In 2000, a fiercely independent Ken Livingstone became the first Mayor of Greater London, with an ambitious vision for the future of the city. His tenure has been eventful: congestion charging, media spats, clashes with the government and, in a single week, a successful Olympic bid followed by a horrific terrorist attack. So are we still in thrall to him? Or is the capital feeling the seven-year itch? As Ken prepares to fight to keep his job next May, we look back at his successes and failures and ask our jury of Londoners if he’s worthy of re-election
What do you think of Ken Livingstone's record? Have your say
Hear what out expert witnesses have to say about Ken Livingstone
Read Ken's response to the verdict
Transport
The case for The Congestion Charge has been a resounding success. It has reduced congestion by 20 per cent, generated revenues of around £122 million a year – which have been invested back into transport improvements – and cut CO₂ emissions within the congestion zone by some 16 per cent. London is now regarded as an archetype for urban transport schemes across the world. As a result of the Charge, bus travel has boomed, with up to 6 million people using buses on some days.
Livingstone has also secured funds for Crossrail (the high-speed east-west link running right across the city), which will expand London’s public transport capacity by 10 per cent. He is undertaking a massive refurbishment of the tube, including the extension of the East London line, upgrades of the Jubilee Line and DLR and the recent takeover of the North London Line. Since 2000 there has also been a 72 per cent increase in the number of cyclists on the roads.
The case against The Congestion Charge has damaged business in central London. In 2004, John Lewis calculated that the Charge had resulted in a 5.52 per cent drop in sales at its Oxford Street store. The £16 billion needed to fund Crossrail means that at least three other major projects are likely to be put on ice, including the extension of the Croydon tram link to Crystal Palace and the proposed Docklands Light Railway route linking Barking Riverside and Dagenham. London’s fares continue to be the most expensive in the world. And, of course, many Londoners have still not forgiven Livingstone for ditching the beloved Routemaster buses in 2005.
Our jury’s verdict ‘The Mayor is no expert on transport and it is a socialist dream that does not work. His policies have failed singularly.’
Alan Fleming
Our jury’s vote Has Ken’s transport policy been a success? FOR 5, AGAINST 7
Policing
The case for Crime is falling in London: over the last five years, the rate has dropped by the equivalent of one in six crimes. Crime fell by 6.1 per cent this year alone. Since 2002, police numbers have increased by 22 per cent, and 3,700 police community support officers have been added. Since 2004, violent crime has fallen by 10 per cent, murders by 11 per cent, and sexual offences by 14 per cent.
The case against Londoners don’t feel safe on the streets. There were 1,825 gun-related crimes between April and September 2007, up 162 on the same period last year. Youth crime on buses has shot up by 55 per cent since the introduction of free bus travel for under-16-year-olds. Meanwhile, some believe that the Mayor’s support of Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair over the De Menezes shooting is misguided.
Our jury’s verdict ‘The average person is far more affected by anti-social behaviour than serious crime, regardless of what the figures say for the latter. Zero tolerance for anti-social behaviour and petty crime in New York encouraged people to take greater care of their city and I think the same needs to be done in London.’Tristan Chapple
Our jury’s vote Have Ken’s policies on policing been a success? FOR 5, AGAINST 7
Planning
The case for The Mayor’s target of 50 per cent of affordable homes for all new residential developments has greatly improved the housing situation for those on lower incomes and key workers (such as nurses and teachers). In September, Livingstone pledged to build 50,000 new homes by 2011, increasing the number of affordable homes by 50 per cent and doubling the number for affordable rent. Ken’s affinity for skyscrapers reflects his belief in solving housing problems by building densely, and his desire to embrace technological and architectural innovations to maintain London’s status as a leading modern city.
The case against Ken is in thrall to big developers, who have not made ‘affordable housing’ genuinely affordable. He has failed to enforce his own affordability policies: for example, he has approved a new tower at Coin Street on the South Bank with no provisions for affordable housing. The Mayor’s fetish for tall buildings will harm historic views of the Tower of London and the Houses of Parliament. And he has caused disappointment over many other planning issues, including the waving-through of the vast King’s Cross project in the face of huge community opposition.
