Ken Livingstone - Mayor candidate. 'Same old Labour'

DonDaddyD

Do people (Labour) not learn, does nothing change?

When I saw this I felt deflated as though I'd be subjected to the same cycle of pomposity again.

I'm not sure what Ken Livingston's policies will be this time round but last time I remembered things getting increasingly expensive and was on vehicles - proposals to increase the congestion charge so that no one could have a car.

This was a real chance to for someone new to shape London, someone with an outlook that reflected today's society, what has been decided is the past, one that didn't work perfectly back then.

Ironically I feel like saying same old Labour as they tried to claim same old Tories.

With Lembit Opik potentially being the other candidate and me not wanting to vote for either Boris or Ken what the hell do I do?

Discuss.

SamWise72

Why would you not want to prevent almost all cars from entering London? I thought Ken did a blinding job mostly, and I'd vote for him again, but then I don't live there. London became a much more pleasant place under Ken, specially for cyclists, though I recognise that not all of that was down to him.

Herbie The Dog

Why don't you run for mayor DDD?

That'll be your voting conundrum solved!

spen666

I think Ken Livingstone will be a real threat to Boris Johnson.

I think he is the best challenger available to Labour

Mr_Cellophane

spen666 wrote:

I think he is the best challenger available to Labour

That just about sums up the poor quality of Labour members.

DonDaddyD

I don't want to see an extension of the congestion zone because I live in London, Wimbledon and need to have a car. The congestion zone may not extend to where I live but may overlap where I drive to outside of work purposes. It's a myth that you don't need to own a car. The bloody thing has been around for over 100yrs and the world/society has been shaped around it.

I don't remember things getting better for London under Ken, crime was still high, some kids just as unruly. He made it free for children upto 16 to get on the bus and trams free and that ramped the price of adult tickets - I'm sure. All I remember was things getting more expensive.

Right here and now I'm saying Boris has done more cycling in London than Ken.

_Brun_

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's a myth that you don't need to own a car.

Is it also a myth that a good proportion of Londoners, myself included, get on fine without one?

Agent57

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's a myth that you don't need to own a car.

Bollocks. Show your working.

DonDaddyD

Some of us for whatever reason do need to own a car. Some of don't need to own a car.
Some of us choose to or not to have a car. What determines this is life circumstances.

It's a myth that you can blanket the whole populous. I get tired of the whole "you don't need a car to live in London".

Lastly, should in the event of a Zombie apocalypse I'll be glad that I have a car.

But yes, Ken. Not looking forward to the elections ahead. What happened to all those brilliant minds of the generation before mine I.e 40yrs olds, shouldn't they be emerging now as viable politicians?

tailwindhome

Why do you care who the Labour candidate is?

Sanderville

How much money will be left to support cycling when Ken re-opens his London "embassies" to Venezuela, Cuba, etc?

DonDaddyD

Tailwindhome wrote:

Why do you care who the Labour candidate is?

Because its time for Boris to go, he bought in the bikes and superhighway and quirky things that makes London cool again like er... the bikes and superhighway. But its time to get a serious candidate back in who will make the trains run on time and safely, beat up everyone who works in Bank and Moorgate and deal with the serious social issues like knife crime and feral ASBO qualified ruffians running around like its Lord of the Flies followed closely by their hell hounds bred from pitbulls and such.

No one in their right mind will take the Lib Dems seriously for another two General Elections, Nick 'sold you soul' Clegg has seen to that. All the other parties take the Green Party's energy efficient ideas as their owns so there is no point voting for them. BNP are for the pre-programmed, whose mindsets hark back to the dark ages and will eventually die out so no one votes for them. Plus dogs, Irish and blacks add a little colour and atmosphere to the London pubs. This leaves Labour and the Conservatives. Boris needs to go so we can get back to being serious and less quirky so that leaves Labour and they gave us Ken.

The future is bleak.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tailwindhome wrote:

Why do you care who the Labour candidate is?

This leaves Labour and the Conservatives. Boris needs to go so we can get back to being serious and less quirky so that leaves Labour and they gave us Ken.

The future is bleak.

Two questions

Would you vote Labour?

Would you have rated Oona King as a candidate?

DonDaddyD

Yes, there is nothing wrong with voting Labour if their policies agree with my values.

I have very different values of what I want locally than what I what nationally.

Oona King appeared to reflect my social values. So if she had been chosen chances are I would have voted for her.

