Bright's Blog

119 comments from readers

AHawkins
17 January 2008 at 13:50

Oh come on. You're the political editor of the New Statesman, you don't exist in a vacuum. As either Boris Johnsorn or Ken Livingstone could be running the capital from May 2nd you can't just do an hour long programme about one of them when we're already in the feverish election coverage. Your programme should be about all three main candidates or none. Otherwise you are not being balanced, and you're doing a disservice to the progressive politics the NS is supposed to represent. The fact that the political editor of the New Statesman chooses to make such a one-sided programme now is pretty disgraceful. Martin, either do a doc about all three main candidates, or individual ones on each of them, but don't insult our intelligence by just doing Ken Livingstone.

'I have no doubt that the media will subject Johnson, and the Liberal Democrat candidate, Brian Paddick, to full scrutiny in the run-up to the mayoral elections.' Well, Martin's a journalist and programme maker, let's see his docs on Paddick and Johnson.

Martin writes: 'I would have liked to put some of the concerns contained in the film to the mayor in person at his weekly press conference, but it was cancelled, amid speculation in the London media that he did not wish to answer the claims made in Dispatches.'

Bizarre. As Martin Bright must know, Livingstone was launching his first manifesto commitment instead of holding his press conference, as reported extensively on Tuesday. http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200801/1ecefbfc-15a7-4b02-91...

It was on the telly and in the newspapers. But the presenter of an hour long programme about Ken doesn't mention this!

However, Martin seems to be saying, by claiming he was going to put these issues to Ken at his press conference, that was going to leave it to less than a week before his show is aired to get round to going to Ken's press conference. Looks like Martin didn't give Ken a fair crack at responding to me.

As to the Venezuela oil deal, the New Statesman has been running promotions of the Venezuela Informtion Centre and Chavez t-shirts.

Martin says the assembly members are treated like dunderheads. Given that only the Greens and Labour members vote for progressive policies, that's hardly surprising. The Tories on the Assembly are Thatcherites. Dunderheads is too kind a word.

The most insidious thing about this is the stuff about drinking. You're seriously telling us that the political editor of the New Statesman is scientifically testing the drinking glasses of the mayor of London. Nutty and bonkers.

You're trying to get a story running about Ken Livingstone drinking too much and then complain when Ken Livingstone's people rubbish it. Martin Bright really really should be ashamed of this.

I'll be voting for Ken because London is demonstrably better than it used to be before he was elected Mayor. Bright and the NS need to clarify which side they're on in this election campaign.

Richard Irons
17 January 2008 at 13:51

Its a shame that numerous achievements of Ken's mayorality are not even mentioned here at all, such as:

a) the pioneering living wage scheme

b) the impressive reductions in crime

c) the bold range of environmental policies which go beyond the congestion charnge

Broad Left
17 January 2008 at 15:16

This blog shows how out of touch Martin Bright is with the views of many New Statesman readers.

Take for example the issue of Venezuela. One week the NS is giving support to the campaign on this issue and the advances in social progress taking place there, and the next Bright is arguing the relationship with this democratic government does not put the Mayor in "a good light."

Further, he does not mention the fact that thousands of the poorest Londoners have already benefitted from the London-Venezuela agreement through discounted bus and tram travel.

Bright seems increasingly out of touch with the NS' progressive readership on the crucial issue of whether London continues to have a left-of-centre administration or one led by a hard Thatcherite.

Hallam77
17 January 2008 at 15:35

Unlike this example of gutter press ‘scrutiny’ from Martin Bright, a serious examination of Livingstone’s record would look at the policies he has introduced and their effectiveness.

In eight years, Livingstone has introduced a range of polices that both chime with the inclusive, progressive majority in London and have made the capital a more successful city.

Some of Ken’s policies that have been delivered are below. From the lack of attention on them in the article it appears Bright thinks these are not important. I imagine New Stateman readers think differently.

London’s bus service transformed with massive expansion of the bus service resulting in a ridership increase of 2 million passengers a day.

Free travel on buses and trams for under-18s in full-time education.

The Freedom Pass that provides free transport for older and disabled Londoners has been defended from Tory attacks that it is a ‘stealth tax’

The biggest public transport investment programme since the Second World War.

Cycling levels up by 83 per cent over past five years and investment in cycling increased five-fold.

Crime in London is falling. Over the last five years crimes in London fell by 159,000 to 922,000 — the elimination of one in six crimes.

Police numbers increased from 25,400 when the Greater London Authority was established to 31,000 this year — an increase of 22 per cent.

Racial and religiously motivated incidents in the capital have declined by more than fifty per cent since 2000.

Working with other agencies domestic violence murders have been cut by more than 50 per cent.

An increased supply of affordable homes following the policy target that 50 per cent of all new homes in the capital should be affordable.

Winning the Olympic and Paralympic Games

London is the only major city in the world to achieve a shift from private car journeys to public transport.

London is now a world leader in the battle to prevent catastrophic climate change — established the C40 international coalition of major cities against climate change.

Establishing the London Living Wage, set at £7.20 an hour for 2007, to take account of the cost of living in London .

Funding 10,000 affordable and flexible childcare places for 2005–2008.

Programme of retro-fitting public buildings to reduce their carbon emissions.

Development of the London Climate Change Action Plan to achieve a carbon emission reduction of 60 per cent in twenty years.

London-wide Low Emission Zone starts operation from February 2008 to improve air quality.

Opposing the expansion of Heathrow airport.

Supporting the campaign against the commissioning of new nuclear power stations.

Hosting Europe ’s largest annual anti-racist festival, backing an annual memorial day for transatlantic slavery and commemorating Holocaust memorial day.

The Liberty festival has been built into the biggest disability arts event in Europe .

Working with Stonewall commissioned a campaign against homophobic bullying in schools.

Working with faith communities; promoting the right of freedom of religion, opposing religious discrimination and hatred and challenging Islamophobia in the media.

Statue of Nelson Mandela placed on Parliament Square .

Consistent opposition to the war in Iraq including speaking at anti-war marches both before and after the war began.

Working with CND and others over such issues as nuclear weapons, including supporting the campaign against the replacement of Britain ’s Trident nuclear weapon system.

TWalker
17 January 2008 at 15:40

Of course politicians should be scrutinised. But no one will take seriously the claim that this is what Bright is trying to achieve with this scurrilous piece based on smear and innuendo.

Martin, will you be doing a similar piece on Boris before the election? You say you there was a piece in the Statesman in September, but that was way before the real campaigning started.

Without this, this piece appears to be just the latest attempt to undermine Livingstone’s electoral chances, similar to what we are seeing nearly everyday in the London Evening Standard.

Patrick
17 January 2008 at 16:32

How rattled can this lot get at totally legitimate scrutiny, which Londoners deserve to see before 1st May.

arkletten
17 January 2008 at 18:00

Martin, Boris Johnston would be even worse than Red Ken. Boris claims his grandfather was a Turkish Muslim journalist called Ali Kemal, and claims to be proud of his 'Muslim ancestry' though how you can be descended from a religion, I do not know. He links his Commons webpage to his Wikipedia entry which details this.

Boris wrote a Telegraph article last autumn in which he reveals he wants Turkey in the EU. He is totally non-plussed about legitimate fears of rising Islamism in Turkey and the mysterious influence of the Naqushbandi sufi movement and its links to the equally mysterious but very wealthy and powerful Nur movement of the exile Fethullah Gulen. This organisation appears to share the same Islamist agenda and tactics as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for whom Quardawi is the spokesman. It has penetrated the current Turkish government as leading figures are disciples of Gulen.

Make no mistake, Boris is even more of a dangerous idiot than Red Ken.

Face up to it. The London mayoral election is a straight choice beteween two Muslim Brotherhood candidates.

Red Ken - for the Egyptian MB.

Boris - for the Turkish MB.

At least Eqypt isn't trying to get into the EU though.

epitomy
17 January 2008 at 20:17

An hour long prime time documentary on Ken with so little to say as a serious documentary... my questions to Mr. Bright -

do you think that its significant that racist attacks are at record lows in London under Ken? (when was the last time a Tory achieved this?)

Do you think its significant that in the wake of the 7th July bombings, Ken used his powerful position to ensure that all communities were united against the terrorist attacks so that there were minimal recriminations against the Muslim community (unlike the attacks and shootings of Asians in the US post sept 11th)?

That Ken has taken the pioneering step of apologising for the city's role in Slavery and Colonialism which it has profited from, and that he fought the tory led westminister council whose reluctance to host the Mandela statue in Trafalgar square was embarrasing and shameful?

One hour of prime time tv and you choose to debate whether he is drinking whisky at a question time event. Although ten out of ten for cleverly using this to take a sideswipe at the Muslim community for its views on alcohol consumption - its clear your real aim here is to attack Muslims for backing Ken so publicly - luckily, in backing Ken for Mayor, the Muslim community has taken the sensible step of elevating Ken's position on pressing questions such as protecting civil liberties, opposing war and combatting racism, over any dogmatic position on alcohol - ironic that your documentary does not seem capable of the same political sophistication....

Of course Martin, if the Mayorality is fought on progressive politics, Ken is clearly the best candidate. People are correctly pointing out that you are becoming a proxy for Boris because the real contest in this election is between Ken and the Tories.

It is no coincidence that much of the media attacks on Ken are poorly engineered attempts to bolster the Boris campaign, whether or not they even mention him. If the contest can be dragged into the gutter and mired with imaginary smears, scandals and accusations, you change the terrain from what is best for London, to one which favours Boris' backwardness. Well done. Dont expect anything but utter contempt from anyone who had to suffer under Thatcher.

Carl Jones
17 January 2008 at 23:40

As a person who lives in Central London, I don`t like many of the things that Livingston has done, such as traffic chaos most weekends due to special events. A congestion charge which is a wealth tax and is a free at weekends. Housing policy is dire. Every free site is taken up by swanky apartment blocks and of course, the treatment of Battersea Power Station is a national scandle....just waiting for it to fall down!

But having said all that, I don`t know of anyone who could replace Red Ken. Its such a shame he`s become the City of London`s lackey.

Now I must take Mr Bright to task. If you were dying of cancer and someone recomened a specific doctor as the BEST there is, and off you go and see him in his office, but he tells you he`s only got ten minute, because he has to operate. So you sit down and notice he has a glass of scotch on his desk....he takes a swig and then he notices your face, yes, your face Mr Bright. Of course, you know that Mr Doc has the best record in the country. BTW, Mr Doc says that he`s always had a scotch before work....so what do you do Mr Bright? Now, I don`t advocate drinking at work, but some jobs require a little slack and you should be thankfull that Ken turns up for work. Blair needed to drink Iraqi blood, Kennedy like a drink....by all accounts, an average drinker by HofC`s standards. Mr Livingston travels by tube, he does not operated dangerous machinery...maybe you`d be happier if he used a less detectable drug? I might remind you that Churchill drank 24/7, maybe if we turned the clock back, you`d stop him from becomng PM? Go on Mr Bright....demand that all diplomatic staff stop drinking at social functions...especially in Moscow!!LOL

Funky Monkey
18 January 2008 at 10:36

Martin Bright quotes Peter Tatchell, whom he (Bright)

fails to point out is a Green Party member and

supporting another candidate to Ken Livingstone in the

election.

Despite this and touching on the issue of homophobia

in the article, Bright conveniently omits Ken's record

on lesbian and gay rights as mayor (quite apart from

Ken's record at the GLC where he was vilified in the

media for his open support for lesbian and gay

equality).

As mayor, Ken introduced the first same sex

partnerships in Britain. He has helped fund the Pride

celebrations and regularly leads the parade. Ken has

banned adverts on the public transport system by the

holiday company Sandals, which forced them to end

their policy of preventing same sex couples into their

resorts. He fought Westminster Council when they tried

to block the display of rainbow flags in Soho, and

fought Bromley council when they tried to get out of

their legal responsibility to hold civil partnerships

ceremonies. Simultaneously, Ken has organised an

education programme against bullying in schools with

the LGBT rights group, Stonewall.

The fact of the matter is that under Ken Livingstone,

the Greater London Authority has just been ranked the

second most lesbian and gay friendly workplace in

Britain.

It’s a pity that Martin Bright doesn't get around to

mentioning any of this.

At the same time, Boris Johnson – whose candidacy so

un-interests Bright that he hasn't even tried to

balance his documentary with a scrutiny of the Tory

candidate – was a supporter of the infamous Section

28, attacked: 'Labour's appalling agenda, encouraging

the teaching of homosexuality in schools, and all the

rest of it.' (The Spectator 15 April 2000).

Boris Johnson has also written that: 'the essence of

that Tory case is unchanged... it is more sensitive to

spare parents' anxieties, than to allow left-wing

local authorities to waste taxpayers' money on idiotic

and irrelevant homosexual instruction.' (Daily

Telegraph, 3 August 2000).

And that: 'Slowly Labour is winning the battle it

really cares about, the Kulturkampf, adjusting what

can be said, and what cannot be said... homosexuality

is to be taught in schools.' (The Spectator, 29 April

2000).

Most famously, Johnson wrote: 'if gay marriage was OK

- and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no

reason in principle why a union should not be

consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or

indeed three men and a dog.' (Friends, Voters,

Countrymen, page 96)

Such a person should not be allowed to become our

mayor and the New Statesman should get its house in

order.

In pride,

Ubaid-ul Rehman

Secretary of Imaan (the Muslim LGBT organisation)

chris
18 January 2008 at 11:49

It is sad that Bright's offering will look little more than a hatchet job on Ken to those of us who care about London's future and wish to continue in the progressive direction Ken has taken. It's surely absurd to claim that this is routine journalistic inquiry - if it was why wasn't this documentary aired mid term, and why does it fail to include analysis of the other main candidates' policies (such as they are)?

