Fuckin' right. Viva Ken.

KLF - I have two spare tickets for Brixton on Monday. PM me and they're yours, for free. And I'll introduce you to BB.

Just to make my point about ken.
I'm not very far over the line, but I think I now view him unfavourably.
Mostly because of bus and tube fares in London.
More than 6 pounds for a zone 1-6 capital card is just too much. And if you need to get to work in the morning? It's more than people on low wages can afford.
The congestion charge is also, in my opinion, too much. Eight quid? And going to extend it out to Fulham Palace Rd, and Harrow rd?
It may have reduced traffic, but it's anti working class in my opinion.
Eight pounds is enough for me not to drive into the zone.
So it does its job.
I bet the residents of kensington and chelsea can't wait for it to be expanded out to the west, as they will only have to pay (I think ) 4 quid a week, and the whole of central london is theirs to swan about in.
Do any people on this forum who support it actually pay it? (I never have ).
When he was head of the GLC, he made a big deal about low fares for public transport. "Fares Fair" was their slogon. It was the rate payers who footed the bill.
So then maybe he was red ken.
I have heard him alot on BBC London and LBC. And now he comes across as just another 'manager'.
With a very big opinion of himself.
I respect him as a man in public life, and he can really argue his corner.
He goes on london radio shows regularly, and will take phone calls live on air.
So fair play to him there.

I said somewhere else that I'm not much of an economist, but why does London (england) have to be so expensive.
A weekly pass for the New York transport network costs a fraction of what londoners are forced to pay.

Is anyone else embarassed when arriving at heathrow, and going down to the tube, finding someone trying to work how much they have to pay to get to earls court or somewhere?

i do believe the mta runs in part with money from new york state, and i'm guessing the feds kick in some money as well for operating costs, which in turn keeps the fare lower. so we pay for it in city and state taxes.

i also think it may have something to do with the fact the london underground was the first underground railway in the world. it's been punished ever since for being a pioneer in the field-- i've been told it's to blame for there being no A/C on trains and having dedicated trains for certain lines because the tracks are different sizes. as far as paying for it goes, it can't be cheap to opperate. me thinks it would be more manageable had it not been divided up between several different private firms, who's only real interest is turning a profit and not getting my ass to heathrow on time.

i personally think the zone thing is really silly, but if necessary it should be cut down to 3 zones to keep it marginally simple. and as far as the working poor are concerned, it's 1) more expensive to drive around town and 2) perhaps Red Ken could think about getting employers to subsidise a monthly travelcard. in new york, i was lucky, my employer had a transport scheme where i wasn't taxed on the money i spent on transport and was reimbursed for my metrocards at the end of the year. that was a good old saving of 800 bucks a year and made a big difference in my pocketbook.

as far as mayors are concerned i'd trade mayor bloomberg for mayor ken any day.

Ken was on with Vanessa this morning. (On BBC London)
He said that Trevor Phillips (who wrote this) had gone so far to the right, he might as well join the BNP.
He must be a bit mad to say that; and eddie and kath are airing some interesting stuff now, about the 'shoot the messenger' programme last night on BBC 2.

Yet again KL opens his mouth before engaging his brain, I don't like the fact that TP sends his kids to public school but on race he is trying to address a difficult issue and not widen the gap between communities.

Give Nicky Gavron the job.

Is this who you're talking about Mick? - the quango queen?

Yes Damon no flies on you mate, Nicky or Frank Dobson would be fine alternatives, I agree with Dennis Skinner on this one I would not have let him back into the party early.

What is Ken Livingstone doing in Cuba exactly? The guy has made himself a laughing stock.
Hugo Chavez was probably right to give him the brush off.
He thought he was going to get cheap oil for London

why ?

More info' here

I heard Ken, last night on Newsnight (I think), defending his trip out to where he was (Cuba), saying he (and his team) had some meetings with some Cuban officials ........... and that some information and ideas could be exchanged. About what? The expansion of the congestion charge? The sugar cane harvest?

This was Ken yesterday. I think it's a really interesting piece. It''s got so many links, I don't have time to read them now - also a lot of interesting replies at the bottom.
My problem with Livingstone is not that I actually disagree with what he says, and his vision for London to become how he outlines here - it's that he's like a Bolshevik in the way that he pushes an agenda that is too radical for many people. He belives he's right, so he pushes ahead. If you disagree with him, or are more conservative, you are to be ignored, because you are a political enemy.
So he will happily say on air that the Thames Gateway has to have hundreds of thousands of houses built on it, because Londons population is going to rise by maybe a million. A lot of people might not want it to.

