TS: Ken Livingstone vs the Evening Standard

'After Finegold had announced himself as a Standard journalist, Mr Livingstone said: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?"

Mr Livingstone repeated his question and then asked: "What did you do? Were you a German war criminal?"

Finegold told the mayor that he was Jewish and therefore found the remark offensive, before asking again how the event had gone.

Mr Livingstone replied: "Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"'

I support Livingstone because of his transport policies, but he is no doubt a self-important prick.

It was a Standard journalist he was accused of pushing over a wall as well.

The photo they use of Amanda Platell for her column looks remarkably like Marilyn Manson.

As an aside, the Mayor's office worked out that the subStandard was read more by commuters outside London than inside London (and thus non voters for Ken) and of those who read it who did live in London, they didn't trust it - they were far more trusting of BBC London TV and Radio, which is why he's decided to let them go fuck themselves - they did everything to stop him last time, and it made no difference. The particular comments are not good at all here, but in general, seeing a politician of the left tell a populist scumbag right-wing pile of shit where to go fuck themselves is marvellous to see and very refreshing.

About 20 years in Wormwood Scrubs should be sufficient.

xxpost

wow, ken is taking it up a notch. i'm kind of fascinated because his argument appeals so much to the liberal-left mentality that says 'the daily mail is to blame' for the persistence of all evil in the country. livingstone 'regrets it was ever founded', as if an 1896 independent would have served a large public and massive advertising concerns through sheer good intentions. it's a dubious proposition. i do enjoy it when people argue from alternative historical universes to excuse their real mistakes: mail journalists 'would have' collaborated with hitler -- so it's okay to call them concentration camp guards. ah, yes, that famous may 1940 'let's surrender' headline from the mail...

further to the qualities of right vs left media argt, cummings - whatever his politics - was easily the best cartoon draftsman brit newspapers have ever had: everyone else is either over-complicated or up themselves obscure conceit-wise

(or just totally fucking useless viz garland)

(I voted for Ken last time and would do again. I have also written gig reviews for the Standard, for reasons of poverty as stated by Jonathon Z above. Foot in both camps, no mud slinging here, fence comfortable etc etc)

Well to be precise, according to the article, Foot was in the Evening Standard................ sorry

If he were a gentile would he have considered it a compliment?

Yeah. I hate the Mail more than anything, and the last time I looked at the Standard (which was probably a couple of years ago) it had become more like the Mail than ever. I voted for Ken last year and I agree with maybe 80% of what he says. He HAS been hounded by these papers, and it is nice to see him fighting back, but he really could have chosen his insults a fuck of a lot better. He probably will have to apologise. I don't see how you can criticize Berlusconi for the same 'quip' and then say it's alright when Ken does it.

I'm really looking forward to Tony Blair calling Paul Dacre a "fucking cunt, worse than Pol Pot" after the next election.

That would make my day.

It has also had some fairly balanced covereage of Ken's performance as Mayor, both supportive and critical.

In a word, crap.

It's not clear at all that the Standard was trying to portray the party in this way. In fact, the Standard isn't anti-gay. It's stance is libertarian right-wing. I don't think you can say it has an anti-asylum stance either - it regards the latest Conservative proposals in that area as hopeless, and has regular features from writers such as Simon Jenkins about how the future of London depends on a good flow of immigrants (and always has done).

My guess is that Ken is pissed off with the excellent in-depth investigation the Standard carried out recently trying to find out what exactly the role is of Bob Kiley (Transport for London) who was appointed by Ken, and into the conditions of his employment.

I also feelfailry sure that if another Assembly member had made those remarks, Ken would be amongst those clamouring for their resignation.

It's what I really want columnists and politicians of the left to demonstrate; a cultural, emotional, visceral liberalism.

this i kind of agree with -- if only we could agree on what 'liberal' means here. who's guessing the libs of 1902 might have had difficulty with the congestion charge?

So that means that, say, Brian Sewell, is guilty of 'propagating racist feeling' along with anyone who contributes to the Standard??

NRQ wrote: "the issue of asylum to relate *any* restictive measures with nazism, and to equate the absense of restrictions with some foucauldian 'respect for the other'"

Absolutely spot-on.

It's one thing to want your left-wingers to be cultural, emotional, liberal, visceral etc, but the other side of that coin is that the tendency in left-wing discourse to come out with reductivist, polarising crap.

Outrage doesn't much care for this man: http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=203

so sez Mr Blair. because one little word makes everything okay again obviously. lame.

Has Evening Standard Journalist (as they're fond of calling him) actually been the one demanding an apology or claiming deep offence? I seem to have missed this.

It'sgetting intersting now - I think it's the beginning of the end for Ken and it's all so unavoidable and of his own doing.

Nothing burns in hell except self-will.

but yes garland - a 3rd-rate 'Vicky' copyist - is inept and an arsehole (his bk abt the early days of the Independent is the v. essence of self-importanc - and his son sux too)

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1420008,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

Ken has 'links' to the Labour party, whose Home Secretary is carrying out the greatest attack on civil liberties since Pitt the younger.

Enrique - that's lame. Labour are many things, many of which as a member, I despise. But to say it's linked to fascism is just pathetic student union-eqsue wank.

-Mail group accuse him of anti-semitism now.
-He points out that the charge of anti-semitism is rich coming from them given their editorial stance
-He adds that whilst they have lost their anti-semitism, their brand of ethnic hate persist today.

Therefore a comparison with the Mirrow ould only be valid if:
-The Mirror had been pro-facist / anti-semitic at the same time as the Mail (which to my knowledge it wasn't)
-The Mirror continued to peddle ethnic hate
- The Mirror then accused him of anti-semitism.

So the comparison is bobbins.

x-post - Did you get a degree from the University of tangential leaps?

I support them despite their illiberal tendencies, not because. Theior foreign policy stinks, but domestically, there's a good record there. I support that, and support the continuation of it, and the end of the foreign policy. Obviously, I'm a deluded fascist sap.

PS - Fascism does not equal 'bad politics'. Bad politics is bad politics. Fascism is organised hatred and a state organised around repression.

[AT WHICH POINT IT MIGHT BE SAID A) STANDARD WAS NOT IN MAIL GROUP IN THE THIRTIES B) KEN WROTE FOR THEM!!!!

-He adds that whilst they have lost their anti-semitism, their brand of ethnic hate persist today.

[UNLIKE LIVINGSTONE'S BELOVED LABOUR PARTY WHOSE IMMIGRATION POLICY IN NO WAY KOW-TOWS TO THE MAIL AGENDA]

Therefore a comparison with the Mirror is valid because:

-Ken's argument is with the Standard. He said if you write for the Standard you are a Nazi, basically. This is because the Standard is NOW part of the Mail group. It wasn't in the '30s.
-This is a weak link
-Conversely, the Mail Group (ie Lord Northcliffe) SET UP the Daily Mirror in the 1900s at the very moment the Mail was anti-Jewish immigration
-So if we can accuse present-day Standard writers of holding views held by their present-day owners 70 years ago, why not accuse present-day Mirror writers of holding views held by their then owners 100 years ago?

