Does he have ANY chance at all of becoming Mayor? Really?

I think he does, to be honest.
Ken has pissed a lot of people off (I'm not one of them, in the main) and Boris is for some reason well liked.
Honestly, I'm glad I won't be living here when the time comes for Mayor Boris!

Hell, I think Boris is likeable. But the idea to let him decide on anything to do with my life is ridiculous! You don't give the city keys to the court's jester, do you?

I tend to agree with Leontien somewhat, in her opinion of Boris Johnson.
But I don't pretend to know that much about his politics.
The ''daily mail'' parts of suburban London seem to be very hostile to Ken, from what I can pick up listening to populist Nick Ferrari's radio phone in show in the mornings on LBC radio.
And the Livingstone camp is trying very hard to paint Johnson as this unacceptable right wing, divisive, (racist) Tory buffoon - which may be an accurate description.

Last night (sunday), I listened to Dotun Adebayo's BBC London radio show.
He had the journalist from the London Evening Standard newspaper in the studio - Andrew Gilligan - who has been making very serious charges against Kens office, (and his aide Lee Jasper in paticular).

And there also, was Lee Jasper's colleague Simon Woolley

It was a bit of a punch up for the whole of the first hour, and well into the second.

I was interested to hear some of the callers into the show (with accents that suggested they were not white), saying that Simon Woolley was throwing around the accusations of racism, a bit to liberally.

It's worth a listen, as it gets into some of the detail behind why Jasper has been suspended, and what exactly was going on at Brixton Base. It's on listen again for a week. (Look for Dotun Adebayo's sunday night special.)

Ken's a wiley politican Damon.They dont come much more slippery.

I did mention they might hang Jasper out to dry - and thats what's happened. Lets face it local government has always been corrupt in this country,- and Id suggest in that regard at least, Ken's one of the more principled types. But you'll always get a few dodgy things going on - power does corrupt.
////

My ideal mayor would be Billy Bragg. Hed have to leave Devon,- but unlike Ken and Boris - he has great sympathy and understanding of all different sections of the community. He's got a great brain.

Hed keep Ken's politics - minus the obnoxious bits.

And the free gigs we'd get would be superb.

he'd have to move to devon first, in order to move out of it.

Er yes, I think there is a very possible (and scary) chance of Boris Johnson becoming Mayor. That's why I'm getting of my arse for the first time in ages, and I hope my fellow Londoners are too.

I am... out of London!

Where does he live then?

Dorset

Thanks Sarah. Of course yes it was Dorset.

///
Re Leontien's thoughts on Boris. The way you pose it Leontien ie hes kind of a larger than life,loveable,old fashioned - back to empire days figure is tempting. On the surface hes very bright,endearingly bumbling,and seemingly harmless.

But a word like piccaninies - its just not on. Hes also only about 42 I think - so what is he doing holding those old fashioned tory positions that the likes of cameron have discarded.(at least publically.)

What you said Leontien reminded me very much of what people used to say about the late Alan Clarke MP. An old fashioned tory who was hugely intelligent,and charismatic.

People said "hes larger than life." "hes an old fashioned character." Funnily enough I remember Red Ken defending him as a great eccentric.

In fact on closer inspection he was quite vile.(much worse than Boris.)

EG He named his dogs after Nazi generals.(What a character eh!.) Ive got relatives who died in concentration camps so I dont find that particularly diverting.

Similarly with piccaninies its so offensive to many folk who live here. As Doreen Lawrence pointed out.

(But I still dont wanna vote for Ken.)

I just don't understand why people would take him seriously as a candidate for Mayor. Aren't there any other candidates than Boris and Ken?

There's the Lib Dem guy who used to deputy head of the Met Police and the first openly gay policeman in any kind of high position.
We were talking about him last night and the only thing we can remember him for is his "turn a blind eye" drugs policy in Brixton and that he's gay - I've not got a clue what any of his policies are.

There was a guy* giving out leaflets at my station for Boris last night, I took one just to see what he's got to say (not a lot, as it turned out). I was interested to see whether people were taking leaflets from him and most people weren't or did, then gave it back.
Even the really posh folk who get the train there were like "certainly not" when asked, which I found amusing.

*The bloke giving them out had cropped white blonde hair - I did think about asking him if all of Boris' street team army have to be Aryan looking but decided against it.

He says that the reason he turned a blind eye to public pot smoking in Brixton, was because he wanted his police arresting people involved in more serious street crime.
I can go along with him on that.
I still think Ken is a divisive figure.
It's just a personal thing, but I think playing up to difference, is not the way to be going.
(Remember 'Diversity is divisive' - by Munira Mirza?.......... Nevski - Jon - Zippy?)

An example of this would be Ken's welcoming of cleric Yusuf Al- Qaradawi to London - and even publicly embracing him.
Hmmmm - I'm not sure about that at all.
Is this a lesser thing than Johnson's use of the insulting word for black children?

If Paddick will keep the cong charge - keep on improving buses (and keeping prices down on them.)

Keep travel cards. And have a sensitive policy to the ethnic minorities in the city (ie dont play them off against each other.I think Red Ken thinks - Im not really bothered how much I offend London Jews - because theres more Muslim voters in the city) - Id think about voting Lib Dem.

Being out in the police force - and so high profile is really brave.

He took a lot of flak for the cannabis policy - but surely dope has to be decrim'ed one of these years.

/////
I dont feel great about voting for that party though.Theyve had some appalling election campaigns in the past - which were racist and homophobic.

I really like Brian Paddick and the police were idiots to lose him.

Personally I have a lot of problems with cannabis use being decriminalized, but his decision in Brixton to use what was called a "softly, softly" approach to personal use of cannabis in favor of tackling more serious crimes was enormously sensible and successful. He also managed, from what I'd heard, to vastly improve relationships between the police and residents of Brixton--no easy task. So of course they moved him out of there. Absolute idiots.

I don't agree with all his positions either, but I think he'd be a fine mayor. I think he's been a bit lost in the storm of ego that is consuming the race.

I'd vote for Ken any day though rather than Boris.
And I think there was nothing wrong with what he said to the reporter who happened to be Jewish about likening him to a concentration camp guard.

It's a bit like people who say horrible racist things then get worked up when they are called racist, saying "That's a terrible thing to call someone." Umm, you are missing the point entirely. It's a terrible thing to BE racist, naming it is just incidental.

Bit rich for a tabloid reporter to suddenly get all sensitive and easily offended by "incorrect" speech, isn't it?

It wasnt just the reporter who was offended. A lot of Jewish people in London were as well.
Im not so bothered that he said it - OK he was drunk and we've all done daft things drunk.
But his sheer arrogance in refusing to apologise - was breathtaking to me. Had he done so it would be long forgotten by now.

If a lot of black people in London are telling me - something is racially offensive - I will listen to that and not think I know better than black people about racism.
Similarly I dont like Livingstone lecturing to me about what is and what is not antisemitic.

And that's not the only instance either of his ambivolence re Jews.

I don't think he should have apologized.

Neither do I, the guy was behaving like a total arsehole. The fact he was Jewish was neither here nor there.
Besides which, the only reason Jewish people in London were offended by it (or even knew about it) was because the Standard brought it up time and time and time again.
Frankly, I'm offended by the Standard.

My understanding was that Livingstone knew that the journalist was Jewish and you have to ask whether he would have made the same remark to someone who wasn't Jewish - or used a similarly charged comparison to a member of another minority group.
Whilst I have very little respect for tabloid journalists, or the Standard (though I have to say that one the relatively few occasions I've seen it, it never seems as right-wing as the Mail), and I like Ken, I think that this comment was, to say the least, crass and insensitive.
Tabloid journalists hound people and manipulate the truth; concentration camp guards routinely murdered and brutalised their victims. To suggest that the former are on a par with the latter seems to me to trivialise an appalling crime.
Having said that, I think I'd still vote for Livingstone, and the alternatives aren't particularly attractive.

No actually the reason Jewish people in London were offended by it was because we found it offensive.
For the reasons J Boyd so excellently outlined.

I didnt need the std to tell me it was a crass thing to say.

(Lovely post JBoyd - although I think Ken did claim not to know the journalist was Jewish.- Personally I think its a stupid thing to say to anyone.)

I agree with JBoyd and Arturo.
Anyway, I thought the whole point of taking offense in the world of Mayor Ken, was that you don't have to mean to be offensive (like Johnson and his ''watermellon smiles'') to be offensive.

It's clear that Johnson caused great offense. Livingstone did too. (As he did when he embraced Yusuf al-Qaradawi).

So you are offended because you are offended?

That's meaningless.

Why can't he say that? Can a jew never do anything vile, after the holocaust? That's what some seem to be saying. It's nonsense.

Again, that's like saying Armenians, who were the victims of a brutal genocide, have a free pass in their behaviour and if anyone calls them up on it they just have to say "But we were persecuted first! What about our tragedy?!"

What about it? If anything it diminishes and belittles those who did die in the Holocaust to take this childish, simplistic, and frankly evil stance.

Maria, it's nice to be able to finally talk to you.

In your last post where you spoke of 'So you are offended because you are offended?' - the way I see things, that's kind of the way things are.

From what I have understood of the Ken Livingstone sort of politics, if you are offended by something, then regardless of the intent of the person causing this offence, an inquiry has to be set up to see if offence (or racism) was intended.

Boris Johnson caused great offence. I have heard someone on the radio being offended by his describing black people as Pekingese , and saying that he was refering to black people as dogs.
That he used the offensive word 'picanninies"' not Pekingese , seemed to pass that person by.
He was a racist. End of story.

I did a link to this article before: Who does Doreen Lawerence think she is?
Arturo read it and understood it, (disagreed with it a bit, and agreed with it a bit).
I think it raised some important points. (Obviously not ones that Zippy could understand - but important points all the same IMO)

In the Macpherson report on the racist murder of Stephen Lawerence, a recomendation was given that any crime that was was deemed to be racist, by anyone - involved or not - had to be investigated as a racist crime.

Boris questioned that line of thinking, and subsequently he was attacked for saying that.
Both by Doreen Lawerence, and articles in the Guardian like this: Johnson 'would destroy London's unity' as mayor.

I understand why a Zippy style response of ''I like pudding'' might be apt.

Damon, please refrain from bringing me up in your posts. Thanks.

What Maria said.

With all due respect that misses the point.
First, in my view, a similar comment that referred to a different ethnic group would be just as unacceptable: if Ken had made the same comment to a journalist of Roma descent, or compared a Black journalist's behaviour to that of a Klansman, or an Armenian journalist's to that of the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide, I would take exactly the same view.
Of course Jews (and members of any ethnic minority) can do things that are vile and noone's ethnicity is an excuse for their behaviour; the journalist in question was, by all accounts behaving the way journalists do. He was harrassing Ken and invading his privacy in pursuit of a story and (probably) his paper's political agenda, which is pretty unpleasant.
However, to compare that with the actions of a concentration camp guard seems to me to trivialise the crimes that such guards committed.
And you have to ask why Livingstone couldn't have taken issue with journalist's behaviour without refering to the holocaust; after all, there are plenty of ways of saying that you think someone is acting despicably without making such a reference.
The fact that the Standards panel (which is an independent body that regulates politicians' behaviour and which has a strong record of tackling racism of all kinds) found against Ken seems to me to be telling; and you also have to wonder why Boris Johnson came out in Livingstone's defence.
Having said all that, I don't think that it was a racist comment as such, nor do I believe Ken is remotely racist. But it was incredibly ill-judged and unwittingly gave considerable, genuine offence.

If youd bothered to read my post properly Maria youd see that I said I was offended for the reasons J Boyd outlined in his excellent first post. (I saw no reason to repeat them - hed done it so well the first time.)

I never said or implied a Jew couldnt do anything evil. Nor would I ever say something quite so ridiculous. Thats completely from your own subconscious.

But its a crass and offensive statement (Ken made)- and again JB has put it excellently in his last post as to why.

