Cynical you! Not a Ken Livingstone publicity stunt to resign this getting into the media again?! Next he'll be back on HIGNFY again. Perhaps a guest host slot? Or him and Boris on opposite sides.
Or has he really just resigned to spend more time with his newts?
Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
-
- Posts: 9509
- Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
Tangled Metal wrote:I'm afraid I'm a firm believer in centrist politics. Also democracy through agreement. I'm even coming to the conclusion we need a electoral change to create coalition governments. The best example I think is Germany. We need a practical, coalition in government and I'm not thinking of the tory / LibDem coalition.
You've picked a bad time to choose Germany as an example. It took them five months to negotiate a coalition between the CDU (Conservative) and SPD (Labour) and by going into coalition with the CDU again the SPD alienated a third of its own members who voted against it. More votes for the hard left next time I think...
And the fact that the Liberals (FDP) have often been coalition partners in post-war Germany (either with the SPD or the CDU) has often led to complaints that a small party has held a whip hand (the tail wagging the dog so to speak). Also, in an enveloping embrace all the parties supported the Euro when I think (I was in Germany at the time) most ordinary Germans didn't - so just like here politicians can force an issue which the electorate have no enthusiasm for.
As a result we shouldn't forget that the AfD, which makes UKIP look centrist, got 94 seats at the last election. And under the German system even in 2017 UKIP would have won about 12 seats.
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
ah I found one of the hostile references to Livingstones views -
from the Guardian no less and a certain David Baddiel
"The statement “Hitler supported Zionism” is not a fact. It’s an interpretation. An interpretation of a particular historical moment, in the 1930s, when the forced emigration of Jews from Germany was pushed further along by various Nazi economic incentives allowing those who fled to Palestine to get some of their stolen assets back
That is not Adolf Hitler supporting the idea of a Jewish state (even writing that sentence looks ridiculous). It is the Nazis taking advantage of the terror and despair of fleeing refugees to get more of them to leave the country. It is just the thin edge of the wedge of Nazi horror"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/06/ken-livingstone-hitler-zionism-jews
Did Livingstone ever claim -Adolf Hitler supported the idea of a Jewish state? Supporting some thing dont have to mean believing in it or being sympathetic to it. Its called Real Politik? Supporting the idea of some thing and supporting some thing are not the same thing David Baddiel's journalism in this respect is quite shoddy & the Guardian should be ashamed it let him print that article?
another one from the same source is this one that claims that Livingstone thinks that Hitler was a Zionist. This time a certain Gaby Hinsliff former political editor of the Observer no less who doubles her errors by referring to Baddiel's article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/22/ken-livingstone-labour-hitler-antisemitism?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=275812&subid=7646217&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
"Even now he can’t seem to grasp why repeatedly insisting that Hitler was a Zionist was so damaging to his party and to his own reputation. What a waste of a once formidable political talent."
presumably to be a Zionist you have to believe in their ideals and goals. Did Livingstone ever claim that Hitler did? Doubt it
So both these Guardian writers mock Livingstone and dont for a moment consider that maybe of someone with "formidable political talent", they are getting it wrong,
It seems that since I went to school standards have fallen somewhat, that such distortion passes for journalism. Are these two people just plain stupid or some thing else?
from the Guardian no less and a certain David Baddiel
"The statement “Hitler supported Zionism” is not a fact. It’s an interpretation. An interpretation of a particular historical moment, in the 1930s, when the forced emigration of Jews from Germany was pushed further along by various Nazi economic incentives allowing those who fled to Palestine to get some of their stolen assets back
That is not Adolf Hitler supporting the idea of a Jewish state (even writing that sentence looks ridiculous). It is the Nazis taking advantage of the terror and despair of fleeing refugees to get more of them to leave the country. It is just the thin edge of the wedge of Nazi horror"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/06/ken-livingstone-hitler-zionism-jews
Did Livingstone ever claim -Adolf Hitler supported the idea of a Jewish state? Supporting some thing dont have to mean believing in it or being sympathetic to it. Its called Real Politik? Supporting the idea of some thing and supporting some thing are not the same thing David Baddiel's journalism in this respect is quite shoddy & the Guardian should be ashamed it let him print that article?
another one from the same source is this one that claims that Livingstone thinks that Hitler was a Zionist. This time a certain Gaby Hinsliff former political editor of the Observer no less who doubles her errors by referring to Baddiel's article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/22/ken-livingstone-labour-hitler-antisemitism?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=275812&subid=7646217&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
"Even now he can’t seem to grasp why repeatedly insisting that Hitler was a Zionist was so damaging to his party and to his own reputation. What a waste of a once formidable political talent."
presumably to be a Zionist you have to believe in their ideals and goals. Did Livingstone ever claim that Hitler did? Doubt it
So both these Guardian writers mock Livingstone and dont for a moment consider that maybe of someone with "formidable political talent", they are getting it wrong,
It seems that since I went to school standards have fallen somewhat, that such distortion passes for journalism. Are these two people just plain stupid or some thing else?
-
- Posts: 9509
- Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
If Ken Livingstone said nothing wrong then why does he need your efforts to defend him? The very fact that his comments needed explaining (by him, by anyone) means they were ill - advised at best and wrong / offensive at worst.
The other point is deflection. You're deflecting attention from Kl to those who criticised him. Those reporting or giving their opinion on what he said (yes, what he said that he could easily have not said or have put a better, less offensive way) get criticised by you. This matter isn't about what David Baddiel said. It's about what KL said. Defend what he said, but deflection through criticising his critics for what they say is not strictly relevant.
Personally I have no time for hearing what a nearly has been comedian has to say. I do have an interest in what politicians say and what significant people in the main political parties have to say. I also have an interest in what you have to say about KL, his comments, subsequent suspension, investigation and eventual resignation from the Labour Party. What is your view on those?
I'll make my view clear. I don't think they were a significant anti-semitic comment of indeed at all I think they were very badly chosen comments and unwise of him to say them in public. I also think he should have apologised straight after offence was registered. There was a potential for reputational damage to labour party because he was (IIRC) involved heavily in it at a policy level. Perhaps an investigation was warranted but it should have been a moot point because KL should have backed down, taken the hit for the party by apologising / withdrawing his comments. Plus I don't like the guy. As someone said a London oddity really does sum him up.
The other point is deflection. You're deflecting attention from Kl to those who criticised him. Those reporting or giving their opinion on what he said (yes, what he said that he could easily have not said or have put a better, less offensive way) get criticised by you. This matter isn't about what David Baddiel said. It's about what KL said. Defend what he said, but deflection through criticising his critics for what they say is not strictly relevant.
Personally I have no time for hearing what a nearly has been comedian has to say. I do have an interest in what politicians say and what significant people in the main political parties have to say. I also have an interest in what you have to say about KL, his comments, subsequent suspension, investigation and eventual resignation from the Labour Party. What is your view on those?
I'll make my view clear. I don't think they were a significant anti-semitic comment of indeed at all I think they were very badly chosen comments and unwise of him to say them in public. I also think he should have apologised straight after offence was registered. There was a potential for reputational damage to labour party because he was (IIRC) involved heavily in it at a policy level. Perhaps an investigation was warranted but it should have been a moot point because KL should have backed down, taken the hit for the party by apologising / withdrawing his comments. Plus I don't like the guy. As someone said a London oddity really does sum him up.
-
- Posts: 15215
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
bovlomov wrote:Those were the days! - when the goings on at the GLC were regular headline material. Horace Cutler (the Tory leader, who had a bit of the Leslie Phillips about him), and then Red Ken, Joan Ruddock and Iltyd Harrington. John McDonnell was there too, but I don't remember him being so newsworthy.
Yes, London was the centre of the world back then thanks to the bbc :wink
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
-
- Posts: 15215
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
Ben@Forest wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:I'm afraid I'm a firm believer in centrist politics. Also democracy through agreement. I'm even coming to the conclusion we need a electoral change to create coalition governments. The best example I think is Germany. We need a practical, coalition in government and I'm not thinking of the tory / LibDem coalition.
You've picked a bad time to choose Germany as an example. It took them five months to negotiate a coalition between the CDU (Conservative) and SPD (Labour) and by going into coalition with the CDU again the SPD alienated a third of its own members who voted against it. More votes for the hard left next time I think...
And the fact that the Liberals (FDP) have often been coalition partners in post-war Germany (either with the SPD or the CDU) has often led to complaints that a small party has held a whip hand (the tail wagging the dog so to speak). Also, in an enveloping embrace all the parties supported the Euro when I think (I was in Germany at the time) most ordinary Germans didn't - so just like here politicians can force an issue which the electorate have no enthusiasm for.
As a result we shouldn't forget that the AfD, which makes UKIP look centrist, got 94 seats at the last election. And under the German system even in 2017 UKIP would have won about 12 seats.
The normal parties are trying to ostracise the afd
In Luebeck, five parties want to help the bees, +1!
*We want to help the people*, asserted the afd leader, and *threatened* to support any sensible suggestions made by the normal parties
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
Tangled Metal wrote:I don't think it would have been any better if the left wing lunacy had prevailed over those same years.
That is an opinion you're entitled to,but an opinion without foundation because neither of us know.
What we do know is where the country stands now with rightwing domination it's had over the past thirty years or so,and it ain't in a good one.
I'm afraid I'm a firm believer in centrist politics.
Don't be afraid.
It depends on where you view the centre to be.Thatcher,Blair,and May all claimed centre ground,which they were/are anything but.
.Also democracy through agreement. I'm even coming to the conclusion we need a electoral change to create coalition governments. The best example I think is Germany. We need a practical, coalition in government and I'm not thinking of the tory / LibDem coalition
Then we're in agreement,surprise,surprise?
One more thing reohn2, I think you'd be surprised to know I don't want these tories in power any more than you do.
See above.
Where we differ is that I believe Labour is worse.
As you say that's where we differ.
I'd actually vote for LibDems if they actually stood a chance.
But they don't under the current demockracy,and that's the crucial thing!
IMHO they had the only policies likely to have made much difference at the last GE
I disagree,sadly what stopped them dead in their tracks in the last GE was their coalition with the Tories in the previous GE.
Source of that view was a presentation on BBC Parliament channel by iirc the IFS based on their research into the manifestos of the main parties (yes I know, are the LibDems a main party? They included them in their research anyway).
IIRC IFS is a centre left think-tank focusing on economic ideas. I also seem to recall Ed milliband liked to use their research at times. Told you I'm more centrist!
The problem is that a high percentage of the electorate who actually vote wouldn't know what the IFS was if they tripped over it in the street.
That's because the UK public has a sleep problem when anyone's talks politics.
Education,education,education,as someone once said then proceeded not to educate!
We are in soundbite central in a me,me,me,society,that is primed up by the media(most of which is owned rightwing moguls),then the politicians are groomed for the correct soundbites to use resulting in right wing rich idiots running the show and people being turned off politics as a rigged system.
Only recently the plebatocracy has had a belly full of the lies and wars and failurs,so are looking for an alternative,Corbyn is seen as a thoroughly decent man who can be trusted,as IMO is Vince Cable but the LD's have very recent baggage.
See we're not far apart after all
Last edited by reohn2 on 23 May 2018, 6:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
PH wrote:Has Ken got a book coming out?
I've had quite a high opinion of some of his policies and achievements, but he does seem to be missing the limelight. This situation was entirely avoidable, there's so many middle east issues we'd be better of spending our time being bothered about. Doesn't matter if he was historically correct in the exact words he used, I can't see any relevance to the current situation. Of course the media lap it up, might be good for book sales but it does the Labour movement no favours at all.
Don't worry it'll be forgotten in a week or two
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
[quote="Tangled Metal"]If Ken Livingstone said nothing wrong then why does he need your efforts to defend him? The very fact that his comments needed explaining (by him, by anyone) means they were ill - advised at best and wrong / offensive at worst.
The other point is deflection. You're deflecting attention from Kl to those who criticised him. Those reporting or giving their opinion on what he said (yes, what he said that he could easily have not said or have put a better, less offensive way) get criticised by you. This matter isn't about what David Baddiel said. It's about what KL said. Defend what he said, but deflection through criticising his critics for what they say is not strictly relevant.