The fact that the Mirror was set up by Northcliffe is irrelevant. The fact that the Standard wasn't part of the Mail Group at the time is irrelevant. The consistent thread of cuntishness is the Mail group. The standard is NOW part of it. That's the link.

Ken didn't say writing for the Standard makes you a nazi. He said using the argument that I'm only doing what I do because I have a jhob to do, and my job is divorced from my own private inner morals is a fucking cop-out, and one reminiscent of the excuses used by various people involved in the holocaust to deny their own agency and imoorality in participating. He's bang OTM.

Except what he appeared to be saying was "reminiscent of the excuses used by various Jews involved in the holocaust"

PPS - Christopher Hitchens and the dialectic as politics as emotive versus rational activity

xpost - 'appeared'. I've not read anyone say that Livingstone changed tack to go onto the concentration camp line after he heard Feingold announce he was Jewish; he started down that path, and Feingold then states that he finds the line he's taking offensive.

He said using the argument that I'm only doing what I do because I have a job to do, and my job is divorced from my own private inner morals is a fucking cop-out

Surely the nature of the offense matters here? Finegold had more say over whether to work at the Standard (not the Mail) than most Germans had in whether to take part in the holocaust. But what 'private inner morals' are offended by working for a right-wing newspaper? When was that 'immoral'? Who's the Rick here?

And then: is it so bloody OTM to say that the Germans were all guilty individuals? After all, as is well known, many of the 'guards' in the concentration camps were themselves destined for the chambers. Some jobs even the Germans refused.

He said using the argument that I'm only doing what I do because I have a job to do, and my job is divorced from my own private inner morals is a fucking cop-out

Going back one step then, doing something because you're paid to do it is a cop-out. Don't like working for a nunch of cunts? Work for someone else them. Hiding your morality behind a wageslip is a cop-out and a pathetic one at that.

The guy's jewishness seems a red herring. If Ken knew he was Jewish, and deliberately used the line to wind him up, it would be material. But the phrase 'I was only following orders' is a pretty widely used and understood encapsulation of a position in the morality/work/wuthority issue, and a position Ken was arguing against. The figure of a concentration camp guard, Jewish or otherwise, is a widely understood (if extreme) example of someone choosing to follow a different path to one which priveliges the sanctity of life and the barabarism of organised murder.

That the reporter takes offense is irrelevant to that. He wasn't saying that Feingold was a Kapo. He was saying that Feingold's excuse of his actions was reminiscent of the excuses proferred in 1945. That Feingold took to misinterpret that is more testament to his hysteria than any offence caused. Would the comparison have been OK had he been a buddist? Yes. Christian? Yes. If Feingold is simply saying 'you can't uyse the Holocaust in an argument with me because I'm Jewish', then he can fuck right off. No-one copryights history.

As for inner morals in working for a right-wing newspaper? I'd say that if you had any shred of non-right-wingness in you, you wouldn't take the work. I wouldn't. I can understand that people do, but ultimately, you've taken the shilling from a bunch of cunts. Might not be nice, but I can't provide any sympathy.

Where does that leave Ken? Other than being an arrogant drunken arsehole of course?

Ye-ah kinda. Agency is a tricky topic, sure. But Labour supporters have it both ways. Criminality is 'structural' of course: people only rob 'cos they're poor, not because they're bad. But writing for a right-wing paper is akin to being a concentration camp guard (look that's what he SAID there's no getting away from it).

As for copyrighting history, well, actually Jewish people do have some rights here, I'd have thought. Why not?

And you still haven't addressed Ken's interesting relationship with actual red-in-claw anti-semites as I mentioned in post one, and which no-one has followed up.

xpost: Ken is in New Labour.

He didn't say that there was an equivalence between being a crap writer for a shite newspaper and being complicit in the deaths of millions. He said that the argument that one is only doing their job is not enough to excuse someone of facing up to the fact that their actions are not good / nice / evil etc.

Would someone mind addressing my point about the Evening Bastard fitting Ken up for the failure of the Olympics bid?

okay, for the minute i'll accept that this was what KL was doing. the problem is it ONLY WORKS if we accept that writing for a scummy paper is evil. if the standard man had said 'it pays the rent', KL might have ventured 'oh, like SELLING KIDDIE PR0N pays the rent'. and that wouldn't have worked either. has ken explained why he worked for the standard yet and how him doing so is different?

i'm not sure about the limpix thing. surely the ES wants london to get it, and this media shitstorm was bad for the bid? sounds a bit counter-productive.

Don't hold your breath on that one

not much i can say except 'figures'

perhaps in a way this is exactly what qualifies him to criticise at all?

little bitta pop-culture there folks

Getting away from the sophistry - he's being reported to a body which could unseat him as Mayor? Is that what you want NRQ? dada? Or is ken as bad as the rest of them?

Next to the one that says if you campaign as a non-Labour candidate you shouldn't rejoin them.

I wouldn't much care if Ken was unseated, if he isn't as bad as Blair, he is pretty bad.

Also the Daily Express has been wasting no opportunity to compare the Mail to Mein Kampf. Its all very entertaining.

something to do with an express rival to associated's metro, innit. admirable.

galbraith factor: if someone says they are NOT going to resign four times, then they are about to resign

ken has apparently said he is NOT going to apologise four times

PROVEN BY SCIENCE?

i agree that he will gain more kudos for the unusualness of standin up to newspaper bullying than he will lose for the hypocrisy of "havin" to work w.v.v.v.similar newspapers

this is bcz almost all voters are also newspaper readers and thus kinda junior camp guards themselves: ie they dislike the paper they read (tho it's "less worse" than the ones they don't read) but they still end up readin it and how's ken's dilemma difft?

i am fascinated by blair's openness abt the social value of hypocrisy, incidentally ---> i think his political instincts are good here, he is a gladstonian through and through

i don't think ken will resign and although i've banged on about this ad nauseam (because i think he did wrong) i think that's a good thing: it's not a resigning offense. next to everything else going on (suspension of habeas corpus, ect, ect) this is very small beer. it's also interesting to see a politician not kow-tow to the press and play the game, but that doesn't in itself make them a hero.

Good night and godbless to this debate from me. By saying that you think London would be better off without Ken and under someone else (who?) you've immediately relegated yourself to trot levels of nonsense.

They're so fucking struck on the collective nature of the socialist project that they forget that historical forces don't have material existence and instead are operationalised through individuals, and that therefore having a politician with a personality is a necessity, not a sin.

