and not raising any money - aside of the fines being issued. The bus services has been gretaly improved - but then the bus subsidy has risen from zero in 1999 to £650m per year. I hardly see this as very clever. I could have spent more and provided more buses.
And levels of air-pollution - diesel particulates and NoX - in central London have risen dramatically, thanks to TFL's idiotic adoption of Urban Safety Management techniques which specifically reduce road space and increase stop-start situations, and with them, air pollution. We significantly break the EU pollution limits, by the way.
What I don't understand about the Left is its obsession with 'doing the right thing' but then ignoring the outcome.
As an ex-comp student, I'm sure that comprehensivisation was 'the right thing to do' but it hasn't really worked in large parts of the country.
I'm sure you think the C-Charge was the 'right thing to do' but it has been such a mess, that when the government of Stockholm examined it, they went home and commissioned IBM to design a different system (which is automatic and onl charges at peak hours).
As T Blair used to say 'what matters is what works'.
And for all his 'progressive' ideas, what Ken has done has not worked well enough and relies too much on huge - possibly unsustainable - handouts.
-
Little Tyke
24 January 2008 at 16:03 I watched the Channel 4 documentary and also listened to Ken on Today this morning. I think weasel words have taken on a new meaning, and doesn't Ken speak the lingo marvellously well? If I were a Londoner, I'd rather vote for a toilet brush than support such a feudal lord with obvious delusions of grandeur. Foreign embassies? Gawd help us!
-
andy123
24 January 2008 at 17:46 Ihurl2006:
"If Boris sweeps to power in May, it is you, Martin, and other supposed representatives of the centre-left, like Kate Howey and Nick Cohen, that will have won it for him."
100% wrong. If Boris sweeps to power, then it will be *entirely* due to the corrupt stench from Ken Livingstone and his inner circle, because by their actions they have pushed people like me - who voted for Ken *twice* - to utter despair.
How ridiculous. It seems you don't care about the corruption at the heart of London government, so long as the party is the right colour. Well some of us think that honesty is of prime importance in the people who we hand power to.
I didn't vote for Ken so he could set up a mini socialist state. I didn't vote for him to suck up to radical extremists. I didn't vote for him to arrange a deal with his marxist friends to subsidise London with oil from one of the poorest nations. I didn't vote for him to siphon gobs of cash into personal vendettas and political campaigns.
If Ken wanted a landslide 3rd term, all he needed to do was to concentrate on doing the right thing.
He failed. He must go.
"But, like Boris and his 4x4 driving chums down the Kings Road, I don't suppose you care much for any of that."
Oh listen to this tired decades-out-of-date class warfare bull. What do you suppose Race Advisor Lee Jasper does with his 120 grand a year? He certainly doesn't spend it on rent, because the state provides him with a lovely 4 bedroomed victorian villa in Clapham for 96 quid a week. (Oh with the option to sell at a later date...KERCHING!). The old 'class war' arguments sound a little stale, given that labour MPs are quite happy to play 'send my kid to private school' too... (Aren't they, Dianne?)
-
andy123
24 January 2008 at 17:57 To Dianne Abbott:
"The media campaign against Ken is being led by the right wing press. And this is not a new campaign. It is a continuation of the vitriolic campaign they have waged against him since 1982. "
This may be true. It is irrelevant. The only thing that *matters* is whether the accusations are true.
The best way to upset the right wing press is to simply carry out your role as Mayor with honesty and integrity.
Apparently, that was just too much to ask. All credit should be given to those in the press - both in the right wing and left wing - who don't like corruption, no matter what colour it is, red or blue.
"And their reasons have not altered. Fundamentally they are opposed to Ken's politics. Their problem in 2008 is that the issues that Ken has always stood for( race equality, gay rights, dialogue with the IRA etc) "
Dianne, I voted for Ken twice because I saw his politics as progressive. Why are you not angrier at him for compromising his higher values with stinking corruption?
Or are you arguing that corruption is fine, so long as you argued for gay weddings?
"So they have to resort to character assasination."
