Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Proud of my record

Ken Livingstone

Published 31 January 2008

In recent issues of the NS, Martin Bright, our political editor, criticised the Mayor of London and his administration. Here Ken Livingstone responds

Martin Bright, the political editor of the New Statesman, has argued in this magazine that I am unfit for office. And in the London Evening Standard, Bright told his readers, of my candidacy, that "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". Whether the NS endorses this view of course is a matter for the magazine.

Four days after his Dispatches programme aired on Channel 4 on 21 January there was a gratifying response - a poll showed an increase in my lead in the mayoral election contest. What was the connection between the two? Voters cast their ballot in any election in the light of their overall judgement of a candidate. I doubt anyone agrees with everything any candidate does.

I stand on my record of running a popular left-wing, reforming administration that has pursued groundbreaking policies in major areas such as equalities, the congestion charge, aiding the less well-off with cheap transport, climate change and other important matters. My overriding principle has been to do the right thing for London.

The policy differences with the only electoral alternative, the Tory candidate for London Boris Johnson, are striking and self-evident.

My first key policy is large-scale investment to continue London's economic success. London has overtaken New York as the world's leading international economic centre and its booming economy requires the biggest investment programme in the city for half a century to ensure it stays that way. A large part will be private, but I am in no way embarrassed to state explicitly that a large part of this big infrastructural investment requires the public sector - Crossrail, buses, police, the congestion charge, Tube upgrades, affordable housing.

Johnson didn't vote in parliament when Crossrail was debated; he opposes my policies for affordable housing; he opposed the congestion charge; and, in general, he doesn't understand the economic requirements of a modern, large city.

I have zero confidence in the Tory myth of "automatic trickle-down" to ensure that all Londoners share in the benefits of that success, and I have therefore pursued active measures to ensure they do. Most of these measures, logically, have therefore been strongly opposed by my Tory opponents - free bus travel for under-18s, that half of new housing must be affordable, the extension of the Freedom Pass for older and disabled Londoners to a 24-hour concession, and the extension of travel discounts for students.

I believe London's success must be sustainable in the long term. This means protecting the en vironment and tackling climate change. London chairs the international C40 group of cities fighting climate change and its Climate Change Action Plan is one of the most advanced of any city in the world - something that has now been recognised by Forum for the Future.

A key issue at the election is my proposal for a £25-a-day charge for the most CO2-emitting vehicles entering the congestion-charging zone and, after consultation, I will be able to take a decision on this in the coming month. On the environment, the choice is even starker. Johnson is one of the few politicians who supported George W Bush in opposing the Kyoto treaty.

Race achievements

Finally, as London is the most multi-ethnic city on earth, good community relations are of paramount importance to it. One of my proudest achievements is a nearly 60 per cent reduction in racist attacks in London since I have been in office. London is a thriving multicultural city. Johnson, in contrast, has sought to justify referring to black people as "piccaninnies" and expressed the view that South Africa under Nelson Mandela was the tyranny of black majority rule.

All of which explains my lead in the recent poll and why a choice for the New Statesman is rather clear. Instead of dealing with these central issues, Bright's Dispatches programme chose to deal with matters such as subjecting a glass from which I had drunk at a People's Questions when I had a bad throat to chemical analysis to find out whether it contained whisky - an investigation which, I am pleased to note, has invited some ridicule.

Londoners will rightly vote on the most important issues confronting the capital. London at the beginning of the 21st century is regularly rated the most successful city in the world. Huge numbers of people have contributed to that and I suffer from no illusions that this is all due to my policies. But it is equally improbable that the fact I have been mayor for the past eight years, pursuing policies that have been widely reported and in a number of cases internationally copied, has contributed nothing whatever to this.

In short, I have been able to run an administration which has shown that reforming left-wing politics can be extremely popular - something that should therefore be supported for its own sake, and even more so given the graphic character of the Tory alternative.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

25 comments from readers

khoodeelaar!
31 January 2008 at 11:09

Lying is not something to be proud of

123andrea
31 January 2008 at 12:29

I agree with khoodeelaar - Martin Bright should be ashamed of making smears and allegations. In fact he should reconsider his position with the New Statesman and join a more appropriate publication. The Spectator, perhaps?

raysirotkin
31 January 2008 at 13:50

I obviously got it wrong. I thought Martin Bright was editor of the New Spectator and had been commisioned to produce for Boris TV.

Ken's spot on and this is what his opponents could never handle - people vote on the real difference a politician makes. No one cared how much Winston Churchill drank, that Harold Wilson smoked a pipe. Blair lost support not because people stopped liking his smile, but because of Iraq.

In the one section of Martin Bright's Dispatches programme where he tried to deal with transport in London, he compared London to minor European cities, rather than London in 2000 when traffic averaged only 7 MPH. That it has increased to 11MPH is not exactly speedy, but an obvious headline would have been 'Ken speeds up traffic by over 50%'. Hopefully in terms of all the things that matter, Ken's third term will see better progress. For millions that matters. I'm sure the constituents of Henley will be delighted to know they won't be losing their MP on May 2nd.