Yeah, he an egotist. But he's a successful elected politician on the right. We should be singing his bloody praises.

Henry Grunwald, you are an idiot.

He missed out "... but most of all he's let himself down." What kind of a prep school is this guy running anyway?

"The reality is that the great bulk of racist attacks in Europe today are on black people, Asians and Muslims. They are the primary targets of the extreme right."'

I wonder where KL would have stood back in '47. At that point in time the picture of Europe as anti-semitic would not have appeared so 'wholly distorted'. Of course it's entered Israeli national mythology, but Ken is being just as nationalist in principle by using the 'Palestinians have lived there for centuries argument'.

It's not all bad as an argument -- but it also condemns all white Americans, Anglo/Scottish-Irish, white Australians, white Canadians, Hispanic South Americans, black Brazilians, black Americans...

Of course Sharon is a war criminal -- I would be glad to see him, along with Ken's boss Tony Blair, also a war criminal, in court.

xpost what a charming chap Geldof is.

whereas 'Angels' by Robbie Williams is the 'Angels' of human evil

shouldn't that be Simon Heffer's comments?

Note I am against the idea of honorary presidents as a concept. Once one has been installed we will be two years away from it being Zippy.

i think they're all quite different from each other so comparisons are of little use really - Ken's entitled to pass comment on these things as much as anyone else tho i can't see what he stands to gain from it by doing so. but yes that doesn't mean what he says is right or wrong (probably both).

but how is this offset by 'giving the audience what they want'?

'Mr Livingstone said the Israeli government presented a "wholly distorted picture of racism and religious discrimination in Europe", so it appeared Jews suffered most discrimination.

"The reality is that the great bulk of racist attacks in Europe today are on black people, Asians and Muslims. They are the primary targets of the extreme right."'

Here he conflates two things, Israel's own situation in the Middle East and the situation of Jews in Europe. As Jonathan Z says, it isn't all that non-anti-semitic out there; but the point is, whatever the situation is *in Europe now*, as a way of discreting the *right of Israel to exist* (which I think he is kind of attempting?), it's shoddy and won't fly.

As you've almost done yourself. Well done for saying making 'Ariel Sharon is a right-wing fuckhead' be seen as a way of discrediting Israel's right to exist.

What next? Anyone against the war isn't a patriot and in fact _wanted_ al Quadea to score great victories over Western Civilisation.

but the strategic point may well be to assert that israel is always under threat, and i wouldn't dissent from that either. there *are* vicious anti-semites out there, and ken has been more sympathetic to them than to the israelis.

in the same way i think you should hate bush but not hate (all) americans, i'm not all that keen on the implication of current anti-israeli thought that basically implies israel ought not exist. and i think ken goes in for this.

"Israel's expansion has included ethnic cleansing. Palestinians who had lived in that land for centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of the Israeli state. The methods of groups like the Irgun and the Stern gang were the same as those of the Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic: to drive out people by terror."

is kind of true as far as it goes: like the americas, like australia, israel was founded on the basis of violence. but for rhetorical purposes it misses out on much: for example, the british promises to the zionists earlier in the century, the entire context of israeli nationalism in the pogrom era, (when the jews were hounded in much of western europe also) and finally in the aftermath of the holocaust.

Your final paragraphs make no real advance. If you read the letters pages of the LRB, you see a very live debate most editions about the nature of early Zionist attacks on Palestianians living in the protectorate. These are denied to have existed by many people who then finfish by saying 'I wonder why people want to make the founding of Israel illegitimate'? Like thus:

A) Israel's policies are violent and dehumanising and ultimately self-defating
B) We must take strong action to defend ourselves from terrorists
A) But have you thought why they are terrorists?
B) That's doesn't excuse them. We must defend our security. We've been under attack since the founding of the country
A) B-b-but you had terrorists too, by that definition. There is a violent backdrop to Israel's formation
B) So you're saying Israel is illegitimate? That it shouldn't exist?

I've seen variations on that again and again - it always ends up at the final point, and I'm fucking sick of it. It's a kind of thought policy at work. And when someone Jewish says it, they're self-hating. People perpeutuated that kind of ideological repression are fucking wankers, and for the umpteenth time, go Ken.

thus: "Israel's expansion has included ethnic cleansing." refers to the present tense (or post-'67 tense) -- 'expansion' implies 'over and above what is properly israel'.

"Palestinians who had lived in that land for centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of the Israeli state" seems more of an attack of the stern gang and the foundation of israel, mentioned in the next sentence.

"There is a violent backdrop to Israel's formation" -- but what *does* that argument prove now? israel is not going to go away. the lrb debate is circular because the situation is almost bound to be an impasse.

you may be sick of it but what is your final point? a two state solution, like all right-thinking people. unfortunately not everyone is right-thinking: people who ken has shaken hands with want no such thing. and ken himself in the article does not say what his position is on israel -- not even whether he favours a two-state solution or what.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/04/article12.shtml

as it goes i think that historically zionism, like nationalism (more accurately the idea of bulding nation-states) in general, was a wrong turn: however, i don't see a way out now, and that's what i mean by impasse. most nation-states are founded with arms: israel was, the usa was, mexico was. the latter have lasted long enough for the question of their legitimacy not to arise. but in any case nationalists always tend to provoke other nationalists. everyone becomes a nationaist.

if someone can point me to the light i'd appreciate it, but something tells me that that windy and complex bastard history will answer more questions than ken's simplistic 'stern gang=ethnic cleaners' schtick.

xpost okay Ed, that's otm. likewise a green/socialist victory in the US elections in '08 is a heartwarming prospect, and i'll raise a glass to a velvet revolution in north korea.

(in any case, Israeli historians have probably written more about the 1948 atrocities than anyone else cf Benny Morris who also self-identifies as a Zionist)

You're stunningly missing the pint. The refernec to the Organ and Dtern Gangs is a rehoeticial point used by Ken who is wrtiing a polemic. You know, actual polticial engagement.

