Ken Livingstone - Mayor candidate. 'Same old Labour'

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

There is nothing wrong with voting Tory. Voting Tory doesn't automatically mean disadvantaging the poor. When you're talking about a Governing a Country then yes you can shape the Countries identity to have values such as eliminating the benefit culture rewarding people who want to work, equal tax across the board and not taxing richer people more. When you are talking about working with people more intimately at say a local level then I think left wing policies work better to support people locally. There can be a different Governing system nationally and locally working in tandem for the greater good.

This local / national distinction is a crock.

Your problem is that you seem to be a fundamentally decent guy yet want to be a B'stard like Greg66.

You need to resolve this inner conflict.

And no, voting LibDem won't help, that's just kidding yourself.






Also taxation needs to be fair..... this is not the same as equal.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Your problem is that you seem to be a fundamentally decent guy yet want to be a B'stard like Greg66.

Yes, I sense much fear in this one.

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger (and boy, is he ever angry). Anger leads to hate (he *hates* losing arguments). Hate leads to suffering (for others, obv).

And now, for a reminder of how I used to look, when I were a lad:

itboffin

Greg66 is actually a woman, granted one M***king ugly one but a woman none the less

:roll:

I still would

:roll:

EKE_38BPM

TailWindHome wrote:

Also taxation needs to be fair..... this is not the same as equal.

+ A hell of a lot.

DDD, do you remember the Poll Tax and the riots it lead to?
The equal taxation that you seem to be leaning to would lead to more of that. Its not fair that a banker/footballer etc would pay (for example) £100 council tax and his cleaner, earning 500 times less, also pays £100 council tax.

If I took 10% of your take home pay as a special EKE tax, I imagine you would notice it, but you'd still basically be OK. Maybe less Wetherspoons steaks (that is what you like, isn't it?) and maybe a few less comics, but you wouldn't go cold or hungry.
If I took 10% of a minimum wage earner's take home pay, they would be truly bum-fucked (with no lube).

The country needs these people as much (if not more) as the "middle management, public sector" types.

I imagine you work hard and get well remunerated for your efforts. Good for you, but I'm sure there are others that work equally hard (maybe with their brawn rather than their brain) for much less remuneration and they deserve a Wetherspoons steak once in a while too.

Back to Mayors.
Ken has some crazy ideas. I remember him as the head of the GLC (he said something like the British treatment of the Irish was worse than how Hitler treated the Jews) and as Mayor. Some good points, but some that cost everyone (including the poor) money.
Boris appears to be a buffoon, but obviously isn't. Keeping the bike hire scheme was a good idea, but the scheme itself wasn't his.

Maybe Oona would have been a good choice? Labour enough to care about the poorer members of society, Tory enough to have the sense to send her nipper to the best school she could.

mybreakfastconsisted

Ken will stand on an anti-government stance:

The former mayor called on Londoners to punish his Tory rival for the cuts that will be imposed by the coalition by kicking him out.

He accused Mr Johnson of being a "Robin Hood in reverse" whose policies hit the poorest hardest.

After the result was announced on the South Bank, Mr Livingstone told supporters:

"His conflicts with the Government are phoney. They're designed to shuffle off blame. But they won't wash as he fought to get them elected.

"Boris Johnson can't have his cake and eat it. 'It wasn't me guv' won't wash. Boris your finger prints are all over the scene of the crime and it's you and your party that damages London.

"I have a message for Londoners. The London election in 2012 is their chance to send a message to Cameron and Osborne that we don't want these devastating cuts to our public services, fewer jobs and declining living standards. If you want them out, first vote Boris out."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-again.do


Nothing else sums up Boris's character more than his spluttering denials and "Don't you know who I am!" when he was caught thieving:

The letter to Mr Johnson states: "Police attention has been drawn to reports suggesting that you have in your possession an item that may be Iraqi cultural property, namely a cigar case from the address of Tariq Aziz."

It continues: "Obviously it is at an early stage of our enquiries but I would offer to act as the 'constable' should you wish to transfer the item into our possession for further investigation."

Mr Johnson, who has moved ahead in some polls of mayoral rival Ken Livingstone, was outraged. "There were over 18,000 crimes in London last month and yet the police write to me about this?" he said.

"What this shows is a concerted effort by my political opponents to waste police time by dragging up an article that I wrote five years ago and trying to make political mileage out of it. When knife crime is on the rise in our capital city, can it be right that police time is allowed to be wasted in this way?"

A Met Police spokesman said: "The Met works very closely with a number of countries, including Iraq, to recover items that are considered culturally significant. In order to establish the origin and potential significance of the item, such items must be submitted to police custody for further examination.

"The MPS treats the theft of, and cultural dealing of, property from abroad very seriously. The steps we are taking are proportionate with a view to repatriating an item which could be of cultural or historical significance to the Iraqis."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... theft.html

Boris calling black children "Picaninnies?

It was a joke!

And comparing gay marriage with bestiality, just another jape?

I'm not sure Boris is racist, I just think he's a crass, bullshitting retard who dismisses his £250k a year from the Torygraph as "chicken feed"- in the midst of the worst recession in the last 50 years.

shouldbeinbed

SamWise1972 wrote:

feltkuota wrote:

Livingston promised and I mean promised that the Olympics would not cost more than £2.3bn. Where are we now £15bnplus

Now THAT is a valid criticism.

well it would be if he was still in charge, Harsh to blame him for things that have occurred on Boris's watch and under the chairing of the equally conservative as Boris Lord Coe. What particular position of power and influence has Ken had recently to constrain costs???

I think Ken is the past and should stay there, but even for the most Blue tinged posters on here, blaming him for the stewardship of the olympic white elephant under Boris's mayorship is a bit of a stretch. Think how us non athletic fan non londoners feel about your olympics costing us all so much.

mybreakfastconsisted

The Olympics are ahead of schedule and under budget. The athletes' village will be sold off after the games, reaping huge sums (the doorframes in the basketball athletes' flats are 6ft 8!)

The games themselves will be the biggest, most wonderful event in our lifetimes, the biggest urban park in Europe for 150 years, opened triumphantly by mayor Ken.

il_principe

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The Olympics are ahead of schedule and under budget. The athletes' village will be sold off after the games, reaping huge sums (the doorframes in the basketball athletes' flats are 6ft 8!)

The games themselves will be the biggest, most wonderful event in our lifetimes, the biggest urban park in Europe for 150 years, opened triumphantly by mayor Ken.

I hope I've moved out of London by the time Ken (and his cronies) get re-elected. Nothing fair about the CC for one, jut means rich people can afford to drive in and poor people can't. Anyway PT is so expensive driving works out cheaper for a fair few.

il_principe

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The Olympics are ahead of schedule and under budget. The athletes' village will be sold off after the games, reaping huge sums (the doorframes in the basketball athletes' flats are 6ft 8!)

The games themselves will be the biggest, most wonderful event in our lifetimes, the biggest urban park in Europe for 150 years, opened triumphantly by mayor Ken.

I hope I've moved out of London by the time Ken (and his cronies) get re-elected. Nothing fair about the CC for one, jut means rich people can afford to drive in and poor people can't. Anyway PT is so expensive driving works out cheaper for a fair few.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

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?

No they're not. They would be if drivers were forced to take another driving test before being licensed, but IME they are among the worst drivers on the road, frequently have no navigational ability and are no cheaper than black cabbies. I took a minicab from Wandsworth to Clapham (for work when I had a broken collarbone), and the cabbie asked me to give him directions! Also it's done little to reduce the number of illegal taxis as any evening spent in the West End will demonstrate. I don't have much love for black cabbies, but on the whole they are better, safer drivers and actually know where they are going.

notsoblue

Il Principe wrote:

No they're not. They would be if drivers were forced to take another driving test before being licensed, but IME they are among the worst drivers on the road, frequently have no navigational ability and are no cheaper than black cabbies. I took a minicab from Wandsworth to Clapham (for work when I had a broken collarbone), and the cabbie asked me to give him directions! Also it's done little to reduce the number of illegal taxis as any evening spent in the West End will demonstrate. I don't have much love for black cabbies, but on the whole they are better, safer drivers and actually know where they are going.

+1 to this. Also, surprisingly, minicabs aren't actually cheaper than black cabs for many journeys. Just yesterday I paid a tenner for a journey in a black cab that costs at least 15 quid in a minicab.

MonkeyMonster

Cab for cab - black cabs are so far cheaper (for me), quicker and safer. They look AND indicate before doing Ueys far more often than the "licensed" ones.

So its a +1 for IP.

mybreakfastconsisted

Il Principe wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The Olympics are ahead of schedule and under budget. The athletes' village will be sold off after the games, reaping huge sums (the doorframes in the basketball athletes' flats are 6ft 8!)

The games themselves will be the biggest, most wonderful event in our lifetimes, the biggest urban park in Europe for 150 years, opened triumphantly by mayor Ken.

I hope I've moved out of London by the time Ken (and his cronies) get re-elected. Nothing fair about the CC for one, jut means rich people can afford to drive in and poor people can't. Anyway PT is so expensive driving works out cheaper for a fair few.

Given the massive subsidies private motoring receives in this country the CC is eminently fair, especially when you consider how few people use a car to get to work in London.

The CC works, and raises millions for the majority of commuters who use PT.

Once you factor in depreciation, tax, fuel, servicing and time wasted on London's 12 mph roads PT is far cheaper.

The cost of motoring is kept artificially low so the average family saloon is subsidised to the tune of around £2000 a year, HGV vehicles (tautology?) are subsidised a great deal more.

il_principe

It's not really fair though is it? Just forces poor people of the roads so the rich enjoyer 'quieter' roads. I don't thinkPT has got any better at all since the CC. If anything it's just getting worse. I don't even own a car so don't really give a toss either way, but i'd rather see energy spent reducing the number of HGV's in central London.

rjsterry

I think that's a good point IP. The CC is a pretty blunt instrument - a bit like a motoring Poll Tax - with little differentiation between the Porsche Cayenne taking Jemima to prep school half a mile down the road, and the office cleaner getting into work before PT is properly up and running, but leaving after the charge is in effect.

And to what degree the CC actually succeeds in freeing up central London roads is difficult to establish when every other road seems to have road works leading to lane closures and/or temp. lights. I think the basic idea is sound, but at present, the system is far too crude to work effectively or fairly.

As to the original question, I was dreading Boris becoming mayor, but so far, aside from a talent for hiring shady characters, he hasn't been as bad as I feared. Hardly a ringing endorsement though is it: not as bad as you thought he might be? I didn't really know London pre-Ken to be able to compare, but coming from Bristol, Londoners really shouldn't complain about PT. Bus provision alone is far ahead of what is available in other cities, in areas served, frequency and cost.

mybreakfastconsisted

Il Principe wrote:

It's not really fair though is it? Just forces poor people of the roads so the rich enjoyer 'quieter' roads. I don't thinkPT has got any better at all since the CC. If anything it's just getting worse. I don't even own a car so don't really give a toss either way, but i'd rather see energy spent reducing the number of HGV's in central London.

People on low wages do not commute into Central London by car, it just doesn't happen.

Westminster parking meters make more per hour than nurses do.

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.


Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.

Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

21% lower than what?

The Guardian said in 2008 that TfL claimed that congestion was back to pre CC levels.

Even TfL's website says congestion is over pre CC levels (although it says traffic is down 21%. Congestion has risen partly as a result of, well, measures implemented to increase congestion which are said to helps peds :roll:).

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

Bendy buses. Nice one, Ken. Ace work.

EKE_38BPM

Bendy buses are stupid in London. They just take up too much room on the road.

I've had an idea. How about putting two storey buses on the road so that you get twice as many passengers in the same area on the road? You could also make the back open so that passengers can hop on and off when the bus is stuck in heavy traffic.

Put all the mechanicals down low and fit a really light body and you'll be able to take corners really quickly that'll make school kids think its gonna tip. Good fun on skidpans too.

If only someone would make such a superbus.

ketsbaia

Bendy buses are great on some routes; problem is they were used on entirely unsuitable ones as well.

Main problem as far as congestion is concerned are the interminable utility works taking up at least one lane on every street in the capital. Combined with a re-jigging of traffic light sync on various key routes, which resulted in longer traffic queues forming. A 21% reduction in traffic is a great achievement of the congestion charge. If only it had gone hand-in-hand with better traffic and road-closure planning.

Ho hum. Should be fine by 2015.

As for the election of Ken, I'm looking forward to the rematch. If only to see how far up Boris's aris' the Standard tries to get this time.

mybreakfastconsisted

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.

Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

21% lower than what?

The Guardian said in 2008 that TfL claimed that congestion was back to pre CC levels.

Even TfL's website says congestion is over pre CC levels (although it says traffic is down 21%. Congestion has risen partly as a result of, well, measures implemented to increase congestion which are said to helps peds :roll:).

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

You are the colossal k unt who called the pope a nazi.


You are desperate for attention and anxious to be offensive for the sake of it.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.

Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

21% lower than what?

The Guardian said in 2008 that TfL claimed that congestion was back to pre CC levels.

Even TfL's website says congestion is over pre CC levels (although it says traffic is down 21%. Congestion has risen partly as a result of, well, measures implemented to increase congestion which are said to helps peds :roll:).

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

You are the colossal k unt who called the pope a nazi.


You are desperate for attention and anxious to be offensive for the sake of it.

Pot & kettle come to mind

PBo

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.

Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

21% lower than what?

The Guardian said in 2008 that TfL claimed that congestion was back to pre CC levels.

Even TfL's website says congestion is over pre CC levels (although it says traffic is down 21%. Congestion has risen partly as a result of, well, measures implemented to increase congestion which are said to helps peds :roll:).

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

You are the colossal k unt who called the pope a nazi.


You are desperate for attention and anxious to be offensive for the sake of it.

If I was trying to make such an assertion against someone, I'd want to come up with better than calling the pope a nazi as evidence.....

Kieran_Burns

Greg66 wrote:

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

Gregg - just to correct you on one point: Capita do not manage the TFL scheme - we BUILT the IT infrastructure to do so (oddly enough my team built the Servers that run it... small world hey?)

Your quoted article is dated 2007, BJ became Mayor in 2008 didn't he? Capita handed over the contract to IBM back in 2009.

mybreakfastconsisted

PBo wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.

Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

21% lower than what?

The Guardian said in 2008 that TfL claimed that congestion was back to pre CC levels.

Even TfL's website says congestion is over pre CC levels (although it says traffic is down 21%. Congestion has risen partly as a result of, well, measures implemented to increase congestion which are said to helps peds :roll:).

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

You are the colossal k unt who called the pope a nazi.


You are desperate for attention and anxious to be offensive for the sake of it.

If I was trying to make such an assertion against someone, I'd want to come up with better than calling the pope a nazi as evidence.....

The pope was 14 years old. People who stood up to the nazis tended to end up in concentration camps. Long after it had been explained that Hitler Jugend membership was compulsory and it was, at best, unwise to enter into conflict with the nazi party this creature repeated the allegations.

Some people did oppose the nazis and they were tortured and imprisoned. To call a young boy a nazi for joining the Hitler Jugend is contemptible, these people who say they would have stood up against them literally have no idea.

Being offensive for the sake of it, in his mind he's a brave iconclast, in reality he's a bellend.

Weak, and spiteful.

Many young men chose to resist the Nazi military on moral principles.

While most were not executed, they did face concentration camps, terrible physical hardship and the risk of death. Those people who took great risks and suffered mightily did so because they refused to sacrifice their morals and dignity for personal wellbeing or ideology. Ratzinger was not one of them.

He rationally chose to avoid that risk and potential suffering. The Pope decided to join, rather than resist on moral grounds, the most evil regimes in human history. It’s hard to criticize that choice today, and calling him a nazi for doing so is maggotty.

MonkeyMonster

Oi breakfast - chill the feck down, seriously dude you'll give yourself a coronary getting this wound up about internet discussions.

Back on topic - percy pigs standard or the fizzy tails?

mybreakfastconsisted

The Congestion Charge was introduced in a whirlwind of negative spin, particularly from the Standard who predicted house price collapse, anarchy and mayhem. None of this happened. The scheme worked. Livingstone is that rare thing, a politician who says he will do something and does it.


Boris Johnson is funny on chat shows.


He's also a thief, he'd admitted it, a liar, he's been sacked for lying- twice, and a racist.

Ken's been working for equal rights for minorities for decades whilst Boris earns money by writing about black "piccanninnies" with "watermelon smiles" and comparing gay marriage with bestiality.

I don't feel 100% confident Boris is actually racist, just a rent-a-quote gobshite who dismisses his £250k a year from the Telegraph as "chicken feed" in the midst of the worst recession since the war.

The tories will be far more unpopular in 2012 than they are now, the London mayor always does better against an opposing incumbent government and I'm pretty sure there will be more affair allegations aside from Boris's love child and Petronella Wyatt affairs.

Electoral tradition plays in Ken's favour. Incumbents usually struggle to get their core vote out. That plagued Ken last time, after several years of being in power. This time it's Boris' problem.

Boris is on record as defending the deficit reduction programme, no matter how much he tries to keep his party at arms length come the election he will be seen for what he is, a priveleged toff boasting of his salary whilst imposing massive cuts on Londoners.

mybreakfastconsisted

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... e-years.do


Labour is more popular than the Tories for the first time in three years, according to a poll released today.

Support for Labour has risen to 40% while that for the Conservative Party is now on 39%, according to the YouGov survey for The Sun.

Sewinman

Apathy is awful, but I honestly have not noticed any difference since we moved from Ken to Boris...apart from some bikes.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23882598-labour-ahead-of-tories-in-poll-for-first-time-in-three-years.do


Labour is more popular than the Tories for the first time in three years, according to a poll released today.

Support for Labour has risen to 40% while that for the Conservative Party is now on 39%, according to the YouGov survey for The Sun.

Probably because the BBC spend 90% of the news reporting the Labour conference.

Anyhow, good display of mental from you in this thread.