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.

COMMENT: Debating with the BNP

It's been announced that both Labour's candidate for London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the Green Party's candidate, Jenny Jones, have pulled out of a BBC London mayoral debate because the BNP candidate is taking part and they refuse to share a platform with them.

Aren't they being undemocratic?

Yes, there is much to object to in the BNP's policies, and, yes, I find those views unacceptable in the modern world. Quite how the BNP's blatantly racist policies could work in London, arguably the world's most multi-cultural city, is beyond me, but the BNP is a legal political party and are standing for election.

Why not debate with the BNP and show how ridiculous, divisive and objectionable they are?

Surely, as part of an election process, the best thing to do is engage all the parties so that the electorate can decide between them on the power if their argument and the strength of their policies?

Are Labour and the Green Party worried that their own policies aren't strong enough?

I can see many reasons why Ken Livingstone might want to avoid any public debate. He mustbe desperate to swerve further investigation of his income tax payments and he has many questions to answer about various racist, sexist and anti-semite comments he himself has made. Maybe Ken fears he would find himself agreeing with the BNP candidate too much?

I think there are many who find sharing a platform with Ken Livingstone highly objectionable.

I'm particularly disappointed that Jenny Jones has opted to pull out if the debate. In doing so I feel she has brought the Green Party, one of the most liberal and democratic parties in the country, into disrepute. I hope she changes her mind and debates like a grown up.

After all, the GLA will have representatives from a wide range of parties, and whoever is elected Mayor will have to work with them all. Would Ken and Jenny not work with an elected official if they were from a party which they objected to?

Another issue is that many of the BNP policies aren't that different from those of UKIP and the Tories. Some of the right-wing of the Tory party may as well be in the BNP.

So what should happen?

Ken Livingstone and Jenny Jones need to grow up and act like adults. They need to respect the democracy of the UK, and if they don't they should lose their right to take part in all remaining debates. They shouldn't be picking and choosing.

COMMENT: Has Ken Livingstone gone mad?

Ken Livingstone has always been controversial and, over the years, has said some outrageous things but, during in the campaign to regain the position of Mayor of London , he seems to have totally lost the plot and has now called for bankers to be summarily executed. Yes, really.

Here are 6 recent examples of Livingstone having lost the plot:

1) 18 August 2011 - Livingstone compares Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler when he claims that the mayoral election is “a simple choice between good and evil. I don’t think [the choice] has been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.”

2) 18 August 2011 - Livingstone claims that anyone who doesn't vote for him will be punished by the Angel Gabriel, will “burn for ever” and have their “skin flayed for all eternity.”

3) 2 November 2011 - Livingstone tells Tory councillors in Hammersmith & Fulham that they will “burn in hell” and have their flesh “flayed by demons for all eternity” because they redeveloped a council estate.

4) 17 November 2011 - Livingstone asked a public meeting “How many people think we should hang George Osborne?”

5) 8 February 2012 - Livingstone claims the Tory party is “riddled with” people “indulging in” homosexuality. He also claimed that a number of Labour MPs only got their jobs because they were homosexual.

6) 17 February 2012 - Livingstone says that Britain should “hang a banker a week until the others improve.”

How on earth can this man be elected as Mayor of London, one of the world's great cities? Arguably, it would make him the second most powerful person in the country. He's so clearly barking mad!

And why (a) did Labour select him and (b) haven't Labour dropped him as their candidate?

One final thought, is Ken Livingstone actually safe being loose in public or shoud he be detained for his own sake and the safety of others?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ken's bigotry will end Miliband's leadership

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.