As for the final para - Ken is attacking the Board of Deputies who have been having pops at them. If he turns around and started advocating what his plan for the Middle East was, then, well, I can only dare imagine the fury this would casue with dada, who would see Ken's ego now extending to bypass the UN :-/

PS - Ed on the money, with Edward Said - Single state with nationality is the only real way to solve the problem in the long-run; all biblical / ancient claims to land on reliious grounds, and states constructed to reflect those claims will never succeed in terms of providing peaceful means for prosperity and co-existence.

xpost - Jonathan - Can only Israali historians discuss the Stern Gang? Is any attempt to discuss the violent origins doomed to being castigated as veiled criticism of the very right of Israel to exist? Christ, as it happens, I think the creation of Israel was a violent and prejudicial act to the Palestianians. I do not support Israel being driven into the sea, not do I suport the repatriation of people living there now who may be descended from people who moved there after 1948. The point is that the people there from both communities must find a way to peacefully co-exist with life-chances available equally to both. The point about Stern and such like is, on the one hand, irrelevant. But it's higfhly relevant when a partial pro-Israeli government body of opinion seeks to comnstantly claim victim status for Jews as a way of legitimising the current policies of the Israeli government; if you claim the moral high ground, don't be surprised if people dredge up your skeletons.

totally convinced of this, which means they're all screwed for eternity unfortunately

Yeah, of course, I would never wish this plan ill, whatever it is -- in the present, however, we are faced with a sectarian problem. I have no idea what the way out is.

NB: The person I "found" who "didn't like" Israel is *someone who Ken made a big point of hugging and shaking hands with and defending in print*. This is why I am concerned that Ken denies the right of Israel to exist.

It would be great if Ken (or anyone) could find the means of translating the utopian ideal of a secular state composed of Israelis and Palestinians into reality. The problems of maintaining a secular state in Europe and India, for example, are manifest: what do schools teach: so you will understand a certain pessimism towards its prospects in Palestine.

Yes, a pro-Israeli government body of opinion may well seek to legitimise policy by playing the historic victim card. But that doesn't mean that any anti-Israeli government body of opnion should play its equivalent of the same card. Current Israeli policy should simply be judged on its merits by both sides.

dave needs to be publicly humiliated, pilloried and driven from this board for this irredeemably ANTI-SEMITIC statement.

lol, OTM Dave. this Pavlov's Dog bullshit over Ken is a real worry for the Jewish community. Ken is FRIEND. Rothermere Global Holdings Inc/Plc/Gmbh is ENEMY.

Daily Mail and Evening Standard are basically written and staffed by fascists. Oops sweeping generalization. Good glory, read the full transcripts of Lord Rothemere's communications with 'Adolf The Great' back in the day. Throws their monstering of Harry Hewitt over the swastika incident into very sharp relief.

Dadaismus having a go at someone for arrogance & pomposity

NRQ having a go at someone for impractical politics

(i always thought the way the blair-ken wars played out were a real indictment of the blair regime's so-called media smarts incidentally) (ie it wasn't ken that had to apologise to get back into the labour party; it wz blair who had to apologise — sorta kinda — for assuming ken wz a loser who cd be kicked to the kerb)

(from a realpolitik perspective the thatcher govt were totally right to abolish the glc, even if the consequence wz to fuck london's infrastructure for a coupla generations)

tony blair is so zen. 'hey, shit happens.'

in fact it will only last as long as he is the one w.holding the reins of the gravy train

who will be the worm that turns (into a dead sheep a-savaging)? he has surely amassed against himself the mother of all stockpiles of dammed-up resentment?

i think this needed saying even without the london bombings.

Freedland, Phillips and other leading newspaper political pro-Israel pundits will never (either) be convinced of this OR let on to their audience. The usual argument seems to boil down to 'don't you find it a little bit odd that Israel gets this negative attention when troubled African countries or other territories don't seem to attract half as much ire for their handling of situations'?

I on the other hand find it increasingly difficult to accept the blatantly (tho understandably) biased and imo grossly OTT attacks on Ken, Cherie Blair, Jenny Tonge or anyone else who attempts to pass judgement, cack-handedly granted, on the grievances of pro-Palestine anti-West terrorists and aspiring terrorists, without reservation and without a sense that it is just as deconstructive and kneejerk as those they deride. On both sides the generalisations seem just as sweeping, the judgements and demands just as arrogant.

quoting your beloved Geldof now then? ;)

I just tried to write a reply to a (pro-Israel) friend's blog post in which he argues there should be no qualms about referring to the terrorists as Muslim, presumably in order to motivate true Muslims into doing more to make it known that terrorist tactics are utterly unacceptable. Gave up after three attempts :(

Really? Why do you think this? The idea that "London liberals" have a secret anti-semitism that is entangled with any criticism they make of the actions of the Israeli government/military/state is a fairly common claim, but I've never heard or read it convincingly backed up.

it's as if this complex thing that will have to reach a compromise has just become reduced down to a manichean struggle.

In my experience, this accusation is made not when people "reduce down to a manichean struggle", but when they point out that Israel and the Palestinians are not two evenly matched sides.

you'll find the people who stick up for israel are far less tolerant of sharon than the 'pro-palestine' left, who often commit to radical islam.

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. I assume you don't mean that the pro-Palestinian (why the scare quotes?) left are tolerant of Ariel Sharon (who, incidentally, is not the only culpable individual in this story). But I'm not sure what you are saying, since you don't name an equivalent figure who these lefties supposedly tolerate. I assume you can't mean Arafat as he was heavily criticised by many of the kind of commentators I'm assuming you're refering to (Chomsky, Said). I'm also not clear what "commit" or "radical islam" mean here. Convert to? Support? Associate with? Presumably not "radical" in the sense of progressive? Presumably the bad, extremist Islamists, yes? Who's doing the "committing", then?

Incidentally, "stick up for" implies that Israel is being bullied. Given the fact that Israel is supported by the world's only superpower, how accurate is this?

the new statesman cover with a star of david 'impaling' the union flag would be a good example.

plaestine and israel not being evenly-matched sides has nothing to do with the moral equivalences/non-equivalences implied in the manichean worldview.

"you'll find the people who stick up for israel are far less tolerant of sharon than the 'pro-palestine' left, who often commit to radical islam."

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. I assume you don't mean that the pro-Palestinian (why the scare quotes?) left are tolerant of Ariel Sharon (who, incidentally, is not the only culpable individual in this story). But I'm not sure what you are saying, since you don't name an equivalent figure who these lefties supposedly tolerate. I assume you can't mean Arafat as he was heavily criticised by many of the kind of commentators I'm assuming you're refering to (Chomsky, Said). I'm also not clear what "commit" or "radical islam" mean here. Convert to? Support? Associate with? Presumably not "radical" in the sense of progressive? Presumably the bad, extremist Islamists, yes? Who's doing the "committing", then?

Incidentally, "stick up for" implies that Israel is being bullied. Given the fact that Israel is supported by the world's only superpower, how accurate is this?

'stick up for' really meant in local terms: in london, israel is very much something you'd have to 'stick up for'; it's taken as qed that israel is illegitimate (maybe i am hanging with the wrong people).

commentators like pilger and the swp crowd (who brilliantly equate the iraqi 'resistance' with the palestinian cause -- way to lose friends) are who i have in mind, rather than said or chomsky.

