# Mayor 2012:  Livingstone edges in front of Johnson



## London_Calling (Jan 19, 2012)

I found this an interesting read. Last time around conventional wisdom - and the data - suggested Ken won inner London with an increased maj, but Johnson won the suburbs even more convincingly.  This article may or may not contradict that but, at the very least, it's a different take:


> Labour's Ken Livingstone has overtaken Boris Johnson in the race for this year's London mayoral election, after months in which the Conservative incumbent enjoyed a seemingly comfortable lead, according to a poll.
> 
> The YouGov survey put Livingstone – who served as mayor from 2000 to 2008 – on 51% against Johnson's 49% in a straight contest, suggesting a neck-and-neck finish for the election on 3 May.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/19/livingstone-johnson-london-mayor-poll


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 19, 2012)

All those Sack Boris Oyster card holders are swinging it for Ken.


----------



## Pseudopsycho (Jan 19, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> All those Sack Boris Oyster card holders are swinging it for Ken.


Don't live in London anymore but could you post me one please?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 19, 2012)

Pseudopsycho said:


> Don't live in London anymore but could you post me one please?



Have a look here.

http://www.sackboris2012.com/blog/sackboris-oyster-pics.html


----------



## Balbi (Jan 19, 2012)

Ken vs a Tory Government. He must be in newt heaven.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 19, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> All those Sack Boris Oyster card holders are swinging it for Ken.



Can I have one that says "Shoot Ken & Boris, oh yeah and that Paddick fella can go up against the wall too" please.


----------



## hipipol (Jan 19, 2012)

Maybe Clint could sort em out for us


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 19, 2012)

i wish to see a return to the glory days of keningrad because i don't think cockneys have been bad enough to deserve a total fucking fat clown like boris or a liberal nomark ex copper like paddick


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 19, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> All those Sack Boris Oyster card holders are swinging it for Ken.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 19, 2012)

If Ken concentrates on transport, he should walk it.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 20, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Have a look here.
> 
> http://www.sackboris2012.com/blog/sackboris-oyster-pics.html



I might have to get one of those.  

Must admit, I had come to think that Ken would be seen too much as 'yesterday's man' to beat Bojo, who isn't nearly as unpopular as he deserves to be.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  I certainly hope so.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2012)

In terms of avoiding it getting personal and shouty as between the two main protagonists (at least for now), I can't think Ken has anything else other than fares, plus it's worked for him in the past.

If that's so, he's obv. vulnerable as all his eggs are in the one basket. Just got to keep banging on about it and hope Johnson isn't able to distract.

I just don't know about these "droves" of former Miliband/Johnson voters (as mentioned in the article) - in relation to the 2008 analysis, where the hell did they come from....


----------



## flypanam (Jan 25, 2012)

But what has Boris got to trumpet? Apart from the Olympics which divides opinion and judging by the way the Jubilee line is running will be a transport nightmare.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2012)

Komrade Ken secured the olympics anyway, so the fat controller can't really boast


----------



## Santino (Jan 25, 2012)

Boris' heart might not even be in it. He might prefer to pick up a safe Commons seat in 2015 and challenge Dave for the leadership.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 25, 2012)

Santino said:


> Boris' heart might not even be in it. He might prefer to pick up a safe Commons seat in 2015 and challenge Dave for the leadership.



The Grauniad was reporting the other day that that might be exactly what's planned. He may well be parachuted into Reigate, apparently, where Crispin Blunt's coming out hasn't gone down too well. Johnson has denied he'll stand for parliament, but some Tory sources think otherwise. It is something that could potentially be used against Bojo - portraying him as disinterested in the city and only after the job to further his political ambitions - so let's hope someone does so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Can I have one that says "Shoot Ken & Boris, oh yeah and that Paddick fella can go up against the wall too" please.



Wouldn't it be better to say "shoot them all", just in case someone takes offence at you wanting to have Paddick up against a wall?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> The Grauniad was reporting the other day that that might be exactly what's planned. He may well be parachuted into Reigate, apparently, where Crispin Blunt's coming out hasn't gone down too well. Johnson has denied he'll stand for parliament, but some Tory sources think otherwise. It is something that could potentially be used against Bojo - portraying him as disinterested in the city and only after the job to further his political ambitions - so let's hope someone does so.



Johnson has long enjoyed playing the "I had to serve, I was called" approach, and I'm sure that a constituency association somewhere will be happy to conveniently "invite" him to replace a departing MP.
Personally, I can't see him *not* going for Parliament again, although as far as fulfilling the ultimate ambition of PM, I reckon there's perhaps too much adultery-related "dirt" that can be thrown at him to let him realise that one.


