Over the past week I've been tied up with both work and a university alumni reunion event and so I've not had much time to comment on several big stories this week. So here are my quick thoughts on each of them, in chronological order:
* Tom Elliott has been elected leader of the Ulster Unionists in their first ever One Member One Vote election, albeit with votes cast at a meeting instead of by post. It speaks volumes about the Ulster Unionists' collapse over recent years that Elliott's election has gone unnoticed by many. I can't say that he strikes me as someone who is going to reverse the trend but then I've made several mispredictions in the past so who knows?
* Ken Livingstone has won the Labour nomination to be Mayor of London. So for 2012 Labour will be offering a candidate who doesn't give a toss about huge parts of London and who will instead spend much time patronising select groups who don't want to be patronised, filling up City Hall with corrupt cronies, and not giving a toss about huge parts of London. Is Labour even serious?
* Ed Miliband for Labour leader? I've never been able to take Miliband the Younger seriously at all. But now the trade unions have spoken and imposed "Red Ed" upon the Labour Party in an election where some people were hundreds of times more equal than others. I'm sure over the years to come Ed Miliband is going to give us a lot to laugh about as Labour continues to be a non-serious party that doesn't want to win elections.
Ironically when the Miliband election was being announced I was attending a lecture by David Starkey talking about another younger brother who unexpectedly came to power in place of the elder brother whom everyone had expected to be the one. It was a very enlightening talk about Henry VIII.
Showing posts with label Ken Livingstone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Livingstone. Show all posts
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Ed Balls's banana moment?!
Ed Balls has now entered the Labour leadership election but it appears that like David Miliband he also has had some unfortunate past photo-calls that he really would rather were forgotten. Just what was he doing to Ken Livingstone?!
Was this Balls's banana moment?
As far as I am aware Ed Miliband has so far evaded this problem - round one to him I think.
As far as I am aware Ed Miliband has so far evaded this problem - round one to him I think.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
So will Labour try to take London backwards?
Ken Livingstone has announced what's been an open secret for ages now - he's going to run for Mayor in 2012. And if he can't get the Labour nomination he's going to run as an Independent. (BBC News: Livingstone seeks return as mayor)
Just imagine what the return of Livingstone would mean for London. It would mean London would no longer be run for the benefit of all Londoners but instead for a coalition of clientalist groups leeching funds whilst pretending to be representing sections of the community, in harness with a handful of select inner London boroughs. It would mean ever greater taxes on using a car, with no serious attempt to provide alternatives in outer London boroughs. It would mean directly insulting communities and countries. It will mean deals with dodgy dictators. It would mean proliferate waste at City Hall. It would mean a return to corruption investigations. It would mean taxes going up. It would mean needless fights with central government purely for the point of it. It would mean endless tokenism. It would mean promoting community division, not unity. It would mean disaster for London.
Last May Londoners voted to put an end to all that. To their credit the Labour Party leadership got the hint and are doing their best to stop it. (Evening Standard: Labour heavyweights plan mayoral bids to 'stop Ken') But will the London Labour Party members realise get the hint as well? And can't Livingstone get it?
Just imagine what the return of Livingstone would mean for London. It would mean London would no longer be run for the benefit of all Londoners but instead for a coalition of clientalist groups leeching funds whilst pretending to be representing sections of the community, in harness with a handful of select inner London boroughs. It would mean ever greater taxes on using a car, with no serious attempt to provide alternatives in outer London boroughs. It would mean directly insulting communities and countries. It will mean deals with dodgy dictators. It would mean proliferate waste at City Hall. It would mean a return to corruption investigations. It would mean taxes going up. It would mean needless fights with central government purely for the point of it. It would mean endless tokenism. It would mean promoting community division, not unity. It would mean disaster for London.