'pro-palestinian' in scare-quotes because i don't think they give much of a shit about the actual living conditions of palestinians (certainly no supporter of arafat did) but are more keen to pwn the evil israeli-us behemoth.

by 'commit', yes, i was going too far, but basically what freedland said re ken. 'radical' doesnt mean progressive.

the new statesman cover with a star of david 'impaling' the union flag would be a good example.

palestine and israel not being evenly-matched sides has nothing to do with the moral equivalences/non-equivalences implied in the manichean worldview.

"you'll find the people who stick up for israel are far less tolerant of sharon than the 'pro-palestine' left, who often commit to radical islam."

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. I assume you don't mean that the pro-Palestinian (why the scare quotes?) left are tolerant of Ariel Sharon (who, incidentally, is not the only culpable individual in this story). But I'm not sure what you are saying, since you don't name an equivalent figure who these lefties supposedly tolerate. I assume you can't mean Arafat as he was heavily criticised by many of the kind of commentators I'm assuming you're refering to (Chomsky, Said). I'm also not clear what "commit" or "radical islam" mean here. Convert to? Support? Associate with? Presumably not "radical" in the sense of progressive? Presumably the bad, extremist Islamists, yes? Who's doing the "committing", then?

Incidentally, "stick up for" implies that Israel is being bullied. Given the fact that Israel is supported by the world's only superpower, how accurate is this?

'stick up for' really meant in local terms: in london, israel is very much something you'd have to 'stick up for'; it's taken as qed that israel is illegitimate (maybe i am hanging with the wrong people).

commentators like pilger and the swp crowd (who brilliantly equate the iraqi 'resistance' with the palestinian cause -- way to lose friends) are who i have in mind, rather than said or chomsky.

'pro-palestinian' in scare-quotes because i don't think they give much of a shit about the actual living conditions of palestinians (certainly no supporter of arafat did) but are more keen to pwn the evil israeli-us behemoth.

by 'commit', yes, i was going too far, but basically what freedland said re ken. 'radical' doesnt mean progressive.

Freedland makes a point of criticising some sections of the Jewish Community for having an unhealthy fixation with the Second World War (see last chapter of his latest book). I didn't find any reference to Auschwitz in the article we're discussing. [Have I missed something?] It would appear that the one raking up the past is you, Marcello.

I suppose there are always vested interests who profit from their misguided belief that they own an exclusive copyright on suffering.

"we're just fed up with zionist apologists/propagandists like freedland. for how many more decades does he propose dining out on auschwitz?"

I think it's ill-informed muckraking to suggest [as you seemeed to be doing] that Freedland has some 'vested interest' in 'dining out' on Auschwitz.

but no, he said 'the jews have been dining out...'. so fuck him very much.

newsflash: geldof still a cunt.

It's a fix, he'll get a reprimand and will be able to continue in office.

Top headline on the Evening Standard's website? "Arctic Monkeys are top dogs". They deserve everything they get.

Tony Child, the mayor's lawyer, said it was perfectly possible to separate Livingstone the man from Livingstone the mayor. "When John Profumo apparently slept with Christine Keeler and then committed the far more serious offence of lying to the House of Commons about it, he was compelled to resign, but no one could seriously think that that affected the reputation of the office of secretary of state for war. It reflected badly on John Profumo but not on his office.

"When David Blunkett was allegedly inappropriately involved in assisting an application for a work permit and he resigned, that could not be regarded by an informed observer as damaging the reputation and bringing into disrepute the office of home secretary.

well, with profumo it was also cos he was double dealing la keeler with a commie spy; with blunkett well yes it DID bring the office into disrepute in that none of blunkett's civil service handlers tried to stop him, and trust in the home office diminished.

Let's suppose a drunken Tory MP is leaving a party when he's approached by a Muslim reporter who asks him if he enjoyed himself. The Tory MP says "Are you a sucide bomber? Because you're only doing this because your superiors told you to, right? That means you're just like a suicide bomber."

How does Ken react?

Dave, maybe the B o D didn't feel comfortable with the Mayor of London lashing out Nazi-related insults against a Jewish reporter. If so, it doesn't make them a 'bunch of wankers' in my book.

As for the BoD criticism, this whole thread was about that - I've said what I wanted to on the subject upthread - I stand by it all the same today having just re-read it.

For example, if a muslim reporter on the Standard called Livingstone, asked him what he thought of parties for gay MPs, then Ken said 'fuck off you little shit' and the reporter said 'I'm only doing what I've been trained to do' and Ken said 'like a suicide bomber eh?' and the reporter went 'I'm from Bradford and a muslim, you bastard' then maybe the analogy would work. But it's not really a sensible line to go down is it, to do the 'if someone else said something slightly different it's get a different reaction'. And if my auntie had a cock she'd be my uncle.

well, yes it does. but the analogy has a point.

so, to make the comparison in any way accurate, it'd have to be a Tory MP, returning from [some benefit that the left-wing press continually ridicules] [a fox hunting support meeting perhaps?] and being asked by a journalist from a hysterically left-wing newspaper with a history of persecuting him if he enjoyed himself, and said Tory MP responding 'oh, you're just like those victims of muslim terrorism who support the muslim terrorists, aren't you?' and... and... and then i get confused, because i can't quite bend reality to fit the point enrique's trying to make. probably because it doesn't fit.

Mr Livingstone replied: "Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"'

while insensitive, i'm still struggling to see how this comment could be described as anti-semitic.

They're aren't any

yeah but he went from 'war criminal' to

"Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"'

you don't find it anti-semitic?

i do, but as you know, i think the worst of him anyway.

livingstone belongs to a party that continues to condone torture.

Mr Livingstone repeated his question and then asked: "What did you do? Were you a German war criminal?"

i am glad it has changed its ways and become a beacon of understanding and tolerance.

'corporate links' as much as The Times has 'corporate links' with The Sun, ie same company, same owner

this makes him a war criminal.

xpost

Yes. But that makes him an arrogant prick, not an anti-semite.

Did he relish it? I though he relished the Jewish reporter working for the Mail group using the same defence that Nazis in Nuremburg used. As for why he didn't row back, I'd suggest the fact that he was cunted might be a key factor here. I'll get on my high-horse about many an issue, but having a few at a party isn't one of them.

no. the point as you initially presented it is that ken accusing a jewish person of being a concentration camp officer is evidence of anto-semitism, as if it was inspired by his being jewish. as i pointed out, he didn't know the journalist was jewish whn he began calling him a 'German war criminal' (and not just a 'war criminal' but a 'German war criminal', as this point is sort of key), so the journalist's race/religion had no play in what he said. all your fantasising about Ken 'relishing' the slur is just that - your fantasy to prove your point.

and he may well have known the guy was jewish; he claims he didn't, but so what? maybe the guy looked jewish, i don't know. why give him the benefit of the doubt? if he's not new labour, he shouldn't be in the party. if he's not an anti-semite, he shouldn't be so chummy with anti-semites.

ihttp://www.petloveshack.com/bunny.jpg

the independent has bruce anderson, meanwhile, and the guardian has polly toynbee.

what's flimsy, NRQ, is any evidence that Livingstone was un-PC in the first place. 'maybe he looked jewish'. good one.

exactly -- instead he just dug in. so the drunkenness defense doesn't wash. he stands by the notion that working for the standard is like being a nazi. it's pretty unhinged, no?

xpost - NRQ - when you want to leave playpen politics, let us know. The comment about Will Self et all has to be the most idiotic thing you've said.

and the next day?

xpost - NRQ - when you want to leave playpen politics, let us know. The comment about Will Self et all has to be the most idiotic thing you've said.

erm, it was kind of a 'light' comment, no?