Our jury’s verdict ‘It is good that he is trying to provide affordable housing for the people of London. Londoners on cleaners’ wages cannot afford mortgages, and often find it difficult to afford rents. Most of us only earn the minimum wage and have to work very long hours, or even do two full-time jobs to make ends meet.’ Janet Obadele
Our jury’s vote Have Ken’s planning policies been a success? FOR 7, AGAINST 5
Welfare
The case for The Mayor has inaugurated a London Skills and Employment Board, which is tackling unemployment and skills shortages and aims to provide 75,000 jobs to Londoners by 2012. He is the first politician to endorse a London Living Wage, which stipulates that the minimum wage for Londoners should be £7.20 per hour, well above the national minimum of £5.35. He has also set up a commission to tackle child poverty.
The case against Despite Livingstone’s platitudes on reducing inequality, the real divide for most Londoners is transport costs: while the Mayor’s Oyster card is fine for the middle classes, it has become a burden for the poor, who pay by cash as and when they need it. His support of business and the City has meant that some local communities have felt marginalised in the name of large-scale development.
Our jury’s verdict ‘We live in a free market economy; provided measures are in place to avoid illegal exploitation, I don’t see that it’s anyone’s business to impose a minimum London wage. Such a move would result in a large loss of jobs as small businesses cannot afford to pay artificially high wages.’ Tristan Chapple
Our jury’s vote Have Ken’s welfare policies been a success? FOR 8, AGAINST 4
Character
The case for In the aftermath of the July 2005 bombings, Livingstone was a hugely impressive leader. He pulled the capital together and promoted unity in the months that followed. His unscripted speech in Singapore (where he had been celebrating the successful Olympic bid) was a powerful and moving encapsulation of how Londoners felt. A world city such as London needs a Mayor who is not afraid to say what he thinks; some would argue that it is his maverick personality that gets things done.
The case against The Mayor’s colourful private life and controversial outbursts – he has compared President Bush to Hitler, and said the Saudi royals should be hung – are arguably not appropriate for the leader of a world city. He upset large sections of the gay and lesbian community with his embrace of the Islamic cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (who supports the stoning of homosexuals and beating of ‘errant’ wives), as well as the Jewish community when he told the Reuben brothers, a pair of Indian-born Jewish property developers, that they should ‘go back to see if they can do better under the ayatollahs’. These remarks, coupled with the incident where he compared a Jewish Evening Standard reporter to a concentration-camp guard, have led to accusations of anti-Semitism which he denies.
Our jury’s verdict ‘He is who he is. It was us who voted him in – outbursts and all.’ Naima Abdillahi
Our jury’s vote Has Ken shown that he has the right character to be Mayor of London? FOR 5, AGAINST 7
Foreign policy
The case for Livingstone’s ‘oil for advice’ deal with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez will see a 20 per cent reduction in the price of fuel for public transport – a saving of up to £16m a year for London buses. This will mean half-price travel for over 250,000 poor Londoners. Ken’s links to the emerging economies of China, Russia and India (he has ‘embassies’ in Shanghai and Beijing and plans to open two more in Delhi and Mumbai) are part of his global vision for the city.
The case against His fêting of Hugo Chávez during his state visit here in 2006 begs the question: why should public money be lavished on one of Latin America’s last dictatorships? When Livingstone recently visited Caracas to meet Chávez, the president cancelled the meeting due to lack of time, an embarrassing snub and further waste of taxpayers’ money. The oil deal itself is questionable; it means that one of the poorest countries in the world is effectively subsidising transport in one of the richest. Similarly, with an eye to Chinese investment, Livingstone has brushed aside China’s human-rights abuses, saying of Chinese leaders, ‘No country has a perfect record.’
Our jury’s verdict ‘There seems to be a lot of public money spent on the Mayor and his entourage travelling abroad.’ Margaret Claire McCall
Our jury’s vote Have Ken’s foreign policy decisions been a success? FOR 3, AGAINST 9
Culture
The case for Culture in London has blossomed under the Mayor: the Olympics has a strong cultural element (the Cultural Olympiad), which will encompass a year-long cultural programme. The staging of the Tour de France was also a major coup. The Mayor has pedestrianised the north side of Trafalgar Square, greatly enhancing its appeal, and barely a week goes by without a cultural celebration in the square itself, encompassing everything from Diwali festivities to an annual Russian fair. He has also funded art centres such as Rich Mix in East London and fought cuts threatening the Battersea Arts Centre earlier this year.
The case against The Olympics will divert £160m from Lottery heritage and arts projects between 2009 and 2012. An alternative view of some of his investments is that he has poured money into over-inflated New Labour-style projects (such as Rich Mix), which have yet to deliver the sort of high-quality arts programming they originally promised.