Last May Londoners voted to put an end to all that. To their credit the Labour Party leadership got the hint and are doing their best to stop it. (Evening Standard: Labour heavyweights plan mayoral bids to 'stop Ken') But will the London Labour Party members realise get the hint as well? And can't Livingstone get it?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Boris didn't win because of the BNP
In the last few weeks there's been some rather high profile discussion within the Labour Party about their London mayoral candidate for 2012, with invariably a focus on why they lost the 2008 election. I don't wish to intrude on a private war, but one point I feel cannot go unaddressed is the claim being thrown around by some Labour members that Boris Johnson won the Mayoralty in part because the British National Party called for its voters to give him a second preference over Ken Livingstone. (Under the Supplementary Vote system used, these were the only two realistic options.) It is unfortunately standard "damn by association" stuff. Whilst there are many in the Labour Party who are honourable and above such behaviour, in my experience there is an element who will all too freely fling around accusations of racism as a means to get votes, not giving a damn about either truth or the polarising effect this can have on the electorate. The argument goes that Johnson's final majority over Livingstone was 139,772 and as the BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook got 69,710 first preferences then more than half that majority came from the BNP.
As is often the case in politics claims are made with only partial reference to the actual results and the truth requires a greater deal of detail to explain and will often have trouble competing with simplistic assertions made frequently and aggressively. To explain things fully it's necessary to go through the details on this.
Now the Mayoral election results are frequently badly announced and reported, because of the way the vote is counted and the second preference reported. Consequently most tables will list three figures for a candidate - their total number of ballot papers with a first preference, the total number with a second preference and (if applicable) the final result. However as that second figure includes people who gave preferences for both of the top two candidates the figures don't always add up.
For instance the figures for Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone usually appear as follows:
Johnson 1,043,761 - 257,792 - 1,168,738
Livingstone 893,877 - 303,198 - 1,028,966
In actual fact the more relevant figures for the second column are 124,977 and 135,089 - these are total second preferences cast for Johnson and Livingstone respectively by voters who voted for neither for their first preference.
The official results don't go into enough detail to tell us how every individual voter gave their first and second preferences, although it's relatively easy to use the totals given to calculate the number of Boris Johnson 1, Ken Livingstone 2 votes at 168,109, and Ken Livingstone 1, Boris Johnson 2 at 132,815 (see this forum post by David Boothroyd).
But for other candidates it's much harder to work out results. We'll come back to this later, but first lets look at the impact of the voting system on the result. Or rather the non-impact.
Advocates of preferential voting frequently argue that it breaks the "problem" of vote-splitting and can often deliver a different outcome to whoever would have won on first preferences alone. Now the Supplementary Vote is a limited model, and the voting system doesn't get much coverage, but it's notable that here the only difference to the outcome it made was to narrow Johnson's lead over Livingstone by just over 10,000 votes. This is far from unusual - in many preferential vote elections I have seen the transfers frequently make no difference to the order of elimination or who is elected, instead just dividing up in similar proportions to the first preferences. Outside of co-ordinated voting at conference, only when two strong candidates are chasing the same block of votes and both campaigns are savvy enough to appeal for second preferences and their main rival candidate has more homogenous support have there been significant changes to the outcome. (This is not to say that in a closely fought race the distribution of preferences doesn't sometimes tip the balance but it's rare. The only Mayoral election to date where this has happened was North Tyneside in 2005 when a 1400 Conservative lead on first preferences was converted into a 1002 Labour lead on transfers.)
It's true that some parties called for their voters to use their second preference a particular way, but how many voters actually follow such an instruction? Remember the UK is not Australia where use the "How-to-vote card" is perfected to a fine art (although even there vote leakage can and does occur). The Greens' candidate Sian Berry and Livingstone made a reciprocal transfer call, but how many Green voters followed through? Similarly how many BNP voters followed the party's call for a second preference for Johnson?
Well apparently Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby's book "Boris v. Ken" has some figures in this area. I don't have the book myself, but this post and this one gives the figures for transfers from the eliminated candidates:
Brian Paddick: Total votes 236,685. Livingstone 73,612, Johnson 70,157, someone else or blank 92,916.
Sian Berry: Total votes 77,374. Livingstone 36,365, Johnson 10,984, someone else or blank 30,025.