If he'd have said "i didn't express myself as well as I should last night, but fundementally, whilst I apologise for that tone, I actually hate the Mail, find those who work for it scummy" would that have helped? I doubt it, but it's the main thing he didn't do.

If it comes down the poor offended sensibility of 'iccle Oliver Feingold, or an elected politician on the left telling the Mail to fuck off and that their values stink, I can't see why anyone would take more than a nanosecond to work out this one. Unless the left wish to revert to their usual stance of acting like nitpicking pedantic cockfarmers, and let their pursuit of the best undermine the good, like they often are when they remotely near success.

also: the reason war criminal -> concentration camp guard is bad is because concentration camp guards were recruited, often, from the people being murdered -- ie were not german, but slavic or jewish -- and that's why the analogy ken was using 'worked' *and* why it was especially offensive.

As for Ken - sure, he's not the tribune of the plebs that Ken Mk 1 was, but in terms of the options, he was easily the best. The task isn't to berate him for being not left enough, but to work to make the platform more left. You know, like, become active in politics.

well i share yr reservations about the Board, but i think that, in the holocaust, there was a fearful lack of nuance in respect of the jews' victimhood.

xpost

Camp guards were not Jewish, although Jews might have been kapos and in other administrative roles.

now THAT's nuance!

So it's just posturing then?

i mean god forbid that people in real-world politics are ever posturing...

What's hostile about asking someone if they enjoyed a party? OG asked KL this before any of the "what paper are you from" nonsense started.

Ken needs to realise that he represents ALL Londoners, not just the ones that voted for him.

"For far too long the accusation of anti-semitism has been used against anybody who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government," Mr Livingstone said in a statement delivered at City Hall today.
[...]
He denied that his comments were influenced by alcohol: if he had been drinking, he said, it would have been much stronger.
[...]
The mayor said this morning that if he were eventually suspended he would use the time to take a holiday or write "something useful about the history and context of the Middle East".

well, that's lovely: who, exactly, raised the issue of israel? when he quite soberly attacked a jewish reporter for being like a concentration camp guard, where did israel come up?

his last comment suggests to me he would dedicate the four weeks to an account of israel's foundation -- i'm sure it'll be a work of great scholarship.

I know some people argue that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic by default but that's another story.

you need to wade (geddit) through a fair amount of special pleading to get from individual reporter -> evening standard -> associated -> mail [not a sister paper of the standard in the '30s] -> mosley.

Is the Standard known for being intolerant towards gay MPs? I hadn't noticed any of that myself.

Standard sneers at everyone who isn't middle-class, basically, while concentrating huge amounts of effort on pushing a 'correct' aspirational (west) London lifestyle and fairly conservative political values. So weeth zeez David Cameron zey are really spoiling uzzz.

Another note on the "democracy" arguement — there are 7.5 million people in London. In the last election Ken picked up just over 800,000 1st and 2nd preference votes.

This means that almost 90 per cent of the people he represents did not vote for him...

I'm sure Boyle is right.

livingstone is such an anti-war firebrand that he's been forced to rejoin the labour party...

Finegold told the mayor that he was Jewish and therefore found the remark offensive, in a voice that said "whoopee I've got a heck of a news story"

I don't recognise the Standard from this description. It has some fairly balanced coverage in my view, for example they were in favour of Ken becoming Mayor and they are supportive of civil partnerships. I'm sure they've annoyed Ken by tracking the cost of Bob Kiley, the London Transport Commissioner.

The only thing I can think of that could be seen as promoting an aspirational (West) London aspirational lifestyle is the ES magazine that comes out on a Friday.

Some excellent blog comments, such as "I think at this point Red Ken should just forsake politics and stick his dick into the mashed potatoes."

As the Guardian have now blocked further comments, I'll have to take it to pieces here.

1) The party was paid for with £4,000 of GLA funds and took place at City Hall, so it wasn't exactly private.

2) Oliver Finegold was asking people who were leaving if they'd had a nice time, and got perfectly police responses from everyone except Ken. Even Chris Smith and his partner were happy to talk.

I'm getting a bit tired with people banging on about evil Finegold abusing people for being gay — that's something Ken claimed in the days after this all kicked off, yet oddly enough not one other person at that party has ever complained about it, and Ken chose not to take the matter further himself.

Had a right-wing paper put words into Ken's mouth in this way they'd be slaughtered for it...

And I really do look forward to the Guardian's rush of support for the people of various northern mill towns when they elect BNP councillors this May. I'm sure Ken will also be delighted that they are expressing their democratic right to elect human turds and will urge the local government officials and other politicians not to boycott them as has happened in the past.

not much of a news item though is it?

http://miqque.50megs.com/images/Jameson.jpg

No, but it's what fills the pages of papers on a regular basis, cf the 3AM girls et al.

that is gold.

It makes sense if you consider that the context has flipped in the interim: although Jews once were victims, now they make victims. The same contextual flip needs to be taken into account when you're discussing rock music. If rock really were still the "rebel music" it once was, then attacks on, say, Mojo and Q as conservative wouldn't "make sense". But they do, because rock's status has changed in the interim. To argue otherwise is to say something like "once a victim, always a victim" or "once a rebel, always a rebel", which is clearly rubbish.

I think it's safe to say that of all the people in the world who are Jewish, a very tiny minority voted for the current Israeli govt, so this is a rather bizarre characterisation!

xpost

xxpost

I think he means the way the BDBJ jumping on the incident contrasted with the general support for Ken elsewhere creating this sense of Livingstone being 'victimised' for being silly (as opposed to being anti-semitic). Hmm.

Sure, but a certain kind of thinking would say that all Jews are inevitably connected to the Holocaust, yet not connected to what's going on with the Palestinians in Israel. That's selective essentialism! Either we must be essentialist across the board, or not at all.

errrrrr

-- Momus (nic...), March 2nd, 2006.

who's doing this?

jesus, get back to me on the mugabe question ok?