Fogliettaz

Those who can vote do anything you can to keep Ken out, he is bad news for London and bad news for the UK.

SamWise72

Interesting. Of course, crime went down significantly under Ken. And Boris didn't introduce the bikes, Ken did, Boris just (wisely) didn't cancel it. And he introduced the congestion charge, which made Central a much more civilized place to be. And your other protest was? Oh that's right. He made public transport cheaper for those with no money, and more expensive for those with money. Damn that Robin Hood! Don, you get all your information from the Daily Mail AICMFP.

feltkuota

Can't stand the lying, nasal toned weasel. Nothing he has ever done has made my life more convenient or less expensive.

DonDaddyD

SamWise72 wrote:

Interesting. Of course, crime went down significantly under Ken. And Boris didn't introduce the bikes, Ken did, Boris just (wisely) didn't cancel it. And he introduced the congestion charge, which made Central a much more civilized place to be. And your other protest was? Oh that's right. He made public transport cheaper for those with no money, and more expensive for those with money. Damn that Robin Hood! Don, you get all your information from the Daily Mail AICMFP.

The thing with crime is that you can take the reports and you can take the statistics and you can argue people report more crime now or ASBO's don't have the same effect now as they did then etc.

As a person living in London I would say it is no more safer now than it was then. Socially deprived areas being ignored now were ignored back then and people in need were and are being overlooked.

I don't think he made public transport cheaper for those with no money, he made it more expensive for everyone by making children up to age of 16 go on free.

I don't want to see the congetion zone extended. I don't want to see his last campaign policy plans for motorist - included increasing charges - return.

The thing about policies and politics is that everyone is intitled to their perspective.

ketsbaia

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right here and now I'm saying Boris has done more cycling in London than Ken.

That'll be the stuff he's taking the credit for that was Ken's idea, yeah?

Clarion

Since Boris has done nothing other than ride the back of other people's ideas and appoint shady characters as advisers, I shan't be glad to see the back of him.

Oh yes - and he cancelled the CC zone extension.

I live and work in London, and I do own a car, but I can see no reason why we should give the city over to these epitomes of selfishness.

Having been away from the area for several years then coming back, I noticed how much cleaner & quieter (and safer for cycling!) London was following the introduction of the C Charge. Boris wants to roll that back.

Ken improved public transport massively as well, helping provide alternatives to private cars.

He may not have ridden a bike, but he did so much more for us than the straw-haired buffoon.

And that's before we get on to how well he promoted London and helped people from all cultures have pride in the city.

W1

Labour have just gifted it to Boris. If Red Ken is the best they can do, it's pretty indicative of how pants the rest of them are!

I can't stand Ken Livingstone with is ghasly voice and nauseating self serving hypocracy.

DonDaddyD

ketsbaia wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right here and now I'm saying Boris has done more cycling in London than Ken.

That'll be the stuff he's taking the credit for that was Ken's idea, yeah?

But he made it happen and it has proved successful.

I'm sure both Ken and Boris took it off the Green Party candidate who in turn looked at Holland and Belgium. "No one has reinvented the wheel".

Licensed mini cabs are good whose idea was that?

feltkuota

Do you think it "fair" that someone should be charged 25pounds to drive through the city? I don't, I think it pure envy.

DonDaddyD

Yeah, all the Ken lovers will come out saying how bad Boris has been and that he stole Ken's ideas. If that was the case why was Ken voted out in the first place.

My issue isn't that Ken was dreadful or that Boris was a terrible.

Its just that in Boris' case I feel London needs someone who will focus on the heart of the city's social-cultural issues and tackle socially-deprived areas. I really think the affluent areas are fine and will now only benefit from the raising of quality in the not so affluent areas.

In Ken's case I just want someone new and someone who won't charge me into poverty. Ken lost the plot when he proposed an increase and extension of the congestion charge. His return smacks full of an ousted dictator returning to claim what he percieves as rightfully his. The majority didn't want him the last time round, what's changed? He hasn't.

Monkeypump

feltkuota wrote:

Do you think it "fair" that someone should be charged 25pounds to drive through the city? I don't, I think it pure envy.

I think the CC is outrageous, although not sure it's 'envy'. However, for those of us that choose to pay (or expense) it, the drive into town is a LITTLE easier. I don't think the improvements are closely correlated to the cost per 'charge' though.

I'd still rather pay the charge and drive in (on the occasions that I have to) than use PT.