Our jury’s verdict ‘I think he has done a decent job here, London certainly feels more culturally vibrant than it did ten years ago.’ Tristan Chapple
Our jury’s vote Have Ken’s culture policies been a success? FOR 7, AGAINST 5 
Diversity
The case for The Mayor has been a vocal supporter of gay rights: he launched the first ever Partnerships Register in the UK, which eventually led to the Civil Partnership Act, has long supported the annual Pride march, and criticised the stance taken by Moscow’s mayor following attacks on gay protesters on a march in May. Following the July 2005 bombings, his call for unity emphasised the ethnic make-up of the city and he has repeatedly called for an end to Islamophobia, setting up a new campaign group earlier this year to tackle the issue. He has also worked on improving access for disabled Londoners. Thanks to the Mayor the capital now boasts a wealth of culturally diverse festivals ranging from the Liberty festival in Trafalgar Square, which focuses on disability, to the Rise anti-racism event in the summer.
The case against Critics say the Mayor has a ‘tick-box’ mentality when it comes to relations with the capital’s minority communities, staging tokenist events in Trafalgar Square and spouting race-friendly soundbites. His embrace of the cleric al-Qaradawi could be seen as insensitive to the complexities of multiculturalism. And he disappointed many in the Muslim communities with his backing for the police officers involved in the ill-fated Forest Gate raid and his support for the officers who shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Our jury’s verdict ‘He is far too PC for my liking – he has a tick box mentality that works overtime.’ Ranil Jayawardena
Our jury’s vote Have Ken’s policies on diversity been a success? FOR 7, AGAINST 4, UNDECIDED 1
The Olympics
The case for The Mayor was the driving force behind the capital’s successful 2012 Olympic bid, promising that the Games will deliver a massive regeneration package for east London including investment of over £17bn on transport projects, the creation of up to 50,000 new jobs, the construction of 3,600 apartments, increased sporting and leisure facilities and the development of Stratford town centre.
The case against One word sums up the anger of many Londoners towards the Olympics: cost. And the annual £20 rise in council tax they will have to stomach to fund it. The original budget of £2.4bn has now been bumped up to a whopping £9.3bn. Although the Mayor has contested that figure with the government, it nevertheless reflects the confusion and bad planning that surrounded the original Olympic budget. There are also concerns that the development could turn into another white elephant like the Millennium Dome. In addition, there is resentment over the relocation of travellers and gypsies from their sites, the destruction of 100-year-old allotments, the uprooting of businesses and broken promises to relocate the Eastway cyclists.
Our jury’s verdict ‘Although the money spent will be over the original budget, I think it will be regenerative. I would hope that some of the money could come from business and industry.’ Margaret Claire McCall
Our jury’s vote Has Ken’s Olympic policy been a success? FOR 10, AGAINST 2
The environment
The case for The Congestion Charge has already reduced carbon emissions in the heart of the city by an estimated 16 per cent, but Livingstone is planning to cut the capital’s CO₂ by 60 per cent by 2025, a far more ambitious target than that set by government. London is also refitting its public buildings next year to bring them up to environmental standards. Ken is also the first major politician to challenge the aviation industry. In 2008, he will introduce Britain’s first low-emission zone, which will ban heavy goods vehicles across much of central London.
The case against The Mayor’s backing of a controversial £450m motorway-scale bridge over the Thames in east London will increase traffic and emissions and – say Friends of the Earth, the Greens and locals – cause environmental problems for some of the poorest communities in London. In addition, the 2012 Olympics have been dubbed the ‘greenest Olympics ever’, but houses in the Olympic village will use less renewable energy than other new homes in the capital.
Our jury’s verdict ‘The Congestion Charge is a tax on car use, not pollution, as it doesn’t discriminate between a car that belches out fumes and one that does 60 miles to the gallon.’ Tristan Chapple
Our jury’s vote Has Ken’s environmental policy been a success? FOR 7, AGAINST 5
The final verdict
Our jury said Ken had been a success in six of the ten policy areas we put to them, and unsuccessful in four. So the final verdict goes in favour of the Mayor: Ken is fit to be re-elected next year.
Hear what out expert witnesses have to say about Ken Livingstone
Our jury was selected from a representative cross-section of Londoners. Two of them have asked for their names to be changed. The Mayor’s response to the court’s findings will be published exclusively in Time Out next week. Have your say below.
|
|
|
|
46 comments
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.
1 2 3 4