And so actual relationships of power and aggression are outweighed by symbolic associations. A reporter out to get a politician can use this to conceal an aggressive intent which he, his editor and the subject of his story are all totally aware is the main dynamic of the situation.

"A master status is defined as a status that has an exceptional importance for social identity, often shaping a person's entire life. In our society, one's occupation often comprises this position. The Social Diversity box (p. 134) points out that physical disability becomes the master status for many people. Ascribed statuses such as race and sex are other examples of positions which can act as a person's master status."

why do we want to do this?

Incidentally I don't regard Judaism as my 'master status'.

The "interactionism" part of SI does emphasize that these identities are negotiated in a kind of social theatre, interactively. It's very hard to cling to an identity that no-one else confirms or accepts. What tends to happen is that people differ mainly on how positively or negatively they value these identities, not how they're framed.

Do you mean that Jews unjustifiably distance themselves from the activities of the Israeli government and everyone knows they really are responsible? Or was it just an undirected, airy, general observation?

Europe's Jews Seek Solace on the Right (a NY Times article reprinted in the International Herald Tribune) goes much further into the changing political perception by, and of, Europe's Jewish voters I sketched above.

London's mayor has become embroiled in a new row after criticising two Jewish businessmen involved in building a key facility for the 2012 Olympics.

Ken Livingstone attacked David and Simon Reuben for their role in an ongoing dispute about the Stratford City development in east London.

He suggested the brothers "go back (to their own country) and see if they can do better under the ayatollahs".

The mayor made the comments during a speech at City Hall.

'Major problem'

The mayor's office said there was nothing further to add.

The mayor is understood to think the consortium behind the project, of which the Reuben brothers hold a 50% stake, is not progressing quickly enough and could be in danger.

Conservative members of the London Assembly said the brothers were not Iranian, but had been born in India of Iraqi Jewish parents.

Brian Coleman, assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, said: "This is the latest anti-Semitic remark by Livingstone, he clearly has a major problem with the Jewish business community."

The brothers released a statement saying the mayor's comments were "totally inaccurate.

"The Reuben brothers remain completely committed to the Stratford City project in its entirety as well as the Olympic opportunity," the statement added.

"They are working extremely hard to deliver the development for the long-term benefit of London and Londoners. That is what they shall continue to do.

"Mr Livingstone's comments on the Reuben brothers' role in the Paddington and White City developments are also unsubstantiated."

The row follows the mayor's four-week suspension for comparing Evening Standard journalist Oliver Finegold to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Mr Livingstone, however, won a last-minute attempt to remain London's mayor pending an appeal against the verdict, which was handed down by the Adjudication Panel for England.

of course, we should note that the people he's talking about are... businessmen, in their suits and ties, paying GLA kickbacks filing their expense forms, and not ordinary working-class, etc, londoners, so he can be as offensive as he likes.

That's what Veronica Wadley said, anyway.

Asked to clarify his remarks he added:

"If they're not happy here, they can go back to Iran and try their luck with the ayatollahs, if they don't like the planning regime or my approach."

that looks kind of direct.

maybe he got confuse?

i dunno, it doesn't make much sense.

that looks kind of direct.

Yes, but nowhere does it say he said "back to their own country", which is a heavily loaded phrase, as well as being inaccurate.

I am keeping an open mind on whether Red Ken is actually Nazi Ken, but I'd need stronger evidence to convince me.

xpost - that's what the guy firing the tomahawks from said.

you "know nothing of the rights and wrongs of the business argument here" but you're ok with calling them "arseholes" off the bat?

this was a hypotehtical situation with no relevance to matter in hand?

Quite. You just can't risk the ambiguity of a statement like that - it leaves itself open to misinterpretation and a gathering climate of hate. I really do wonder how long Ken is going to get away with making the kind of comments which, if applied to any other ethnic or religious group, however ambiguously it may be framed, would be seized upon as being utterly abhorrent and unacceptable.

We should start treating Israel as we once treated South Africa. Firstly with public condemnation and then with economic and academic sanctions.

now while i have *some* sympathy for the view that israel is too much like s. africa, the notion of 'academic sanctions' has made my day.

saying to businessmen who've done work in iran and are currently doing work in london "you should try going back to iran and be like this" is utterly different. not only was the crucial "your own country" not said by Ken, but he knows they have done work their before, there is no racist presumption in what he said.

i think i know what you're getting at, but just didn't quite understand this analogy.. it'd imply that Brian Coleman reckons that more people insult Islam in [where the protesters come from] than in Britain?

I made this point as part of my point that there were explanations for Ken Livingstone’s comments that don’t involve racism.

Possibilities:

1. The Reuben brothers were being arseholes
2. The Reuben brothers were not being arseholes, or no more than he was, but KL deemed that they were, for non-racist reasons
3. KL was being racist (whether they were being arseholes or not)

Their arseholeishness remains an unknown quantity in my eyes. I am happy to make this clear.

He's gone from being sure of himself to being arrogant, from being principled to being an arsehole who attacks anyone who disagrees with him.

He has to remember that millions of people in this city didn't vote for him but that he is still meant to represent them, and when he acts like this I don't think it's clear that he does.

Plus, as others have said, if it's ok for him to go around abusing people, it's a lot harder to convince drunken racist morons that it's not acceptable for them to do so.

You wadical!

Power seems to have made him less likeable.

why not? this is the main thing i don't understand, the idea ken has somehow proved himself above this, just by being a parody of a 1980s 'looney-left' councillor.

WE ARE LONDONERS

ads.

sponsored by british fucking gas.

So, who died to make him a Tory?

Um... No he didn't. He said that people who take advantage of the system should be sacked.

1. Nimrod from Elgar's Enigma Variations
Performer Simon Rattle & the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra
Composer Elgar
CD Title The Soundtrack from the film Crush
Track 11
Label EMI
Rec No: 535786-2

2. Younger than Springtime
Performer Sean McDermott
Composer Rodgers and Hammerstein
CD Title South Pacific
Track 17
Label That's Entertainment
Rec No: CDTER 21242

3. Jerusalem
Performer The Choir of St George's Chapel, Windsor
Composer Sir Hubert Parry/Words William Blake
CD Title Cathedral Music by Sir Hubert Parry
Track 11
Label Hyperion
Rec No: CDA 66273

4. Hello Again
Performer Neil Diamond
Composer N Diamond/A Lindgren
CD Title Neil Diamond: The Ultimate Collection
Track 7
Label Columbia
Rec No: MOODCD 45

5. In Your Eyes
Performer George Benson
Composer M Masser/D Hills
CD Title Midnight Moods
Track 4
Label Telstar
Rec No: TCD2450