Our mayor is hosting this conference in a couple of weeks.
I like a conference, but I wonder what the point of this one is. He says his policies are based on the idea ''that the multicultural city is part of creating a new concept of world civilisation that corresponds to a globalised world.''
That sounds far out. (Those that aren't ready for this new concept of world civilisation will have to be 'encouraged' I suppose.)

Oliver Kamm seems to take issue with the ideas the conference will be putting foreward. (Though what the ex mayor of Jerusalem has got to do with anything, I don't know).

Islamophobia Watch promoted it on their website.

Personally, I think he's quite cautious. For example, he never introduced the carpark tax that the Government gave him the power to introduce. He's picked a few key issues and is pushing on them, which is the way for him to go, I think.
The Venezuela trip was certainly embarrassing, but I didn't think it was his fault. Havana was a stop-over on the way and then his meetings got cancelled because of the election. I suppose that it was bad timing with the election, but I guess that Chavez's people said it was ok to do the meetings and then cancelled them.

This question might belong on another thread, but what is the mayor of London doing in Cuba in the first place? Surely international politics are the job of national government. But maybe because he see's him self as the leader of a new concept in world civilisation, he thinks he's outside of a wider UK.
(I also think the blockade of Cuba has been a disgrace, but when he says there are things that we can learn from the Cuban revolution, I wonder what they are).

On Yesterdays Vanessa Feltz show on BBC London they were talking about Ken and his vision of this new international mega city. The population is growing, but at the same time 2 million londoners have moved out in the last decade. So we have a major turn over of population.
That's fine, but I just find it not right when people who champion this 'out with the old, in with the new' mentality, then refuse to talk about some of the negatives that might come from this rapid change, and the breaking with the past.

Today on Vavessa's show she was talking about this story. (You can listen again). In my part of london, Asian businessmen run these hair and beauty product shops for African and Carribean women. Accordind to some of the black callers to the show, the use of these skin bleaching creams is widespread.
What's this got to do with Ken's vision for the london of the future?
Well, Lewisham (for example) is a dump. I find these ''beauty and nails'' shops, a depressing part of the urban landscape.
Alienation can work both ways. My mum was p'd off when her local post office became a bookmaker, and the lawnmower place became a kebab shop.
She's old, so you could say it's tough. Maybe she should bugger off down to Eastbourne.

Here are two quick ones:

Literacy rate

Pre-revolution - 76%
Post-revolution - 96%

Infant mortality (Deaths per 1,000 babies)

Pre-revolution - 32
Post-revolution - 10

There are others as well such as Cuba's community-oriented approach to health-care, their neighborhood after-school programs, and the place of women in Cuban society (half of Cuba's doctors are women).

viva castro

My question wasn't what benifits the Cuban revolution brought. There are some, and but for the cold war, and the vindictiveness of the USA, it might have been a real success.
Compared to the wrecthedness that existed in Central America, and places like Haiti, there was much that was a change for the better.
But I think the British NHS and the Cuban health service aren't really going to be relevent to each other.The same with literacy. It's probably easier to teach cuban children to a high level of literacy than inner-city kids in the west. Because of the culture. (I'm only guessing, but I imagine that cuban children are better behaved, just like you see if you visit south east asia for example).
Neighbourhood after school programmes will work better in an autoritarian society. Like in Vietnam, where every street has it's comities and local leadership to keep an eye on everybody.
Where you even have to go and register a friend who might be staying overnight.
They used to do the same thing in East Germany.
A nosey old bag would report any strange comings and goings.

What Ken said he really went to find out, was how Cuba excels in sports, and what we in London could learn from them as we go towards the 2012 olympics.
It still sounds a bit dodgy.
Why not do a trip to China, and see what we can learn there, about (mass) producing athletes?
(The secret is to get them young, and work them hard).

A comrade just back from Cuba recently told me that he expected a gradual but definite retreat from Revolutionary Socialism once Fidel dies; not so much because of any great desire for Western style democracy, but because of the relative apathy of the Cubans towards politics and the attractions of the capitalist consumer lifestyle.
Which is sad.