(Apparently Ken has said that to a lot of journalists over the years. What an idiot. Its the kind of comment a first year undergraduate might think of as clever or satirically piercing. A fully grown Mayor of London?No way. And then to refuse to apologise as if hes standing on some great principle. What principle exactly? To get pissed and talk a load of shite?)

And of course the highly principled Mr Livingstone - the man who hugs a cleric who supports wife beating,the murder of homosexuals and supports suicide bombings in Israel - yes that 'Red' Ken has written newspaper columns for the very group he was making such a wonderful stance against.

I think Livingstone must be agreeing with this analysis from Seumas Milne in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago: We need to listen to the man from Special Branch.
It might have some righteousness in it. There is indeed some Islamophobia about in the UK.
But I don't think this his that good:
I was with my family last night. With my sister in law and her Jewish mother, who has siblings and family in Israel. In Ashquelon (just north of Gaza). But they are not quite Londoners (with a vote). They live a few miles outside Ken's domain, in the leafy Surrey Hills. (So stuff them).

I have no time for the State of Israel. I went there once and thought it sucked. But I can understand why my sister in law might be offended to see the mayor of London, embracing someone who regarded her Israeli side of her family as fair game. (My young niece and nephew's cousins)

Absolutely Damon. I mean I went to Surrey once and thought it sucked. But I dont adovcate sending brainwashed young men in there to commit horrendous acts of atrocity.

Ive got loads of crits of the state of Israel. Ive always always supported the 2 state solution. It sadly seems a long way off,- but any sane person can see that suicide bombings are a disaster for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Ken is a twat (but less of one than Boris). The Standard are a bunch of twats - undeserving of any sympathy or apologies for anything - they should apologise for their piss-poor rag.

Seamus Milne is a twat. Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is a twat.

Suicide bombers are twats. The Israeli government is run by twats.

Surrey is very nice. Although it should disown Croydon.

Yeah, how is Croydon still part of Surrey? It really does let the side down!

I'm gonna go with Surry is populated by twats. But I'm sure some are nice.

Surry is horrid

Surrey on the other hand has the same mix as anywhere else. I turned out ok.

mostly.

I think that sums things up quite nicely.

If barmyrob didn't have me on ignore, he might have seen that the name is spelt Seumas.
Funny that he brought up Milne so soon after I mentioned him on the same thread

I think Billy Bragg has come out for Ken Livingstone.
Personally I think Emily Hill had it right last july, when she said:

I have to read a bit more of Boris' newspaper articles to find out how bad he might be, (and being a Tory can never be something easily forgiven) - but I am coming to the conclusion that Livingstone is worse.

A few points from Ms Hill (I did say she was a bright young woman).

That last line might have something to it. I have gotten fed up with moralising leftie types sometimes. Because they aren't really that left. Just bossy.

And I liked some of this, in the final two paragraphs:

Well said Emily.

The apology was meant to be for all the people in London he'd offended - not just the standard and the journo involved.

And Surrey definitely sucks. - except for Woking cause the Jam are from there.

dickhead



frankly - if they were offended they should grow up.

Oh right like the Holocaust survivors who were offended should "grow up." I see.

Not Jewish are you barmyrob? - how can I tell? You dont have an ounce of empathy on this issue. Funny how we're so pissed off about the worst crimes in human history, isnt it mate?

And to call me a dickhead for what was clearly a lighthearted remark about Surrey - shows what an utter wanker you are.
( edited to say I know Jboyd and Damon have had empathy on this issue. And thanks for that! I know theyre not Jewish from other posts theyve made. Perhaps theyre just nicer human beings than rob, I dont know.)

Fuck off Arturo. One fucking journalist being insulted for being called a cunt when he behaved like one does not equate to 6 million jews being killed by the Nazis.

Damon + Spiked = Empathy

Damon - Spike = ? - yet to find out, the man has no ideas of his own.

Also Arturo - not agreeing with you about the Standards point of view, a paper that has attacked and attacked Ken ever since he stopped working for them, does not mean I do not have empathy for the holocaust.

You really are a dickhead, as usual, Barmy was right.