Richard Barnbrook: Total votes 69,710. Johnson 22,200, Livingstone 4,353, someone else or blank 43,157.
Alan Craig: Total votes 39,249. Livingstone 10,352, Johnson 10,328, someone else or blank 18,569.
Gerard Batten: Total votes 22,422. Johnson 6,671, Livingstone 1,681, someone else or blank 14,070.
Lindsey German: Total votes 16,796. Livingstone 6,661, Johnson 1,327, someone else or blank 8,808.
Matt O'Connor: Total votes 10,695. Johnson 2,485, Livingstone, 1,120, someone else or blank 7,090.
Winston McKenzie: Total votes 5,389. Livingstone 945, Johnson 825, someone else or blank 3,619.
Redone as percentages:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 31.1%, Johnson 29.6%, someone else or blank 39.3%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 47.0%, Johnson 14.2%, someone else or blank 38.8%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 31.8%, Livingstone 6.2%, someone else or blank 61.9%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 26.4%, Johnson 26.3%, someone else or blank 47.3%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 29.8%, Livingstone 7.5%, someone else or blank 62.8%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 39.7%, Johnson 7.9%, someone else or blank 52.4%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 23.2%, Livingstone 10.5%, someone else or blank 66.3%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 17.5%, Johnson 15.3%, someone else or blank 67.2%.
Or taking just the active second preferences:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 51.2%, Johnson 48.8%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 76.8%, Johnson 23.2%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 83.6%, Livingstone 16.4%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 50.1%, Johnson 49.9%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 79.9%, Livingstone 20.1%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 83.4%, Johnson 16.6%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 68.9%, Livingstone 31.1%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 53.4%, Johnson 46.6%.
Unsurprisingly a lot of votes transferred in line with ideology but there were some very significant leakages. Less than half the people who voted Green followed the call for a Livingstone second preference. Less than a third who voted BNP followed the call for a Johnson second preference.
The BNP transfer contributed only about 18,000 of Johnson's final majority of 139,772 - hardly a decisive factor. It was the strong campaigning by Johnson and outreach to the whole of London, as opposed the Livingstone strategy of just being a Mayor for certain inner London boroughs, that produced the massive increase in votes that won him the Mayoralty.
As is often the case in politics claims are made with only partial reference to the actual results and the truth requires a greater deal of detail to explain and will often have trouble competing with simplistic assertions made frequently and aggressively. To explain things fully it's necessary to go through the details on this.
Now the Mayoral election results are frequently badly announced and reported, because of the way the vote is counted and the second preference reported. Consequently most tables will list three figures for a candidate - their total number of ballot papers with a first preference, the total number with a second preference and (if applicable) the final result. However as that second figure includes people who gave preferences for both of the top two candidates the figures don't always add up.
For instance the figures for Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone usually appear as follows:
Johnson 1,043,761 - 257,792 - 1,168,738
Livingstone 893,877 - 303,198 - 1,028,966
In actual fact the more relevant figures for the second column are 124,977 and 135,089 - these are total second preferences cast for Johnson and Livingstone respectively by voters who voted for neither for their first preference.
The official results don't go into enough detail to tell us how every individual voter gave their first and second preferences, although it's relatively easy to use the totals given to calculate the number of Boris Johnson 1, Ken Livingstone 2 votes at 168,109, and Ken Livingstone 1, Boris Johnson 2 at 132,815 (see this forum post by David Boothroyd).
But for other candidates it's much harder to work out results. We'll come back to this later, but first lets look at the impact of the voting system on the result. Or rather the non-impact.