You say it's sad JB. But there is no way Cuban 'revolutionary socialism' can survive, given the attidude of all US administrations over the years - (how come Clinton didn't do anything?).
But I'll have to look up the Cuba thread on here, as all this must have been gone over before.
There is a fatal flaw in the 'viva castro' line.
It's not a proletarien dictatorship.

I'm sorry I wasn't picking on you. I read your statement as suggesting you wondered what lessons we could learn from the Cuban Revolution. I was just suggesting that understanding the causes that led to the changes in the statistics I cited may be a valuable lesson.


And feed them 'roids.

I think that the question is whether the system could have survived even without the hostility of the US. I just don't think that "Socialism in one country" is viable in a globalised world.

I know there are some Ken supporters on here - he does sound ''left wing'' - if you think left wing means bossing people about (so that they do the right thing of course). ''Viva congestion charge expansion, Viva''.

But I think this gets close to he reality: Red Ken's green tyranny. He's suddenly out to save the plannet, and seems to think that he is somehow at the forefront of it. So lets make it harder for immigrants to Britain to fly home to see their families on the other side of the world.
Make it too expensive for poorer people to go and visit their children who have emigrated.
Meanwhile in India, the Delhi - Bombay air route is taking over the roll that trains used to. It's becoming a shuttle.

So Ken is going to have a bit of a contest to get reelected mayor.
But I think Boris will bomb. I like him more than Livingstone, but he hasn't got what it takes to get into all those complicated contract negotiations and committee stuff.

When I read Emily Hill, for some reason Sarah lady comes into my mind. I'm not sure why.
Here she wrote: Boris, Ken and the cult of personality.

Poly Toynbee critisised Johnson in the guardian for being right wing, and this is what Emily Hill said about that:

Wise words I think.
But this was better:

Andy Larter, you said you like Ken I remember. No wonder you don't like this website.

Boris Johnson is a total buffoon. So far, he says he wants to get rid of "bendy buses" - fine policy. He isn't even the Tory candidate yet mind you.


Which website?

Damon, this is a classic example of "Spiked!" interpreting politics to fit its own somewhat distorted view of the world; Boris is a classic Libertarian/Liberal and therefore is rightly regarded as "Right-Wing". Ken believes in interventionist policies to promote the welfare of the majority and a degree of redistribution, and is therefore of "the Left".
The use of the term "Fascism" doesn't help here, because it is distinctively different from the classic Liberalism of the mainstream Right; the Left has always been seen as authoritarian and interventionist. Watch "A Private Function" and look at the way the Denholm Elliot character rails against the establishment of the NHS in exactly those terms; or look at some of the criticism that was aimed at the first Wilson government.
"Spiked" can pretend that "Left" is synonymous with "Libertarian", but it doesn't make it true!!

As a matter of interest, why are the bendy buses so reviled? I can understand the nostalgia for the classic old double deckers, but I struggle (as a non-Londoner) to understand why the BBs arouse such strong feelings.
Incidentally, I think that Boris vs Ken should at least inject some personality to the contest, though perhaps a bit too much....

Er .... the one that the article I quoted from at lengh was on.

What a distorted view of the world is, is open to many different interpretations I would have thought. (But I'll look out for A Private Function ).

As for bendy busses, one of the main complaints is that because they are so long, they tend to get stuck at busy intersections and block the cross traffic.
Cyclists have also complained of being squeezed by them when they turn corners. (But thats probably the cyclists fault for trying to overtake on the inside).

But which website was it? Wickipeedier? Speyeked?

It was definately the Speyeked one Andy

Instead of being a knocker, why don't you become a reviewer.
(Who's better? The Socialist Workers?)
They've got this July review of books that I could do with some help with.

Why would I want to do that?

Bendy buses are also supposed to be a haven for pickpockets since you can be squeezed up so tight. And its easy to cheat the fare so lots of revenue is lost.

one big advantage is sposed to be more space for the disabled and people with buggies,but I think they'll be ditched whether or not livingstone wins.

they are definitely less pleasant to travel on than double deckers.

Well you might not want to I understand, but you're obviously more learned than me (I'm not taking the p or anything), and your opinion on a review like this one would be interesting.

If it's all bunkum it would be nice to know, as I get aufully impressed by stuff like that.

To be honest, Damon, I can't be bothered.

That's fair enough Andy.
I just thought that when people rubbish something, they might like to say why.