Josh FG
31 January 2008 at 13:56

I hope that the smears of Bright et al don't divert attention away from Livingstone's overwhelmingly positive record. Be that the Olympics, the C Charge, Oyster Cards, Cross-rail, Social housing or any other of the many positive things which Johnson would oppose.

I have made the personal decision to not buy the New Statesman until Martin Bright is no longer on there editorial team. This is not because of a political difference but because of a fundamental belief that politics should be fought on positive issues of policy and peoples record not snide personal smears and innuendo.

epitomy
31 January 2008 at 14:39

This article shows that if this election is fought on the matters of importance to Londoners, Ken will clearly win - smearing the black communities with fraudulence is a stock trait of the right wing press - it chimes with their agenda of equating black people with crime - and is designed to both attack Ken and aid Boris.

Thankfully, Londoners are a lot more astute about the stakes in this election and hence the recent yougov poll increases Ken's lead - something im sure was not the aim of Bright.

I doubt that Bright represents the views of either the NS or its readership in the main, and therefore i too hope that the NS is seriously considering whether Bright should still be its political editor after declaring his hand so openly for the Boris camp. The installation of Boris in London on the back of this rabid media onslaught would be akin to the installation of Bush in the US after stopping black people from voting. The consequences would be just as disasterous.

simon webbe
31 January 2008 at 14:41

I too am proud of what Ken and his adminsitration have achieved for London. i am also proud of Londoners for having voted for Ken on two occasions despite all the smears ken has had to endure.

Over the last eight years Ken in so many policy areas has shown what a progressive left social democratic administration can achieve and how popular it can be as well.

However i am angered and ashamed of the curent media onslaught on Ken, not his policies but personal inuendo and smears.

And i am shocked that one of the cheer-leaders of this is the socalled 'political'editor of the New Statesman. Bright is acting as the close ally of the neocon racist Boris Johnson. The election of Johnson would be terrible for this wonderful city.

The gutter journalism of Bright has no value and t dire political consequences-sack your editor he clearly does not know what real progressive politics are. And make sure your editorial policy corrects the impression he has given of your paper. There should be one message-No progressive person can support Boris for Mayor of london. Ken is the only person who can beat Boris and Ken has proven he can deliver for London. Is it that hard to see New Statesman?

Red Ken?
31 January 2008 at 16:10

No thanks. Mine's a glass of chardonnay.

Jane Greene
31 January 2008 at 16:44

Not one of you gives the New Statesman any credit at all for allowing the mayor a right of reply. What an ungenerous bunch of little Ken acolytes you are. Personally I'm backing Sian Berry. Greene by name Green by politics.

Robert Powell
31 January 2008 at 16:58

I notice Jane Greene's dropped an e.

Jason
31 January 2008 at 17:22

Yeah! Jane Greene is silly!

raysirotkin
31 January 2008 at 17:25

No doubt Jane Greene is campaigning for the Evening Standard to give Ken a right of reply of equal length to that of Andrew Gilligan!

More important is she campaigning for the Green Party to call a vote for Ken as number two and for there to be a progressive alliance at City Hall?

Jane Greene
31 January 2008 at 17:32

I don't read the Evening Standard and certainly don't read Gilligan! I'm not involved in politics other than as a voter and I'm considering Ken as my second choice. Boris would be a catastrophe! As for Jason, I'm impressed that a six-year-old is reading the New Statesman - but your comment isn't at a very elevated level of debate is it? Silly child.

gino
31 January 2008 at 17:57

i see that martin bright has his name in neon lights again in the tory evening standard for the 4th day running well done

yawnketia
31 January 2008 at 20:52

As a member of a minority group, I have no choice but to vote for Ken. he has his faults, and they are many but he obviously cares about all people, irrespective of where they come from. London and for that matter UK has prospered because for some time now it has embraced all talent irrespective of where they come from. I have liked and read The New statesman since I arrived in UK some years back because of what it stands for but I am afraid Martin Bright has got it wrong. Boris and for that matter the Toris will thank you for the PR work but fortunately and thank heavens for democracy, it is each vote for each person. UP Ken

Serosch
01 February 2008 at 13:45

I think what most people are either missing or perhaps are afraid to say with regards to Bright’s attack on Ken is that the Jewish lobby will attack anyone that either stands up to it, or doesn’t relegate all Muslims in Britain to the fringes.

The Evening Standard is a vehicle for the Jewish lobby and amongst it’s contributors is Melanie Phillips, this is the lady who after the murder of the Palestinian family on the beach by the Israeli navy, stated on BBC1’s Question Time that the Palestinian family were to be blame as they had elected the Palestinian authority administration.

I believe an online campaign should be launched to have Bright sacked from the Statesman.

raysirotkin
01 February 2008 at 17:26

I'm sure Serosch's comments were well intended, but please use the term Zionist lobby. Many people of Jewish origin, including myself are critical of the Israeli regime and do support the rights for Palestinian justice and certainly have no time for Islamaphobic hysteria.