As others have mentioned above, for example, a quick survey of Ken's record on the environment and tackling climate change - vis a vis Johnson who opposed the Kyoto treaty - would provide a valuable perspective.

The fact that London is now the chair of the C40 group of world cities tackling climate change, leading the Guardian to report that 'Ken has dragged the capital to the top of the major world cities’ environment league'.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/05/activists....)

A poll conducted by Forum for the Future placed ken among Britain’s leading environmental experts.

In addition to all this, and of course to the huglesy successful congestion charge, Ken’s green record includes:

• The aim to reduce London’s carbon emissions in 20 years by 60%

• The low emission Zone begins next month to improve air quality.

• Opposing Heathrow airport’s expansion.

• Opposition to the building of new nuclear power stations.

• Starting from this year, retro-fitting public buildings to reduce their carbon emissions.

But none of this - what has basically helped to make the post of Mayor of London of great importance in promoting a green agenda for the capital - seems worthy of comment by Bright's programme, and it instead appears to be a cheap pre-election shot. I'm surprised and disappointed.

Jane Greene
18 January 2008 at 12:43

I wonder if Ken spinner the dreadful Joy Johnson has orchestrated some of these comments.

davidt.harryblog
18 January 2008 at 13:04

What do you think?

No shame in that. Politicians are entitled to orchestrate their own chorus. I expect that the people posting this stuff actually believe it. They're not liars.

davidt.harryblog
18 January 2008 at 13:13

There are lots of people who genuinely support Ken: because they agree with what he's doing, because they vote Labour, because they regard Boris as an idiot with terrible policies and Paddick as a wasted vote, and so on.

Most of them either don't regard Ken's weird and nasty side as that bad, or at least no worse than that of other poltiicians.

All sorts of perfectly nice people are genuine supporters of Ken Livingstone, and not ashamed to express their support for him.

That's not to say that there's no marshalling of support going on.

If you want to see the orchestrating of supportive messages for Ken Livingstone in action, have a look at the post by the "Secretary of Imaan (the Muslim LGBT organisation)" above.

The formatting of that comment suggests that it has come to the poster in an email. It has been cut and pasted into the comments box, which is why the formatting is so odd.

Imaan basically became a client-organisation of Ken Livingstone, who sent the (non muslim, and for all I know, non gay Socialist Action activist) Denis Fernando to 'turn' Imaan, when Ken was under fire for supporting Sheikh Qaradawi, who wants to establish a state where gays will be executed.

My guess is that Ken's machine sent the comment to Imaan to post in this thread. They dutifully complied.

Jane Greene
18 January 2008 at 13:23

Martin, I'm intrigued. Who do you plan to vote for?

IndigoJo
18 January 2008 at 13:43

David T: Are you sure "Funky Monkey" is Ubaid-ul Rehman? Perhaps FM has just copy-pasted it from Imaan's website, or from an email forward.

The comment from "arkletten" is particularly ignorant. Boris Johnson is someone whose journalistic record regarding Muslims is particularly awful - in response to the July 2005 bombings and the riots in France later that year, he published a series of highly bigoted articles, one of them by himself and one of them by the inveterate Muslim-basher Patrick Sookhdeo, which claimed among other things that Muslims are out to sacralise space by such means as holding marches, which is a flat-out untruth (many Muslims never participate in these marches and no attempt has been made to claim space as a result of them). I regard him as an enemy of Muslims and would rather see the Congestion Charge (which I hate, particularly the western extension) preserved than vote for this dangerous bigot. I wish Labour would find a more moderate politician who is neither a clown nor a patsy.

As for Ken's drinking and what his Muslim allies think of it, my response is "so what". We know that non-Muslims (some of them) drink alcohol. As long as he is not drunk on the job and does not tip his scotch into my tagine, I do not see what the fuss is about.

Yusuf Smith

http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/

Paul Rogers
18 January 2008 at 14:00

Like most readers of the New Statesman I am a big fan of investigative journalism. I appreciate the way it gets to the bottom of what is going on and exposes concealed truths. I also want elected politicians held to account. So I welcome scrutiny of what Livingstone has been doing as Mayor of London these past eight years. Sadly, Bright’s blog suggests that his Dispatches programme will disappoint. I will watch it, but am now expecting a TV version of the daily drivel that gets served up as ‘news’ by the Mail group’s Evening Standard, a paper waging a full scale campaign for the election of Boris Johnson.

The political points Bright’s blog raises to attack Livingstone echo the charges made by the Evening Standard’s campaign. Bright claims to have come ‘across a blizzard of stories that do not show the mayor in an entirely good light’, but fails to mention these stories’ principal source. It does not require a six month investigation to establish the veracity of most of these charges being levelled at Livingstone. A few inquiries rapidly identify the connections between the Evening Standard’s attacks on Livingstone and Boris Johnson’s election campaign.

It requires the minimum of investigation to spot that the Standard’s ‘blizzard of stories’, with their wild headlines charging corruption etc, are not even substantiated within the actual articles. It is also easily observable that the editorial line of the paper is to give avid support to the Tories and Johnson. One of the prime journalists commissioned to produce these ‘stories’ is Andrew Gilligan, whose connections to Boris Johnson are well documented. Livingstone, for example, refers to the connection in on the Guardian’s Comment is Free at

link

That Bright fails to point out the blatantly obvious - that these stories are just a part of a smear campaign - suggests his Dispatches ‘investigation’ may just treat us all to a further dose of this same type of journalistic approach. It would be good to call the Mayor to account and investigate the effectiveness of his policies, but there is a world of difference between that and a crude politically motivated character assassination – the latter just makes a mockery of objective journalism.

Dave Hill
18 January 2008 at 14:24

I hope Paul rogers isn't suggesting that Boris Johnson and the Evening Standard are in cahoots in some way. That would be outrageous!

http://davehill.typepad.com/london3ms/2008/01/fair-comment.h...

BrianPaddickDelivers
19 January 2008 at 11:54

I think we need to see how biased and one-sided the documentary is. If there is genuine wrongdoing then it it is only right and proper that it is made public.

On the so-called achievements of Ken Livingstone as Mayor, they are not all they seem. For example:

'London’s bus service transformed with massive expansion of the bus service resulting in a ridership increase of 2 million passengers a day.' At a cost of £600m a year in subsidy where bus jams have replaced car jams, where many buses go around empty, where they bunch together and terminate before their final destination making Oyster card users pay twice for the same journey. Hardly value for money.

Free travel on buses and trams for under-18s in full-time education. Something I, as Mayor, would expand as Mayor to all undergraduates in full-time education as education is the route out of poverty.

The Freedom Pass that provides free transport for older and disabled Londoners has been defended from Tory attacks that it is a ‘stealth tax’. Something, I as Mayor would guarantee and pay from the Mayor's precept if necessary if local authorities pulled-out.

The biggest public transport investment programme since the Second World War. Including the disastrous Labour PPP programme to renovate the tube resulting in the collapse of Metronet, brought about at least in part by the out-dated culture in TfL and London Underground.

Cycling levels up by 83 per cent over past five years and investment in cycling increased five-fold. An investment I would continue but at the same time emphasise the responsibilities of cyclists to obey traffic lights, zebra crossings and not to ride on the pavements.

Crime in London is falling. Over the last five years crimes in London fell by 159,000 to 922,000 — the elimination of one in six crimes. According to the most reliable measure of crime levels over time, the British Crime Survey, crimes has not gone down at all over the past 4 years. Even on dodgy police recorded crime statistics, knife crime is up over 4 years ago despite massive investment in the police.

Police numbers increased from 25,400 when the Greater London Authority was established to 31,000 this year — an increase of 22 per cent. This is an increase in police officers and police community support officers who cannot conduct stop and search, get involved in violent incidents and are generally powerless to deal with gun and knife crime.

Racial and religiously motivated incidents in the capital have declined by more than fifty per cent since 2000. Yet independent research shows racist incidents increasing in the UK; a real improvement or a loss of confidence in the police?

Working with other agencies domestic violence murders have been cut by more than 50 per cent. And the Mayor’s role in this exactly? (the clue is in ‘working with other agencies’.)

An increased supply of affordable homes following the policy target that 50 per cent of all new homes in the capital should be affordable. A target that is being consistently missed and the situation is getting worse, year on year; yet another case of fine words and poor delivery.

Winning the Olympic and Paralympic Games – on his own?

London is now a world leader in the battle to prevent catastrophic climate change — established the C40 international coalition of major cities against climate change – I thought Prince Charles was the driving force behind this? I guess it depends what newspaper you read.

Establishing the London Living Wage, set at £7.20 an hour for 2007, to take account of the cost of living in London – fine words but no way of enforcing it.

Development of the London Climate Change Action Plan to achieve a carbon emission reduction of 60 per cent in twenty years. Fine words with no way of realistically achieving it?

London-wide Low Emission Zone starts operation from February 2008 to improve air quality. A multi-million pound scheme that the Department for Transport say they would not have implemented as it is an ineffective and inefficient initiative, which on the Mayor’s own figures, is likely to reduce air pollution by 0.6%

Opposing the expansion of Heathrow airport. Like all the four main Mayoral candidates.

Supporting the campaign against the commissioning of new nuclear power stations. Like three out of four of the main mayoral candidates.

Hosting Europe ’s largest annual anti-racist festival, backing an annual memorial day for transatlantic slavery and commemorating Holocaust memorial day. The practical effect on these festivals on the day-to-day lives of Londoners being what?

Working with Stonewall commissioned a campaign against homophobic bullying in schools. Stonewall, asking the Mayor to support their campaign against homophobic bullying in schools that I would support from a much stronger position than Ken if I were Mayor.

Working with faith communities; promoting the right of freedom of religion, opposing religious discrimination and hatred and challenging Islamophobia in the media. In the same way I have been doing the same things as a senior police officer and would continue to do as Mayor.

Statue of Nelson Mandela placed on Parliament Square . !

Consistent opposition to the war in Iraq including speaking at anti-war marches both before and after the war began. Ken is a member of the Labour Party who started the war in the first place. If he was really committed to ending the war in Iraq, why did he re-join the Labour party? Why not really show his opposition by remaining an independent or join the Lib Dems?

Working with CND and others over such issues as nuclear weapons, including supporting the campaign against the replacement of Britain ’s Trident nuclear weapon system. Another Labour policy.

Ken Livingstone is a political opportunist who does whatever he thinks will shore-up his own position. He engages in a series of initiatives purely aimed at winning political support rather than delivering real change that every Londoner will notice in their day-to-day lives. Thankfully some of his political manoeuvrings have coincidentally resulted in improving the lives of Londoners but generally they are extravagant failures to deliver real value for money.

radius
19 January 2008 at 15:43

Unfortunately Livingstone’s dogged determination to treat the Islamic right as “the Muslim community” does make him deeply suspect. As does his refusal to apologise for his bizarre ‘concentration camp’ Jew remarks. And of course his continued membership of the War Party. But mainly his deeply creepy ‘take-me-to-your- leader’ attitude to Muslims. These are traits of unconscious racism, and it is important that they are challenged at every step by the left, regardless of the political inconvenience of doing so.

Cybertiger
19 January 2008 at 19:34

"But mainly his deeply creepy ‘take-me-to-your- leader’ attitude to Muslims. These are traits of unconscious racism ... "

Give me strength ... to ... to ...

Ken described Dubya as the greatest threat to life on the planet. I suppose that description could be construed as an example of concious racism ... challenge it if you dare.

Carl Jones
19 January 2008 at 20:22

Jane G: I hope you aren`t refering to me.

Cybertiger, are you calling Dubya a "Zionist"???LOL

Nada
19 January 2008 at 21:20

http://blogs.salaam.co.uk/article.php?story=2008011819012928

Jason
19 January 2008 at 21:33

Most of my views on Ken have already been posted in the 'blizzard' of positive comments above.

However I do take issue with the person referring to himself as Brian Paddick Delivers:

Brian (if that is really you) your suggestion that Ken should have stayed out of the Labour Party if he was 'really' opposed to the war in Iraq seems simplistic and rather unfair. There are a considerable amount of MPs and other prominent figures who are still in the Labour Party and always have been opposed to the war.

Your LibDem Party on the other hand have no right to venerate yourselves as an anti-war party. You opposed it right until the massacre began when your then leader Charles Kennedy gave his "genuine support". Of course now that it has turned out to be disastrous you are against it. Don't get me wrong; there are genuinely anti-war figures in your party (maybe including you, I don't know about your record there) but as a whole party you were despicably cowardly.

You generally seem to fail to understand why Ken opposes policies that Labour nationally supports. You call it political opportunism. I call it having the good conscience to stand against actions of the Dear Leaders TB + GB that he disagrees with.

Judging by your poll ratings (which are spookily similar to those of your party nationally) you could do with taking a leaf out of Ken's book and trying some independence from the party line.

greengirldavies
20 January 2008 at 11:09

Among BrianPaddickDelivers’ stranger claims is that Prince Charles, not Ken Livingstone, established the C40 group on climate change. This will be news to Prince Charles!

It doesn’t take much work to find out that the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which brings together 40 of the world’s largest cities to cut greenhouse gas emissions, was first convened by the Mayor of London in October 2005. In August 2006, as chair of the C40, Ken Livingstone signed a partnership with Bill Clinton’s Climate Initiative. In May 2007, Ken chaired a meeting of the 40 cities hosted by Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, which launched a major international programme to retrofit public buildings to make them more energy efficient.

A series of further initiatives have since been announced, which put cities at the forefront of tackling climate change, in contrast to the inertia of national governments. Led by the Mayor of London and the mayors of 39 other cities. Not a prince in sight.

It’s all at www.c40cities.org

What on earth has Brian Paddick been reading?