I may well agree overall, but the reaction he got from the things he said about Liverpool, Portsmouth and Papua New Guinea was laughable.
The Scousers do moan, Portsmouth does suck, (I know, I do delivires there), and ''canabalism and chief killing'' is a part of Papuan history.

That he was forced to publicly apologise each time showed how touchy feely and PC we've become.

This is what caused the last fuss:


It might have been a bit crass, and uncalled for, but hardly worth headline news.
It was the Shilpa Shetty/Jade Goody kind of thing at work there I think.

Damon, why exactly do you think he should not be made to apologise?
please dont quote stuff at me. just your words!

Keep on thinking Damon. Keep on thinking.

I think "Spiked" has a distorted view of the world, not necessarily in a moral sense, but in a literal sense: they start from a certain political perspective and then distort history and current affairs to support that perspective. Of course, everyone does that to some extent, and their perspective is a novel and interesting one, but they are still distorting reality.

It's more about the media/political reaction I woud say.
That a public figure said something (admittedly derogatory) about some aspect of a far away country and its history, or past culture, might be worth pulling him up about.
My Irish ancestors probably did live on spuds, boiled bacon and cabbage.
There's a few jokes in there I'm sure, and I'd be happy to laugh along with them.
If it went too far, I would object like anyone would.
But I don't get all hit up, every time someone says ''Mick'' or ''padywagon''

The reason Boris got headline news about making some stupid remarks about Papua New Guinea is (I think) because there are people who think that somethig like that should be headline news.

So if tomorow some public figure was to say: ''From here to Timbuctu'' (it's an expression that a lot of people have grown up with, btw) they'd be someone straight on to the embassy of Mali, asking them did they feel that their country had been slighted by these remarks (from someone they'd never heard of).

Give you a stick and you'll pick up the wrong end every time. The reason Boris Johnson makes the headlines is because he is an MP, former editor of The Spectator, public figure and is a high profile media personality. Making headlines is what he does. However, such a person cannot be allowed to say what they like, if only because it sets a bad example. And writing, "For 10 years we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing, and so it is with a happy amazement that we watch as the madness engulfs the Labour Party" is simply not on. I've fallen out with my family over such casual racism.

And just because you have a thick skin doesn't mean that other people don't get worked up, upset, angry, insulted. Here's what Jean L Kekedo, Papua New Guinea's High Commissioner in London, said: "I consider the comments, coming from a senior British MP very damaging to the image of Papua New Guinea and an insult to the integrity and intelligence of all Papua New Guineans. I wish to state that I am shocked and appalled by such comments from a seemingly well-educated person of very high standing, in fact the alternative minister for higher education in the House of Commons. How far removed and ill-informed can Mr Johnson be from the reality of the situation in modern-day Papua New Guinea?"

I think that's about right. Johnson plays on the image of being a lovable buffoon. He is, in fact, a Tory politician who knows just how to play the media.

I think I get it now.
People like Emily from Big Brother have to be hung out to dry because they set a bad example.
It doesn't matter that she was only about 19, (didn't mean it in a racist way) and is a real actual person who continues to live her life in Bristol.
I know the line from years back. The Anti Waffen SS League one, (or what ever they're called).

Would it have been less bad if Boris hadn't mentioned a particular country?
I reckon my ancestors did a bit of chief killing too.

But I think that Boris Johnson and what he says or what he is, isn't really the issue.

This is a fantastic post Damon. WTF are you on about?

Andy, I think you are being overly nasty.
But: you are a man who publicly declares he's never been inside a McDonald's, dosen't know what a cappucchio is.
(And can't see how a word like crumpet could be ever used in a way other than a derogatory one.)

If you don't know who Emily from Big Brother was, then fine. (Btw that's not Emily Hill, she's another person).
You've heard of Big Brother I take it? In the first week of this series, a young girl got kicked off the programme (and hung out to dry), for making a stupid but harmless comment. (I say harmless only because she clearly didn't mean it to be the way it turned out.) She was a white girl who thought she could get away with saying nigger to someone she was hanging out with, who (is mixed race/black).

But your and Zippy's:

style posts, do end up being somewhat lazy and shallow I think.

I can understand how a staff member of the PNG embassy might have given a statement like that.
And I can understand that someone from the embassy of Mongolia could be offended by the expression ''Outer Mongolia'' - just like someone from the NSW outback in Australia, could be offended by the expression ''Back of Bourke.''
(It sort of means ''the middle of nowhere''). (Once you get past Bourke, you're on your own).