Martin Bright's attack on Ken for bringing Qaradawi to City Hall is aprt of the hysteria. What I find strange is the old Liberal maxim 'I don't agree with what he says, but I defend the right of him to say it seems to have been amended to include the rider 'except radical Moslems. The main debate is clearly about Ken's record and the attempt to use smears that appear to be backfiring. However, it is still worth pointing out that Qaradawi's views are reactionary, but no more so than most mainstream religions, including the church when it comes to women's rights and sexuality.

flower
01 February 2008 at 18:00

Sack Lee Jasper, Ken and I will continue to vote for you.

While no fan of the Standard, I have been impressed by the detailed nature of Gilligan's investigation into your tenure and especially into what is going on at the LDA.

I'm sorry, but creeping cronyism is nothing to be proud of.

papigosh
03 February 2008 at 20:30

Good try Martin Bright. You have only made me more fond of Ken. He at least delivers the good the majority wants. Would you rather Ken hobnobs with Chavez or with George W Bush? Ken consistently alligns himself with the vast majority of Londoners.

Hazlitt
03 February 2008 at 22:18

What Bright wrote needed to be published and discussed.What are the objecters affraid of?.Public figures need more public scrutiny ,not less.Bright is a good journalist peering into areas politicians are clearly uncomfotable and would prefer they were left undisturbed by public scrutiny.

radius
03 February 2008 at 23:22

I'm at a loss to understand what is remotely progressive about this member of the War Party. Those principled socialists who genuinely opposed the invasion of Iraq left new Labour in protest. What did 'red' Ken do? Rejoined it.

Chronology: destruction of civilian infrastructure in Iraq, at the behest of the Labour Party - spring 2003; Ken Livingstone, incumbent major of London, rejoins said bloodstained Party - January 6, 2004.

Stop kidding yourselves - a vote for Livingstone is even worse than a vote for Boris whatsisface. Even if he didn't hug clerical fascists and dish out jobs for his boys and girls. It is as if this whole thing about Iraq is just so much words and posturing: THEY did it, for f***'s sake, don't vote for them!!

knave
04 February 2008 at 17:51

Flower you are right . I have met many Londoners who feel that Lee Jasper is deeply unpleasant man. Also make the mayor a two term only position. Unfortunately Bright's unpleasant programme about Livingstone was widely over the top and said more about Bright role as policy exchange unit operative like his editor and his best mate Nick Cohen.

taghioff.info
05 February 2008 at 04:44

People, the world is not black and white. Just because Bright does not like Ken, does not mean his campaigning for Johnson.

Conversely, just because Ken has a good record, does not mean there are not things to criticize, not necessarily only about him but about his office.

There were perhaps some valid issues in Bright's documentary regarding how the Mayor's office is accountable.

The world is not built only of opposed conspiracies. Also, as Ken points out, he has not suffered greatly from the exposure, so why all the vitriol?

There is a debate played out here that is part of the lefts current struggle to define itself. Bright and Cohen are part of a progressive left that follows Orwell's response to totalitarian Russia, in defending democracy and freedom as a part and parcel of left-wing politics. This puts them in sympathy with the Neocons, not out of malice, but out of a misunderstanding of the modern world.

Ken has backed radical Muslim clerics as well as Chavez as part of his internationalism. He is aware of the globalised character of politics, and thus sees freedom through such an international prism. Whilst Ken has perhaps made too much peace with capital in the capital, he at least understands that politics very much has an international basis.

What Bright and Cohen seem not to understand is that America is not that interested in spreading freedom. If they were they would support a global form of democratic reform, that would give power to the poor majority.

It would be nice to see these kinds of issues dealt with in the New Statesman, so that the left can start to come to terms with itself a bit more. With Climate Change time is now overdue that the left in the North makes substantial effort to protect the poor in the South form the consequences of our consumption. This means a global progressive politics, and thus perhaps a bit of reading for those educated in the Nation-centric politics of the past.

Things change, are we as progressives able to embrace this?

old red doc
05 February 2008 at 11:11

Don't underestimate the damage done by Bright's crude innuendo. The UK is now in a flammable state of political illiteracy. All we need is an economic crisis plus a government which long ago abandoned any attempt to control big business plus a match or two from courteous "left-leaning" hacks, and we're back to 1933.

Reactionary Roger
05 February 2008 at 11:17

Are you saying that flammable illiterates read the New Statesman? You give me hope sir, you give me hope.

knave
06 February 2008 at 07:43

Bright and Cohen are part of a progressive left that follows Orwell's response to totalitarian Russia, in defending democracy and freedom as a part and parcel of left-wing politics. This puts them in sympathy with the Neocons, not out of malice, but out of a misunderstanding of the modern world.

I cannot remember Orwell condoning Torture as Cohen as or racism.

As for Cohen and bright there is more than sympathy to the neocon cause. they are both adherants to right wing economic and social policies. Cohen, Kampfner, Bright shreaks the mantra George Bush has run the US economy well and that the world recession is down to Brown , the leader of a third rate nation.

also taggy old boy two questions

1. Name one political difference between Cohen et al and Gove?Moore and the PEU.

2. Look at the editorials of the New Statesman and say if they are any different than the Tory Standard, Mail or telegraph. There is no difference

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Ken Livingstone

Ken Livingstone is the former Mayor of London.

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker