Two days before the election and no threads on this subject at all. Pretty fair to say this hasn't inspired anyone.
That's what I'm thinking too.
I do wish people would stop using perceived personal characteristics to inform their voting. I fervently hope everyone on SG.org will vote Ken, but I somehow doubt they will. Judging by the amount of money some people here spend on eating and drinking out, they will not be feeling the pinch in the way that many of the familes I know on the two big estates near me do. Higher education will be out of the question soon, for their children, so Ken's promise to bring back the Educational Maintenance Allowance is vital. Equally important for most people: lower fares, and some sort of control over the greedy bastards who are stealing a third or even a half of a tenant's income in rent.
Come on folks - we've got to get rid of Boris, and Ken is the only possibility, whatever you think of him personally.
That sounds a bit like "I do wish people would use the criteria I use when deciding how to vote" :)
I don't understand why they put Ken up again. He's had a go, and then he lost. I was talking to a labour councillor this week (not anyone from round here) and it's clear he's a divisive and not very popular character. If you can't get your party behind you, why should anyone vote for you?
A mayoral job is largely a bully pulpit, so personality matters, especially when the real locus of power for housing, higher education and economic growth sits either with central government or local authorities.
So I can totally see your point, but am baffled at labour's capacity to blow an eminently winnable election.
I agree. Depressing . I may not even vote. See Simon Jenkins in Standard tonight. Same old ppl from 2008, no change. KL has wasted Labour lead in London cos he is incapable of moving beyond his narrow tribe. BJ manages this, is brighter, younger, but as cynical as they come. Padick is dull - ok for Manchester but London needs a star. On balance I will have to vote for Brian, given the other two are so discredited and tribal . Chang
Under no circumstances will I put my X next to a candidate who openly and vocally supports dictators, antisemites, misogynists and gay bashers. These are not liberal values. If you vote for Ken Livingstone, you're saying that it's ok to silence free press, oppress women and kill jews and homosexuals. There are many issues that I'm happy to agree to disagree on, but I draw the line at stoning people.
@Rainbow Carnage 'Not because he went to Eton (only a moron blames a person for where his parents sent him to school)'That is the most accurate and common sense statement I've ever heard on the ridiculous too posh to be a proper leader argument that has become all too prevalent in destroying any sensible argument about politics in this country.I'll be borrowing that myself in future.
Why do people think that votes are based on their disposable income?
I have money therefore i vote Boris. I have little money therefore i vote Ken. Ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to spend the money they earn, and to support sections of the community they wish to support. Believe it or not, you can enjoy your life and help others, you don't need a politician to be a good person.
This has never really been about the parties, it's about the people and sadly that's Boris or Ken mostly. Most of us know that half of what they say is crap so who do you like more?
If it was someone other than Ken I think Labour would win, every time I see him I can't help thinking spitting image.
With Boris you know if needed he would be up a tree rescuing a Kitten
"With Boris you know if needed he would be up a tree rescuing a Kitten". This may be part of the reason I end voting for Johnson shudder. I may dislike some of his policies but he is a likeable and trustworthy chap. I feel I know where I stand with him. He may make the wrong decisions and say stupid things but it is expected. I know what I am getting.
Mentioning Spitting Image - I keep thinking images of Nick Clegg in Daves jacket top pocket just like David Steele and David Owen !
How disappointing. Hardly anyone is discussing issues. Ken will probably lose tomorrow, for the sort of trivial, irrelevant, gossipy reasons above. Influenced by the Evening Standard, which everyone reads, and who will always put paid to any candidates from the left. Dog help us all.And, PS to BrodieJ, there certainly is a correlation between the hedonistic, affluenza-afflicted* lifestyle of the majority on this forum, the sort of rubbish they spout, and who they vote for.
*Affluenza, by Oliver James, explores some of these issues, and others, if anyone is interested, which I doubt.
[Coneheads]Correct![/Coneheads] No-one is discussing issues, this is an election, they are no longer about issues, it's all about the personality. Whether it be party leaders at a General Election or individual candidates at this Mayoral Election.
It's easier and more comfortable to blame a conspiracy, or blame the voters, or the media, or blame 21st century capitalism, but Johnson is eminently beatable. Livingstone managed to be Mayor before under the same circumstances before, so your argument doesn't hold.
Maybe it's more accurate to say he's the wrong candidate in a world where voters won't tribally do as they are told by party machines. If (and it's still an if) - in this economy - a London mayoral victory isn't an easy win for Labour, they will have to take the bulk of the responsibility for that. Though it is easier to blame others.
For anyone actually interested in the issues rather than personalities, including prioritising policies that affect us all over a candidate's ability to shin up trees to rescue animals, then spend 5 minutes here: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/vm-ldn-share - It will find the candidate closest to your own views.
And the three that it suggested for me are the three that I would consider voting for.
Personality, or at least how it expresses itself in a candidate's politics, is an issue. I think Ken's brand of demagoguery is dangerously divisive (and alliterative) for a city like London. The platforms he's been happy to share, and the views he's been happy to tacitly espouse aren't trivial or irrelevant. The mayoral election could've been a walkover for Labour if they'd bothered to field a credible candidate. They didn't, but are still urging people to hold their noses and vote for Ken, treating it like a referendum on coalition policies. Patronising bullshit even their party members aren't buying this time round.I've done the Vote Match thing and it reckons I should plump for BNP candidate. But I won't, because personality - values, theirs and mine - does matter.
I prefer Ken's policies, but some of his attitudes, allies and views make it impossible for me to vote for him, as well detailed by rainbow_carnage. The issues detailed in those articles, and various others that I am aware of, are more serious that simply gossip. They go to the heart of whether he is someone who I believe can represent me and my views. I don't believe that Ken can. I am also Jewish, and I do believe that he is anti-Semitic (please note that I do not cry antisemitism at the drop of a hat, as some of my co-religionists do), which is kind of a deal-breaker for me. I will not vote Tory, and after the coalition I will not vote Lib Dem, especially not when a dullard like Paddick. I voted for Siobhan Benita. Did votematch - number 1 is Benita. Number 2 is bloody UKIP, followed by Ken!
Did votematch, ticked that I'd consider voting for all to see what it brought up, got the BNP first and UKIP second - two candidates I would not vote for. Paddick beat Boris for me and Ken came last.Beyond the fact that I would never endorse the poison of the BNP, I think that the Mayoral elections should be voted for on a non-party political basis. At the end of the day it doesn't matter: Ken sucked up to the City when he was in charge more than Boris has - both stood up to their parties.It would actually be good if all candidates were independent and it was totally non-partisan - that would make it interesting.
I did the votematch thing. Siobhan Benita came out on top, followed by the UKIP guy and Ken. The results are meaninless. I don't care about half of the issues. I don't drive, so I don't have a problem with parking. I care about public transport, which I use every day, but I don't believe that any of the candidates will fix it. And while the Olympics are a pain in the arse, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on his stance on VIP lanes.Unlike @checkski, I don't think the issues surounding Ken Livingstone are trivial, irrelevant or gossipy. It makes me sick to see our mayor embrace a man who advocates the imprissonment and killing of my friends. Any lefty who votes for Ken should take a closer look at his own values.
@rainbow carnage Parking's not just about if you drive Look at the top concern of what is hurting their business of almost all small independent shopkeepers when asked - parking and over zealous money-grabbing councils in hock with private firms.
@Papa L - You may well be right. I don't know much about the issue. I do know that most Londoners don't need a car to get around. When they drive, they create heavy traffic. I do know a bit about traffic. Last week, it took me 40 minutes to get from Angel to Finsbury park on a number 4 bus. I have little sympathy for the drivers.(And yes, I know, there are exceptions. Disabled people, musicians, etc. need cars. But if they were the only ones who drove, we wouldn't need a congestion charge.)
I did vote match and got 1.Benita, 2. Bojo, 3. Paddick which is almost, but not quite, right.
I agree with Rainbow, nothing would make me vote for Livingstone even if wanted to vote Labour. He is a self serving, lying, slimeball.
Unfortunately I fear that describes most of our politicians :(
So. Off to vote, with heavy heart, almost knowing (see my last post in the religious debate) that Ken has lost. Out in the street yesterday I deliberately engaged with as many people as I could find, in Tesco's, in the cafe, outside the pub, everywhere. Most people agreed with me. We have reservations about Ken's character, but his programme is the only hope for people on low incomes. The much better off SG.org voters seem to have decided to disregard issues, and that the poor can go fuck themselves. Have a heart, you lot! The families I know desperately need to get rid of Boris, and that can only be done by voting Labour - albeit with gritted teeth!
I'm voting on the basis of which of the knitted candidates is the cutest...
@checkski, is there any evidence that Ken would be a better mayor for London's poor, or do you just blindly believe that?As I said in a previous post, I used to work for the living wage campaign. We were fighting for better pay and working conditions for cleaners and other low-paid workers. Ken refused to support the campaign. He didn't give a damn about people working 60 hours a week, who still couldn't buy new shoes for their kids. We held a rally to embarrass encourage him. It didn't look good for Ken to have a bunch of cleaners, students, trade union leaders, priests, nuns and even an imam standing outside his office, chanting. Eventually, he relented. In contrast, Boris has supported the campaign since before he was elected. He has since supported subsequent increases. I'm not naive enough to believe that Boris has my best interests at heart, but I sure as hell know that Ken doesn't.
On the key issues of rents, education, fares, yes I do believe Ken will be better, insofar as his remit allows. Perhaps he felt that the mayor can't do much about working hours, I don't know. It certainly is a scandal which any future Labour government should address. Affluenza again; you either work ridiculously long hours, whether rich or poor, or you are unemployed. Anna Coote and her organisation (I forget its name) challengingly ask why not 25 hours pw, and and give some space to those without a job...
But, revenons aux nos moutons. Back to today. Is it blind prejudice to assert that Tories never do anything for the poor, or the experience of having lived through about 6 Tory governments, from Churchill's onwards? Certainly Labour governmants ( with the important exception of Attlee's) have not been much better, but there is no other real choice, as most poor and working class voters know. I repeat, if you want reforms in transport, education, and housing, you definitely won't get them from Boris Pragmatically, it has to be Labour you vote for today. There is no other choice.
Rainbow. It is probbably worth mentioning that the London living wage was introduced in 2005. Ken was in charge at that time so you obviuosly had encourgaed him to take this up. One good thing that was done at that time was to introduce that in any GLA procurement a sucessfuly supplier has to sign up to it.
Looking at the Tory history on minimum wage would suggets that if Boris had been in in 2005 I am not sure how far you would have got ?.
I would think the fare cut is an important amount of money been given back to the poor who have to travel as it is significant amount of money. Transport is far too expensive in this city.
The current rate is £8.30.I hope all the people on her who have servant cleaners are paying at least this amount ?
Ken signed up to the living wage for the same reason as Barclays and HSBC. It's bad PR to have protestors outside of your office. He didn't do it because he believes the workers deserve fair pay. For a Labour candidate, he has little sympathy for the working poor.And yes, the Tories have been crap on the minimum wage. I'm in no way encouraging anyone to vote for Boris. I wouldn't.All I'm saying is that Ken won't do a thing to help the poor. What he will do is divide the city even further along the class and religion lines.
Going rate for domestic cleaners is £10-11 ph. Love Boris or hate him, his views are not always in line with the party, and he has shown a willingness to challenge the Tories on several issues.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!