I think that the timing of some of your recent remarks towards me has been poor.
You (''one'') ends up looking like Rick from the Young Ones.

Damien, I don't intend to be nasty. However, I still don't know what you're on about. Using the word "nigger" is not harmless. It is a shameful and racist word that contains overtones of white supremacy. I fail to understand how you can see it as "harmless." It's obvious to me what the semantics of the word are. Mind you, you keep going on about 'crumpet' and can't see my objection to that word either. This leads me to think that you don't have a grasp of semantics or you don't read widely enough or don't associate with people who hold the kind of values that I do.

And what does my diet and knowledge of TV have to do with this argument? (If by "cappucchio" you mean "capuccino" ..... well of course I know that it is a type of coffee drink named after Italian monks' garb.) Are you implying that in order to understand culture you have to watch LCD telly programmes, eat a seriously unhealthy diet and drink coffee in Starbuck's? (I am quite proud of the fact that I've never eaten MacDonalds though. I may have a badge made.)

My problems with your posts are a. you seem to get all your information from one very dodgy source and b. you write in a way that I find confusing. For example, you wrote "a staff member of the PNG embassy might have given a statement like that." Which statement are you referring to? Is it "Somewhat lazy and shallow"? And are your comments about Mongolia and New South Wales supposed to represent a similarity to the use of the word "nigger"? If so, I'm sorry to say, they're way off the mark and demonstrate, yet again, what a poor grasp of race issues you have.

Rick from "The Young Ones"? Now that is funny: for a start I don't have one of those silly little plaits in my hair and I'm very happily married.

Do LCD TV's get special programming that us poor people that have CRT's don't get?

Fuck. I must be dislexic or something. I was sure I spelled the name of that milky coffe drink right. I even looked it up on an online dictionary.

And with the thing about some young white girl on Big Brother using the N word, I agree completely that it is a horrible ugly word, with a terrible history.
My point is this: Although you don't watch it, you probably have a vague idea about the programme, just because it's talked about in the media.
And this incident made front page news. My difference from you might be (because I watched it) I knew who these people were.

If you cared to look here at a google search thing I did you might see that this was just a kid (who was miked up 24/7) and said something stupid that she will now have to wear like a millstone around her neck for years to come. (she didn't say it maliciously, she thought she was being hip and playful). My (white) nieces go to Lambeth schools where that word is often used.
Not by white raceists, but in the general urban multi-ethnic/cultural youth speak.

She should have been called in to the diary room and given a dressing down. Just like another of them was some weeks later, when she playfully said the word poof.

I don't say you have to agree with me, but maybe could accept that not everyone who has a different opinion is a pseudo-racist (what ever that means).

About Boris and Papua New Guinea and them getting a statement.
It might be not perfect English that I used, (your a teacher aren't you ) but I would have thought it was reasonably clear that I meant that someone must have rang up the PNG embassy, and told them a shadow cabanet minister had mentioned their country by name, and had spoken of chief killing and canabalism.
And then asked: ''did they want to make a reply to that?''

I already said it was a stupid thing to say. And that I thought the more interesting aspect of this was the media reaction.
There was the same kind of silly media scrum when someone writing in the Spectator, which Boris was the editor of, said the people of Liverpool were a bit mawkish, and thought everyone had it in for them.

Again a bit stupid, but if you remember that with Hillsboriugh, the murder of the little boy by a couple of ten year olds, and the killing of Ken Bigley in Iraq by Al-Qaeda, there were those kinds of noises coming out of Merseyside.

Probably... there's a special BBC HD channel on cable and Sky, after all.

I honestly think Damon has some cognitive issues as nothing he ever posts makes any sense and he fails to understand anything that anyone else posts. I find it quite disturbing actually.

The only reason I go on is because it helps me to consider what I think. However, I've had enough now. I think Ken Livingstone (just to get back on thread) makes some very cogent points about life.

I agree that he does.
That there are so many people in the country, who are too damaged and uneducated to understand what he's saying though, is a political (and cultural) problem I think.

His ''three line whip'' method, where all those who don't fall into line in the appropriate manner, and therfore have to be castigated in a heavy fashion, is my problem with that style of doing things.

It tends to cause a (reactionary) backlash.

I don't think I can be bothered to answer you Damon. I'm going out instead. It's a lovely day.