BrianPaddickDelivers
20 January 2008 at 13:44

My mistake

I was confusing Ken's talk shop with Prince Charles concrete delivery of top business leaders' commitment to reducing climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/bali.clima...

flower
20 January 2008 at 14:14

Why aren't we supposed to question what the Mayor of London has been doing for the past 8 years? I will watch the programme with interest and hope that if nothing else, the Mayor's office will be subject to greater scrutiny in future.

Well done.

Cybertiger
20 January 2008 at 17:35

@Jonesy

"Cybertiger, are you calling Dubya a "Zionist"???"

Dubya has liberally helped the Zionist cuckoo to foul its nest. Where are the Jews to flee to now? The raid on Entebbe put paid to Uganda as a Jewish homeland. Israel in Texas has an obvious ring to it, I think.

Martin Bright
20 January 2008 at 23:15

An extraordinary series of posts. I find it amazing how loyalty to Livingstone expresses itself in such a uniform stylistic manner.

In answer to Jane Greene, well, I won't be voting for Ken or Boris, but beyond that I haven't made up my mind yet. But wouldn't it be great to be able to vote for a Labour Party candidate who was not surrounded by a cabal of overpaid Trots working towards the "bourgeois democratic revolution."

Anyway, watch Dispatches tomorrow night and decide for yourselves. I suspect people are independent-minded enough to do that, although some of the posts here suggest otherwise.

I would just ask people to consider the way the Mayor's office treated Livingstone's long-term Asian issues adviser Atma Singh, when he disagreed with his support for the Islamic religious right before casting their vote. Is this man really the progressive leader London needs for the second decade of the 21st century? I don't think so.

john green
21 January 2008 at 12:51

No politician is perfect or without blemish, but the misdemeanours Livingstone is being accused of are petty compared with the corruption, venality and comparative behaviour of most of our government politicians. Why pick on Livingstone, particularly at this crucial juncture of the run up to the mayoral elections? Livingstone is a commitment politician – he has principles and is not interested in power for its own sake, like most. He delivers on what he promises. He is the best mayor we could have had. He is making London a better place for all of us, not just for the few. Bright, Cohen et al are implicitly campaigning for Johnson and Co. even if they deny it. No one can accuse Livingstone of lining his own nest or pursuing a selfish personal career like those who become directors of banks or consultants for private companies on the back of their political careers.

Cybertiger
21 January 2008 at 13:16

Nice one, Mr Green. I agree ...

David Wilson
21 January 2008 at 16:18

Oh the tricks that are used to champion the cause of Ken Livingstone - the pioneer of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

There was a letter issued a few weeks ago from what seemed like a number of "influential" Muslim organisations that were mainly NGO's . At first glance, it seemed as Ken had far reaching support from the Muslim population in London and that he was probably going to be re-elected. But greater inspection is required.

If the letter is from organisations rather than individuals – then the NGOs are in breach of their charitable status as they are not allowed by Charity Law to align themselves to any political party.

As far as media (in this instant the extreme Islam Channel) is concerned, any broadcasters have to “support” all candidates equally (The Islam Channel were fined Thousands of £ for backing a particular person – Yvonne Ridley at the last council elections). Either way – the organisations are in breach of laws.

As only people that live in London are allowed to vote, I fail to see how these names are reflective of Londoners as the overwhelming majority of them live outside and are not eligible to vote, therefore are not affected on a day to basis with the policies that Ken has introduced and are pronouncing judgements on factors outside of London itself.

This includes people such as (not exclusive)

Salma Yaqoob lives: in Birmingham where she stood as a Respect Party candidate: in 2005.

Zahir Birawi is the chairman: of the Leeds Grand mosque.

Dilwar Hussain lives: in Leicester where he works the Islamic Foundation which is based in the city.

Salim Bhorat from Just Peace apparently: lives: in: Bolton: .

Tariq Ramadan does not even have British citizenship and holds a Swiss passport. He is based in Oxford: where he is a research fellow at St Anthony's College.

The BBC: described these groups as representing 'the overwhelming majority of Muslims in London'. In fact just under half of the signatories failed to disclose their affiliation to one of two Muslim groups - the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Muslim Association of Britain / British Muslims Initiative (MAB/BMI) - both of which have links to fundamentalist organisations - Muslim Brotherhood and indeed Hamas. Furthermore several signatories have little or no connection to London or have been employed by the Mayor's office.

Of the 63 signatories 22 of them (over a third) have worked for, represented or been backed by just two Muslim groups - the MCB, many of whose key members are closely linked to the fundamentalist Pakistani party Jamaat-e-Islam and the MAB/BMI, which is the British arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. At least 5 others have worked for other groups or mosques closely linked to these organisations.

Signatories linked to the Muslim Council of Britain

Abdallah Faliq - Islamic Forum Europe [has

represented: the East London Mosque Trust in an unspecified capacity. The East London Mosque is the unofficial headquarters of the MCB]

Ahmed Malik - Editor, Muslim Weekly [has helped: MCB produce their weekly e-newsletter]

Azad Ali - Muslim Community Radio [Chairman: of MCB Membership Committee]

Dilwar Hussain - London Muslim Centre [Head: of Policy Research Unit at the Islamic Foundation which is closely linked to the MCB]

Dr Daud Abdullah - An Noor Masjid Acton [deputy secretary general: of the MCB]

Dr Jameel Sharif - Salaam.co.uk: [A "Dr Jamil Sharif" has spoken: on behalf of the MCB in an unspecified capacity]

Inayat Bunglawala - Islamic Society of Britain [spokesman: for MCB]

M Iqbal Asaria - Afkar Consulting [chairman: of the Muslim Council of Britain's business and economic affairs committee]

Sir Iqbal Sacranie - no affiliation stated [former chairman: of MCB]

Soumaya Ghannoushi - Academic and freelance writer [co-opted member: of MCB's Central Working Committee]

Unaiza Malik - no affiliation stated (treasurer: of Muslim Council of Britain)

Tanzeem Wasiti - Muslim Solidarity Committee [has spoken: on behalf of the MCB in an unspecified position]

Signatories linked to the Muslim Association of Britain

Abdul Shaheed - North London Central Mosque [this mosque - also known as Finsbury Park mosque has been run by MAB]

Anas Altikriti - The Cordoba Foundation [former president: of the Muslim Association of Britain]

Belgacem Kahlalech - Algerian League in Britain President [former member of Muslim Association of Britain]

Dr Azzam Tamimi - Institute of Islamic Political Thought [Muslim Association of Britain spokesman: ]

Dr Hafez al Karmi - Mayfair Mosque [part: of MAB group which took over management of Finsbury Park Mosque]

Dr Ismail Jalisi - Muslim Association of Britain London

Dr Kamal Helbawi - Centre for the Study of Terrorism [founding chairman: of the Muslim Association of Britain]

Fareed Sabri - Iraqi Communities in London [has spoken: on behalf of MAB in an unspecified capacity]

Ismail Patel - Friends of Al Aqsa [Spokesman: for British Muslim Initiative - a group run by Anas Altikrit, a former MAB president and spokesman]

Mohammad Kozbar - Lebanese League London [secretary: of trustees Finsbury park mosque. Board of trustees was set up by MAB]

Mohammad Sawlaha - British Muslim Initiative ['Sawlaha' would appear to be a spelling mistake for 'Sawalha'. Mohammad Sawalha is a former president: of MAB]

Mustafa al Mansur - MOSAIC Foundation [imam: at Finsbury Park mosque - which is under control of MAB]

Professor Tariq Ramadan - Oxford University / Lokahi Foundation [one of the most prominent apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. MAB is the Muslim Brotherhood's British wing]

Salma Yaqoob - Vice Chair Respect [Respect Party candidate whose campaign was backed: by the MAB]

Yasmin Qureshi - Prospective Parliamentary Candidate [her campaign to be elected for labour for Brent East was backed: by MAB]

Several signatories have also worked with both the MCB and MAB.

For example, Kemal Helbawy co-founded both: the MCB and the MAB. Abdallah Faliq, as well as representing: the East London Mosque Trust has also

worked: for the MAB-linked Cordoba Foundation run by Anas Altikriti, the former MAB president.

Several others on the list have worked for projects part-organised by the MCB and MAB.

For example, Fida Alaeddin works for Islamexpo which has been endorsed by MAB and the MCB. Soumaya Ghannoushi, another signatory, has also worked: for Islamexpo where she is director of research and Salim Bhorat has also apparently been employed by the organisation, writing: a review of the event for the Islamexpo website. IslamExpo 2006 was officially opened: by Ken Livingstone in his capacity as Mayor of London. Islamexpo has received funding from the Mayor of London's office.

Signatories employed by the Mayor of London

Other individuals work for organisations funded by the Mayor of London's office or have been directly employed by the Mayor.

For example, Ruhul Trafader signed the letter as a representative of the 1990 Trust which is part-funded: by the Mayor's office. Yasmin Qureshi has been employed: by the Mayor as his human rights advisor.

In addition to the above, Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad was one of the signatories on Ken's supporting letter. I have an Arabic lecture from 2001 in which he establishes that the West is the real terrorist, Crusader etc., as well as a 2004 Arabic article regarding the need for long term strategy to the Iraqi Resistance.

Furthermore - Has Ken really helped Muslims in London?

Quoting from one of his opposition candidates(Paddick)

“They say he has stood up in support of a multicultural society. This may be true but the mayor has also managed to alienate many people from minority backgrounds.

He upset members of the Jewish community by his comments to a Jewish Evening Standard journalist. He angered many by inviting the Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi to a conference, despite his apparent support for the subjugation of women, the destruction of Israel and the execution of homosexuals in Islamic states. For a mayor who says "every Londoner should be able to live their life as they freely choose with the sole condition that they do not prevent others doing the same", al-Qaradawi was a strange choice.”

Even if Ken has done some “good” for some Muslims in the Capital, he has done even more harm to them by trying to carry out some of his initiatives at the detriment of others and seems to like working with people / organisations that have extreme views. In fact I recall that approx 4 years ago, I was helping a project in London (before anyone knew my stance) that was catering for greater social cohesion, and we approached Ken’s department. We were rejected before they heard the case by one of the signatories that used to work for him due to the fact that we were not members of MCB.

Summary

The writers of the letter appear to have deliberately concealed the primary affiliations of many of the signatories with the aim of attempting to show that Ken Livingstone's re-election campaign is supported by a wide range of Muslims groups who, in the words of the BBC, "represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims in London". In fact this is not the case, these groups represent just a fraction of Muslims in London and exclude many groups which radical movements habitually disagree with. In fact three surveys report that these organisations only represent a maximum of 7% of British Muslim Community (Salford University / Channel 4/ Living Apart Together).

They do have one thing in common - THEY ALL HOLD THE SPIRITUAL LEADER OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN THE HIGHEST ESTEEM (A MAJORITY VIEW IN THE UK) - YUSUF AL QARADAWI

radius
21 January 2008 at 16:22

A principled politician would not be having his cake and eating it as a paid-up member of the War Party. Especially one who became mayor while not in said party.

I believe there are other candidates whose party opposed the war - including a Green Party candidate. As for the Tories - they supported the war too, but at least they didn't wage it.

A principled politician would not court right-wing Islamist elites and treat them as if they were the natural representatives of a large and diverse working-class population.

A principled politician would eschew all cronyism and patronage.

A principled politician would not speak about Jewish concentration camp guards or Black opponents belonging in the BNP.

A principled politician would not court big business, denounce anti-capitalist protesters, call on workers to cross picket lines, back the police who murdered Jean Charles de Menezes. etcetera.

Serosch
21 January 2008 at 16:57

Martin Bright should be removed from his job, this attack is part of a coordinated campaign by Zionist groups to damage Ken, and these attacks have been going on ever since Ken refused to relegate Muslims to the fringes of politics in London.

chris
21 January 2008 at 16:57

Martin Bright, both in this article and in his blog comment later on in the thread, isn’t telling the whole story.

His real position is that he is urging people, in his capacity as the political editor of the New Statesman, to kick Ken out of office. As the only electoral alternative to Ken is the right wing Tory Boris Johnson, then we have the political editor of the New Statesman adopting a position of helping the Tory party. If I wanted this kind of stuff I’d buy the Spectator.

The real Martin Bright line is in the Standard today. In the Evening Boris (thanks Dave Hill http://davehill.typepad.com/london3ms/2008/01/evening-boris-...)

the New Statesman’s supposedly progressive political editor writes:

'Any Londoner with a progressive bone in his or her body should not consider voting for him in the forthcoming mayoral elections. Black, white or Asian, gay or straight, Muslim, Christian or none of the above: this is not a man who deserves your support. Writing as the political editor of Britain’s leading Left-leaning magazine, I believe the time has come for the Labour Party to drop him as its candidate.’ Evening Standard, 21/1/08’.

Note that he says he’s writing this in his capacity as the political editor of this magazine.

He also writes today:

‘I feel it is my duty to warn the London electorate that a vote for Livingstone is a vote for a bully and a coward who is not worthy to lead this great city of ours’ and; ‘The voters of London should kick Ken out when they go to the polls in May.’

A prime time current affairs documentary is therefore to be aired by someone who is publicly calling to remove the subject of the documentary from office.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown – a Brian Paddick supporter - in the Independent today writes: ‘the current assault on the Mayor is wholly unacceptable. Channel Four needs to deliver an equally “honest” programme on the sleeping habits of Mr Johnson, his business interests, his horrendous response to the Stephen Lawrence report (which he likened to witch-hunts in Ceausescus’ Romania), his colossal disrespect for people outside his class and privileges. If they don’t, the channel shows callous disregard for electoral fair play.’ It has taken a supporter of Brian Paddick to point out the obvious argument that Martin Bright’s documentary is unacceptable and unfair.