Advocates of preferential voting frequently argue that it breaks the "problem" of vote-splitting and can often deliver a different outcome to whoever would have won on first preferences alone. Now the Supplementary Vote is a limited model, and the voting system doesn't get much coverage, but it's notable that here the only difference to the outcome it made was to narrow Johnson's lead over Livingstone by just over 10,000 votes. This is far from unusual - in many preferential vote elections I have seen the transfers frequently make no difference to the order of elimination or who is elected, instead just dividing up in similar proportions to the first preferences. Outside of co-ordinated voting at conference, only when two strong candidates are chasing the same block of votes and both campaigns are savvy enough to appeal for second preferences and their main rival candidate has more homogenous support have there been significant changes to the outcome. (This is not to say that in a closely fought race the distribution of preferences doesn't sometimes tip the balance but it's rare. The only Mayoral election to date where this has happened was North Tyneside in 2005 when a 1400 Conservative lead on first preferences was converted into a 1002 Labour lead on transfers.)
It's true that some parties called for their voters to use their second preference a particular way, but how many voters actually follow such an instruction? Remember the UK is not Australia where use the "How-to-vote card" is perfected to a fine art (although even there vote leakage can and does occur). The Greens' candidate Sian Berry and Livingstone made a reciprocal transfer call, but how many Green voters followed through? Similarly how many BNP voters followed the party's call for a second preference for Johnson?
Well apparently Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby's book "Boris v. Ken" has some figures in this area. I don't have the book myself, but this post and this one gives the figures for transfers from the eliminated candidates:
Brian Paddick: Total votes 236,685. Livingstone 73,612, Johnson 70,157, someone else or blank 92,916.
Sian Berry: Total votes 77,374. Livingstone 36,365, Johnson 10,984, someone else or blank 30,025.
Richard Barnbrook: Total votes 69,710. Johnson 22,200, Livingstone 4,353, someone else or blank 43,157.
Alan Craig: Total votes 39,249. Livingstone 10,352, Johnson 10,328, someone else or blank 18,569.
Gerard Batten: Total votes 22,422. Johnson 6,671, Livingstone 1,681, someone else or blank 14,070.
Lindsey German: Total votes 16,796. Livingstone 6,661, Johnson 1,327, someone else or blank 8,808.
Matt O'Connor: Total votes 10,695. Johnson 2,485, Livingstone, 1,120, someone else or blank 7,090.
Winston McKenzie: Total votes 5,389. Livingstone 945, Johnson 825, someone else or blank 3,619.
Redone as percentages:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 31.1%, Johnson 29.6%, someone else or blank 39.3%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 47.0%, Johnson 14.2%, someone else or blank 38.8%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 31.8%, Livingstone 6.2%, someone else or blank 61.9%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 26.4%, Johnson 26.3%, someone else or blank 47.3%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 29.8%, Livingstone 7.5%, someone else or blank 62.8%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 39.7%, Johnson 7.9%, someone else or blank 52.4%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 23.2%, Livingstone 10.5%, someone else or blank 66.3%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 17.5%, Johnson 15.3%, someone else or blank 67.2%.
Or taking just the active second preferences:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 51.2%, Johnson 48.8%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 76.8%, Johnson 23.2%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 83.6%, Livingstone 16.4%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 50.1%, Johnson 49.9%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 79.9%, Livingstone 20.1%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 83.4%, Johnson 16.6%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 68.9%, Livingstone 31.1%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 53.4%, Johnson 46.6%.
Unsurprisingly a lot of votes transferred in line with ideology but there were some very significant leakages. Less than half the people who voted Green followed the call for a Livingstone second preference. Less than a third who voted BNP followed the call for a Johnson second preference.
The BNP transfer contributed only about 18,000 of Johnson's final majority of 139,772 - hardly a decisive factor. It was the strong campaigning by Johnson and outreach to the whole of London, as opposed the Livingstone strategy of just being a Mayor for certain inner London boroughs, that produced the massive increase in votes that won him the Mayoralty.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Conservapedia in left wing bias shocker!
If you fancy a laugh online, try a look at Conservapedia. This website and those behind it genuinely believe it is a serious alternative to Wikipedia, providing a "conservative" perspective on the universe, but is actually a hilarious parody of the most extreme attitudes of Bush Republicans. (See my previous post Is conservapedia serious or a parody?)
