Ken Livingston you are a disgrace

Printable View

13/04/2006, 1:22 PM
liam88

Ken Livingston you are a disgrace

Ok don't get me wrong up till now i've been a big Ken fan-those banners opposite Thatcher's office (my family was on the recieving end of the unemployment caused by her), his speeches on St. Patrick's day about the Irish and Muslim's in Britain, his work for the Olympics I always thought fair play, excellent bloke!

Then this week he messes it all up-on his visit to China comapring the Tiananmen Square massacre to the poll tax riots and with regards to China's human rights record stating "There is no such thing as one country with a perfect record."

Really, really pathetic. Here's the Mayor of London, the next Olympic City after Beijing with the perfect oppurtunity to say-"look, we don't want to inherit the Olympics from possibly the worst human rights abusers in the world-sort it out".

Instead he panders to them -"We've had some interesting riots in Trafalgar Square".......113 injuries compared to 7000 dead, good comparisson Ken! And "no such thing as one country with a perfect record" -what and earth is that meant to meen apart from sucking up??

Two illusions if Livingston shattered in one blow-first that he was concerned about human rights-hence the speech on St. Patrick's day 2005 about the mistreatment of the Irish in the 70's and the mistreatment of the Muslims now, and secondly that he wasn't affaraid to speka his mind. The two reasons i respected him have gone.

It just shows him for what he really is- a trouble maker who will shout about human rights when he knows he can get away with it and when he can boost his own ego in front of thousands of Irish in Trafalgur Sqaure but as soon as it comes to Jianto and his thugs where the olympics is concerned it's all ar$e kissing. Ken isn't a concerned human-rights man un-afraid to speak his mind; he'll bang on about those things to get his own popularity up but when it doesn't suit him his happy to kiss the feet of the worst human rights abusers in the world.

Nice one Livingston
13/04/2006, 1:43 PM
Dodge

Just on the Irish bit Livingstone was going on about it long before it became popular to do so in Britain. He wasn't always speaking to groups on paddys days so for that he still deserves credit
13/04/2006, 2:09 PM
liam88

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Just on the Irish bit Livingstone was going on about it long before it became popular to do so in Britain. He wasn't always speaking to groups on paddys days so for that he still deserves credit

That's what I used to think-but now i'm inclined to believe he just did it to get popular with the Irish population of London and to further his own career. If he really cared about the Irish, Muslims etc. as he claims he would surely not have tried to brush over China's huamn rights abuses. He only went on about the Irish/Muslims because he knew in England he could get away with it and he didn't have any cushy Olympic love-in to ruin like he does with Jianto. I used to think he geuinley cared, that he was different to most politicians, but he doesn't. He looks out for number one and when it suits him to keep his mouth shut about human rights abuses he will evn if they are some of the worst in the world.
13/04/2006, 2:33 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by liam88

If he really cared about the Irish, Muslims etc. as he claims he would surely not have tried to brush over China's huamn rights abuses.

That's probably the worst logical reasoning I've ever read
13/04/2006, 2:54 PM
dahamsta

Everyone I've seen posting about Livingstone's comments so far has taken them out of context. And Livingstone responded to the claims yesterday.

Ken's no angel, but this is just another tabloid-journalism storm-in-a-teacup. The man was over there to promote ties between London and Bejing for god's sake, if he'd said anything contentious they'd all be jumping on that too.

adam
13/04/2006, 3:07 PM
liam88

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

That's probably the worst logical reasoning I've ever read

How??

So he makes a big fuss over no black no dogs, no Irish signs (and rightly so), but he brushes over the extra-judicial execution, torture, forced abrotion, forced relocation etc. in China with a "no one's perfect" speech.

So either he cares about Irish people's rights and not chinese people's rights (i.e. he is racist) or he only bangs on about civil.human rights when it suits. How is that bad logical reasoning? I'm not saying he should spend all his time campaiging against human rights abuses in China -his own choice, but to bang on about how badly Irish were/Muslims are treated here then brush over the human rights abuses in China smacks of self-publicity.

Adam I don';t htink it's tabloid journalims; most of the criticism is coming from Chines and tiebtan human rights group and it's not out of context, like i said this was the chance to push for reform in China and he's gone and done the oppiste-appeased it!
13/04/2006, 5:31 PM
pete

I don't get your "logic" at all Liam...