Stiles
21 January 2008 at 17:13

Well, I am seriously considering my subscription to the New Statesman. A couple of months ago, they get the arts correspondent to do a hatchet job on Chavez with the ludicrous title "Chavez the tyrant" and now this attack on Livingstone just 3 months before the mayoral election. As the first commenter writes "your programme should be about all three main candidates or none." Especially as the Evening Standard is putting out incessant anti-Ken propaganda, the timing of the Dispatches programme is a disgrace.

Tezza
21 January 2008 at 17:35

Martin states that ‘I would just ask people to consider the way the Mayor's office treated Livingstone's long-term Asian issues adviser Atma Singh, when he disagreed with his support for the Islamic religious right before casting their vote.’

But this is a misrepresentation of the Greater London Authority’s position. It wasn’t that he didn’t agree with working with the ‘Islamic religious right’ – it was that he was asked by the police to help with anti-terrorism and not only did nothing about it but didn’t get around to telling any body about it.

I listened to Martin Bright on the Nick Ferrari radio show this morning on LBC and he was unable to satisfactorily answer why Singh did not contact City Hall after the 7 July bombings.

To quote from the GLA’s own website:

‘Mr Atma Singh was removed from his job in the Greater London Authority for failure to meet a request for assistance from the Mayor’s Office from the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Squad, for failure to inform the Mayor’s Office that such a request for assistance from the anti-terrorism police had been made, for failure to contact the Mayor’s Office during the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July and 21 July 2005, and further matters.’

The full statement is here.

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=15...

Bright has based his programme on a witness who, when he was a paid London government official, failed to do his job in relation to the security of Londoners.

Presumably Martin Bright’s programme, in order to be fair, will quote from the GLA’s statement tonight so that Londoners can make up their own minds as to whether they wish to believe anything this person says?

jenny
21 January 2008 at 17:44

I agree, you can’t be the political editor of a progressive magazine and call for Ken Livingstone not to be re-elected when the consequence of this would be a full-blooded Tory administration imposed on London.

Bright’s article in the Standard today is a nail in the coffin of any claim of the New Statesman to be left of centre – London would be a worse place with a Tory mayor, and if the New Statesman cannot see this, it’s gone to the dogs.

If the editor John Kampfner wishes to come on this blog and clarify that Bright was in fact writing in his own capacity, and not as he states in the Standard in his position as the political editor of the New Statesman, then that would be a small bit of progress.

Grig
21 January 2008 at 17:54

David T from Harry’s Place attacks Ubaid-ul Rehman, the secretary of the Muslim lesbian and gay organisation Imaan, not for the politics of these comments but the formatting!!

But what is there to take issue with in Ubaid-ul Rehman’s actual comments? They are exactly right. Ken’s record in delivering on lesbian and gay rights far outstrips most other politicians in Britain – he led where others followed. It far outstrips any of those attacking him, which is another of many good reasons to make sure he is not replaced by Boris Johnson, whose candidacy Martin Bright is now openly assisting by calling for Ken Livingstone not to be re-elected.

What’s really going on is that the people opposing Ken Livingstone know that if this election is fought on the real issues like transport, policing and so on, then Ken’s record and what he would deliver if he was re-elected are superior to Boris Johnson’s. So they don’t want to talk about it.

As for basing your programme on someone who ignored an approach from the anti-terror squad when they asked for assistance…..I thought it was Martin Bright who was supposed to be the great opponent of terrorism. But he bases a TV show on a person who didn’t bother to pass on a request from the people in the front line of the fight against terrorism, the police. Astonishing.

radius
21 January 2008 at 17:54

Tezza, what precisely was the "assistance" that the Met anti-terror unit asked for and Atma Singh failed to provide?

It might help to give this detail, so people can make up their own minds - as it seems quite possible that such 'assistance' might have involved placating non-violent Islamists rather than doing real things - and it's downright unreasonable to sack someone just because they didn't contact the Mayor's Office on 7 July 2005. No wonder Livingstone agreed an out of court settlement (a mistake on Mr Singh's part, it would seem).

Richard Irons
21 January 2008 at 18:05

Martin Bright has set out in today’s Evening Standard an extraordinary position for someone producing a TV news and currents programme, basically calling for the politician scrutinised in that programme to be defeated on polling day.

I suspect if the New Statesman were to give its readers a vote, it would be Martin Bright who would be out on his ear.

Defending the indefensible, Bright dresses this up by saying he only reached this conclusion over the weekend (and presumably rushed out straight away to write a lengthy piece for the Evening Boris on that very Sunday, for publication now. To be precise he reached this conclusion at some point on Sunday, when the Sunday papers ran leaks from Bright’s own documentary and the GLA pointed out that his witness hadn’t done his job properly. Martin’s a fast worker, that’s for sure).

But Bright has form. He wrote – before the weekend – that ‘I believe Livingstone's behaviour is indicative of a politician who has become arrogant.’ He wrote this here, on this blog, on 17 January 2008, before the GLA’s response to his ‘mole’ was issued.

He wrote on 13 December, over a month ago, ‘But Brown must be careful not to hitch himself too closely to Livingstone. The London Evening Standard has already published a series of damaging articles about the mayor's race adviser, Lee Jasper. The intense scrutiny of Livingstone's close circle will continue until the poll on 1 May.’ This was in the New Statesman. His position was actually clear long before the Atma Singh stuff this weekend.

Oh yes, and for good measure he wrote: ‘A world civilisation run by Ken Livingstone or his friends on the Islamic right would be pretty unappetising. But at least Ken's new interest in foreign policy gives him and his staff plenty of excuses to spend Londoners' money on lots of juicy trips abroad.’ Bright’s Blog, 25 January 2007. He is in no way neutral.

His blog also carries various slaggings off of Ken’s staff. Bright is clearly an opponent of Ken’s. Fair enough for him to produce a documentary on this basis – as long he doesn’t try and dress it up as impartial, and as long as the other candidates are given the same treatment.

sdv
21 January 2008 at 18:18

congratulations for the complete absence of real politics.

radius
21 January 2008 at 19:51

It is sad to see how readily some who probably consider themselves 'lefty' will take the side of the employer in a bullying and racism case. Even one where the employer shelled out £20K to settle it. Even where the politician concerned is, far from being somehow synonymous with "progressive", an ultra-scab (ask London's rail workers), a passionate defender of the Met right or wrong, and an ally of capital as well as the Islamic right. But hey, you can’t be the political editor of a progressive magazine and advise people not to vote for him! The offence is being critical in and of itself ('form') - there is no need to address the substance of the criticisms. Politics reduced to football supporters' clubs: ha'way the red war party, they're not the blues, dirty old blues! (I mean, what bloody difference is there really?! Oh yes, one of these war parties actually waged war. How can your support for this disgraced party be so absolute? So you get less congestion, good for you! Your beloved party has yet to pay any price whatsoever for congesting the Tigris with the bodies of innocent Iraqis)

The allegation that this man was subject to racism and bullying because of his reluctance to meet with Islamist groups is a serious one - one that is supported by circumstantial evidence and is entirely compatible with everything the GLA has said to date. The notion that the GLA statement somehow presents something entirely different and contradictory to Singh's allegations is silly - obviously Singh's case is that the "request for assistance" was a request to meet with Islamist groups, and that he was victimised because of his reluctance to do so.

Lamindemba
21 January 2008 at 19:56

"There is no question that the substance in the glass was alcohol. We have conclusive scientific evidence on that." Come off it, this isn't serious investigative journalism - it is nonsense, unbecoming of the political editor of the Statesman.

gino
21 January 2008 at 20:18

i have bought the new statesman but after this hatchet job in colousin with the standard and the mail, hitlers fvourite newspaper i won`t be buying it again

peterbailey
21 January 2008 at 21:55

I have just wasted one hour of my life watching the Dispatches documentary. I thought the NS article above was vacuous, but the program itself was threadbare.

Piecing together a few accusations with some snippets of quotes from political enemies (mainly Tories and Lib Dems but also a couple of ex-Ken colleagues from the left) does not constitute the serious examination of Ken’s record by which Martin originally justified his programme.

Of course, that was never the reason. The real aim of Martin was to undermine Ken’s electoral chances as he has now explained with his call for people not to vote for Ken– and so in effect back Boris as Mayor -- in Today’s Evening Standard! (Just like Nick Cohen who has also come out in support for Boris in the Evening Standard).

All of the media coverage, including countless newspaper stories, TV coverage and radio interviews, was clearly done in the hope that ‘mud sticks’. Maybe Martin knew most people who heard about this in the media would never actually watch the programme – and so Ken would be tainted.

But the allegations were never backed up with proof. There was nothing in it that would justify anybody voting for Boris over Ken, if they believe in improving the lives of the majority.

Martin Bright appears to be in cahoots with the Evening Standard to rid London of a progressive Mayor. He has crossed the Rubicon, but with such a poor documentary I think he will have persuaded very few people to go with him. And many more to question the New Statesman’s judgement in employing him. .

flower
21 January 2008 at 22:15

Interesting programme - I wanted to know more about the LDA , though - especially now the police are looking at the books. I must say I am bewildered by the stepford-wives-stylee reverence shown to the incumbent mayor of London. It is part of good governance to have checks and balances - the GL Assembly needs more teeth with with to scrutinise the Mayor and his advisors - be s/he a Tory or a Labour or a Lib Dem candidate.

radius
21 January 2008 at 23:01

The booze thing detracted significantly from the programme. I rather got the impression that most of the people you spoke to were a bit tanked-up and not in a position to ride a bike. A bit depressing, but so what? Most of the Venezuela material was red-herring too.

I was gobsmacked though by the trot who got paid £14,000 from public funds for doing a few searches on google and lexis-nexis and shaping them into a hatchet-job on Trevor Phillips. Gizza job. And the £600 room service. No mention of Scab Ken, and not much on his courting of the Islamic right either..but then it didn't really seem to be a 'left' critique?

eastender
21 January 2008 at 23:35

Bright asserts that the LDA squandered £1.8 million on dubious voluntary sector organisations that went belly up after receiving cash.

However, no context was provided? What percentage of LDA investment in the voluntary sector does that account for? How does this record compare with that of other RDAs in terms of success rates of investment? Surely all voluntary sector funding carries risk but what's the overall balance of LDA success rates in third sector funding?

Sorry, Bright, I realise these are intelligent questions that a responsible journalist might wish to cover if they had any real intention of examining the LDA. I guess that didn't form part of your brief.

taghioff.info
22 January 2008 at 02:54

I would love to see the same approach to Boris Johnson. Although quite honestly this is not out of a sense of political probity, it is because it would also be a very entertaining spectacle.

It is interesting that scrutiny and accountability have shaded into a form of entertainment, but perhaps that is the best way to get people to engage with democracy, when other entertainment is so available on demand. Behind the spectacle, Martin has managed to raise some political questions about the office of the Mayor.

Interestingly, Ken has quite a big support base that he can mobilize at times like this (see these blog posts.) And interestingly, this blog is one of the only places I have seen the issues discussed. So the Tango between politics and entertainment is an interesting one.

I wonder how blogging is shifting this relationship, it might not be generally significant, but it seems to matter for the politically active to quite a great extent. I bet there are some fairly strong comments about this issue out there.....

eastender
22 January 2008 at 08:28

Essentially there were 2 allegations of substance in the programme. Atma Singh's claim that officers were conducting campaigning during work time and the Trevor Phillips business. Both claims warrant further investigation and clarificatin from the Mayor.

The rest of the programme was a one sided critique of his policies in office. Comletely imbalanced and, if Ken wasn't available for comment, why didn't Bright try and seek views from any other players in London who might have viewed his record in a more positive light. No mention of his record on anti-racism, affordable housing, childcare provision or the London Living Wage for example.

As for the allegations of a Socialist Action clique running the show, anyone who's looked at the Mayor's London Plan, Skills and Employment Strategy or Economic Development Strategy will find any allegations of Marxist influence completely laughable.

Bright also managed to fit in some fleeting focus on how the system is actually set up, with a powerful executive and weak assembly. Not of Ken's doing and, even by his own admission, a situation that would be the same of any mayor. But this didn't stop him laying the blame at Livingstone's door none the less.

A shoddy and confused piece overall, with the lines between political campaigning and investigative journalism not so much blurred as completely erased.

Couple this with Bright's anti-Ken rant in the Standard and you can't blame the Livingstone camp for wanting to cry foul about Dispatches adherence to rules of impartiality and balance.

Reidski
22 January 2008 at 10:26

Can't stand Ken Livingstone - I remember the odious part he played in a certain journalists' strike in 1998. Can't stand Socialist Action - secretive and dishonest. But Martin Bright, you really are an idiot for publishing and broadcasting stuff like this. Hope Boris Johnson has paid you well.

eastender
22 January 2008 at 10:35

Thought it might be worth Martin Bright also noting that the Mayor's of a number of cities including New York, Chicago, Christchurch, Amsterdam and ...erm... Eastbourne have all also led trade delegations to China.

I guess that makes Ken's visit look a little less like a mad foreign policy gesture and more like common practice of any city region but then don't let inconvenient facts like that get in the way your "investigative journalism".

jenny
22 January 2008 at 11:22

Mayor's response is here.

Dispatches - shoddy research and unbalanced reporting:

A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said:

`Tonight’s Dispatches programme presented by Martin Bright was grossly biased in its reporting and extraordinarily shoddy in its research. It is clear that such a programme should not have been broadcast in the run up to an election without balancing programmes on the other candidates.

`The dire quality of its research is evident. Martin Bright even claims that the Mayor has to resign before each election in order to campaign. This is simply untrue.

`The political balance of the programme was equally ludicrous. Neither the Mayor, nor anybody representing him was invited to appear on the programme to answer an hour of politically motivated attacks on him.

