London

The man is unable to add up. Unable to comprehend what a 'slur' means when addressing others. Unable to listen to Londoners views. Unable to see past a bicycle or death trap 'bndy-buses' which block up roads. And on top of all that give a drugs cheat the flag to carry - what a guy!

Ken Livingstone is doing a good job and shows tremendous tenacity and courage in the face of continuous media smears and inuendo.

Get a grip people Ken is making a real go at improving London. For years transport in London just plodded on with no investment in the underground or buses. You cannot just expect to leave things as they are with an ever increasing population. People still hark on about the route master buses. No, no, no! I don't see many people driving 1967 ford cortina's, why should I have to travel on old forms of public transport. My point is someone has to make changes (which not everyone will like) in order to keep London moving. Forget Boris.

Its disappointing to see Time Out repeat the lies prevalent in the rest of the corporate mass media saying that Chavez is a dictator. Having won 11 elections and referendums(recognised as free/fair by international observers) he counts as the most democratically accountable leader in the world.

He is a terrible leader. He should not be supporting dictators (yes, dictators) in Venezuela, all the while representing Londoners including myself. For those that do not believe Chavez is trying to become leader-for-life, please wake up! Maybe as a Latin American, I have a slightly more complete view of what is going on there than most of his middle-class European supporters. In any case, Livingstone is the shame of London and I will even vote for Boris just to rid myself of the shame.

I do not like Mr Livingstone. He strikes me as a man out of his depth and out of sync with the true nature of London problems. He also comes across as more and more arrogant every time I see him being interviewed. Frankly, I am beginning to despise him.
I travel to work every day by underground from zone 3 to zone 1. For the pleasure of travelling in overcrowded trains, with frequent delays and breakdowns, I pay about 10 per cent of my take home pay. (Travelling by bus is not an option as it would take me approximately two hours each way). I have never understood why we Londoners put up with the most expensive travel system in the world, which offers such a poor service.
London is dirty, smelly, overcrowded and over-rated. And what does Mr Livingstone want to do? Increase the density of the capital so that there are more of us travelling on the same overcrowded tubes!

London is still congested
It's deliberate : lights are badly phased for main roads, bus lanes are always empty (and why do we need 24/7 bus lanes) and we have empty buses and heaving tubes. we remember Ken from the old GLC days, he was useless then and he's useless now. one of the great mysteries is : who voted for him?