----------



## flypanam (Jan 26, 2012)

Eta I'm an idiot.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 26, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If Ken concentrates on transport, he should walk it.



Or Bendy bus it anyway.

For all Ken's manifest faults, that oxygen theiving insult to humanity Johnson needs to be driven out of elected office and into the river thames as soon as possible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2012)

This is it. Boris is a stain upon the soul of humanity & a fucking embarrassment of a mayoral figure. The rest of the world must be pissing themselves to see that destroyer of bargain buckets failing to rule london.

Then Paddick. What can we say about a man whose mouth is dwarfed by the rest of his face? A liberal who has a heart in the right place on a good day but ultimately is a piece of yellow filth.

Ken, I'm afraid represents the last best hope for London. He's like a scalier mandleson and is generally the sort of cunt you'd chuck on a bonfire (don't pretend you wouldn't, I'd push him straight into the flames) but compared to the other blokes he is a fucking messiah.

And he nearly pulled of an oil deal with chavez before the fat one scotched it. For that alone he deserves mad props and boris doesn't even deserve a trial.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 27, 2012)

I tell you, it's personality politics gorn mad.

I take the point Johnson's heart may not be entirely in it.


----------



## Garek (Jan 27, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If Ken concentrates on transport, he should walk it.



As much as I can't stand the old Stalinist his ability to improve public transport in the capital is second to none. Especially when it comes to broad, long term visions.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 27, 2012)

^ and getting all relevant agencies on board with genuine enthusiam. Stuff gets realised.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2012)

Garek said:


> As much as I can't stand the old Stalinist his ability to improve public transport in the capital is second to none. Especially when it comes to broad, long term visions.


 
Five year plans WORK garek, they fucking work.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 27, 2012)

Other than transport are most people's lives affected directly by any of Boris' decisions,   the GLA only do so much, an open question ?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 27, 2012)

Transport is the only real power that the Mayor has.


----------



## Garek (Jan 27, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Transport is the only real power that the Mayor has.



Which is why we need new a Local Government Act -1888, 1965, 2012(?)...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 27, 2012)

Whenever I see Paddick on telly, he still looks like a copper.


----------



## Maggot (Jan 27, 2012)

Doesn't the Mayor now run the Met police budget too?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 27, 2012)

I worked in news / current affairs across the last election. For all his sins Ken works very hard and is always right in the thick of things, and though very abrupt with the media, was very efficient. Boris barley knew anything about any of the issues we came to film him about. He really is a buffoon, I actually quite liked him as a bloke, but you don't want your funny idiot mate running the capitol. I can't stand him now, he was a joke before, but to be that dumb and hold onto such a serious position is not a laughing matter. His press officers are all over him constantly trying to stop him from saying something stupid, (something you don't get with Ken) He was always very happy to do the media thing but he quite clearly didn't really do much work. You never deal with Boris personally and it's quite clear he is not actually in charge.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2012)

Adam Bienkov has the goods on Bozza
http://www.adambienkov.com/2012/01/boris-johnsons-campaign-wastes-month-on.html


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 27, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I worked in news / current affairs across the last election. For all his sins Ken works very hard and is always right in the thick of things, and though very abrupt with the media, was very efficient. Boris barley knew anything about any of the issues we came to film him about. He really is a buffoon, I actually quite liked him as a bloke, but you don't want your funny idiot mate running the capitol. I can't stand him now, he was a joke before, but to be that dumb and hold onto such a serious position is not a laughing matter. His press officers are all over him constantly trying to stop him from saying something stupid, (something you don't get with Ken) He was always very happy to do the media thing but he quite clearly didn't really do much work. You never deal with Boris personally and it's quite clear he is not actually in charge.


I dislike his as much as anyone but in his 4 years as Mayor he has completely changed his game; a buffon was elected 4 years ago, I hope it fails to elect the far more accomplished and astute version he is now.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 27, 2012)

Certainly the assembly don't like his latest _*budget*_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Other than transport are most people's lives affected directly by any of Boris' decisions, the GLA only do so much, an open question ?



For some of us, public transport is a big deal. Boris scotched most of the accessibility plans for tube stations that were waiting to be signed off. If Ken gets them back on track, then over half a million mobility-impaired greater Londoners will be grateful to him. As it is, most of us have difficulty using the underground, what with less than a quarter of stations being accessible, and even less rolling stock.