! So, the press reveals that Ken has been running a personal hate campaign against Trevor Phillips, and for their troubles you accuse *them* of character assasination?
Do you suppose that Ken's character should stay intact while *he* carries out character assasination - with the help of GLA staff and funds - on *his* opponents?
Good grief!
"He is correct to point out that the London Assembly has few real powers over Ken. But this was the deliberate intention of Tony Blair. He originally nursed the hope that the Mayor would be an "apolitical" businessman like Richard Branson."
Well, that dream clearly disappeared when Ken was standing on a platform with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, setting up links between one socialist-state wannabee and another.
"The last thing he wanted was grubby polticians having any say.
"So it strange of Martin Bright to argue that the Assembly's lack of powers is a Trotskyite plot when this was actually a deliberate intention of government. Maybe he should read some of the debates in Parliment at the time the legislation was passed. Martin is free to write whatever he likes."
I watched the programme and it didn't accuse Blair of instigating a trotskyist plot, but pointed the finger at a close circle of Ken's friends who met up in a pub and discussed how to use this opportunity of his election. Did you see that bit?
-
andy123
24 January 2008 at 18:06 -An apology to Dianne Abbott - I didn't intend to criticise you for sending your kid to private school. I was making the point that the old definitions of class and behaviour aren't relevant any more. You took a decision in the best interests of your child and it is what I would expect of any parent.
-
knave
24 January 2008 at 18:31 Bright, Kampfner and Cohen are right wing trojan horses. They are spitting bile at Ken with their friends in the right wing press and I would include the Observer. Each one of them has put the boot into Brown and this will continue until they get their neocon economic liberal government of Cameron. It is not their views I depise it is their dishonesty.
Can anybody tell, the difference between
Bright/Cohen/Kampfner and Gove/Littlejoh
Gordon they are after you next.
Evidence
Cohen does nothing but throw abuse at Brown.
Kampfner did a hatchet job on Brown in the Mirror on Sunday praising the "Cameron like" right wing french prez.
-
j2004monsoon
24 January 2008 at 18:46 Martin, you are priceless. All your hard work was in vain. You managed to tell your scandalised public that socialist groups meet in pubs and discuss their New Year's Party (see Atma Singh's "notes"), that whisky contains alcohol, that some of the LDA's investments in marginalised communities (less than 1% according to Seamus Milne) don't work out, that Peter Tatchell hates Muslims, and that Livingstone's advisers wanted not only a "bourgeois revolution" but a "communist city-state" as well.
Andrew Murray's article in today's Morning Star is the best thing I've read all day. He reminds us, amongst other things, that if Livingstone is damned by his association with socialists (surely a scandalous matter), then Bright is damned by his association with the neo-con Muslim-bashing Policy Exchange and Cohen for being the "dining companion" of Paul Wolfowitz. Does this clarify the debate for anyone?
-
knave
24 January 2008 at 20:20 Good point about the conservative policy exchange unit. Cohen and Bright MAY not have direct links but they are certainlyi infleunced by their ideas on politics and economics
-
Nicholas Taylor
24 January 2008 at 22:51 I wondered where Dave Spart had got to, seems he's written most of the responses to this article.
Ken Livingstone a "social democrat" ? You can hear the laughter from here to Caracas. He has barely changed since he was a Camden councillor - an obnoxious Trotskyite nerd. He managed to reinvent himself as a "cheeky chappie" to win the mayoralty twice, aided by the lack of viable alternatives. With luck he's going to get his long-deserved come-uppance this time. For your contribution to that, many thanks, Martin. No-one is untouchable. Must remember to hold my nose when voting for Boris or Brian, but that's a small price to pay for getting rid of this nasty piece of work.
-
25 January 2008 at 00:09 I have read the New Statesman all my life and I have to say it has sunk to a new low with Martin Bright as its political editor.The TV programme was the most one sided smear attempt I have seen and totally ineffective.Brights article in the Evening Boris was a disgrace and his articles in the Statesman little better.
I have also known Ken for many years and have criticisms of him but I predict London will relect Ken and I hope the Statesman will sack Bright.