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

His return smacks full of an ousted dictator returning to claim what he percieves as rightfully his. The majority didn't want him the last time round, what's changed? He hasn't.

This, absolutely this.

The thought of his smug face IF he gets back in is sickening.

feltkuota

Monkeypump..

I hear and certianly not arguing with you but I still think it envy. The suggestion from Ken last time round was to increase the CC to 25quid for certain vehicles. I see it in much the same way as VED is based on the size/type of car and nothing to do with actual mileage. Another one that gets my goat, although nowt to do with Ken, is stamp duty.

SamWise1972

W1 wrote:

Labour have just gifted it to Boris. If Red Ken is the best they can do, it's pretty indicative of how pants the rest of them are!

Yep, cos Ken has an appalling record of winning London elections. He is an odd looking bloke with an annoying voice and a face for radio, but he's won a lot. Perhaps he wins on something other than his appearance and voice?

feltkuota wrote:

Do you think it "fair" that someone should be charged 25pounds to drive through the city? I don't, I think it pure envy.

Envy? In what sense? As a cyclist who owns a car, I certainly wasn't envious of the drivers pre congestion charge, just annoyed by how many of them clogged up the roads. Now there are less, and it's a more pleasant place to be. You can go round, you can use public transport, you can cycle, and if you really want to, you can drive, but the £25 makes you think twice first. Do you remember what it was like before?

Dondaddyd wrote:

The thing with crime is that you can take the reports and you can take the statistics and you can argue people report more crime now or ASBO's don't have the same effect now as they did then etc.

As a person living in London I would say it is no more safer now than it was then. Socially deprived areas being ignored now were ignored back then and people in need were and are being overlooked.

I don't think he made public transport cheaper for those with no money, he made it more expensive for everyone by making children up to age of 16 go on free.

So essentially, what you're saying is that all the stuff which can be PROVED to have changed and improved doesn't mean anything because you, a highly paid management person, don't feel any safer than you did? Could it be that you were not one of the peope most in need of protection from crime to begin with? What this seems to come down to is that you're opposed to things that might make a positive difference overall if they inconvenience you personally a bit. Fair comment? That's a legitimate point of view, of course, but it's good to call things what they are.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Monkeypump wrote:

I think the CC is outrageous, although not sure it's 'envy'.

SamWise1972 wrote:

Envy? In what sense?

It is envy, and here's how.

It all goes back to schooldays. In the sixth form, it was a well known FACT that if you wanted sex with a burd, you need a flash motor, with a stereo, an electric aerial, and reclining seats.

Now, those pupils with rich parents could afford to buy their offspring driving lessons, and let them drive their cars. Those pupils would, therefore, be the offspring of Tory voters. And in the result, they got all the best burds, and all the sex.

Those students at the other end of the spectrum - the offspring of blue collar Labour voters - had no such luck. They were consigned to public transport (and no burd in her right mind puts out on the back of the offer of a shared bus ride home) and five knuckle shuffles.

This not unnaturally bred envy and despair. When the saddos grew up, and found that they could not hold down jobs they went to work for the council, clawing their way up into positions of power eventually in the Labour party.

That was when they were able to look back at their sad and lonely teenage years, and realise that the reason their Rt Hon Tory colleagues now had all the fit burds was due to the menace of the car, which they saw as having distorted the natural order of comradely attraction all those years ago.

So, wishing to break the cycle of rejection and onanism, all Labour politicians have consistently waged war on the car and the driver.

It's the paradigm example of the politics of envy.

DonDaddyD

SamWise1972 wrote:

So essentially, what you're saying is that all the stuff which can be PROVED to have changed and improved doesn't mean anything because you, a highly paid management person, don't feel any safer than you did?

What the hell has my job, my position in the organisation or my pay (defined as highly paid but that is a matter of perspective) got to do with anything?

Could it be that you were not one of the peope most in need of protection from crime to begin with?

Well actually during Ken's reign I hailed from Norbury (kinda Thorton Heath/Croydon) and worked in Camberwell. Look them up.

What this seems to come down to is that you're opposed to things that might make a positive difference overall if they inconvenience you personally a bit. Fair comment?

No not really.

That's a legitimate point of view, of course, but it's good to call things what they are.

What do you seem to think you calling out for what it is?

That I'm selfish and I'm not one of the people who needed protection most from crime because of my job, position and pay?

Even if that is incorrect your post is riddled with assumptions.

ketsbaia

Greg66 wrote:

It's the paradigm example of the politics of envy.

Tautological, surely?