Personally I have no time for hearing what a nearly has been comedian has to say. I do have an interest in what politicians say and what significant people in the main political parties have to say. I also have an interest in what you have to say about KL, his comments, subsequent suspension, investigation and eventual resignation from the Labour Party. What is your view on those?
I'll make my view clear. I don't think they were a significant anti-semitic comment of indeed at all I think they were very badly chosen comments and unwise of him to say them in public. I also think he should have apologised straight after offence was registered. There was a potential for reputational damage to labour party because he was (IIRC) involved heavily in it at a policy level. Perhaps an investigation was warranted but it should have been a moot point because KL should have backed down, taken the hit for the party by apologising / withdrawing his comments. Plus I don't like the guy. As someone said a London oddity really does sum him up.[/quote]
I am not defending him, dont know him, like you i think he is a bit strange. I think your view though a bit naive: it seems there is a deliberate attempt to reinterpret KL in a hostile way. Thats the story really.. About excessive crying wolf by Jewish groups and others. That is needed to put the witch hunt in the Labour party into perspective? I gave 2 examples of people in positions of influence whose words I could quote where you could see the hostile interpretation at work. Earlier I gave a reference to the Jewish Times that was the same. As for Baddiel ( a comedian and also a writer for the Guardian ) well he was referred to by Gaby Hinsliff former political editor of the Observer now working for the Guardian, and clearly thus agreed with him, so some in a postions of influence takes him seriously: if these characters were just people down the pub it wouldnt matter, but they are more than that. I am puzzled that they seem so stupid, I must be brighter than them and I didnt go to Oxbridge
The other point is deflection. You're deflecting attention from Kl to those who criticised him. Those reporting or giving their opinion on what he said (yes, what he said that he could easily have not said or have put a better, less offensive way) get criticised by you. This matter isn't about what David Baddiel said. It's about what KL said. Defend what he said, but deflection through criticising his critics for what they say is not strictly relevant.
Personally I have no time for hearing what a nearly has been comedian has to say. I do have an interest in what politicians say and what significant people in the main political parties have to say. I also have an interest in what you have to say about KL, his comments, subsequent suspension, investigation and eventual resignation from the Labour Party. What is your view on those?
I'll make my view clear. I don't think they were a significant anti-semitic comment of indeed at all I think they were very badly chosen comments and unwise of him to say them in public. I also think he should have apologised straight after offence was registered. There was a potential for reputational damage to labour party because he was (IIRC) involved heavily in it at a policy level. Perhaps an investigation was warranted but it should have been a moot point because KL should have backed down, taken the hit for the party by apologising / withdrawing his comments. Plus I don't like the guy. As someone said a London oddity really does sum him up.[/quote]
I am not defending him, dont know him, like you i think he is a bit strange. I think your view though a bit naive: it seems there is a deliberate attempt to reinterpret KL in a hostile way. Thats the story really.. About excessive crying wolf by Jewish groups and others. That is needed to put the witch hunt in the Labour party into perspective? I gave 2 examples of people in positions of influence whose words I could quote where you could see the hostile interpretation at work. Earlier I gave a reference to the Jewish Times that was the same. As for Baddiel ( a comedian and also a writer for the Guardian ) well he was referred to by Gaby Hinsliff former political editor of the Observer now working for the Guardian, and clearly thus agreed with him, so some in a postions of influence takes him seriously: if these characters were just people down the pub it wouldnt matter, but they are more than that. I am puzzled that they seem so stupid, I must be brighter than them and I didnt go to Oxbridge
Re: Ken Livingstone has left the labour party
mercalia wrote:Cyril Haearn wrote:Who is Ken Livingstone?
twice mayor of London( beating the labour candidate ) and long standing mp. introduced the congestion charge and oyster cards in London. Vehement critic of tony Blair. Achieved the 2012 summer olympics bid and ushering in a major redevelopment of the city's East End,
Characterised as "the only truly successful left-wing British politician of modern times" until Corbyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone
If I remember correctly, the so called "Boris Bikes" were actually Livingstone's idea but he lost his position of mayor before it could be implemented. Buffoon Boris just inherited the scheme. If Red Ken has left the Labour party I'm not surprised - who would want to belong to a party that had Dianne Abbott in it?