`The programme was simply a crude, and ineffectual, attempt at a hatchet job on Ken Livingstone by a totally biased journalist who has openly declared that his aim is to persuade people not to re-elect Mr Livingstone as Mayor of London. It is a violation of the most elementary rules of impartiality and objectivity that Channel 4 should have broadcast such a diatribe shortly before an election without any balance at all and with no suggestion that similar programmes will be broadcast in relation to other candidates for Mayor.

`The main source for the programme is a discredited and embittered former employee, Atma Singh, who failed to respond to a request for help from the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism squad in February 2005 and then failed to contact City Hall during or after the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July and 21 July 2005.

`It has now been revealed that on 22 March 2005 Mr Singh set up his own private company, of which he was Managing Director, in clear breach of the GLA’s Code of Ethics under which any such activity must be declared and agreed by the GLA.

`Channel 4 should apologise to Londoners for this gross attempt to interfere in its Mayoral election.’

IrritatedofTonbridge
22 January 2008 at 11:58

Exposed. The mayor uses whisky, the political editor of the New Statesman uses stabilisers.

redharry
22 January 2008 at 12:23

Martin Bright once wrote a piece which smeared May Day demonstrators

'Armed police on May Day riot alert

Globalisation

Martin Bright and Frank Kane

Sunday April 22, 2001

The Observer

Specialist firearms teams are being drafted in to police this year's May Day demonstrations in the City of London over fears that rioters armed with samurai swords and machetes will infiltrate the protests. '

http://www.guardian.co.uk/mayday/story/0,7369,477048,00.html

So he doen't have much of a record for reliability.

Bright's pamphlet 'When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries,' (surely autobiographical) was published by the sinister neo-con Policy Exchange think-tank. Bright describes the Policy Exchange as 'centre-right' which makes you wonder where his centre lies.

Carl Jones
22 January 2008 at 12:38

Watched the show last night and seemed like some small folk were tryin to bash a giant and failed. In fact, I would say that Livingstone`s reputation has been further enhanced. Last nights effort was akin to the Israeli`s nuking Iran`s nuke facilities and failing....now where is my scotch?:)

tobynz
22 January 2008 at 12:50

how can martin bright say he's a journalist?, after clearly making a party political broadcast in his evening standard article prior to broadcasting his 'despatches' attempt at investigative journalism. if channel 4 had any scruples it would now have a documentary on the abysmal record of Boris Johnson surely? and paddick.... the despatches programme was shoddy in that it mixed criticism of the role of the mayor (which is not livingstone's making), the fact that some LDA funded starter businesses had failed (mayor's fault too??) and then mixed in a hash of allegations, old news, a p*issed off ex staff member ranting about socialist city states, and previous daily mail campaigns against the mayor...all with hilarious 'spooky' music in the background to try to give it an air of drama and shock!! Come on, it was was utterly ludicrous to watch- im no labour/ken fanatic, but it would be very comical if it wasnt so awfully irresponsible and biased so close to an election. It seems that whatever the media try to blow the Govt campaign funding stuff ups into, it is the media itself that needs to start showing some standards, esp considering who actually runs it all!...utterly disgraceful. Surely people with an ounce of intelligence who saw this would now vote Ken out of protest??

Jane Greene
22 January 2008 at 12:59

You can't make a party political broadcast in the Evening Standard - it's a newspaper. Why was he on a bike though?

Chase me round Brian's Paddock
22 January 2008 at 13:03

I really can't see what people are getting exercised about

S.Walinets
22 January 2008 at 15:20

The NS invites comments on Martin Bright's 'Ken' column Jan 21st. Here's mine:

Bright's degree of self-deceit is despicable. And if it's not self-deceit, then he must be regarding us, his readers, with contempt.

(1): "I have no personal animus against Livingstone". He then writes, in the notoriously anti-Livingstone Evening Standard, a strong anti-Livingstone article. "He's a disgrace to his office", he writes, and "it's my duty to warn the London electorate that a vote for Livingstone is a vote for a bully and a coward... " etc. And this after rejecting 'vehemently', in his NS column, a suggestion that the Channel 4 programme was virtually a party political broadcast, the election being only 3 months away (not 4, as Bright says).

(2) In his NS column he claims surprise at the Mayor's office' reaction to "early leaks in Sunday papers -- leaks that did not come from Channel 4".

These leaks were "allegedly " about references in the programme to Livingstone's alcohol consumption. If those leaks weren't from Channel 4, where were they from? Not, surely, from sweetly innocent unbiassed Martin? Of course not. It was, says Martin, "a claim the programme does not make". The programme, he innocently proclaims, was "simply examining allegations that the Mayor had been seen drinking whisky on three public occasions". Of course it wasn't a smear, says Martin; "the programme makes no such claims, the drinking takes up only a few minutes of the film..." And Martin then spends 8 out of his 20-paragraph NS piece on the subject; while the programme itself is persistent with repeat shots of Ken with whisky glasses. Martin must be bitterly disappointed he couldn't catch Ken actually staggering.

And how shameful of Ken to have "used the oldest trick in the book -- denying a claim the programme does not make." How shameful of Bright, to ignore the fact that the programme does virtually make that claim by its very persistence; and that in his quote of Livingstone's response, Livingstone doesn't dodge the charge but in fact emphatically answers it.

I certainly don't suggest that Livingstone is without faults. No politician is (thanks not least to the persistent negative "aren't I clever?" reporting typified by Bright). But Bright had no right whatever to try to suggest that his Channel 4 programme was simply a neutral "assessment" of Livingstone's work, when virtually the whole programme was devoted to alleged faults, with no time given to his positive achievements.

I really do feel the NS does its reputation a great dis-service by presenting Bright -- so frequently too -- as its political expert. Think about it, Mr Kampfner!

AverageJoe73
22 January 2008 at 15:37

What a shoddy piece of journalism, very creative attempt to dig up dirt where there is very little. He should be sacked for this pitifully poor piece of work. Get a job writing soap columns or fantasy novels, and not spoiling one of my favourite TV shows.

Cancel my subscription
22 January 2008 at 15:49

If I had one I'd be right on the phone now!

Reactionary Roger
22 January 2008 at 16:48

How dare you sir! Boris Johnson will make a very fine mayor. If only he can keep his wandering hands to himself.

Gordon Hutchison
22 January 2008 at 17:18

In his Channel 4 Dispatches programme, New Statesman Political Editor Martin Bright devotes substantial time to attacking London's co-operation deal with Venezuela. Bright condemns this, using Tory MP Alan Duncan to back him up, and repeats slurs about Venezuela's government with no reference to its remarkable achievements in providing millions with free healthcare, education and subsidised food for their first time in their lives or its strong democratic record.

Is this the same New Statesman that recently ran a subscription promotion with a leaflet supporting Venezuela and a special offer of a free Chavez T-Shirt and a £1 donation to the Venezuela Information Centre?

Is the New Statesman at odds with its political editor? Or is the New Statesman just cynically trying to cash in on the genuine support for Venezuela's huge advances in social justice and democratic participation, whilst smearing Venezuela’s democratic government and those, like Ken Livingstone, who seek international co-operation on the basis of mutual respect and benefit?

Yours,

Gordon Hutchison,

Secretary, Venezuela Information Centre

andy123
22 January 2008 at 17:48

I've always voted for Ken, but when he shared a platform with a right wing religious extremist on record for declaring female genital mutilation as something merely 'not compulsory', I started to wonder what on earth was going on.

Some of you (most, I imagine will have been featured on the TV programme) seem to consider that the things raised by the programme didn't matter much.

I voted for Ken because I thought he was independent, fair and squeaky clean.

You career hangers'-on may not understand what it is like for an ordinary person to hear that the person you voted for has been using public funds to promote himself or to run a spiteful campaign to drag someone's name into the dirt.

You may consider these things little and unimportant.

For an ordinary person who looked up to Ken as a breath of fresh air in the otherwise poisoned atmosphere of Westminster Spin, you perhaps cannot imagine how disappointing it is.

When I saw Ken Livingstone standing up declaring that 'socialism hadn't arrived yet, but this man (Chavez) was the first, I could not believe it. There was a man I voted to make the buses work in London, talking as though he was a fellow leader of a country fighting for a socialist revolution!

I won't be voting for Ken next time. I've not decided which alternative candidate to go for, but I suspect it will be the person most likely to unseat this reptile that has broken my trust. Unfortunately, because of the growing religiously inspired homophobia in London, I fear that Paddick will not be that man.

Colonel Blimp
22 January 2008 at 17:56

After flirting with Boris, I'm right behind Berry. She's the blonde for me.

IrritatedofTonbridge
22 January 2008 at 18:02

Colonel you do realise we are talking about the London mayoral election?

xray61
22 January 2008 at 18:07

Congratulations Mr Bright on pulling together this long and difficult piece. I sincerely hope that a formal, independent investigation is initiated into the more serious charges and we will all eagerly await the findings.

Paul
22 January 2008 at 19:28

Lamindemba: (There is no question that the substance in the glass was alcohol...) "Come off it, this isn't serious investigative journalism - it is nonsense, unbecoming of the political editor of the Statesman".

Yes, Churchill drank too. But he made no secret of it. And he certainly didn't make up bossy rules banning alcohol from the premises in which he drank.

tobynz: "If channel 4 had any scruples it would now have a documentary on the abysmal record of Boris Johnson surely?"

If Livingstone had any scruples, he would not have tolerated his staff fund-raising for his election campaign in office hours.

peterbailey: "The real aim of Martin was to undermine Ken’s electoral chances as he has now explained with his call for people not to vote for Ken".

Or could his real reason be that he has looked closely at Ken and found a nasty, autocratic piece of work who should be removed from public office?

All: "Look at Ken's magnificent record on transport / gay rights etc etc"

Then look at Ken's record of turning London into a multicultural hell-hole where the indigenous population has either been driven out or feels it is living in a foreign country. Where the rates are so high, millions have to live like battery chickens or are forced to stay under the radar. Where even the Home Secretary is afraid to walk in the evening.

Give me slower buses any day.

radius
22 January 2008 at 19:52

redpaddy, funny you should mention that. Don't you recall who the ringleader of the smears was that May Day? Yes, our very own RedKen. HE said the demonstrators planned violence and urged all demonstrators to stay away. It was the copper's mayor and scab-cheerleader threatened "tough action" by the Met, not Martin Bright.

eastender
22 January 2008 at 20:53

"a multicultural hell-hole where the indigenous population has either been driven out or feels it is living in a foreign country. "

Barnbrook got your vote then?

Paul
22 January 2008 at 22:49

"Barnbrook got your vote then?"

A splendid example of the cheap put-down by those bereft of solid argument. You know what? I just had to look up Barnbrook to see who you were talking about - that's how much I know about the BNP.

No, I am merely expressing a view shared by a great many Londoners, and not without reason. You may not like it, you may think it is "wrong" (i.e. doesn't conform to left-wing ideology), but you will never change it. Sorry,

Calvin Tucker
23 January 2008 at 00:04

I missed the Dispatches programme because I am currently in Venezuela, but I understand that the London - Caracas oil deal was attacked for allegedly taking money out of the pockets of Venezuela´s poor and squandering it on half price bus travel for Londoners on income support.

Martin Bright´s concern for the poor of Venezuela would be touching, were it sincere. It´s a shame that Martin wasn´t able to accompany me on my visit to the 23 Enero barrio in Caracas this morning. Had he done so, he would have witnessed at first hand some of the remarkable achievements of the Chavez government.

I spoke with a young woman who worked at the information and technology centre situated in the heart of the barrio. She told me that before the Chavez era, this centre, or anything like it, did not exist. Now there are 500 of these centres in the barrios of Venezuela.

This modern building housed 74 brand new computer terminals, all of which are available free of charge to barrio residents, together with training courses. I saw two of the certificates awarded to those who passed the courses, with their names individually printed on each one. How proud these recipients must have felt when they received them!

I explained to the young woman that there are journalists in Britain who describe the Venezuelan Government as repressive, or worse, a dictatorship. She was silent for a moment. And then she laughed.

"Before Chavez, I was just a watcher, an onlooker", she told me. "Now I can participate". Her pride in her barrio and her government was sincere, and inspiring.

Later, I walked through the streets and narrow pathways that ran like veins through the hillside, and saw close up the houses perched precariously one atop another. This is how life is life for most of the residents of Caracas, but these people don´t figure in the journalism of Martin Bright, or Nick Cohen and the other Livingstone smearers who disgrace the columns of the Evening Standard, the Observer, and the rest of the corporate press which passes itself off as "free".

I spoke with another resident of 23 Enero, as I leaned up against one of the many giant murals of Che Guarava and other revolutionary heroes that bring more than a touch of colour to the barrio. He explained that before Chavez, the residents didn´t have access to gas for cooking. Now, under Chavez, they do, he told me, pointing to the pipes that ran up the sides of the houses.

I passed a ´´barrio adentro´ building, which, like hundreds of others, had been specially constructed by this oppressive regime we hear so much about. Barrio Adentro is the government health programme, and it has brought free health care to millions of ordinary Venezuelans who previously had to do without. Staffed by Cuban doctors, who are paid for with Venezuelan oil, the service is open to all. Appointments are not needed; the patients just walk in and receive treatment. No money changes hands.

300,000 people live in Enero23, and it is divided into 52 informal municipalities. In one of them, La Piedrita, which in English means ¨small stone¨, we spoke with community leaders who were gathered outside a community building. On a nearby wall was painted a slogan: "Here in La Piedrita, we rule and the government obeys". Venezuela is putting the "power" back into the concept of empowerment. I asked how many people in Enero23 voted for Chavez. "Almost everybody", was the reply.

Enero23 is not without its problems. The garbage collection system, I was told, was not working properly. But I have seen a lot worse elsewhere in Latin America. The solution, one man told me, lay within the community. "We must take responsibility", he said.