TBH I don't care what Livingstone says as all Western politicians are pandering to the Chinese. If Ireland/Britian really cared we would not do business with or purchase chinese goods. It matters little what my opinion is as the boat has sailed on Tiananmen Square as every countrey queues up to do business with China.

China is no longer a Communist state as economically capitalist but with sort of one party Totalatarian political state.
13/04/2006, 5:59 PM
liam88

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

all Western politicians are pandering to the Chinese.

Agreed -that's my point, Livingstone's just like the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

If Ireland/Britian really cared we would not do business with or purchase chinese goods.

Agreed-thoguh by "Ireland/Britain" you obviously mean the governemnt as a lot of people, human rights groups etc. do care. If The British government had cared they wouldn't have let Jianto down the Mall or into Downing Street without a word said about TIebt-I hope Mr. Bush is tougher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

It matters little what my opinion is as the boat has sailed on Tiananmen Square as every countrey queues up to do business with China.

Agreed-sad but true fact; China is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world yet it's all about the moeny to the West. The only bit I wouldn't agree on is that your opinion doesn't matter. It does. Human rights capaigners have made huge differences to the world against the flow of their governemnts. You opinion matters and can change things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

China is no longer a Communist state as economically capitalist but with sort of one party Totalatarian political state.

Agreed- 2/3 of industry in China is privatley owned. It's a capitalist, Totalitarian, human rights abusing state. One party rule but not traditionally communist or even a 'communist' as it once was (though you could argue that as the most significant 'communist' state remaining their is a new definition for 21st century communism?)
13/04/2006, 6:16 PM
hamish

Did you see the report on Sky News on China this morning Liam? - harrowing stuff of people being fcuked out of their homes for redevelopment.
Actually it's on all day -can be checked out in Sky's interactive thingy.
13/04/2006, 6:22 PM
Plastic Paddy

Quote:

Originally Posted by liam88

Agreed -that's my point, Livingstone's just like the rest.

What ever gave you the impression Ken was any different?

Wake up and smell the coffee. All politicians are first and foremost creatures of expediency. Irrespective of his private views there's just no way he'd have snubbed his hosts like that. It would have poisoned Sino-British relations on many levels for a long time to come and, as others have implied, that could be disastrous economically.

In any case, who's to say what messages he's given his hosts in private? He may well have taken the trouble to make views known that are similar in substance to your own. You don't appear to have thought through that particular angle or indeed afforded him any credit whatsoever for the possibility.

:ball: PP
14/04/2006, 1:56 AM
dcfcsteve

Ken Livingstone is one of the most self-convinced, arrogant people involved in English politics - and that's one hell of a title to earn.

I supported him when he ran as Mayor in defiance of Labour, and I was pleased that he introduced the congestion charge, but as soon as he threw his lot back-in with Labour I lost all respect for the man.

He assumes that because he served his time on the hard-left that he is the true voice of popular reason and that everyone else is wrong. He is outrageously arrogant, and has made a sham of even the sham democracy that is the Lobndon Assembly - spending vast sums of its Council Tax-generated revenue on pure self-promotion.

I'd be tempted to vote absolutely anyone to get rid of him in 2008 - even Tory. At least with the Tories, you knew what you were getting - New Labour are worse, because they pretend to be something better than they actually are.

Horrible little man...
14/04/2006, 2:00 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

What ever gave you the impression Ken was any different?

Wake up and smell the coffee. All politicians are first and foremost creatures of expediency. Irrespective of his private views there's just no way he'd have snubbed his hosts like that. It would have poisoned Sino-British relations on many levels for a long time to come and, as others have implied, that could be disastrous economically.

In any case, who's to say what messages he's given his hosts in private? He may well have taken the trouble to make views known that are similar in substance to your own. You don't appear to have thought through that particular angle or indeed afforded him any credit whatsoever for the possibility.

:ball: PP

C'mon PP - so do you even for one minute believe that Ken livingstone might havew raised some awkward questions in private ??? :eek:

Even if he did - what good are they ? Private questions they can ignore. Public scrutiny they cannot.

Livingstone would have better served the world had he simply said nothing about Tianneman. He's a two-faced disgrace parading as some sort of 'right-on' populist politician. He'll be gone in 2 years time, mark my words...
14/04/2006, 7:59 AM
Plastic Paddy

DCS for Mayor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

C'mon PP - so do you even for one minute believe that Ken livingstone might havew raised some awkward questions in private ???