But it's amazing to find in some places it has accepted left-wing mythology in place of truth. One that stands out is the claim that the Greater London Council was abolished, in the words of Conservapedia, "for political rather than administrative convenience", (Conservapedia: Greater London) because Ken Livingstone "pursued a high-profile campaign of opposition to government policy, so infuriating Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" (Conservapedia: Ken Livingstone).
It is amazing when a socialist does more to dispel left wing mythology than Conservapedia, but that has happened here. The Greater London Council wasn't abolished for political reasons because of Ken Livingstone, it was abolished for administrative reasons because it had become an excessive tier of bureaucracy that delivered a low proportion of services and was especially resented by outer London borough councils. It would have been abolished regardless of leadership. The best page I can recommend is: United Kingdom Election Results: Electoral History of the Greater London Council. See also the author's comments (under two separate handles) at Wikipedia: Talk:Ken Livingstone: Abolition of the GLC and Wikipedia: Talk:Greater London Council: Politics.
So since Conservapedia can't even stick to the right when recycling old political myths, can it be trusted by the comedians behind it, let alone anyone else?
But it's amazing to find in some places it has accepted left-wing mythology in place of truth. One that stands out is the claim that the Greater London Council was abolished, in the words of Conservapedia, "for political rather than administrative convenience", (Conservapedia: Greater London) because Ken Livingstone "pursued a high-profile campaign of opposition to government policy, so infuriating Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" (Conservapedia: Ken Livingstone).
It is amazing when a socialist does more to dispel left wing mythology than Conservapedia, but that has happened here. The Greater London Council wasn't abolished for political reasons because of Ken Livingstone, it was abolished for administrative reasons because it had become an excessive tier of bureaucracy that delivered a low proportion of services and was especially resented by outer London borough councils. It would have been abolished regardless of leadership. The best page I can recommend is: United Kingdom Election Results: Electoral History of the Greater London Council. See also the author's comments (under two separate handles) at Wikipedia: Talk:Ken Livingstone: Abolition of the GLC and Wikipedia: Talk:Greater London Council: Politics.
So since Conservapedia can't even stick to the right when recycling old political myths, can it be trusted by the comedians behind it, let alone anyone else?
Friday, October 03, 2008
Devolved power - or half power?
The news of Sir Ian Blair's departure has provoked a political row over who can "hire and fire" the head of the Metropolitan Police. I don't want to rehash the arguments both ways about Blair himself but there are some wider problems.
The biggest problem is that a lot of political power has been devolved (and yes, the Greater London Authority is a form of devolved power even though it is a metropolitan wide authority and not a "regional assembly" of the type devised as a sop to the English question) in a bad manner, with the result that in many areas power is now wielded by a hydra of national and devolved politicians. It's also a poorly kept secret that when the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Authority were set up the widespread expectation was that they would almost permanently be controlled by Labour politicians and that Westminster-devolved conflicts would be between non-Labour Westminster governments and Labour devolved ones, not the other way round. The result is that the executives have quite significant powers in their own right and are not so vulnerable to the problems of minorities in the assemblies or even an opposition majority as on the London Assembly.
But they are also probe to following a different path from Westminster. Now this is a natural consequence of devolving power and localism (although I wish the UK media would more accurately report the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rather than just focusing on the supposed benefits of spending, stoking English jealousy). However when there are both local and national concerns - and the Metropolitan Police is not exclusively a police force for London but has various national duties as well. So it's not terribly easy to carve up accountability between the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary. It can work if they're cut from the same political cloth, but when they're not (and this applied as much to Ken Livingstone as to Boris Johnson) then clashes and divided confidence are inevitable. It's not a terribly workable arrangement in the long run.
Is there an obvious solution? It's a lot harder to separate out overlap services than is often thought (a problem that also comes up with Welsh devolution because of large numbers in the borders) or to arrange things so that the same party always controls all the relevant posts (and, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated and Boris Johnson will soon do as well, just being from the same party as the Westminster government does not guarantee unity), especially when so many elections are contested as a chance to make a mid-term protest against the Westminster government. It is often forgotten that the 2004 Mayoral election was the only time a London authority election was won by the party in power at Westminster since 1949. And even that was down to Livingstone returning to Labour rather than running again as an Independent. Whether this pattern will change remains to be seen, but it is not an encouraging precedent. So what is the solution?