Ken you believe his luck? The slippery old reptile has got the lives of 99 cats with 999 lives each, and then some. First he gets the sympathy vote back in 2000 as underdog and outsider when Tony Blair tries to rig the election in favour of Frank Dobson, an honourable man who I think would have made a decent stab as a responsible and listening Mayor. No mention of a whacking £5 charge, run from Coventry, with rigidly administered punitive penalties and a narrow window of opportunity to pay.
Then he gets in, and shows us just how anti-congestion he is. All westward routes avoiding Soho and the Marylebone Road are systematically closed off or rendered problematic. Howland St is carved up into single lane traffic, causing sluggish traffic and tailbacks. Bloomsbury St is closed off westwards altogether, an act of pure municipal vandalism. Borough planning departments are encouraged to close off streets and congestion escape routes all over the place, and those like Barnet that don’t comply find themselves on the receiving end of Livingstone’s legendary wrath, with vitriolic press releases and bullying threats of grant withdrawal. Legions of humps, chicanes, bans on left turns and pointless street-blocking architecture appear everywhere, at vast public expense and great addition to journey times. Traffic lights are fixed on red in all directions for the maximum percentage of cycle time that Ken thinks he can get away with. Not surprisingly, air quality deteriorates further. To which the not very bright Greens demand more anti-car measures, instead of looking at the evidence as to the source of the problem.
Then he comes up for re-election, and just as the C-charge comes up for its first electoral test the media get bored and decide, bizarrely, that the charge is a done deal and above politics. There is hardly a mention of it, and no main party standing for Mayor offers to scrap it, so electors once again are denied a clear choice to get rid of it. Media election coverage is personality-led, and very light on the specifics of the terrible things Ken has done to London’s potholed and obstacle-ridden streets. Ken enjoys a feast of press articles mostly either hedging their bets or declaring the Charge a success, without ever explaining what their criteria for success or failure are. But the journey times within the zone are barely improved in this period and those immediately outside the zone (nearly always ignored by the media) are significantly worsened.
I see Time Out’s ‘trail of Ken’ describing the charge as a ‘resounding’ success (no failure criteria being set out). So why is it that dozens of cities have sent emissaries to London to study its scheme and without exception decided emphatically they will NOT be copying it? A visiting Toronto councilor declared that there would be lights shining out of his butt before Toronto was faced with a scheme like London’s.
It’s tempting to explain this range of coverage by the fact that Ken employs (at our expense) more PR spinmeisters than either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, and maybe that does help him. But I suspect it’s mostly because so many hacks are lazy and just follow the rest of the pack, with little independent enquiry.
Then, more recently Ken extends the zone westwards against bitter hostility, imperially sweeping aside all opposition (even his own consultation produced a massive majority against). Now that he’s up for re-election again in 2008, this clear issue of character seems to be getting buried (eg Time Out’s trial of Ken). Well, I beg to differ. It’s payback time.
Christian Wolmar, the transport consultant, regards Ken’s politically-driven organisation, the laughably named ‘Transport’ ‘for’ London as ‘pretty effective’. At what – lining the pockets of civils contractors to remove road capacity on a massive scale and make the remaining lanes barely navigable? I am afraid I will now never again be able to take seriously anything Mr Wolmar writes on the subject of transport. . TfL reeks of anti-car ideological dogma permeating through it at every level. Its spin culture leads it to produce blatantly unbelievable forecasts. At a 2006 public meeting in Brent there were gasps of incredulity when a TfL spinner declared that TfL’s research was that giving Kensington & Chelsea residents a 90% discount to enter the original central zone would produce a 0% increase in traffic in that area. TfL budgets are also reported by insiders to be poorly controlled and there is a culture of throwing more money at problems to cover over mistakes arising from incompetence. And TfL fails on basic administration, eg a poor record of responding to Freedom of Information requests within the 20 day statutory period.