It was Ken's camp (if you can put Doreen Lawrence in Kens camp) who started off this personal villification thing, when she denounced Boris in the Guardian.
Lawrence is referring in particular to some articles that Boris Johnson wrote in 1999 which were extremely critical of the report of the Macpherson Inquiry. That inquiry examined the police investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder; it concluded that the police in Britain were ‘institutionally racist’ and it also gave rise to a new and broad definition of ‘unwitting racism’.

Johnson apologised for his (other) words which were deemed to be insulting. Ken should have apologised too, but is such a tosser he thinks that's beneath him.
The Standard is not a paper that gets Kens ''take'' on community and diversity issues. So is bound to clash with him. I don't support the standard (and rarely buy it), but what do you expect from a paper that is part of the Daily Mail group? Lee Jaspers friends like Simon Woolley call Lee Their whipping boy. And says:
The evening Standard don't buy that line; - that it's all a racist witch hunt. But that's how Ken, Lee Jasper and friends (like the GLA funded BLINK website) are portraying it. I don't have much time for the political line from the Mail Group, but I don't care for Livingstone's kind of identity politics either.

I'm voting for Brian Paddik. And cheers Arturo.

I can see that my last post above was a complete turkey.
OK How about this? This is the full letter about Livingstone that Billy Bragg signed. Along with a hundred other people.

It says stuff like:
Can we agree that he's talking about (amongst others) Deborah Orr there?
Maria. I know you read the Independent online, as you have done some quotes from it. Deborah Orr has said she would not vote for Livingstone, whatever the consequences. I tend to side with her. (So that must make her one of Jon's 'pillowcase wearing crossburners' - and Maria, I ask you to think about this for more than about one minute).

sounds nice
And it goes on etc etc. I suppose you just have to make your mind up.

Arturo. I think when Barmyrob said ''Dickhead'' to you about what what you said about Surrey (where I live - though in the northen London part ) - I think the bloke said what he said, in jest.
Just like I might have. (The ''I think they should grow up'' line, I think was totally seperate).
If I had called you a ''dickhead'' for dissing my home county or town, and you had told me to fuck off because you thought I was serious, I would be coming back straght away to say ''No no - I didn't mean that - sorry if you thought that - I never meant to say that at all - I was only joking.''

But I guess barmyrob doesn't feel the need to run around saying sorry to people who might have read him wrong.

But that's just my guess.

No dickhead, that only applies to you.

I quoted that from Jon, just because I like it - and to remind myself (in case it was edited) just why it is basicly impossible to talk politics (away from the mainstream) on the BB forum.
Of course there are a few people who will debate this and that for a bit. But at the end of the day you will come up against people like Jon, and there is no where you can go.

How do you talk to someone who calls someone viewing jihadi porn in an internet cafe a ''muslim lass?''
You can't. You might as well talk to a brick wall.

So if we say that Jon is a pretty regular kind of forum member (ie, been around a long time, seems to get along with everyone - doesn't get pulled up and told he's talking rubbish - hardly ever from what I can tell), then this helps to explain why I have found it very hard to put down roots (so to speak) on here.
For me it's always been stoney ground.
Now I know that people have told me I shouldn't ''lump people together'' - but while Jon is calling me a crossburner - there are other members who (even after that foolishness has been spoken) will say things to me like: ''please don't bring my name up on this forum'' - when a sensible person would be saying: ''Jon, why the bollocks are you calling Damon a crossburner?''

It's kind of strange isn't it? No wonder that the left is so fucked up.
Leaving the field wide open to to the Sun and Jon Gaunt.

In fact, now that I think of it ''our Jon'' is like the leftie version of that twat Jon Gaunt.

(With apologies to ''our Leftie'' )

That's how conversations with you seem

Exactly right.

sorry I called you a dickhead

You're a cunt!

Edited to add:

I can't remember anyone being so offensive to me. Seriously - to suggest that Ken owes an apology to Holocaust victims is an affront to each and every one of them.

That is disgusting politics Arturo. You should be utterly ashamed.

And to suggest that I have no empathy for the Holocaust - go fuck yourself.