6. The Best
Performer Tina Turner
Composer H Knight/M Chapman
CD Title The Greatest Hits of 1989
Track 2
Label Premier
Rec No: CDGH 1989

7. (Everything I do) I do it for You
Performer Bryan Adams
Composer Adams/Lange/Kamen
CD Title Anthology
Track 14
Label Polydor
Rec No: 9835827

8. Wind Beneath my Wings
Performer Bette Midler
Composer Jeff Sibar/Larry Henley
CD Title Chick Flick diaries
Track CD2 TRK 1
Label Warner
Rec No: WSMCD 190

Record: Wind Beneath My Wings
Book: How Britain made the Modern World by Niall Ferguson
Luxury: Video or pictorial book of '100 examples of excellence'

1. Tangled Up In Blue
Performer Bob Dylan
Composer Bob Dylan
Publisher CBS
CD Title Bob Dylan:Real Live
Track Side 2 trk 1
Label CBS
Rec No: 26334

2. Ernie
Performer Benny Hill
Composer Benny Hill
Publisher EMI
CD Title Benny Hill:Ernie
Track 1
Label EMI
Rec No: CDGO 2040

3. Wish You Were Here
Performer Pink Floyd
Composer Gilmour/Waters
CD Title Echoes - The Best of Pink Floyd
Track Cd1 trk 20
Label EMI
Rec No: 536112

4. On Wings of Song
Performer Kiri Te Kanawa and Utah Symphony Orchestra
Composer Mendelssohn
CD Title Essential Wedding Collection
Track Cd1 trk 20
Label Decca
Rec No: 475 6013

5. Fake Plastic Trees
Performer Radiohead
Composer Radiohead
Publisher EMI
CD Title Fake Plastic Trees
Track 1
Label Parlophone
Rec No: CDRS6411

6. This Charming Man
Performer Smiths
Composer Morrissey & Marr
Publisher Warner Chappell music
CD Title This Charming Man
Track 7
Label WEA
Rec No: YZ000ICD2

7. Perfect Circle
Performer R.E.M
Composer Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe
Publisher International Record Syndicate
CD Title Best of R.E.M
Track 3
Label I.R.S.
Rec No: DMIRHI

8. All these Things that I've Done
Performer The Killers
Composer Flowers
Publisher Universal Music publishing
CD Title All these Things that I've Done
Track 1
Label Lizard King
Rec No: Lizard012

Record:Tangled Up in Blue
Book:The River Cottage Cookbook by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall
Luxury: A crate of Scottish whisky.

kept from the ken vs boris thread coz i don't want to look partisan.

still, me, a guardian link? about ken livingstone? with my reputation?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2178952,00.html

dude, did ken run over yr cat or something?

ironically, in the evening standard the same day:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23414171-details/Blears+gets+tough+over+Ken%27s+towers/article.do

wau, i find myself even preferring blears over ken :/

"An exception to the council's normal requirement to provide affordable housing was considered justified as the scheme would provide a leisure centre, including a swimming pool, for local community use."

this is essentially a "kickback" done legit, but i think the notion of affordable housing is too. wealth disparity in general and deprivation in particular is not solved by subsidizing the housing of a token number of (facing it) core labour voters within the much bigger picture of livingtone's laissez-faire approach to developers. early on the barbican had some affordable housing. it's not exactly a model of social integration now. this kind of building seems only to fuel the boom (rather than damp it down with supply) -- there is just that much surplus cash around.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKLAL00192620071102

nice

"The police may now be scared to shoot guys in the face"

Does Menezes still update Church of Me, haven't looked for a while?

oh ken

why did he even need to comment? is he trying to curry favour with the polis?

i think the way things work is the mayor of the city where the hit went down gets asked by reporters, 'any comment?' i mean, yeah, he kind of does have to weigh in!

He was on the Today Programme this morning, and John Humphreys grilled him on Ian Blair and the need for someone to carry the can. All Ken could say was that it was a tragic mistake, and that the circumstances at the time were very difficult for the police.

does blair have pics of the labour front bench + ken frotting each other's kids or what?

"If an armed police officer believes they are in pursuit of a terrorist who might be a suicide bomber and they start making these sort of calculations based on this, how is this going to be seen? Am I going to be hauled off to court?"

He totally misunderstands the failures that were found to have occurred. The individual police who shot him were specifically found NOT to be at fault. It was the communications (or lack of) between higher-ups and the guys on the street, it was operational failures in the hours leading up to the shooting, and intelligence problems. None of this affects the thinking of armed police who are in pursuit of suspected terrorists in the fucking slightest.

What the fuck @ Ken, Tracer Hand otm.

Next time just get Boris to headbutt them in the goolies like he did to that German footballer in that charity match

Resign, you thuggish, bent, wanker Jasper

Let's hope that a criminal investigation takes place after all this is Londoner's money and were sick of it.

Which Londoner was that then? If he's sick of the money I'll be happy to take it off his hands.

Very good to see this investigation is taking place. All too often when fraud on councils, dodgy charities, so called policy units, takes place and involves afro carribs, they run off shouting racists, and racial harassment. It is disgusting that they hide behind and use the colour of their skin to exploit the taxpayer. Jasper I can assure you, like Trevor Philips, is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Livingston has for too long been the lacky of the race peddlers. Please keep up this much-needed task of hounding these criminals.

- Mark Armstrong, London

Livingston has for too long been the lacky of the race peddlers.

http://www.chezjessop.co.uk/TourDeFrance.jpg

this one gets uglier and uglier.

hey shaving off his moustache was a step up

Maybe Brian Paddick will save us.

ken's new campaign slogan "that's_racist.gif"

previous front runner was 'sack da bitch'

Ken Livingstone will be editing this week's edition of the New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/

* Jarvis Cocker writes exclusively about why he wants the next generation of Trident nuclear weapons scrapped.

* MPs Charles Kennedy and Jon Cruddas, along with other New Statesman readers, put their questions to Ken.

* Indulging his passion for science fiction Ken conducts an interview with one of his favourite writers - Iain M Banks. Ken and Iain M Banks discuss everything from whether living space means you have to have socialism, to Banks's views on Scottish independence.

* Other contributions from Vivienne Westwood, Stephen Fry, Bonnie Greer, Jo Brand, Bob Stanley of the band Saint Etienne, Norman Cook (Fatboy Slim).

"* MPs Charles Kennedy and Jon Cruddas, along with other New Statesman readers, put their questions to Ken."

is pretty a hilarious guest-editor move. i'm sure it will be fascinating.

the mag is a p.o.s. so i suppose getting tories/dicks like vivienne westwood and bob stanley* and jarvis cocker on board (to talk about trident! why not!?) can't make it worse. wonder if bonnie greer will mention that she's from the states.

what's the asterisk for?

that's actually his name.

it's a branding thing, like wallpaper*