The biggest problem is that a lot of political power has been devolved (and yes, the Greater London Authority is a form of devolved power even though it is a metropolitan wide authority and not a "regional assembly" of the type devised as a sop to the English question) in a bad manner, with the result that in many areas power is now wielded by a hydra of national and devolved politicians. It's also a poorly kept secret that when the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Authority were set up the widespread expectation was that they would almost permanently be controlled by Labour politicians and that Westminster-devolved conflicts would be between non-Labour Westminster governments and Labour devolved ones, not the other way round. The result is that the executives have quite significant powers in their own right and are not so vulnerable to the problems of minorities in the assemblies or even an opposition majority as on the London Assembly.
But they are also probe to following a different path from Westminster. Now this is a natural consequence of devolving power and localism (although I wish the UK media would more accurately report the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rather than just focusing on the supposed benefits of spending, stoking English jealousy). However when there are both local and national concerns - and the Metropolitan Police is not exclusively a police force for London but has various national duties as well. So it's not terribly easy to carve up accountability between the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary. It can work if they're cut from the same political cloth, but when they're not (and this applied as much to Ken Livingstone as to Boris Johnson) then clashes and divided confidence are inevitable. It's not a terribly workable arrangement in the long run.
Is there an obvious solution? It's a lot harder to separate out overlap services than is often thought (a problem that also comes up with Welsh devolution because of large numbers in the borders) or to arrange things so that the same party always controls all the relevant posts (and, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated and Boris Johnson will soon do as well, just being from the same party as the Westminster government does not guarantee unity), especially when so many elections are contested as a chance to make a mid-term protest against the Westminster government. It is often forgotten that the 2004 Mayoral election was the only time a London authority election was won by the party in power at Westminster since 1949. And even that was down to Livingstone returning to Labour rather than running again as an Independent. Whether this pattern will change remains to be seen, but it is not an encouraging precedent. So what is the solution?
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Boris abolishes a do-nothing advisory panel
This shouldn't need to be a story should it? Ever since Boris Johnson was elected Mayor of London a new broom has been sweeping through the Greater London Authority and many of the wasteful and tokenistic initiatives of the Livingstone era have been abolished. However the decision to abolish a Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Advisory Panel that had only been formed a few months ago and had just a preliminary meeting has provoked some criticism. (PinkNews: Boris team rejects criticism over LGB advisory panel) But surprise surprise the first person to speak out about this is a Labour Party councillor - the reaction of many Labour members to Boris's victory struck me as one of outrage that the voters had dared to deny Labour its supposed God-Given-Right to rule. On close inspection the panel membership is also suggestive:
I remained to be convinced that this advisory panel that only ever had a preliminary meeting was actually doing anything to the benefit of Lesbian & Gay (and I deliberate use just those words) Londoners and that their lives were in any way enhanced by its existence. Maybe the timing of the announcement wasn't the best but I don't want Labour style gesture politics that creates positions and throws around money for appearances' sake, I want results and substance. And I believe many Londoners want the same.
So I hope Boris Johnson will carry on getting rid of wasteful tokenistic bodies that just serve to tick boxes and get one with delivering real results for all Londoners.
...the panel which was chaired by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, included Linda Bellos of Black Lesbians UK, Jackie Lewis of trade union UNISON, Lynsey River of Polari, the older people's LGBT network, Brenda Ellis of REGARD, a disabled LGBT group and Mr [Pav] Akhtar in his role as Chair of Imaan, a Muslim LGBT group.This sounds suspiciously like a mainly Labour mates show that did very little but ticked a few boxes, of the kind all too common under the Livingstone regime. For another example see PinkNews's interview with Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes where he talks of a disability adviser who similarly served to tick boxes. (PinkNews: INTERVIEW: A heartbeat away from the Mayor of London)
I remained to be convinced that this advisory panel that only ever had a preliminary meeting was actually doing anything to the benefit of Lesbian & Gay (and I deliberate use just those words) Londoners and that their lives were in any way enhanced by its existence. Maybe the timing of the announcement wasn't the best but I don't want Labour style gesture politics that creates positions and throws around money for appearances' sake, I want results and substance. And I believe many Londoners want the same.