Hugh Kerr (former Labour MEP)
-
Jason
25 January 2008 at 00:23 Is anyone else wondering where this socialist city state is? When will it be ready?
-
Henry
25 January 2008 at 00:51 Interesting that there appears to be an anti-Livingstone nexus around the Tory think-tank Policy Exchange. First, they publish a booklet excitedly attacking 'bendy buses', then Martin Bright (him of the anti-Ken Dispatches) writes a paper for them on Islam & today Camilla Cavendish (a trustee) slags off Ken in The Times. Coincidence?
Perhaps someone should look at this organisation's charitable status.
-
knave
25 January 2008 at 07:53 Good point Henry.
Bright/Alton/Kampfner/Cohen have truned their magazine/paper into voice pices for the P.E.U. In fact if you read the papers of the PEU , then two weks later there is an article from either the statesman or the observer.
As for Bright's claim to be left of Brown I nearly choaked on my toast.
the PEU is central to this issue, they need to gwt rid of Ken to create power base for the victory for Dave.
The Statesman and Observer will now start their dripping campaign against Brown
Nicholas don't worry you can hold your nose when you vote for Boris in the same way you held your nose voting fo Thatcher, IDS, Major and Hague and in the same way when yiu vote for Cameron
-
andy123
25 January 2008 at 09:38 Ken's colours were pinned to the mast when he wrote to the Guardian asking the government to respect the wishes of the Venezuelans to make Chavez head of state for life.
They didn't, of course, but well done Ken for doing your bit to try to help install the next great Socialist Dictator on the world stage.
There are people on the left who are fiercely supportive of democracy, accountability and honesty in high office.
Then there are people on the left who consider all of these to be optional extras (if that).
Ken, and his followers, are clearly in that latter camp.
I was duped by Ken. I really did think that he took such things seriously.
It was shocking to hear Ken say that if he was over exploiting his power, that it was Tony Blair's fault for giving him such power (as he didn't think a mayor should have so much).
It doesn't add up does it? If someone gives you the ability to set fire to your house, it doesn't automatically mean that you have to do it, does it? This 'If I am corrupt and abusing power, it isn't my fault' is the lamest thing I ever heard.
-
123andrea
25 January 2008 at 11:08 @andy123
Chavez a "socialist dictator"? What on earth do you base this charge upon?
The recent referendum result made it obvious that not only does Chavez put his reforms to the vote, he readily accepts the result when it goes against him.
Venezuela has held 12 national votes since 1998. All of these were pronounced fair by international observers e.g. the EU.
If your interest in the facts is this poor, andy123, I hardly see why we should take your rants against Mr Livingstone seriously. After all, there's no evidence for "corruption" either. Can we please stick to the facts?
-
Paul
25 January 2008 at 13:05 "It seems you don't care about the corruption at the heart of London government, so long as the party is the right colour." (Andy123)
Never a truer word. Those with blind faith in a socialist agenda seem also blind to the failings of the most despotic British politican in living memory.
"Whilst Ken has lead the world in inivotive strategies against climate change, Boris this week came out in favour of a whole new airport for London!" (WorriedEarth)
Have you not been reading the reams of new evidence showing that anthropogenic global warming is starting to look like hot air, and the welter of crackpot "cures" (light blub amnesty, my arse) could be far more damaging to the world economy than any small increase brought on by nature? Even the IPCC is downgrading its forecasts. But that, I suspect, underlies the thinking of WorriedEarth and his/her kin - they are using global warming a scaremongering tactic to bring about economic revolution.
What little respect I had for Ken disappeared the moment I saw his Oscar performance while apologising for the slave trade. The crocodile tears, the sobs, the nose-wiping and throat-clearing... how DARE he insult us with this charade, as if he is the only one who feels for the horrors of slavery.
Hear him declare "Slavery was not abolished as an act of goodwill by the slave owners, it was defeated by the resistance of the slaves". So William Wilberforce had nothing to do with it?