Putting Ken on trial was an excellent feature idea, but gave Ken a remarkably easy ride on the issue of character given all the controversy and nasty outbursts he’s been embroiled in (I know, I know, he still got a negative score). No mention of Ken's arrogant dismissal of all consultation evidence showing the unpopularity of the westward extension (what was it now - 76% against?), his frequent angry outbursts, reports of violence to his partner and the drunken party at which he pushed a man over a wall and pressurised colleagues to back his version. Nor his egotistical grandstanding on issues that are not his concern (statues, foreign policy, sexual politics) whilst avoiding the media on matters for which he is answerable. The day after the great London freeze-up in February 2003, BBC radio in London tried 5 times to get Ken to come to the air to explain why London had ground to a halt, only to be told dismissively by an aide that Ken was 'in a meeting' and was too busy to talk. 'That's your Mayor', said Jon Gaunt wearily after the fifth attempt was rebuffed.
From what I can gather, Ken’s key policy advisor appointments were not advertised. I don’t particularly mind the former International Marxist John Ross being Ken’s economics advisor for the lion’s share of £100,000 a year, provided he has beaten all comers in open competition based on his personal merit for the job. But did he? And are we getting value for our money? I recall that embarrassing matter, which I am sure Ken hopes we will forget, of Capita’s incompetent administration getting an extra-contractual £38m ransom payment to continue running the C-charge contract, because people didn’t do their sums properly the first time round.
Policy documents emanating from City Hall pressurise borough planning departments to discriminate against the car in all sorts of petty and spiteful ways. For example, planning permission for new build flats gets subject to riders that no parking places must be provided. This is not a solution to London's transport needs whilst car ownership remains a matter of individual free choice, but is stoking up further problems and adding to the stress of urban life. The crucial point is that Ken has no mandate to do this, but is doing it anyway. He threatened to withdraw over £1m of grant from Barnet because he didn't like its transport and planning policies, even though they have proved far more successful than his own.
Whatever aspect of Ken’s operations you care to look at, there tends to be a much stronger whiff of Tammany Hall than Trevelyan. Readers might care to put this to the test themselves, by going to City Hall and seeing first hand how their capital is governed. If they even get in, that is. Most town halls in Britain hold open meetings and publish all the minutes in display racks in the foyer, usually with a graphical display of forthcoming committees. Not City Hall, where transparency stops at the building exterior. Visitors are grilled by puzzled and alarmed security officials unused to voter attendance, and requests for a list of forthcoming meetings are met dismissively with “it’s at the printers”.
London needs a Mayor genuinely committed to getting traffic flowing again with a non discriminatory transport policy serving all user types and offering drivers a diversity of available routes. A listening Mayor that will respond to public views, put aside dogma and try to influence boroughs to behave responsibly in their parking enforcement. A Mayor that will try to improve street name signage (sadly neglected, and a further hurdle to the driver seeking to navigate London’s often complicated routes safely without holding up other traffic and adding to congestion). An ethical Mayor that will not pick and choose his own chums to lucrative appointments but advertise all his appointments in open competition, chosen on objective criteria. A responsible Mayor that will not waste Londoners’ money on PR staff (Ken has more than the Prime Minister) and pointless poster campaigns telling tube users that the tube is theirs (Our Money – His Propaganda). A Mayor that will scrap the greedy, vindictive and inefficient congestion charge. There is no such candidate among the three main parties, so megalomaniac King Newt is once again set to walk in to office and do as he pleases. Truly, he enjoys the lives of 99 cats with 999 lives each.
And what is the response of Time Out readers to Ken’s dismal record in office? They mostly confine their attentions to Hugo Chavez - London’s governance apparently having no problems of note whatsoever. Lucky, lucky old reptile; it’s not just the journalists that are the walking dead.