----------



## starfish2000 (Feb 1, 2012)

Its not just that, I commute in and my Journey between Paddington & Kings X is getting Longer, its like the day to day of the tube has been given  up on.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2012)

starfish2000 said:


> Its not just that, I commute in and my Journey between Paddington & Kings X is getting Longer, its like the day to day of the tube has been given up on.


The underground is currently having its largest overhaul and injection of money in decades, but these things take time. By 2015, all the sub-surface trains will be new S stock and they can switch the timetables to reflect the greater acceleration and braking capability. When that happens you will see a step change in the Paddington KingsX journey time

ETA: Actually, the Circle and H&C hope to be all S Stock in time for the Olympics (the met is already done), so you should see improvement sooner than that.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For some of us, public transport is a big deal.



Sure I agree but is this election just going to be about transport issues big as they are ? Can anyone really point to other issues that Bojo has had a definite influence on.


----------



## Santino (Feb 1, 2012)

Has anyone seen those Metropolitan Line trains that you can walk all the way through? Madness.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I worked in news / current affairs across the last election. For all his sins Ken works very hard and is always right in the thick of things, and though very abrupt with the media, was very efficient. Boris barley knew anything about any of the issues we came to film him about. He really is a buffoon, I actually quite liked him as a bloke, but you don't want your funny idiot mate running the capitol. I can't stand him now, he was a joke before, but to be that dumb and hold onto such a serious position is not a laughing matter. His press officers are all over him constantly trying to stop him from saying something stupid, (something you don't get with Ken) He was always very happy to do the media thing but he quite clearly didn't really do much work. You never deal with Boris personally and it's quite clear he is not actually in charge.


Agree witrh all of this, and what is worse is that now that scumbag eddie lister has replaced the actually-quite-civilised-and-reasonable simon milton, it's got even worse


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For some of us, public transport is a big deal. Boris scotched most of the accessibility plans for tube stations that were waiting to be signed off. If Ken gets them back on track, then over half a million mobility-impaired greater Londoners will be grateful to him. As it is, most of us have difficulty using the underground, what with less than a quarter of stations being accessible, and even less rolling stock.


I'd add to that - just about every Londoner, and everyone who works in london, and isn't mr flash-the-cash petrolhead, is affected by public transport issues, one way and another


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Sure I agree but is this election just going to be about transport issues bit as they are. Can anyone really point to other issues that Bojo has had a definite influence on.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Authority#Powers_and_functions


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2012)

Maggot said:


> Doesn't the Mayor now run the Met police budget too?


yes, and the fire brigade. he also sets out planning and development policies for London, and has to submit a development plan to the GLA at the start of his term.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> yes, and the fire brigade. he also sets out planning and development policies for London, and has to submit a development plan to the GLA at the start of his term.


And the boroughs are legally bound to follow it. There's plenty that the mayor has no power over, but it's not a useless job by any means.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 1, 2012)

Crispy said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Authority#Powers_and_functions



Sure he has other powers, I suppose I'm thinking about public perception.


----------



## jakejb79 (Feb 1, 2012)

One of the best things Ken will do is bring back the zone 2-6 and zone 2-9 travelcard. I couldnt believe the fare would change from £5.60 to £11 after the travelcards were withdrawn.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2012)

Crispy said:


> And the boroughs are legally bound to follow it. There's plenty that the mayor has no power over, but it's not a useless job by any means.


it certainly isn't, and I can only hope the public realise they voted in someone who has done so very little


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 1, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Sure he has other powers, I suppose I'm thinking about public perception.


Walking on water?
Curing the lame?
Water into wine?


----------



## Maggot (Feb 1, 2012)

jakejb79 said:


> One of the best things Ken will do is bring back the zone 2-6 and zone 2-9 travelcard. I couldnt believe the fare would change from £5.60 to £11 after the travelcards were withdrawn.


Has he promised to do this?  Cos it would make a big difference to me. But I'll be voting Ken anyway.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 1, 2012)

jakejb79 said:


> One of the best things Ken will do is bring back the zone 2-6 and zone 2-9 travelcard. I couldnt believe the fare would change from £5.60 to £11 after the travelcards were withdrawn.


What he needs to do is get rid of zones altogether and have flat fares like they do elsewhere. Even the NY subway is cheaper than the London Underground.


----------



## hipipol (Feb 1, 2012)

Ken would re=extend the congestion charge bck to Kensington and Chelsea to help fund transport costs
Bring it on!!!