And then watch him stride into the hugging arms of his fawning audience like some luvvie seeking approbation at the end of a Shakespearian tragedy. The whole thing made me physically sick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhovRMCNcHU
To me, this summed up the man. If there's a problem, deal with it only if it makes you look better. If there isn't a problem, seek one out, invent one or engineer one, then exploit it for all it's worth. And don't worry who you trample on as long as it drums up votes from a gullible, carefully imported public.
Behind the caring facade is a thoroughly nasty, manipulative piece of work. It beats me how any of you can defend him.
-
Jason
25 January 2008 at 13:46 But Livingstone has spoken out for black rights for years, at least since the 1980's. Back then it was no populist issue and it got him labelled as part of the 'looney left'. To me, that would strongly suggest his ongoing support for the black communities, hence his passion for an apology for slavery, is pretty damn genuine and could ahrdly be described as to drum up votes. What makes you think it was not?
By contrast, Boris Johnson has only just - now that he actually wants a proper job in politics- apologised for for the 'piccaninnies' gaffe he made 5 years ago. Drumming up votes anyone?
-
epitomy
25 January 2008 at 13:49 So Bright is now calling on the Labour Party to replace Ken with another choice for Mayor - just another attempt to aid Boris, Martin?
It is clear that Ken is the best choice for Mayor - being relected last time overwhelmingly, and enjoying mass support within the Labour party.
Ken is clearly supported within the Labour party on his progressive policies on affordable housing, lowering crime, and whole number other key issues for Londoners that either Boris or the Tories have a historical or current position that would spell disaster for
see here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2246553,00.html
Ken has pledged to make the freedom pass available at all times - the tories have tried to abolish it - see more here
http://www.londonforken.co.uk/?p=38
ken has also extended student discounts
see here:
http://www.labourinlondon.org.uk/?PageId=49b970c8-ea3e-69c4-...
-
Paul
25 January 2008 at 16:39 Boris Johnson has only just ... apologised for the 'piccaninnies' gaffe he made 5 years ago.
Asking again: Have you actually read the passage in its full context? From the start of the chapter or earlier? I cannot take seriously anyone who lacks the wit to understand his literary allusion or, worse, condemns the man as a head-to-toe racist for a moment of creative word-play.
It is the uncomprehending and chronically biased who have forced an apology out of Boris, not necessarily because they think it merits one, but simply because they like to see their enemy squirm.
As for Ken's generosity, so admired by Epitome, I have no doubt that he has cynically calculated the effect on votes of using commuters' money to pay the fares of resident Londoners. What next? A free Big Mac for all?
-
Rob Blackie
25 January 2008 at 16:42 My sympathies Martin - clearly there are a lot of Livingstone drones who resort to abuse rather than answering the charges against him.
-
Jason
25 January 2008 at 16:57 Yes I have. Fair enough, you can explain that one away as Boris being ironic. That would be vaguely believable if that were the only case. How about when he recommended a full-scale second European invasion of Africa (or the 'Dark Continent' as he may prefer to call it) on the grounds that Africans are inherently incapable of solving their own problems, for example? Again, I HAVE read the whole text (as have we all) and ironic it was not.
Anyway Paul, the main body of my post was concerning Ken, not Boris. You have failed to reply to my question on why you think Ken's long-standing support for the black community is merely a vote-winner, despite the fact that it once made him rather unpopular. Do you really believe this or do you just choose to?
-
knave
25 January 2008 at 17:24 Martin
I would like to ask you some questions
1. What is your relationship and links with the right wing Policy Exchange Unit
2. Is Gordon your next victim for a programme on Dispatches. Although I feel you will be more subtle in discrediting Brown.
3. You seem to be very popular with the conservative bloggers. I wonder why ?
4. Give me a political difference between yourself and say Michael Gove, a man who you seem to be working for.
5. Why not make the programme a year ago as most of the allegations are year old, Why now ? Don't you think that is damaging the electoral process. I think you would be upset if there was an anti Cameron programme, just before the next election.
6. You say you want Livingstone replaced by another Labour candidate. Surely if you showed this programme a year ago then their would have been time for a debate about a replacement. You know thee is far too little time for a replacement to win an election.
