Ken Livingstone on trial
-
Compiled by Rebecca Taylor. Illustrations Harriet Buckley. Icons Sim Greenaway
Posted: Tue Dec 4 2007 -
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 COâ‚‚ 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.AdvertisementLivingstone 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 COâ‚‚ 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.- Add your comment to this feature
|
|
More ways to enjoy Time Out
-
Weekly London newsletter
The best of London in your inbox
-
Time Out Widgets
|
|
46 comments
"Chavez is a dictator" - says Time Out.
What unbelievable rubbish! Chavez has won 12 elections and referendums, certified free and fair by election observers from the European Union, the OAS, and even by Jimmy Carter, the former president of the USA.
Whoever wrote this nonsense is either monumentally stupid, or is deliberately lying.
Either way, Time Out should publish a full apology to its readers for making this unfounded slur. If not, you have just lost one loyal reader who has been buying your publication for over 20 years.
What an embarrassment the jury piece: Ken Livingstone on trial
You've repeated a ridiculous lie about Venezuelan democracy. Since when did dictatorships hold referendums on constitutional rights - and lose them?
Surely a dictatorship a) would not hold elections or b) would fix the result? What poor standards have you fallen to, slurring a country like this, and reproducing such glaringly ignorant comments?
American invasions and so-called 'regime changes' have been based on similar lies in the past. We all know the horrendous results of the invasion of Iraq - much of the media reproduced those lies then (WMD & Al Quada in Iraq, 40 minutes till Armageddon etc)...
You should be more responsible. You owe an apology to owe us Londoners - as you claim to speak in our name in this article pretending to be holding Mayor on trial - and the people of Venezulea who elected the so-called dictator in free and fair elections - as outside observers all agreed - consistently since 1998...
I'll be leaving your magazine on the shelf next time if this is how you continue.
"why should public money be lavished on one of Latin America’s last dictatorships?" - this is incredibly poor journalism, I suggest their reporters work a little harder and do their research before writing an article like this. Absolutely terrible.
If Time Out's going to venture into the world of foreign policy, it really should check its facts carefully.
To describe Venezuela any time in decade or so as a dictatorship is plain misinformed: Chavez is a re-elected, extremely popular leader who successfully resisted a US-backed coup,
Furthermore, to describe Venezuela as a dictatorship in the very week that Chavez gracefully accepted defeat in a referendum is positively comical.
Hugo Chavez is a beacon of democracy in Latin America. How on earth can you call someone who repeatedly goes to the polls a dictator? It's brainless - a desperate attempt to smear a leader who governs in the interests of the poor, not the rich. I echo those calling for Time Out to publish a more factual article to make up for this nonsense.
As for "China's human rights abuses", China is squeaky clean compared to the West, which has killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East, set up Guantanamo Bay, etc. LIvingstone is completely right to have relations with the fastest-growing economy on the planet - he'd be failing as Mayor if he didn't.
As for talking to Muslim leaders respected by their own community, it would be a betrayal of his duties as Mayor, especially after 7/7, not to engage positively with the Muslim community. It's called dialogue. Furious anti-Muslim attacks achieve nothing. They belong to the pro-war and racist camps and civilised people should reject them utterly.
There's no way a Thatcherite like Johnson would deliver what Livingstone has delivered.
I have recently read the feature 'Ken: the trial' (TO1946).
Whilst it is very clear that TimeOut are making a case for and against Ken Livingstone as Mayor and therefore are reporting the extremes of the arguments for and against, it is also important to be accurate.
I am particularly referring to the section on Foreign Policy. In the case for TimeOut is right to point out the oil deal is in exchange for advice.
However in the case against TimeOut uses much more elaborate language and refers to the 'feting of Hugo Chavez...lavished public money...Latin America's last dictatorships'
This is just not true. Chavez was elected President of venezuela originally in 1998. Since then he has been democratically re-elected twice and won a referendum on whether he should remain in power and other referenda on his policies, including a new constitution for Venezuela. He has also lost an election recently in a referenda to propose new changes to the current constitution and has accepted the result. This can hardly be the action of a dictatorship and TimeOut is totally wrong to report it as such.
I hope you will be printing a correction in the next issue.
Londoners have repeatedly re-elected Ken because they think he is doing a good job.
This isn't a 'representative cross-section of Londoners', some of them - like Nick Cohen - make a living out of attacking Ken!