No Expert Witness on Policing. Why no Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty or Deborah Coles from Inquest or Frances Crook from The Howard League?

No reference to the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, which Ken has shrugged off as mere "collateral damage" in the fight against terrorism, even including the table leg-carrying Harry Stanley in one interview where he was doing this Rumsfeld/Cheney impersonation.

The arse-wipe Evening Standard doesn't like Sir Ian Blair. Ken thinks that anybody it attacks must be an OK bloke to be defended. Wrong, and doubly wrong when it leads our Ken to support the only person outside Government who thinks 28 days detention without charge isn't nearly enough."

A public apology is called for over the Chavez blunder!

Why is Time Out calling Venezuela a dictatorship? Venezuela is a free country and has regular elections. Last week the government lost a referendum and the president immediately conceeded defeat and congratulated the winners!
Telling lies to your readers is just plain wrong. Time Out - you should be ashamed of yourselves. Your news editor hasn't even had the common decency to apologise!
As you appear to have no journalistic integrity whatsoever, I for one am never buying your magazine again. Well done Time Out, you have just lost a loyal reader of over 20 years standing.

giving the poor property rights would give them a 'firewall' of protection against the evil of slavery this was put to livingstone and he demurred (so did johnston)-so c50000 slaves in uk -TODAY

Here you go.This was in the New York times today just to show you what we mean.
It's from a completely biased article called 'Authoritarians In The Andes'.
'..Their (Morales' and Correa's) efforts have already weakened the checks and balances necessary for democracy'.
Morales has a national vote of around 60%.It has fluctuated between the mid 50s and the high 60s.He has called a constituent assembly to turn Bolivia into a country where white politicians cannot get away with selling huge swathes of land to their equally corrupt friends in business for less than 1 Bolivian peso (7p) per hectare.Some of the people with this land include family members of those leading the 'Autonomy' campaign against the government, strangely enough.
'Mr. Morales and Mr. Correa were given mandates for social change. Their avowed goal to address social inequities is laudable, but they — like Mr. Chávez — appear increasingly interested in grabbing power for themselves'.
Morales has already halved his government's salary and abolished his own pension as he said too many corrupt ex Presidents were insulting a country they had already exploited whilst in office by claiming the money.
Quite how he is 'grabbing power for himself' as opposed to trying to implement his political vision is not explained.Presumably the Americans reading this are too stupid to question these assumptions as the paper is widely read.
It appears that anyone who doesn't put the interests of the US above their own nation is a 'regional threat', does it not?
'Bolivia seems fast approaching the brink of a social precipice.'
No mention here made of the armed fascist gangs in Santa Cruz who bus it up to Andean towns like Cochabamba to help the whites out beating the shit out of the 'niggers'.Because undoubtedly they are, as has been shown to be the case in all other latin conflicts in living memory, trained up by elements within the Pentagon and CIA and then let back onto home turf to create havoc.They broke open a prison a couple of weeks back to let the criminals out onto the street.
What do you think?
Is this social protest of coordinated attempt to destabilise a society with panic?
I've seen them.It is depressingly obvious what is happening there.
But no mention of this for the righteous American readership, of course.
'A rump constitutional assembly — convening in a military garrison with only three opposition delegates present — approved a first draft of the plan last month'.
The Constituent Assmbly got 75% support in a referendum.
White rightwingers, with the help of the US ambassador, immediately set about rubbishing it and numerous spoiler tactics have subsequently been used in order to discredit it.
The reason it is currently being held in a protected army garrison is because rightwing mobs - probably the same people that left a bomb outside TV Boliviana offices in Santa Cruz as well as going around threatening anyone they suspect of being a 'traitor' i.e. government supporter, went to Sucre to attack the parliament building where the Assembly was being held.They tried to burn it down.They managed to kill one of the lawmakers and lynch a policeman. There was no mention of the swastikas that the BBCs Lola Almudevar said were present amongst anti-Morales demonstrators.
I wonder what the average New Yorker would think of them then?
Are you starting to see what you're getting into?

I understand what you're saying, but understand this:
in South America over the last 10 years, the election of progressive governments has led to massive US govt. sponsored and managed propaganda campaigns helped, and even effected by, sections of what are supposedly professional and impartial journalists.
When I lived in Bolivia I saw reportage on a daily basis that would have seen UK statiions taken off the air.What I have seen and heard of those in Venezuela makes the covert operations in Bolivia look like child's play.
The US govt is currently spending around $20 million a year in the country.Most ends up in anti-Chavez coffers.See Eva Golinger's book.
So the News Editor's probably not a liar, she's hardly guilty of thievery from what I can see, and I can't be bothered calling her a traitor because that implies she took some kind of a risk and she probably hasn't even got the bollocks to speak her mind at a dinner party.
She is probably just a lazy minded middle class townie wondering where her next promotion is coming from.
Unfortunately she chose to cover a serious topic so she came unstuck.See below.

The case against Time Out's news editor, Rebecca Taylor:
"Why is Time Out lavishing their money on a journalist who invents facts and doesn't do basic research before going into print?"
This is the case against. It's fair comment. It's based on the facts. And it isn't libelous.
Now, if I was a disciple of the Rebecca Taylor school of journalism (which I most certainly am not), I would put the case against her like this:
"Why is Time Out lavishing their money on a journalist who is a convicted criminal and a thief?"
Were I to say this, Time Out would rightly refuse to print it on the grounds that the allegation that Rebecca is a thief and a criminal was completely false, and probably libelous. This isn't a "case against" Rebecca at all. It's just a straightforward LIE.
Yet that is EXACTLY what Rebecca has done to Chavez when she writes:
"...why should public money be lavished on one of Latin America’s last dictatorships?"
So please stop bullshitting Rebecca, and apologise.