7. When are you going to investigate Mr ashcroft, conrad black (you missed that one) or dare I say Rupert Murdoch.
-
123andrea
25 January 2008 at 17:41 Rob Blackie,
What are you talking about? Livingstone has answered the charges, such as they are. The right-wing smear campaign isn't interested in sensible debate. They will attack him no matter what he says. If there was any substance to the allegations they'd be plastered all over the mainstream press, given the bias in the media. But they're not - only in the Evening BoJo. That shows us what drivel it all is.
-
Paul
25 January 2008 at 18:26 "You have failed to reply to my question on why you think Ken's long-standing support for the black community is merely a vote-winner, despite the fact that it once made him rather unpopular."
Jason, I'm not sure if he is any more popular now than he was then, whenever "then" is. His support for the black community - and I certainly wouldn't knock him for just that - is only part of a wider game plan to mould London into an artificially multicultural city, creating a host of client groups who will always vote for him in gratitude for his largesse.
If you doubt this, one of many clues lies in a video somewhere on the internet (I've lost the link but will find it) of him speaking at a rally where he says the answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict is to "throw our doors open" to all those who have been deposed.
Where does it all end? Like most people I know, I have no problem whatsoever with immigrants or immigration in principle. But there is a perfectly plausible theory that more than a billion people would like to come to Britain for its high welfare standards, or what might be left of them. Any fool can see a situation like that is simply unsustainable - yet Ken is blind to the damage he can do to our infrastructure as he woos votes by pulling in more unfortunate aliens, silencing his critics with the bludgeon of political correctness.
Oh, and sorry to say your saintly Ken is going to be in a spot of bother in the libel courts over the sacked LDA employee Brenda Stern. Ms Stern said today: "One of the Mayor's most unattractive characteristics is the way he responds to any legitimate question with personal abuse. What he said about me to six million listeners was completely untrue, and I have that in writing from his own LDA chief executive."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23434142-deta...+to+sue+Mayor+over+%27bullying%27+claims/article.do
-
Ideas
25 January 2008 at 18:30 The best verdict on Bright's travesty of a "documentary", along with weeks of sustained vilification by Andrew Gilligan and Bright's other pals at the Evening Standard, is that Ken's opinion poll lead has widened.
According to a YouGov poll just published on London Tonight, Ken is on 44% to Boris Johnson's 40% and Brian Paddick's 8%. A lead of 4% for Ken, up from just 1% a couple of weeks ago.
This suggests, thankfully, that Londoners have more sense than to believe what some in the media try and pass off on them.
-
jim
25 January 2008 at 19:23 Wow,the lefties are out in force no doubt orchestrated by Livingstone,must be desperate to involve Dianne Abbott.,whose only loyalty is to herself.
Livingstone has finally beeen exposed game,set and match..
Can you imagine the outcry if a right of centre Mayor invited a muslim lkeader that approved of homosexulas being executed?
Or plundered the resources of a third world country like Venezuela.
Or had advisors that had zero qualifications in what they were suppossed to be advising.
A transport advisor that never attends TFL meetings or indeed any meeting connected with transport.
A right of centre mayor that allowed City hall employees to work on their election campaign at taxpayers expense.
-
jim
25 January 2008 at 20:13 Ideas-I wouldn't get too excited by an opinion poll from YouGov as they are the only mainstream pollster that does not filter by ceretainty to vote.
So the opinions of a bunch of people that may not even bother to vote is not worth a row of beans.
-
flower
26 January 2008 at 00:58 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23434169-deta...+the+world+of+Lee+Jasper%27s+disgraced+aide/article.do
-
knave
26 January 2008 at 09:17 Can you imagine the outcry if a right of centre Mayor invited a muslim lkeader that approved of homosexulas being executed?
Let me think Mrs T shaking hands with at number 10 a Muslim terroristsin 1986 who beleived in shia law, stoning of homosexuals etc. Whose one this mans comments about his activiies was " I don't care if I kill 50 children",
Or plundered the resources of a third world country like Venezuela.
lt is deal to buy oil, they are not giving it us for free Bimbo, sorry Jimbo. I suppose you would prefer the situation in which all of venezuelas oil going into the hand of US oil companies as what has just happened in Iraq
Or had advisors that had zero qualifications in what they were suppossed to be advising.