The idea that Ken hasn't been a success on transport is risible. His success in increasing bus use, and congestion charging make him a world leader in fighting climate change.
in light of yesterdays developments it would seem the wasteful bluster of a man who has no experience of running a large organisation successfully has come home to roost...idealism is fine if its of benefit to Londoners,but the costing of £6 out of the £8 it charges each individual to run the c.charge is naive in its business acumen ..certainly weighed against any benefit of it being implemented....and £280 million on bendy buses that even Ken admitted were a mistake which we are now lumped with,as well as hardly anyone bothering to pay on board with an oyster or otherwise due to their ridiculous design...hows this a success ? route one idiocy
Why is the Green Party candidate for Mayor an 'expert witness' but not serious candidates like Boris Johnson or even Brian Paddick?
Amusing to see the usual apologists for Chavez pop up when someone dares criticise him and his useful idiots in Europe (i.e. Livingstone et al).
Here goes again...
Employing journalists as 'foreign affairs specialists' who describe Chavez' government as 'one of Latin America's last dictatorships' is not a good sign.
This is the kind of 'white propaganda' agencies such as USAID, CIA and NED employ to soften up targets before bombing and shooting the shit out of them, as they tried to do to Chavez in 2002.
As they tried to do in Bolivia last year against Evo Morales' socialist government which I saw first hand.It was disgusting.
Anyone who wants to know what a horrible, paranoid dictator Chavez is, should firstly look up the word 'caracazo' on Google and then download the film 'The War On Democracy' by John Pilger.
In fact, perhaps the ignorant yahoo you appear to have accidentally employed as a political journalist might care to educate herself on the matter.
She might also want to take a look at the kind of things the late Lola Almudevar was posting to the BBC from Bolivia to see how a real journalist works.
If my first submission came through, apologies.I thought it was lost in the ether.
For Time Out to call Chavez 'Latin america's last dictator' is an outrageous slur and is a worthy companion to the copious amounts of CIA and NED propaganda that have long flooded the North and South American media and are now belatedly apapearing in the British media.The last election saw Chavez get 63% of the Presidential vote.
Admittedly, it's not as good as Bush, who got a full 30% (bear in mind these are American votes, so they're worth more than Venezuelan ones), but it's still not bad.
Time Out should clarify such an outrageous slur forthwith.
Yes, the comment about Hugo Chavez was outrageous - only this Sunday he lost a referendum on constitutional changes - dictators dont tend to have votes, let alone lose them!
What a pathetic 'case against' on transport, compared to the 'case for'. How can the 'jury' come up with its negative verdict?
The same applies for policing. Criticised for spending money on travel abroad when it is saving millions for Londoners. Where is the justice in that? As for character, he has a strong one to put up with all this unjust and often untrue flak as a reward for the excellent job he is doing.
This feature article is distorting Ken's numerous achievements.
It is quite shocking that the panel (which doesn't appear to me to be representative of all Londoners) can find Ken's transport policies wanting. It wasn't such a long time ago that one never knew whether a bus would turn up at all! I recall waiting in excess of an hour for a particular bus and not just once, on a regular basis. I now gave up my car and am very happy to use the buses.
On Ken's international stance, again, it is quite incredible that the panel finds against Ken: he has been consistently against the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, a friend of the Palestinian people all of his political life, and supported the Lebanese people when their country was being bombed to rubble.
What is most disgraceful about the feature however, are the lies about Venezuela and President Chavez. Here is a President has won eleven elections with overwhelming support from his majority poor electorate (not what a dictator would do, or you have a weird definition of what a dictator is), who has transformed Venezuela from a country where corruption and privilege for the few condemned 80% of the population to abject conditions of living. Today, Venezuela has 100% literacy, millions of people who had never seen a doctor in their lives have access to free medical care and their standards of living are rising thanks to the use of the oil wealth for their benefit. How is Ken wrong in supporting such a country and its President? Your article's lies about Venezuela and Chavez are cheap lies which have been demonstrated to be pure propaganda and tendentious reporting time and time again. More is expected from Time Out than your descent into gutter journalism.
As for Ken's invitation to Sheikh Qaradawi, your comments demonstrate how little your journalist knows about Qaradawi and how he is considered a moderate voice in Islam. His backward views on gay people are no more reactionary than the Pope's and Ken obviously will not unite with Qaradawi on that question. But as all major politicians must do, Ken is open to a dialogue with people such as Qaradawi on other issues that concern hundreds of thousands of Muslim Londoners.