Devil's advocate. :D

I was merely drawing attention to the lack of balance in the OP rather than seriously suggesting that KL the politician is driven by conscience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

He's a two-faced disgrace parading as some sort of 'right-on' populist politician. He'll be gone in 2 years time, mark my words...

I can only see that happening if Livingstone carries on his one-man crusade to debase the position of Mayor (cf. the Finegold affair, comments about the Reuben brothers, etc.). As things stand he's Labour's only decent runner; Shagger Norris surely wouldn't improve on the last return for the Tories (if he doesn't, just watch Brian Coleman - Tory Barnet councillor and possibly the biggest reactionary arsehole in London politics - make even Ken appear moderate) and Susan Kramer or even good old Uncle Auntie Simon can't give the Lib dems the London-wide credibility required to carry the election.

If I were a betting man I'd therefore back Ken for a third term. But since I'm only a voter I'll have to do it through the ballot box instead. Unless, that is, you're tempted to launch a stalking-horse bid for the Mayoralty yourself Steve... ;)

:ball: PP
14/04/2006, 8:20 AM
liam88

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Did you see the report on Sky News on China this morning Liam? - harrowing stuff of people being fcuked out of their homes for redevelopment.
Actually it's on all day -can be checked out in Sky's interactive thingy.

Aye was watching it yesterday-amazing that they managed to get some footage; very rare given the censorship laws. It is disgusting stuff-just part of the daily routine humanrights abuses in China. I've recently been taking part in the campaign to get Zheng Echong released-he was a lawyer who stood up for the people being evicted and as a result is now being tortured in a Beijing cell while his wife is harassed daily. So far Amnesty have managed to secure a meeting between him and his wife but no release...

PP as Steve said private questions are no good but any way it would come out if he did....we know for a fact what Balir said to Jianto last year-and nothing on Tibet or the human rights abuses :mad:

I guess I was disillusioned with Livingstone-all the talks about Irish rights, Muslim rights etc. gave me the impression he might actually care but turns out it was just another publicity stunt. I'm with Steve-the man is a Sham.
14/04/2006, 11:01 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

I can only see that happening if Livingstone carries on his one-man crusade to debase the position of Mayor (cf. the Finegold affair, comments about the Reuben brothers, etc.). As things stand he's Labour's only decent runner; Shagger Norris surely wouldn't improve on the last return for the Tories (if he doesn't, just watch Brian Coleman - Tory Barnet councillor and possibly the biggest reactionary arsehole in London politics - make even Ken appear moderate) and Susan Kramer or even good old Uncle Auntie Simon can't give the Lib dems the London-wide credibility required to carry the election.

If I were a betting man I'd therefore back Ken for a third term. But since I'm only a voter I'll have to do it through the ballot box instead. Unless, that is, you're tempted to launch a stalking-horse bid for the Mayoralty yourself Steve... ;)

:ball: PP

Sadly - you may well be right here PP. It'll take a strong candidate to unseat him, and there don't seem to be too many around. I'd like to see a strong Independent or Green candidate - the type of person who everyone who wanted Ken out could unite behind. There must be somebody suitable outside of the 3 main parties who could give him a good run for his money.

There are a lot of Labour supporters who would vote against Ken - even amongst those who are sticking by the party otherwise.

I see the Tories selection route for 2008 is to invite anyone who wants to stand for it to come forward to them now - but on the understanding that they'll need to fund their own campaign. At an estimated �2m over 2 years, they're obviously only looking for a fairly wealthy person.

I doubt he would go for it, but Sebastain 'Lord' Coe could give Ken a good challenge. He's too tied-up with the Olympics, and has worked closely with Livingstone, but he is viewed positively even for a Tory. And being Mayor for the Olympics is a big draw for anyone.
14/04/2006, 11:15 AM
pete

The entire Western governments support China. Western people elect these politicians so we all (Majority) indirectly support China
14/04/2006, 1:00 PM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

The entire Western governments support China. Western people elect these politicians so we all (Majority) indirectly support China

Fairly tenuous connection though Pete.

I don't think any Western politician will lose their job over elationships with China. There's more than enough for voters to worry about closer to home. Such support is therefore at best uber-vicarious.
14/04/2006, 1:33 PM
First

Ken Livingstone is an idiot and I don't care what his or the British agenda is , his comments are brain dead. Sadly the west has now got to pander to the biggest trade market in the world but why let something like human rights get in the way.........
19/04/2006, 10:30 AM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Fairly tenuous connection though Pete.