Yes they must have an Oxbridge degree. I suggest every health minister must be a surgeon, Transport minister a bus driver
A transport advisor that never attends TFL meetings or indeed any meeting connected with transport.
Like that has never to a Tory council. A lazy councillor, that is endemic, you are scrapping the barrel
A right of centre mayor that allowed City hall employees to work on their election campaign at taxpayers expense.
How do you know ?. Also I have worked in many private firms that employers fill in expenses in their employers time. It is a British malady not just Ken's
-
simonr
26 January 2008 at 20:45 This documentary's allegations seemed to be based on a bunch of gossip in pubs. The man likes a whisky from time to time. So what? He doesn't agree with Trevor Phillips' politics. Lots of people don't. His advisers want to get him re-elected. Well, they would, wouldn't they? Even as a smear campaign, this is pretty pathetic and shows how little there was to find. Shame on you Martin Bright .
-
simonr
26 January 2008 at 20:53 So, Martin,
Ken isn't averse to a drink, uses his position to oppose policies he doesn't agree with and has the support of his advisers. As these are pretty typical of every politician since the dawn on man, your attack is pathetic as well as dishonest. How did you get sucked into this nonsense?
-
Paul
26 January 2008 at 22:07 Yes, Simonr. It rather depends on whether you have banned drink from the building in which you glug at 10am; on how you use your position to oppose policies you don't agree with (like making staff raise money for your campaign in office time); and on the character of the advisers who support you,
-
woody
27 January 2008 at 15:56 Am I wrong in assuming that somebody who writes for the Evening Standard whilst editing the New Statesman cannot be of the left. Both your Despatches programme and your most recent articles were little more than extended election propaganda for Boris Johnson and in the run up to the mayoral election I find their timing dubious.
There maybe grounds for concern over the systemic weaknesses of the London Assembly and its inability to hold the mayor to account .There may also be grounds for concern over aspects of the behaviour of the mayor. The first is the responsibility of the drafters of the legislation and if the latter has gone unchallenged, it is a consequence of that deliberate weakness created by Blair and intended to be exploited by a user friendly Blairite and not by somebody who owed no allegiance to him.
Progressive politics suffers from a willingness to self destruct over issues of ideology and personality rather than to unite and face the common foe. In this process they are aided and abetted by a fifth column, who claim the moral high ground whilst doing the work of the opposition. Are you such a person or are you simply following your twenty pieces of silver?
In forming my opinion of the mayor I would rather be guided by Darcus Howe who makes the point that Livingstone has had a beneficial impact upon the living experience of the many Londoners who are outside the gilded metropolitan elite. There is a danger that if your campaign to discredit the mayor is successful the gains made under
-
Connor
27 January 2008 at 17:31 I am not a supporter of Ken but your biased and one sided reporting is a joke. Britain has 2 of the greatest living war criminal politicians - Blair and Brown - responsible for 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of a lie. Ken is a minnow and you ignore the big fish.
COWARD.
-
flower
27 January 2008 at 17:47 hi Martin - I just want to say - as a born and bred labour voter - thank-you. I don't want Ken as my party's rep for Mayor of London; and it's taken some courage to speak out.
Reading the implicit threats made to Brenda Stern says it all really. Ken's smugness is now beyond irritating.
-
Paul
27 January 2008 at 22:33 More of the same from the "debaters" of the Left. Shoot the messenger, ignore the message. Accuse him of irrelevant misdeeds. Deny allegations that haven't been made. Anything other than face up to the fact that Livingstone is a tyrant, probably the most hated person in public office of our age.
I have a theory. The more a politician wants to "lead the world" in climate change initiatives / smoking bans / traffic charging / multicultural diversity / slave apology etc, the more he simply wants to get his name in the history books and sod the rest of us.
Livingstone scores 10/10.
-
bfreesun
28 January 2008 at 10:53 I have never voted for Ken.
I will now, as I suspect will others who know a hatchet job when they see one.