So I hope Boris Johnson will carry on getting rid of wasteful tokenistic bodies that just serve to tick boxes and get one with delivering real results for all Londoners.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
From Leaving Soon to Coming Back?!
I've just seen the scary news that Ken Livingstone is contemplating another run for the London Mayoralty in 2012. (New Statesman: Ken to run in 2012) One has to wonder who he's fooling - the murk surrounding his personal office and associates has if anything increased since he left office and more damaging revelations could come soon. The voting public indicated they were tired of him last month and the Labour Party will want a new candidate rather than running Yesterday's Man. An independent bid wouldn't have the fire or issue that it did in 2000.
So why is Livingstone still hopeful? Well my best guess is this. One of the worst kept secrets in British politics is that Livingstone's office was dominated by a group called Socialist Action. (Those who've been involved in student politics may have encountered one of their front groups, the Student Broad Left.) When Ken Livingstone lost his job so did many Socialist Action members and the organisation will be seeking a new source of funds. Is the talk of a Livingstone comeback motivated by a desire to try to get the old supply back?
So why is Livingstone still hopeful? Well my best guess is this. One of the worst kept secrets in British politics is that Livingstone's office was dominated by a group called Socialist Action. (Those who've been involved in student politics may have encountered one of their front groups, the Student Broad Left.) When Ken Livingstone lost his job so did many Socialist Action members and the organisation will be seeking a new source of funds. Is the talk of a Livingstone comeback motivated by a desire to try to get the old supply back?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
So can a Labour mayor run for three terms?
Here's an interesting story: BBC News: Mayor expelled from Labour Party. Martin Winter, has been seeking a third term as Mayor of Doncaster "but Labour rules do not allow someone to run for a third time".
So why is he having to go outside the party to pursue this aim, yet Ken Livingstone was put to the people of London yet again? Does Labour believe in term limits or not? Or do the rules change depending on the personality?
So why is he having to go outside the party to pursue this aim, yet Ken Livingstone was put to the people of London yet again? Does Labour believe in term limits or not? Or do the rules change depending on the personality?
Friday, May 02, 2008
The future's bright! The future's blue!
What a week!
Manchester United.
Liverpool.
Livingstone.
Truly this is the season to be blue!
I don't think I need say any more.
Manchester United.
Liverpool.
Livingstone.
Truly this is the season to be blue!
I don't think I need say any more.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The end of Ken?
The Evening Standard have commissioned another poll about the forthcoming Mayoral election and it's not looking good for Ken Livingstone. (Evening Standard: Boris races ahead in mayor poll) And it never looked good for Brian Paddick, whilst Siân Berry's attempts to pretend she's a serious challenger have been met not by not even placing in the results! So with further adieu, here are the figures:
Thursday, January 03, 2008
London Mayor: Neck-Neck-Toe
I missed this the other day but YouGov have done a comprehensive poll for the London Mayoral election, with the results showing that the race is very close. (Evening Standard: Mayor race: Livingstone and Boris too close to call) And it also shows how time and votes can be wasted - Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat, is nowhere.
So for all those Liberal Democrats out there, here's a special one just for you. I don't know much about how to create images, but here are the figures in one of those bar charts your leaflets usually use:
As you can see:
*IT'S A TWO HORSE RACE!
*LIB DEMS CAN'T WIN HERE!
*A VOTE FOR PADDICK IS A VOTE FOR LIVINGSTONE!
...and all the other usual slogans.
Now I know what some of you are going to say - the Mayoral election is by Supplementary Vote. But this only gives the voter two options. So if the Liberal Democrats go chasing second preferences, particularly from people planning to vote Green or any other smaller party, they will merely be wasting votes and giving the election to Livingstone.