The London-Caracas deal is a shining example of progressive state to state co-operation. Not only do London´s poorest residents, some 250,000 of them, receive half price bus travel, courtesy of the oil deal, but the sprawing city of Caracas receives in return London´s expert advice on strategic city management, carbon emissions and traffic control. The transnational companies and the consultancies are cut out of the deal, providing, no doubt, more evidence of the dictatorial tendencies of the Venezuelan "caudillo", Hugo Chavez.

For journalists like Martin Bright, the residents of Enero23, and millions like them, do not matter. For Martin and his ilk, what is important is that Chavez and anyone else who speaks and acts for the working class and poor, must be discredited. Hence Martin´s crocodille tears for the poor of Venezuela, who are, he tells us, being exploited by Ken Livingstone. The hypocrisy oozes out of every pore of his keyboard.

1shmael
23 January 2008 at 01:00

At first, I wondered whether Martin Bright, as political editor of a reputedly left-wing magazine, was possibly merely being opportunistic in launching his scurrilous campaign against Livingstone, and naive in terms of the likely consequences.

But on second thoughts, it is obvious to anyone with a political brain that a Tory victory in London, which Bright´s gutter-level smears against Livingstone are clearly designed to assist, is bound to give the Conservative Party nationally a leg-up in its campaign to win the next general election.

And Bright does have a political brain. I checked his 13th December blog and found the following predictions on the prospects of the Labour Party:

"...Much will depend on whether the Conservatives (or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats) build themselves into a credible force."

And further:

"...After the spring, the Labour Party will be thrown into a London mayoral election in which Ken Livingstone faces a real challenge for the first time. Boris Johnson is no political heavyweight, but he is as recognisable as Ken is, and equally at ease with the media. The contest will have serious implications nationally if Livingstone loses."

So Bright knows exactly what he is doing- invaluable work in the service of not just Boris Johnson but David Cameron.

Now, one might ask, what is the New Statesman doing employing, as its political editor, someone who is playing such a key role in the Conservative Party´s election campaign?

Strategist
23 January 2008 at 01:47

The most striking thing about the programme for me was how abysmally bad it was and how pitifully little he could actually throw at Ken after 8 years in the job.

There most certainly are very big questions to be asked about Martin Bright, what his objectives in this are, and particularly, whether he is doing all this with the tacit approval of the New Labour machine.

I think there are many of us who will not wish to bother any further with the New Statesman while its Political Editor writes as if he is working for The Sun in the 1980s "wouldn't it be great to be able to vote for a Labour Party candidate who was not surrounded by a cabal of overpaid Trots working towards the "bourgeois democratic revolution." I mean, come on!

I suggest anybody here thinking of taking a well-earned break from Martin Bright and the New Statesman check out the recently revamped & improved Red Pepper magazine, which knocks the sorry old "Staggers" into a cocked hat http://www.redpepper.org.uk/

Paul
23 January 2008 at 09:25

Calvin Tucker - Thank you for an interesting account of your travels. I do not doubt that Chavez has done some good for Venezuela. What puzzles me is why you think the same formula is right for London, a city with an entirely different history, culture and wealth.

If any of Chavez' methods have become applicable, I believe it is the result a grand plan by Ken Livingstone to impoverish and fragment parts of the city, thereby providing him with a plaything for his socialist ideals and an opportunity to present himself as a hero of the underclass.

You probably think I am some kind of troll. I am not; I subscribed to the New Statesman for years a while back until becoming ground down by the underlying assumption that one-size-fits-all socialism is the answer to the world's problems. And I'm afraid you have just ground me down a little further.

eastender
23 January 2008 at 11:29

"I am merely expressing a view shared by a great many Londoners, and not without reason. You may not like it, you may think it is "wrong" (i.e. doesn't conform to left-wing ideology), but you will never change it. Sorry"

Speaking as an indigenous Londoner, living in Stepney, I don't feel like I'm living in a foreign country. And I don't feel like my neighbourhood is a hellhole either.

My comment wasn't meant to be a put down. It was to demonstrate that your depiction of a multi-cultural society is exactly that of the BNP. That might make you feel uncomfortable but it is a fact.

London's multi-culturalism is an asset. My wife is an immigrant and her family are welcome in my city. They add to it in many great ways.

So don't go attributing you hatred of multi-culturalism to the indigenous population. You dont' represent me.

angrywelshman
23 January 2008 at 11:35

I'm indigenous.

Stiles
23 January 2008 at 12:16

I agree with Strategist and many others here (excepting Paul of course). I have decided to cancel my subs to the New Statesman. A pity as I will miss the odd decent article plus the brilliant John Pilger and Darcus Howe.

Paul
23 January 2008 at 12:17

"That might make you feel uncomfortable but it is a fact." (Eastender).

Some members of the BNP also eat cornflakes for breakfast - a fact - but it doesn't mean I have much in common with them. Nor does the great majority of those who believe multiculturalism has gone too far, otherwise the BNP would be doing better in the polls.

I wrote a couple of posts back about the fallacy of one-size-fits-all socialism. It never ceases to amaze me how one-size-fits-all socialists also have one-size-fits-all labels for people who do not wholly agree with them. Eg Boris is "a racist" for a couple of words used in literary irony somewhere in the middle of a novel; climate change sceptics are "deniers" - genocidal ones at that; smokers are "inconsiderate menaces"; health & safety critics are "uncaring". And woe betide any "capitalist" who runs a business.

I'm glad your wife's family are welcome in the city. But it doesn't need a Livingstone to achieve that happy state by forcing multiculturalism upon an increasingly resentful populace, any more than it needs a bunch of unreconstructed Marxists to get the buses running on time.

redharry
23 January 2008 at 13:21

Compare and contrast Bright's hatchet job on Livingstone with his 'interview' with David Miliband. Milliband voted for and supported an illegal war which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but Bright doesn't put it to him that this makes him unfit for office or in fact a war criminal.

Livingstone is criticised for his embrace of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, yet Milliband is a supporter of the Saudi royal family, indeed his deputy Kim Howells said that Britain and Saudi Arabia "shared values". What values would they be?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7067469.stm

For all his faults, Qaradawi is far more progressive than the Saudis.

Bright has it in for the Muslim Brotherhood, but Milliband supports the Mubarak dictatorship which locks up and tortures the MB. Why wasn't this put to him?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7200848.stm

As for Trevor Phillips, didn't he attack multiculturalism by claiming that Britain was becoming more segregated when statistics proved the opposite was true? Is Phillips above criticism? He can ditch it out, remember his abortive bid to become Mayor himself when he accused Livingstone of racism?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/368899.stm

Phillips is a strange campaigner for equality when he sends his children to private schools saying 'you get more bangs for your buck'.

As for 'jobs for the boys' and cronyism, read this from a sympathetic profile of Phillips, 'He started forging the relationships that would stay with him for the rest of his life. He met his future wife as a student. A fellow NUS big-hitter was Charles Clarke, now the Education Secretary. Peter Mandelson was a member of the British Youth Council which had close ties with the NUS.' In fact Mandelson went on to be Phillips' best man. That can't have harmed his QUANGO career.

Then, if we are to examine sinister secret political grouplets, perhaps Bright should have challenged Milliband with the allegations made in this very magazine by John Pilger concerning the British American Project. i.e. 'The new Labour names include Peter Mandelson, George Robertson, Baroness Symons, Jonathan Powell (Blair’s chief of staff), Baroness Scotland, Douglas Alexander, Geoff Mulgan, Matthew Taylor and David Miliband. Some are Fabian Society members and describe themselves as being “on the left”. Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is another member.' And how much are they paid?

OK Martin, I've put some questions to you, let's have some answers.

Paul
23 January 2008 at 13:54

"...that this makes him (Miliband) unfit for office or in fact a war criminal." (Redpaddy)

There we go again. More labels, not that I'm any fan of DM.

"As for Trevor Phillips, didn't he attack multiculturalism by claiming that Britain was becoming more segregated when statistics proved the opposite was true?" (Redpaddy)

If you can stand it - caution, Melanie Phillips is involved - take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn-KsSX_0us

Now please tell me why you don't have to be away with the birdies to consider that continued appeasement of Muslim extremists could, just possibly, lead to elements of Sharia law creeping first into local pockets, then into regional and national government. And tell me whether you would like it.

Oh, and please point me to these statistics showing that Britain is becoming less segregated.

Not trying to stir things up - genuinely interested.

eastender
23 January 2008 at 13:57

Paul

I haven't labelled you or Johnson as a racist. Or any other label.

But I don't see any evidence of us having multi-culturalism forced on us. What do you mean by that exactly? I'm interested to know. I'm particularly keen to hear how Ken has the power or ability to 'force' anything cultural on me really. London's got hundreds of different cultures piled on top of each other. Always has. In what way has it gone "too far"? And if it has, what's your remedy? How do we go about de-mulitculturalising London then?

And if you think John Ross is an "unreconstructed Marxist" then you either haven't listened to or read a single word of any of Ken's economic policies for London. Or you don't know what a Marxist is.

John Ross might be a bit of an odd, incompetent, windbag who murders the English language with pretty much every utterance but he aint a Marxist.

eastender
23 January 2008 at 14:00

Or Redmond O'Neill for that matter. Who again hasn't shown a great deal of commitment to a Marxist agenda in his role at City Hall.

Like Ross, he's also a bit odd. But unlike Ross he's very able and manages to speak in an understandable way.

1shmael
23 January 2008 at 15:09

Paul, whether you & Bambrook share a taste for cornflakes is irrelevant. The point made by Eastender is that in your critique of Livingstone you are using identical rhetoric to that used by the BNP, and your views on ´multiculturalism´ are clearly similar to those of the BNP. Eastender has you bang to rights.

Furthermore, your claim that Ken Livingstone has turned London into a "multicultural hell-hole " is plain wrong. London has been inhabited by people of diverse ethnic origins for many years, and in any case, the Mayor´s powers do not include border control and immigration. Even if most people in London wanted him to, Livingstone does not have the authority to set up checkpoints at the M25 to turn back people who do not meet your standards of ethnic purity.

So, like it or not (and I & many others actually do like it), we Londoners are a racially and culturally diverse bunch of people. The issue for the city´s mayor is not whether London should be multicultural or not, but how to manage the fact that it is multicultural.

And on that issue, I think Ken has done quite well so far, and in future is likely to do much better than Boris would do.

NB- the question I raised in my post above is a serious one. The editor of the New Statesman needs to give us an explanation of why this supposedly ´left´ magazine employs a key asset for the Conservative Party as its political editor.

knave
23 January 2008 at 18:28

Martin you say in an earlier post that you were left to Gordon. On what continuum do you base this on.

Martin, Kampfner, Cohen and O'Keefe have taken the statesman to the right. It has brought in the readers and meaningless awards from other right wing journos.

You lot are in for the log game which for you will see a Cameron victory.

Ken is first next Gordon eh.

Kampfner making vicious comments about Brown in the Mirror and praising the right wing french prez.

Also Martin why show the programme before an election why not 3 or 2 or 1 years ago. In my view it seriously damages the electoral process.

knave
23 January 2008 at 18:31

Sorry I meant long game

NorthernMonkey
23 January 2008 at 20:08

I watched Martin Bright's documentary and I must say, it was very poor by anyone's standards.

It's quite remarkable how a supposed man of the left and political editor of the New Statesman could come up with such lazy smears against Livingstone knowing full well it could end up with an incompenent homophobic Thatcherite being in charge.

Why did he not make an hour long documentary examining Johnson's homophobia and racist remarks as well as his general lack of interest in London and his dodgy dealings with Darius Guppy?

Bright says he spent six months making this documentary - what on earth has he been doing all that time other than plotting lies?

Nick Cohen
23 January 2008 at 20:43

Who is Peter Bailey who says I'm saying vote Tory in the Standard. I didn't and he's either a liar or a drooling fool for pretending I did. For the record, I and many other comrades are telling the Labour Party that Livingstone's sucking up to Islamo-fascism makes him unfit to be a Labour candidate and a new candidate is needed. I hope that when we get a proper democratic socialist who does not betray his or her comrades in the Muslim world, all New Statesman readers will unite behind him or her*

*I appreciate there are some who prefer fascism, but lets isolate them, eh.

radius
23 January 2008 at 21:29

It is fair to say that Kim Howells and multiple other leaders of the War Party have also sucked up to Islamo-fascism big-time. Indeed, they sent their nation's army to introduce the long-suffering people of southern Iraq to its wonders. Second course after the cluster munitions.

Livingstone is no better, but he's no worse either. Indeed, it is probably in his favour that there's a good chance he's motivated by patronising idiocy rather than cynical realpolitik in his attitude to the Islamic right.

Paul
23 January 2008 at 22:06

"Why did he not make an hour long documentary examining Johnson's homophobia and racist remarks as well as his general lack of interest in London and his dodgy dealings with Darius Guppy?" (Northern Monkey)

Oh dear, here we go again. Labels, labels.

Have you actually read these "racist" remarks in their ironic context? Two or three deliberately mischievous words buried among his few million others? If you cannot see the literary skill behind them and are so gullible as to buy this distorted interpretation from Blink and Compass, you are, Sir, in no position to comment.

Homophobia - que? As for general lack of interest in London... well, he's visited every London borough since the start of the campaign, rather more than Livingstone in several years.

And Guppy? From what I gather, a silly phone call from an irritating school friend many years ago. We've all done it.

I hold no brief for Boris Johnson but get sick and tired of the condemnation of politicians whose whole persona is measured by a few soundbites, or even slips, callously chosen by his enemies. I would like to say the same about Ken Livingstone; sadly, his consistently venomous output towards anyone who does not surrender to his views puts him in a different bracket.