-
Barciad
28 January 2008 at 11:41 Herein lies the country in a nutshell. As much as we grow to dislike Labour for its corruption and absolutism, we still fell inclined to vote for it. Not through any great love or loyalty, but through the naked fear of what will happen if 'they' get in. A frightening thought, I agree, and unquestionably this will be a two horse race. Any suggestions as getting out of the mess that we are now in would be greatly appreciated.
-
patrick
29 January 2008 at 13:36 Barclad ... engage brain cells and actually say what we think and act accordingly?
Unlikely I know, but we can hope ;-)
-
patrick
29 January 2008 at 13:45 Does anyone else suspect that 'knave' is actually Ken? :-) ... alright, I'm just joking, but he does seem to think he's near enough perfect, check our posts on the previous blog entry towards the end from about January 24th.
-
patrick
29 January 2008 at 14:07 "123andrea
25 January 2008
@andy123
Chavez a "socialist dictator"? What on earth do you base this charge upon?
The recent referendum result made it obvious that not only does Chavez put his reforms to the vote, he readily accepts the result when it goes against him.
Venezuela has held 12 national votes since 1998. All of these were pronounced fair by international observers e.g. the EU.
If your interest in the facts is this poor, andy123, I hardly see why we should take your rants against Mr Livingstone seriously. After all, there's no evidence for "corruption" either. Can we please stick to the facts?"
Andrea, a dictator is one who essentially holds absloute power over a people ... this is exactly what Chavez was hoping to achieve, whether the people voted him that power or not is irrelevant to the description.
A vote as 'Head of State for Life' is virtually the same as having a ruling Monarch to all intents and purposes. The fact that a voting generation, of gullible individuals, have been seduced into voting for someone should not be incumbent upon those a decade hence who had no say in the process.
I say this as one who, broadly speaking, supports a lot of what Chavez is doing to free Venezuela from the US shackles, but he still has despotic desires and they don't need to be bolsterd by our own despot Ken!
-
knave
29 January 2008 at 17:11 I.m Ken, I love it Patrick. Actually I must be getting under your journo skin.
I don't even vote Labour.
I actually am a negative voter. I vote against parties not for them.
As for Chavaz I agree with your last comment but I doubt you believe in freeing anybody from US shackles you just don't like the fact he giving oil to the poor. If Pinochet was still in power you would be drooling.
-
Robert Powell
29 January 2008 at 17:24 So to sum up. We're all cancelling our subscriptions regardless of whether we have them or not. We're voting for Ken Livingstone even though we never have before. The New Statesman is really the Daily Mail. Yes another day well spent on the web - I think I'm now ready to take that job serving burgers.
-
Red Ken?
29 January 2008 at 17:29 Anyone fancy a glass of St Emilion?
-
patrick
30 January 2008 at 08:19 knave,
'nuff said, your ignorance is displayed in every post you make, so I'll leave you to it.
I foolishly thought that the NS boards would have readers with a modicum of intelligence, you have managed to dispel that notion entirely - well done!
I don't know how the others tolerate your vacuousness, maybe it amuses them. I'll never know as you've managed to silence a contrary view - I have no inclination to return to this board :-)
-
123andrea
31 January 2008 at 11:18 @patrick
Really, Patrick, do you not notice how silly you are sounding? Chavez was trying to achieve "absolute power" over his people? How - by devolving power to community councils? Don't be absurd.
"Head of state for life"? All he proposed was to remove term limits, i.e. bringing Venezuela into line with the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. He would only be president if he was elected in those monitored, fair elections we already know about. It's very patronising to reject the Venezuelan electorate as "gullible individuals" because they choose to vote for free healthcare, free education, cheaper food, democratic votes, a shorter working week, rights for minorities, etc.
I'm tired of people being outraged when Venezuelans vote for policies that make their lives better. All such opponents can do is murmur darkly about Chavez's "despotic desires" for which they have not a shred of evidence. Sounds depressingly similar to Martin Bright's smear campaign, and has as much basis in fact.
If you can't justify your position with better arguments than this, it's time to change your position...
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