Only Boris can beat Livingstone.
So for all those Liberal Democrats out there, here's a special one just for you. I don't know much about how to create images, but here are the figures in one of those bar charts your leaflets usually use:
As you can see:*IT'S A TWO HORSE RACE!
*LIB DEMS CAN'T WIN HERE!
*A VOTE FOR PADDICK IS A VOTE FOR LIVINGSTONE!
...and all the other usual slogans.
Now I know what some of you are going to say - the Mayoral election is by Supplementary Vote. But this only gives the voter two options. So if the Liberal Democrats go chasing second preferences, particularly from people planning to vote Green or any other smaller party, they will merely be wasting votes and giving the election to Livingstone.
Only Boris can beat Livingstone.
Monday, January 08, 2007
A Tale Of Two Councils - or Why I Wish I Had Hammersmith & Fulham Council
Today I heard from two separate London Borough Councils, performing very differently.
This morning my five bedroom flat received four envelopes from Newham Council seeking to confirm the electoral register. Three were for "the occupier" of empty rooms seeking confirmation that no-one is there! What a waste - a single envelope for the entire flat would have sufficed. If such waste is taking place on this micro scale, what else are they squandering money on? Mayor Sir Robin Wales, SHAME ON YOU!
Then I heard the news that Hammersmith & Fulham Council has achieved a 3% cut in council tax through efficiency savings. (The Bristow Blog: Council Tax Cut in H&F) At a time when many councils are holding up their hands and claiming that council tax cannot be cut, Hammersmith & Fulham have shown that it is possible.
But there is a sore point still. Whilst Hammersmith & Fulham Council have managed to cut their tax, the GLA tax is up by 5%. If Mr Livingston ever decides to visit the borough (Ken chooses Cuba over Hammersmith) he could learn how to deliver services efficiently and waste less money. Instead he choose to carry on his self-publicity drives and his pathetic crusade against Trevor Phillips. (Livingstone vs Phillips round infinity) Mayor Livingston, SHAME ON YOU!
This morning my five bedroom flat received four envelopes from Newham Council seeking to confirm the electoral register. Three were for "the occupier" of empty rooms seeking confirmation that no-one is there! What a waste - a single envelope for the entire flat would have sufficed. If such waste is taking place on this micro scale, what else are they squandering money on? Mayor Sir Robin Wales, SHAME ON YOU!
Then I heard the news that Hammersmith & Fulham Council has achieved a 3% cut in council tax through efficiency savings. (The Bristow Blog: Council Tax Cut in H&F) At a time when many councils are holding up their hands and claiming that council tax cannot be cut, Hammersmith & Fulham have shown that it is possible.
But there is a sore point still. Whilst Hammersmith & Fulham Council have managed to cut their tax, the GLA tax is up by 5%. If Mr Livingston ever decides to visit the borough (Ken chooses Cuba over Hammersmith) he could learn how to deliver services efficiently and waste less money. Instead he choose to carry on his self-publicity drives and his pathetic crusade against Trevor Phillips. (Livingstone vs Phillips round infinity) Mayor Livingston, SHAME ON YOU!
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Livingstone vs Phillips round infinity
Ken Livingstone has attacked Trevor Phillips yet again. (BBC News: Mayor's fresh attack on Phillips) Yet again it stems from their differing views on the best way forward for equality.
Personally I find myself agreeing with Phillips the most. Multiculturalism seems to mean something different to everybody, but if policies pursued in it's name are driving communities apart and creating a divided nation then is it really helping?
But what really stands out is one of Livingstone's specific attacks:
Personally I find myself agreeing with Phillips the most. Multiculturalism seems to mean something different to everybody, but if policies pursued in it's name are driving communities apart and creating a divided nation then is it really helping?
But what really stands out is one of Livingstone's specific attacks:"Trevor thinks he's doing his job as long as he's all over the media."There is another politician in London whom that description fits far, far more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