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 2, 2012)

hipipol said:


> Ken would re=extend the congestion charge bck to Kensington and Chelsea to help fund transport costs
> Bring it on!!!


I haven't seen he'd do that, this was the last I knew (April 2011):


> In an ideal world where money is no object I would reinstate the Western Extension but given it would cost a hundred to a hundred and fifty million to do it I think I’d much rather spend that money on front line policing and keeping the fares down. And that’s the single most important thing at the moment to not do anything that takes money out of Londoners’ pockets


Have you got a link to the policy change?


----------



## Chz (Feb 2, 2012)

I don't know what the official policy is/was, but I do remember someone at TfL commenting that the extension would always be _at best_ revenue-neutral. There's a very good argument to be had that since the money was already spent they should have kept it, but it's too late now. It's almost certainly not worth the cost to set it up again.


----------



## flypanam (Feb 2, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> What he needs to do is get rid of zones altogether and have flat fares like they do elsewhere. Even the NY subway is cheaper than the London Underground.



This is the best proposal. Montreal and Toronto have it as well, and its intergrated between trains, metro, trams and buses. I dunno at what level it should be set. Maybe something above £1.50 that might encourage people who live close by to walk, but will encourage people to leave their cars at home.

End free travel for 11-16 school kids at weekends too (imho)


----------



## Crispy (Feb 2, 2012)

flypanam said:


> This is the best proposal. Montreal and Toronto have it as well, and its intergrated between trains, metro, trams and buses. I dunno at what level it should be set. Maybe something above £1.50 that might encourage people who live close by to walk, but will encourage people to leave their cars at home.



yeah but: (to the same scale, from http://fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/)

Montreal:   Toronto: 
London:


----------



## flypanam (Feb 2, 2012)

Suppose I'm not comparing like with like. I was living in Dublin at the time but I was visiting London when the flat rate for the buses came in, it seemed to me then, that more people where happy to take the bus into town because it was cheaper. but my impression could be wrong.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 2, 2012)

The single fare argument might have more traction if parts of the tube system weren't already at capacity at peak times - well, more than full. London was very diff place when Ken tried the 'Fares Fare' policy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2012)

flypanam said:


> This is the best proposal. Montreal and Toronto have it as well, and its intergrated between trains, metro, trams and buses. I dunno at what level it should be set. Maybe something above £1.50 that might encourage people who live close by to walk, but will encourage people to leave their cars at home.
> 
> End free travel for 11-16 school kids at weekends too (imho)


Paris and Lyon also have the same system. The provisio is that you must use your ticket within 3 hours.


----------



## Garek (Feb 2, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> What he needs to do is get rid of zones altogether and have flat fares like they do elsewhere. Even the NY subway is cheaper than the London Underground.



I just don't see how that could in any work. For example there is only one Underground line with any spare capacity. A flat fare for London transport would be madness, especially the abolishment of Zone 1.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2012)

Garek said:


> I just don't see how that could in any work. For example there is only one Underground line with any spare capacity. A flat fare for London transport would be madness, especially the abolishment of Zone 1.



Of course it can work and, furthermore, capacity is a bit of a red herring. It's about fair fares rather than the system serving the needs of the profiteers which is what is currently happening.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 2, 2012)

What profiteers?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2012)

Well, let's put it this way: the fares are allegedly so high because that money is being spent on improvements.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 2, 2012)

There _is_ a vast amount of money being spent on improvements.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 2, 2012)

An obscene amount even. But that's the consequence for an ageing, creaking transport system.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 2, 2012)

And the amount has been inflated still further by the disastrous PPP experiment


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Tube/buses are still a bit cheaper than they were back in the 90s. Not defending Johnson and his fare rises (he should be shot for his breaking of the perfectly excellent Venezuelan oil deal alone), but when you see the prices and quality of service of buses outside London, you realise that London's are the pretty much the best in the country.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

No thanks to Boris.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

The best we could ever hope for from Boris was damage limitation - that he would be too lazy/inept to actually change much. If he is voted out this year, I think the damage done will have been fairly minimal. Only his moronic replacement routemasters will stand as his legacy.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 2, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> capacity is a bit of a red herring.