Ishmael, Eastender - forgive me. I have not had time to reply fully but will do so soonish (if you can stand any more of my prattle).

redharry
23 January 2008 at 22:08

From Cohen's own site.

http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=214

'I always thought that if I ever voted Tory all my ancestors would rise from their graves – and I’d just have to bury them again, as Groucho Marx once said. But Ken Livingstone is pushing me close.'

I think we know where you're coming from Nick.

The context is an attack on Hugo Chavez where Cohen praises Denis MacShane who welcomed the attempted fascist coup in Venezuela against Chavez.

I Cohen's looking glass world, the multi elected and referendum obeyer Chavez is the fascist - and the CIA, the Generals and the rich oligarchs are the democrats.

We know who really prefers fascism, so don't call us comrades - you don't have any.

taghioff.info
24 January 2008 at 03:56

I really don't like how the black and white good versus evil views of the American right are making headway in the British left. Even if you dislike cultural relativism (Nick) you have to admit that we live in a complex world.

If Ken made a mistake backing an Egyptian cleric who was very anti-humanist, then he made a mistake. His mistake was that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

But if by extension, when you see yourself as a friend of "freedom" (which is no simple idea) and that thus your friend's (freedom) enemies' (cleric) friend (Ken) is your enemy, you are making the same error but compounded.

I think it is very important, in a complex and changing world, not to become dogmatic but to keep up to date with the contemporary shape of power-politics. Nick is clearly viewing the world through a post ww2 prism of freedom versus fascism. He is thus following Orwell's perspective of that time, which was valid then. But were a mind like Orwell alive today, he would see that the contours of power have shifted.

The London School of Economics in London has produced a lot of work about globalisation and global governance, and the radical community, such as Monbiot, have also produced revolutionary narratives about the shape of the contemporary world. Orwell would read these debates, he would travel and see the reality of contemporary economic oppression, and he would write about that.

Thus this bitter fight with Ken, who is a somewhat flawed but very committed and effective character, is based on a black and white view of the world that is very outdated.

The shape of power now is international, and Ken nods to people like Chavez in acknowledgment of the need for international solidarity. Supporting the cleric was perhaps overstepping the mark, but old Red Ken is in many ways more up to date with modern world than a left that has bought into a creed that is basically about justifying white supremacy.

If we were really interested in democracy as a universal value, we would call for directly democratic global governance. Otherwise we are calling for an Athenian democracy (based on international economics) where the citizens are prosperous and the slaves toil outside.

1shmael
24 January 2008 at 06:43

Hi there ´Comrade Cohen´. You say that a "new candidate is needed". But, as you and everybody else knows, the candidates have already been selected.

The candidate who has your de-facto support is Boris Johnson.

On your blog, the only reason you gave for not voting Conservative is that: "voting Tory goes against our irrational tribal prejudices".

So, your view is that rational people, not infected with tribal prejudice, should vote Conservative.

As your comrade Martin Bright eloquently explained in his December article with reference to the mayoral election: "The contest will have serious implications nationally if Livingstone loses."

Knave put it succinctly in his post: "You lot are in for the long game which for you will see a Cameron victory. Ken is first next Gordon eh."

And no doubt,´Comrade Cameron´ is very grateful for your fraternal assistance.

Dianne Roberts
24 January 2008 at 10:08

Very interesting reading --so the programme has had some good spin off.

Not living in London I had not paid too much attention to anything re the coming Dispatches programme. When it was on I was busy on the computer--then my daughter rang and I found myself saying 'There's a right hatchet job being done on Ken Livingstone.' It was obvious enough to be picked up with half an ear

I've been a subscriber to New Statesman for a number of years but more of this kind of thing and I will have to consider whether I can continue to support such 'journalists' as Martin Bright. Whatever are you up too?

patrick
24 January 2008 at 16:00

Quite extraordinary how politically ignorant almost every comment has been. To be frank, I think The New Statesman could do without the calibre of most readers who have posted here.

However, it is probably not so much ignorance as wilful disregard, for the obviously corrupted way that Ken Livingstone is conducting office. I believe that Martin Bright has probably barely skimmed the surface of what Ken is up to. Why did nobody mention Ken Jasper for example … possibly because they’re afraid to face up to the fact that their beloved Ken is as tawdry as virtually all others in political office.

Instead the replies have all sought to castigate Bright for various reasons and to extoll Ken’s virtues, a sure sign that things need to be concealed. Grow up and educate yourselves, rather than defending a tyrant who should be exposed.

... and my apologies if this is a double post, slow internet connection and I don't think the first attempt went through :-)

redharry
24 January 2008 at 19:06

'Why did nobody mention Ken Jasper for example,'

Probably because he doesn't exist

carl@diqiuren.tv
24 January 2008 at 20:34

I watched the Court of Ken on 4oD. I am utterly and totally disappointed by the programme. It's full of one-sided criticisms which denies balanced information to viewers. It feels more like a propaganda. Even there may have some truths in the programme, they are overwhelmed by the anger and the biasness of the presenter. I have to say, this is the worst piece of journalism. I thought I still lived in the cold war era.

patrick
25 January 2008 at 01:51

redpaddy ... just wanted to see if anybody was taking in the information they were reading ... congratulations :-) Alternatively could be that it was late, a couple of glasses of wine ... I meant Lee Jasper of course, just couldn't get cuddly Ken out of my mind.

Seriously, for all those who are defending Ken so staunchly, have you any concept of what a self serving piece of ... work he is? He has literally set up his own little fiefdom, funded very nicely by taxpayers. If you're happy to pay out money to be distributed to dubious causes and friends of friends of Ken, then I suggest you increase your donations to his coffers and let those who despise his misuse of office cease their payments ... or maybe all these posts are by his friends :-)

Funny how programming bias is always cited in cases like this (the same happened when Global Warming was exposed as a scam), with no reasonable grounds to do so. There are thousands of programmes produced tackling an issue from one direction, objection is a smoke screen to avoid the facts. Ken is in office and it doesn’t require a great deal of intelligence, or research, to see that he is as ill-suited to have control of finances as Gordon Brown!

knave
25 January 2008 at 17:07

Martin, sorry I mean Patrick.

The accusations against Livingstone are not proven and use "self serving", that is your opinion, as most of your comment is just opinion. Also to accuse anybody who disagrees with your conservative view as Ken’s Lackeys betrays a slight instability. The few facts in the programme are accusations, mainly guilt by association which could thrown at all politicians and even journalists like yourself.

My argument is the timing. It damages the electoral process. Patrick you would be the first to complain about an anti Boris or Cameron programme before an election. These accusations are years old, why not a programme a year ago. As for the comment about Brown highlights my point about the long game.

Also Bright likes to give this impression of been this non aligned leftie . That is cobblers. The man is up to his neck with the right wing PEU.

eastender
25 January 2008 at 22:50

Paul

If you're out there, I wouldn't mind hearing more about your point on Livingstone's enforced multi-culturalism and the hellhole / foreign country that I live in.

I am actually interested.

Paul
26 January 2008 at 22:32

Eastender - a dead thread, I'm afraid, but I will sum up anyway.

A central plank of Livingstone's agenda has been to encourage the settlement and nurturing of minority groups in London. His constant "celebration of diversity" is entirely compatible with this - a decent enough aim if not used as a political weapon, as he does.

Many of those minorities from overseas have, as a result, enjoyed an improved standard of living which, coupled with Ken's obsequious attention, has guaranteed him a vote. The preferential treatment of minorities has also lead to an exodus of the indigenous white population, which they resent. You cannot help that.

As for hell-holes, I exaggerate of course. But there's no denying pockets of hell-hole where "outsiders" - that's ordinary Londoners - are unwelcome. They never wanted this.

Foreign country? Look no further than the hundreds of www posts from expats who return to Britain to discover what they - not me - describe as a "foreign country".

Enough?

patrick
28 January 2008 at 05:32

knave (25 January 2008),

I’m not quite sure where your idea that I am Martin emanates from, but I am me, not he! I’m sure that Martin is quite capable of posting his own replies, in his own name, without needing to resort to alternative ids to do so. A comparison of writing styles may put your mind at rest, I don’t have the inclination to compare, as I know I’m not he. Anyway, I am not a journalist and have no inclination to be one.

I find it interesting that you think I am Martin, presumably because I am in support of this exposure of Livingstone. This makes me wonder if virtually all the other posts on here, including yours, originate from Livingstone’s coterie … but then that would make me as paranoid as you, a path I’m not prepared to tread. Interesting also that you accuse the NS of being right wing and yet virtually all the comments on here seem to be from a rabid left viewpoint, you can’t have it both ways … unless one is Ken of course!

The accusations against Livingstone are 'not yet' proven, these things all take time ... take the wriggling Hain for instance, guilty as hell and still swears blind he's done nothing wrong. These people (as in virtually every politician in higher office) become corrupted and believe they can do whatever they like, the sad thing is that they frequently do because of a supine mainstream media and the gullibility of an uninformed electorate.

You go from one false assumption to the other, surmising that I’d be complaining if this was a programme about Boris/Cameron. I have no political affiliation, whereas you obviously do which is interfering with your ability to view things with an open mind. There is no Right, no Left, no Centre … they are just names designed to make you think you have a choice when you go to the ballot box.

You seem reluctant to face the fact that Livingstone is the one currently in office and (in my opinion, as you so rightly point out) misusing his position for the benefit of himself and his cronies, so this should be openly discussed. This excuse about 'electoral process' is more fantasy to protect the incumbent Ken. If he has done wrong, then surely now is the most important time to air it, so that people actually get to see what is going on. After all, Ken is doing plenty of self publicity using taxpayers money through his freebie newsletter ... but then you probably think that's fine?

It beggars belief that anyone could seriously consider a defense of Brown. I confess that I find it puzzling when people seek to defend such palpably corrupt people … maybe you just enjoy watching the country of your birth being systematically dismantled, destroyed and raped by these lowlife for their own aggrandisement.

eastender
28 January 2008 at 12:52

Paul

I think you're vastly over-estimating the powers of the Mayor of London.

Migrants come to London. They did before 2000 and I'm sure they will after Ken's left office. Livingstone recognise this fact and thought that as Mayor his best policy in order to support cohesion and development was to make all communities in London feel welcome and support their right to religious, cultural and ethnic self-expression. As you say, no harm in that. Though not sure what using it as a "political weapon" means exactly.

You're still very vague on what "preferential treatment" minorities get. This is where I think you are in danger of wandering into BNP territory, whether you like it or not. Some examples of this preferential treatment would be interesting. As it happens, any statistical indicator in relation to health, employment, housing and education will show you, while variable, all ethnic minorities rate consistently below white British people in London.

And, I'm sorry, but the views of ex-pats returning to London doesn't really bother me. They are people who have left London and the UK and don't understand it anymore. Well, there ya go. Those of us who are born and brought up here, who live and work here and know our history understand that London always changes. That's its beauty. MORI opinion polls in fact show that the majority of people in London rate its diversity as one of the reasons they like living there.

Your argument doesn't really cover how Ken has supposed to have settled these migrant communities, what sort of preferential treatment there is or why so many Londoners regard their neighbourhood as foreign.

Its all supposition and paranoia. And not a million miles away from the BNP. Seems that you and Richard Barnbrook share more than a taste in cereals.

knave
28 January 2008 at 17:53

patrick

accuse the NS of being right wing and yet virtually all the comments on here seem to be from a rabid left viewpoint, you can’t have it both ways … unless one is Ken of course!

I feel thet the NS is heavly influenced by the right wing PEU , who Bright works for .Yes. As for rapid left wing view. Why because I don't accept your and Bright's argument about a TV programme you then become rabid leftie or islamophile. I am neither

The accusations against Livingstone are 'not yet' proven, these things all take time ... take the wriggling Hain for instance, guilty as hell and still swears blind he's done nothing wrong. These people (as in virtually every politician in higher office) become corrupted and believe they can do whatever they like, the sad thing is that they frequently do because of a supine mainstream media and the gullibility of an uninformed electorate.

Well Patrick develop a backbone and directly accuse Livingstone either in person or a headed letter. I doubt you will.

You go from one false assumption to the other, surmising that I’d be complaining if this was a programme about Boris/Cameron. I have no political affiliation, (HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) whereas you obviously do which is interfering with your ability to view things with an open mind. There is no Right, no Left, no Centre … they are just names designed to make you think you have a choice when you go to the ballot box.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. You are closed minded Thatcherite who believes every action taken by a Brown Government is step nearer Cuba.

You seem reluctant to face the fact that Livingstone is the one currently in office and (in my opinion, as you so rightly point out) misusing his position for the benefit of himself and his cronies, so this should be openly discussed. This excuse about 'electoral process' is more fantasy to protect the incumbent Ken. If he has done wrong, then surely now is the most important time to air it, so that people actually get to see what is going on. After all, Ken is doing plenty of self publicity using taxpayers money through his freebie newsletter ... but then you probably think that's fine?

You miss the point if it was such an issue why has it taken 5 years

It beggars belief that anyone could seriously consider a defense of Brown. I confess that I find it puzzling when people seek to defend such palpably corrupt people … maybe you just enjoy watching the country of your birth being systematically dismantled, destroyed and raped by these lowlife for their own aggrandisement.

Brown seems no different from any other politician. They all seem exactly the same, vain, ambitious and prone to the cock ups.I might vote for him or Clegg. All I see from you is closed minded Daily Mail rhetoric without any evidence.

Also it you feel Brown is corrupt , which is a serious charge. Again try to muster some courage and call him that directly instead of expressing your views on a right wing website behind a first name

patrick
29 January 2008 at 13:07

knave,

your response displays your ignorance and reluctance to face reality. If you think that Livingstone/Cameron/Thatcher/Bush/The Pope/... give a toss about my opinion, or yours, enough to consider suing if we tell the truth about them then you are in serious need of help, or more likely education.

