OPINION: Labour lost London the day they chose Ken

There are some in the Labour Party who, as soon as London Mayor is mentioned, cannot see beyond Ken Livingstone. Yes, when the post was created, back in the heady days when Tony Blair was still a popular Prime Minister and hadn't yet become a deluded, war mongeting, religious bigot, Ken probably was the obvious choice to run for Mayor. After all, he had run the old GLC, until Thatcher pulled the plug. But times change, and so has Ken.

Neil Kinnock, Ken Livingstone and a newt. Write your own amusing caption...

In recent years, Ken has gradually become totally unelectable.

The blatant avoidance/evasion of paying sufficient tax was just the icing on the cake of a series of revelations of the real Ken Livingstone: sexist, racist, anti-Semitic. And let's not forget the occasions he's chosen to thump someone. He's a thoroughly objectionable human being and the Labour leadership should have had the guts to select someone else to oppose Boris Johnson - there were plenty of candidates who would probably have done better - the obvious, and popular, choice, and one currently looking for a new role, would have been Oona King but, no, Labour went with Ken.

Mind you, I think just about anyone would do a better job than Ken Livingstone - a faulty lamp post on Westminster Bridge would probably make a better and less controversial mayor than Ken Livingstone. It would certainly be less offensive.

How can a man with dodgy personal finances and both questionable and unpleasant views on race and sexual equality be mayor of one of the world's great cities, and, arguably, become the second most important politician in the UK?

In many ways I'm astonished he got as many votes as he did, but then there are a scary number who vote for a party without looking at the candidate.

Hopefully this latest defeat has brought Ken Livingstone political aspirations to an end. He can go off and syphon his earnings through a company to avoid/evade paying sufficient tax, and he can spend more time bothering his newts (poor newts).

Good riddance to a bad penny. He was a man for his moment - but his moment should have ended twenty or more years ago.

Labour lost London the day they chose Ken as their candidate. They knew what he was like, but still they selected him. Suicidal? Maybe. Moronic? Certainly.

It's now time for Labour to reflect on why they, supposedly a party of equality, based on socialist principles, selected a money grabbing, selfish, egotistical bigot as their choice for London mayor, and they must also look at who chose him.

COMMENT: Independent daze

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The laws of the land are made by political parties and so they will be made to help political parties.

That's all well and good - until you have an independent candidate standing.

Siobhan Benita is an independent candidate in the election for London mayor. She is a fresh new face, unlike the 3 candidates from the major parties, all who were around four years ago. And Siobhan is doing very well, considering she doesn't have the weight of one of the monolithic parties behind her. Currently, according to opinion polls she is standing fourth - behind Labour, Tory and Lib Dem candidates, but ahead of the Green, BNP and UKIP candidates.

Election law stipulates how much media coverage the candidates receive and makes sure things are fair.

But it isn't fair.

Election broadcasts, and specifically the quantity of them, are based on performance at previous elections by each party. In the election for London mayor the big 3 parties have all had multiple broadcasts, and the smaller parties have all be allowed a broadcast too.

But Siobhan isn't allowed one.

As a newbie, without electoral history personally, and without the weight of history provided by an established party, she's not allowed an election broadcast - and her position in the opinion polls counts for nothing.

So the racists of the BNP and UKIP get to flaunt their distasteful policies on television and radio, Labour's Jen Livingstone, with his various unpleasant views and dubious tax arrangements, gets some, the standing mayor is allowed to defend his record, even Brian Paddick is allowed airtime to try to pretend his party hasn't been subsumed into the Tory Party...

... but Siobhan Benita, a woman whose message many are turning to, isn't allowed an election broadcast because the parties have stitched up the law about election broadcasts.

It is undemocratic. It is blatantly wrong and unjust. It's a situation that must be changed.

365/98 - Boris

Click here for today's photo, music and word!

OPINION: Banning religious symbols in the workplace

It all started in 2006 with Nadia Eweida, the fundamentalist Christian, who wanted to be allowed to flaunt and advertise her religion at work, even though it broke BA's uniform policies.

Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.

Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.

More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.

Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!

Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.

Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.

Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.

This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.

BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.

As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.

The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.

COMMENT: Ken's bigotry will end Miliband's leadership

It seems that Ken Livingstone has commuted electoral suicide today and, as a result, handed the role of London mayor to Boris Johnson for four more years.

His gaffe, the latest in a long list of gaffes that have seen him offend many minority groups in the capital and beyond, was to refer to the Conservatives as being riddled with gays.

No, this isn't "PC gone mad" - that popular phrase of the Daily Mail and Daily Express - it is a truly distasteful comment that could have wider repercussions than the position of London mayor for the Labour Party.

Surely Ed Miliband, the ineffective and increasingly disastrous leader of the Labour Party, will be further wounded by the guaranteed loss of London. It was likely that his leadership was going to be challenged after the expected fails in the local elections in May and, quite probably, the only reason a challenge didn't materialise before Christmas was because it would have damaged Ken's mayoral campaign. Without Ken, as is surely the case now, Ed Miliband is cut adrift from any possible success, and the attention his brother, David, has been gaining for recent speeches can't help Ed's situation

Ken probably shouldn't have been given the nod to run as Labour's candidate again after losing the election last time round and various earlier gaffes. This year he'll turn 67 and, without wanting to be ageist, he has lost the plot. I can only assume he was given the chance to recapture the mayorship through a misguided sentimentality - or because nobody else wanted to have the embarrassment of losing to Boris.

Who could Labour parachute in to stand in May? There aren't many options, but, surely, they wouldn't leave it uncontested?

Ken Livingstone was a political hero to many when he was the leader of the GLC, and when he stood up to Margaret Thatcher. It was, somehow, destiny (if you believe in such things) that he became the first Mayor of London when the role was created by Blair's government, but, in recent times, he has increasingly shown himself to be unpredictable, unpleasant and, quite frankly, bigoted human being.

Labour are due some major reorganisation and desperately need to decide where in the political spectrum they sit. This needs to happen without Ken Livingstone or Ed Miliband.

It's time for change. It's time for the Labour Party to remember its socialist roots.