I don't think any Western politician will lose their job over elationships with China. There's more than enough for voters to worry about closer to home. Such support is therefore at best uber-vicarious.

Well we either support them or don't car enough i.e. down list of priorities as you suggest...
19/04/2006, 2:29 PM
WeAreRovers

Have to agree with Dodge and dahamsta. Firstly as Dodge says Ken Livingstone and few others (Chris Mullin, Tony Benn) pushed the Irish agenda in Britain when it was an extremely unpopular stance.

Secondly, per dahamsta, Linvingstone's comments in China were taken out of context by the pack of lowlife hacks that follow him everywhere. Anyone who's followed the Ken v the media story over the last while will know that Associated (Mail, Standard) have it in for him big time.

Yes, Ken Livingstone is a bit mad but has history been air-brushed so much that a staunch old Labour man know looks like a crazy, radical leftie?

KOH
20/04/2006, 1:25 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

Yes, Ken Livingstone is a bit mad but has history been air-brushed so much that a staunch old Labour man know looks like a crazy, radical leftie?

KOH

Ken Livingstone is the one who's air-brushed his past. He is no staucnh old Labour man. He's new Labour to the core - and like the rest of them would say and do anything to stay in power for an extra minute.

The Labour party spent so long kept out of power under the Tories that they have a deep psychological terror/paranoia of finding themselves powerless again. That is why they ruthless suppress dissent within their own ranks, spin and smear against opponents, bully the media, and change policy direction on a regular basis dependent upon the 'weather vane' that is their beloved focus groups. Ken is just one of the more glowing examples of how old Labour has air-brushed its less palatable past to stay in-power. Fortunately for democracy/politics, he is the one who's least effective at keepng the mask on and most likely to expose the lie the party continues to live...
20/04/2006, 6:28 PM
Roverstillidie

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Ken Livingstone is the one who's air-brushed his past. He is no staucnh old Labour man. He's new Labour to the core - and like the rest of them would say and do anything to stay in power for an extra minute.

The Labour party spent so long kept out of power under the Tories that they have a deep psychological terror/paranoia of finding themselves powerless again. That is why they ruthless suppress dissent within their own ranks, spin and smear against opponents, bully the media, and change policy direction on a regular basis dependent upon the 'weather vane' that is their beloved focus groups. Ken is just one of the more glowing examples of how old Labour has air-brushed its less palatable past to stay in-power. Fortunately for democracy/politics, he is the one who's least effective at keepng the mask on and most likely to expose the lie the party continues to live...

with respect, that is a banquet of b�llocks. ken livingston is new labour to the core? he has been the biggest pain in the arse of the new labour project, opposing the war and various other aspects of the blair administration to the point where he was forced out of the party before labour were forced to back down.

your asssessment of new labour is correct, but red ken has never pulled any punches and certainly never played along with blair. preciscly hat part of kens past has he airbrushed?
21/04/2006, 12:40 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

with respect, that is a banquet of b�llocks. ken livingston is new labour to the core? he has been the biggest pain in the arse of the new labour project, opposing the war and various other aspects of the blair administration to the point where he was forced out of the party before labour were forced to back down.

your asssessment of new labour is correct, but red ken has never pulled any punches and certainly never played along with blair. preciscly hat part of kens past has he airbrushed?

Hang on. Livingstone was NOT forced out of the Labour party on any issues of policy. He was forced out purely and simply because his rampaging ego couldn't accept that anyone other than him should be selected by the party as its candidate for London Mayor. He therefore stood against his own party's democratically agreed candidate as an Independent, and was rightly expelled from Labour for doing so. He's just like New Labour in that he will do anything to secure and remain in power - even going against the democratically expressed wishes of his own party to do so.

And tell me this - if he is so opposed to a lot of what Blair does, why did he happily (and it was happily) rejoin New Labour's ranks then ? If he was so fundamentally opposed to the war in Iraq - a war that had caused principled Labour politicians like Robin Cook to publically stand-down from their offices - why did Ken the saint rejoin Labour less than 9 months after that war had started?? I'll tell you why - purely because it would keep him in power.

That's why Ken is New Labour to the core - because he thinks and acts like New Labour, not old Labour. He talks big on principle when it suits him, but underneath it all he will do whatever he has to to secure and remain in power. And to hell with any alleged principles that get in his way in this...

All times are GMT. The time now is 5:05 AM.