Thatcher was a despicable PM, unfortrunately Blair sought to outclass her, Brown is about as inept and corrupt (actually probably hasn't reached the heights) as Kinnock. For goodness sake, wake up, look at what is happening politically and stop supporting the fools that are taking you for a ride.

If you haven't bothered to look at what is going on, there is no point in me pointing it out to you, because you'll filter it through your obvious Labour bias. Brown has, for example, used Downing Street to host

If it is any consolation to your warped view of political life, I think that Cameron has been lined up as successor to Blair, Brown is just the interim idiot who will pave the way ... and Cameron will be as useless for the country

patrick
29 January 2008 at 13:20

It appears that this blog decided to steal my writing while still a work in progress ... hmmm I take even something like this seriously ... on the other hand it could be that glass of decadent French wine I have consumed :-) ... reminder to self 'in future do draft outside of blog window!' ... damn, hell, f***. what ****

knave,

your response displays your ignorance and reluctance to face reality - or that you are paid to post on here by the people you defend. If you think that Livingstone/Cameron/Thatcher/Bush/The Pope/... give a toss about my opinion, or yours, enough to consider suing if we tell the truth about them on a blog then you are in serious need of help, or more likely education. If you really consider it is a matter of my courage, then back up your preposterous assertion with some cash for a worthwhile mainstream media advert or poster and I'll willingly say so on it and take full responsibility for the legal consequences!

As you should well know, the media are very careful about legalities on their websites - I've posted a couple of comments on other sites, with my email etc, that have been censored to remove what they considered damaging statements - so your point is futile. There are plenty of people already stating publicly that Brown, Livingstone, Blair etc are corrupt, I see little action being taken by them to defend themselves!

Thatcher was a despicable PM, unfortunately Blair sought to outclass her, Brown is not only inept but corrupt. For goodness sake, wake up, look at what is happening politically and stop supporting the fools that are taking you for a ride.

If you haven't bothered to look at what is going on, there is probably no point in me pointing it out to you, because you'll filter it through your obvious Labour bias glasses. Let's just look at one little thing that Brown has done. He used Downing Street to host supposed charitable events by The Smith Institute that were just a front for him to siphon off cash into his own coffers, now he is trying to legitimise his criminal actions by law.

He is illiterate and when it comes to finances the 'canny' Scot is anything but!

If it is any consolation to your warped view of political life, I think that Cameron has been lined up as successor to Blair, Brown is just the interim idiot who will pave the way ... and Cameron will be as useless for the country. As I said, which you seem to find hard to accept (presumably because of your political prejudice in favour of a political party, therefore thinking that everyone must also be the same), I have no political affiliation, the whole idea of thinking that any of the political parties give a stuff about the populace is ludicrous.

It appears that you are more eager to defend the indefensible than to face the truth, so the only thing I can do is wish you well and leave you to entertain others who agree with your fantasy ... unless you feel inclined to stomp up the cash for that ad? If you do reply, with a firm offer of cash (in a brown envelope under the table please), try and find something that displays more cerebral activity than ‘HAAAAAAAA…”!!!

By the way, I find it bizarre that several readers seem to think that the NS should be supporting Labour, no matter what. Try and think … as Poirot would say ‘use the little grey cells’ :-)

knave
29 January 2008 at 17:25

If you really consider it is a matter of my courage, then back up your preposterous assertion with some cash for a worthwhile mainstream media advert or poster and I'll willingly say so on it and take full responsibility for the legal consequences!

That patrick is trouble wth blogging. Unlike politicians you do't have to back up your claims so you take the route of the coward.

By the way, I find it bizarre that several readers seem to think that the NS should be supporting Labour, no matter what. Try and think … as Poirot would say ‘use the little grey cells’ :-)

Yes but it should be balanced or honest. Why not say who they support. I don't care if it is the Tories as long as they show honesty. Also they should tell us who is pulling their strings.

I have no political affiliation, the whole idea of thinking that any of the political parties give a stuff about the populace is ludicrous.

Actually I agree with you. the left in the UK that believed in Equality, Fraternity and Liberty died in 1979. What is actually left is degrees of conservative.

thought.

Unilke you I don't believe the journalista and broadcasters in this country who feed and control the information given to you. You fancy yourself as a free thinker in reality your caught in mind set by the agenda of others . You haven't the personal courage or intellectual capacity to see that you are the one who is been manipulated.

Paul
29 January 2008 at 19:18

Eastender, your continually linking me to the BNP is becoming rather tiresome. I'm beginning to understand those kids on chat sites who go "y u dissin me wen u dont no nufin abt me".

You must have noticed there are millions upon millions of people who are sick of the way so many defining elements of the British nation have been removed by political forces seemingly beyond our control, to the extent that we even have Prime Ministers asking "What is Britishness?". Well, if the top man himself doesn't know, we are in deep kack. Every nation needs the binding force of a shared identity or it falls apart. I fear we are on the knife edge right now.

Let's put it this way. Livingstone, as you say, decided as Mayor that "his best policy in order to support cohesion and development was to make all communities in London feel welcome and support their right to religious, cultural and ethnic self-expression." Unfortunately in his zeal, driven as much by hunger for re-election as by moral conviction, he has failed to get the balance right between helping arrivists to integrate and allowing the existing population to retain its customs, habits, identity and sense of belonging. That is not a political stance - it is an observation confirmed by those many who feel sidelined by the process.

This hasn't really answered your question, except to say that if all those millions were as right-wing as you believe I am, the BNP would be doing a lot better than it is!

eastender
29 January 2008 at 23:36

Paul

Okay then, I'll drop the BNP tag.

But I still don't know which elements of my nation have been removed. I still retain all my customs, habits, identity and sense of belonging. Even in Stepney, would you believe? Probably among those "foreign" neighbourhoods that the ex-pats talk about.

I know alot of people are keen on this "what is Britishness?" question, as if its some new development. But no one's ever had much of a clue on that. I don't feel any more or less British than I did 10 or 20 years ago.

We've always been a nation of flux. London's always been a city of change, unlike say Paris or Rome. And unlike the French or Italians, the British have always had a less insular, and subsequently less secure. view of themselves. And that's a good thing in my book, it adds to our cultural dynamism.

But I'd still like you to point out how my life's been changed either by the immigrants or by our political masters. And espeically by the Mayor. As far as I can tell he just about has power over road charging and bus fares. I can't see how he could manage to eradicate my way of life, even if he tried.

I'll concede one thing. You obviously aren't BNP and it was daft of me to bang on about that. I was labouring a point and in so doing actually undermining my own argument.

Which was that I still don't see any substance or evidence to support your claim that our culture is losing out. Or that our political masters are dishing out preference to immigrants.

That just sounds like paranoia and self-pity to me. Unless I'm convinced by some concrete cases you might have.

patrick
30 January 2008 at 08:19

knave,

I just realised that I have better things to do than exchange comments with somebody who seems incapable of any reasoned response and continually makes false assumptions.

Reply as you wish, but rest assured I will never be viewing this page again, so best save your energy.

I'll leave you now to play with any others who can cope with your infantile drivel :-)

Paul
30 January 2008 at 11:05

Appreciated, Eastender. I guess that one of several crucial differences between Meldrews like myself and the BNP is that we bear no ill-will towards anyone except those who take the piss. I have no desire to see anyone "sent home" - again, with the probable exception of serious troublemakers - and do indeed have good friends of various backgrounds and ethnicity. But that doesn't mean we buy the theory of near-limitless population growth on this little island, least of all by telling the world "Come and join the party. Drinks on the house."

As you say, Britishness is a sticky question. One overarching British trait has always been tolerance, a virtue that has been put severely to the test by changes forced upon us with unnatural haste. To me, the defining moment was July 1 last year - the introduction of a total smoking ban in pubs. This unnecessary law, which I have seen rightly described as the most intrusive legislation since wartime emergency powers, was based on deeply flawed statistics cherry-picked by a clique of politically-motivated scientists and fuelled by the pharmaceutical industry who stand to make billions out of smoking cessation products. Plus, as ever, politicians who see a vote in it. Cleverly, they managed to turn a substance which generations have survived through virtual immersion, into a poison worse than mustard gas.

While some undoubtedly find cigarette smoke disagreeable, there is plenty of robust evidence showing that occasional exposure to dilute secondhand smoke never hurt anyone; yet the government, with a lamentable lack of serious debate, pushed though this frighteningly divisive measure without a thought for the consequences.

We now have pensioners chucked out onto the pavement; street crimes rising as kids - ironically, an increasing number of smokers among them - are removed from the orderly atmosphere of the pub; tobacco-relate hate crimes; and, going back to our Britishness theme, traditional pubs closing in their hundreds while others are turned into themed eateries or child-friendly juice bars.

It was a direct assault on British tolerance. All it needed was a little latitude allowing pubs to set aside an adequately ventilated customer-only smoking room, coupled with an element of market choice. But no, the government went ahead in defiance of polls determining this as the most popular option. Righteousness, mock compassion and lust for control trumped all other considerations.

Nothing to do with immigration, you see :-)

eastender
30 January 2008 at 13:04

Paul

Fair enough points, well made.

But nothing to do with multiculturalism or Ken Livingstone. As you rightly point out.

I guess that brings this thread to a close.

Paul
30 January 2008 at 14:28

Eastender: Indeed, this could go on for ever. It's been a pleasure talking.

nw6er
31 January 2008 at 22:27

The NS has in recent years become a bit too eclectic for its own good.

Lets is not forget it’s the New Statesmen that

· Brought us the shameful "Kosher Conspiracy " front cover

· Advised readers to vote against Yasmin Quereshi the only female asian (and Moslem) candidate standing for Labour In he 2005 General Election. Yes in 2005 the NS backed Sarah Teather over Yasmin Quereshi in Brent East

· Is now furthering the chance a Tory win in London.

Defeating Boris Johnson is a pre requisite to a Labour victory in 2009/10 – I have real concerns about some of Ken’s comments and the behaviour of some of certain of key people close to him, but I know what is at stake.

May be Martin Bright can afford to live with Tory or Liberal Mayor but many in London can’t.

NW6er

S.Walinets
02 February 2008 at 12:48

Here's a letter I wrote to the NS after seeing the Jan 28 issue, the week after Bright's original 'Ken bash'. I wrote about the fact that in that latest issue there wasn't a single letter about Bright's writings the previous week, nor about his Channel 4 programme.. My letter hasn't been printed in the latest issue (Feb 4th) , so here it is now:

After Martin Bright's article on Ken Livingstone (N/S Jan 21st), followed by his Channel 4 'Dispatches' programme, I logged on to the N/S blog site. I noted there were well over 100 blogs on Bright v Livingstone during the following week. The highest blog count on any other article was 27, on the David Milliband piece. In view of this huge response, I had expected to find in the subsequent issue, Jan 28th, several letters about the Livingstone article, even perhaps an Editorial response, reflecting this amount of reader interest. I was amazed therefore to find there was nothing. There were though, seven letters responding to the Milliband article.

I'm sorry, Mr Kampfner, but I cannot believe that, after a Livingstone blog count four times higher than its nearest 'rival', the Milliband count, no readers actually wrote letters to the N/S about Bright's work on Livingstone. Unless you can offer some explanation of this -- either that indeed there were no letters, or that you decided those received didn't merit printing -- then I will have to conclude that the New Statesman is now seriously biassed and no longer to be relied upon for honest journalism. A sad day indeed -- especially when I've just this week renewed my subscription for the seventh year running...

While I'm writing, I must draw attention to an example of the poor journalistic standards Mr Bright seems to work to. In his follow-up article on Livingstone ('No one is born to rule', p.13, Jan 28th), he writes that Livingstone "conceded he did drink whisky at 10 o'clock in the morning. ... ... He (Livingstone) then alluded to Winston Churchill's wartime drinking, a sure sign that he is beginning to have delusions of grandeur." If Bright perceives that allusion as evidence of delusions of grandeur, I have to wonder if Bright is blind to the extent of his own delusions? And more seriously, how can the N/S employ as its Political Editor such a petty point scorer ?

raf999
04 February 2008 at 11:07

My wife and I endured the Dispatches "Ken is Satan" political broadcast for Boris - and were, in all honesty, sickened by the whole dog poo of a show

It was hard to believe that it was a) Not April 1st and b) Dispatches that we were watching. Dispatches for God's sake! A once-believable, hitherto no BS, sadly no longer force for good, reduced to nothing more than a pimped-up mailshot for Boris.

In sum: Spiteful and peed-off ex-pals; numpties who'd been quietly dropped from the inner circle; and other malcontents, now whining, bitching and putting-in the boot! Not a whisper of the other candidates' fitness for the job (I'm obviously thinking of Boris, here).

A kangaroo court of the first water and a stinking, fly-blown, Right Wing gutter of crap. I hope that both Mr. Bright and Channel 4 get keel-hauled for this. They should. Gits.

Robert
10 March 2008 at 09:22

The people who abuse and slander Martin Bright's commentary on the failings of Ken Livingstone's arrogant and autocratic reign as London's mayor, are surely missing the point. It was a fairly moderately toned description of a self delusional politician who after eight years in City Hall, surrounded by his overpaid and incompetent advisers from Socialist Action, is behaving like the lying racist bully he was always believed to be.

If Livingstone becomes any more outspokenly anti -Semitic, the BNP will have to refund his subscription on the grounds he is too extreme- sorry I lapsed into Kenspeak.

The interview that Livingstone gave John Humphreys, on the Saturday following the failed 29th June bombings at the Tiger Nightclub, hit fresh depths of irrationality, even for him, when he tried to claim that the attempt was the work of the BNP or anybody other than the Islamic terrorists .

Mr Livingstone is such a useful idiot , long may he be given a loud voice to broadcast his sleazy self regarding drivel.