What do you see as the purpose of a single flat fare?
What do you think the economic dynamic is that makes it feasible elsewhere?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

Crispy said:


> And the amount has been inflated still further by the disastrous PPP experiment


damn right. Blair showed juast what a wanker he could be with that


----------



## Crispy (Feb 2, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> damn right. Blair showed juast what a wanker he could be with that


PPP was Brown's baby


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

Crispy said:


> PPP was Brown's baby


really? actually, now i recall it, yer right. two peas in the same pod, then


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> What he needs to do is get rid of zones altogether and have flat fares like they do elsewhere. Even the NY subway is cheaper than the London Underground.


 
Better off doing a Berlin, I reckon, with A central and outer zone, plus a "way out in the 'burbs" (Sachsenhausen and the like) zone, with most traffic being in the central and outer.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

1-3, 4-6 and The Rest.

Biggest problem would be getting the railway companies to agree. They only just grit their teeth hard enough to allow PAYG oyster.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Yeah, train companies will be a big problem. I can seen the sense in one zone, though. It's hard to imagine what it used to be like before the one zone for buses now. Pain in the bum, mostly. Buses stopping as drivers get the hump with people who've over-travelled. Regular inspector sweeps on the buses. And quite easy to pay the wrong fare accidentally too.

Now it's just one bleep and forget about it.

And the practical advantage of one zone is that you only have to swipe to get in.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

Bear in mind that that 85% of operational expenditure on the tube comes from fares, so any restructuring would have to maintain the same overall revenue, more or less. You'd probably end up pissing off zone 4 commuters and people making short journeys in the central area, while pleasing zone 3 and 6 people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Yeah, probably not practical. 

The point about systems with a flat fare, such as New York, is that the fare is about the same as a zone 1 journey here.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, probably not practical.
> 
> The point about systems with a flat fare, such as New York, is that the fare is about the same as a zone 1 journey here.


I imagine that the Tubes operations are a good deal more expensive than New York's. Our stations are extravagantly staffed compared to most metro systems. Then there's the creaking ancient nature of much of the hardware, and the high station density in the core.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Do we need all those staff, though? The sole purpose of platform guards seems to be to bellow at people to mind the doors - competing with the automatic voices saying the same thing. Plus, only swiping to get in means fewer staff needed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

wow.You two.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Then there's the creaking ancient nature of much of the hardware, and the high station density in the core.


Yes, but apart from that... ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> wow.You two.


I've no desire to make people unemployed. But then again, I've no desire to see people employed doing essentially useless things. Could such people not be employed elsewhere by TFL doing something more useful? I don't think that's an unreasonable question.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

Arguably so. There's a great deal of organisational inertia at LUL, some good and some bad. London Reconnections has three excellent (if rather long winded - those guys really need editors!) articles on the subject:



http://www.londonreconnections.com/...y-discussion-paper-means-for-the-underground/
http://www.londonreconnections.com/...y-discussion-paper-means-for-the-underground/
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/the-shape-of-things-to-come-part-3-the-hard-path-of-change/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've no desire to make people unemployed. But then again, I've no desire to see people employed doing essentially useless things.


Get your campaign rolling then #1 priority. LU staff. Maybe BJ and you could share a platform?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Get your campaign rolling then #1 priority. LU staff. Maybe BJ and you could share a platform?


What? You're not allowed to question the way people are employed on the tube?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> platform guards


What are these?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> What are these?


Probably not the correct terminology. The hi-viz'd LUL worker who makes sure the train is loaded and unloaded safely and gives the driver the OK to proceed. An essential job at busy stations, or on platforms where the driver can't see down the length of the train.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What? You're not allowed to question the way people are employed on the tube?


You're not allowed to try and get them the sack - or argue they should be sacked - no.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

He's not trying to get them the sack. He's merely debating the amount of staff needed compared to other underground systems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Fair enough if they are needed.

I still see no problem with the idea of questioning need, though...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> He's not trying to get them the sack. He's merely debating the amount of staff needed compared to other underground systems.


So, their 'employment'.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough if they are needed.
> 
> I still see no problem with the idea of questioning need, though...


Depends on what basis you're questioning it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Depends on what basis you're questioning it.


Well, obviously I'm trying to get people sacked.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Depends on what basis you're questioning it.


 
I'll let him answer for himself on this one. Therefore I cannot answer your question. Awfully sorry.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> I'll let him answer for himself on this one. Therefore I cannot answer your question. Awfully sorry.


Pretty quick to jump in. I didn't ask you a question.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty quick to jump in. I didn't ask you a question.


 
Sorry, you're right. You didn't end with a question mark so you were making a statement. Because you're always right. Right?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well, obviously I'm trying to get people sacked.


Your post didn't mention anything else - it mentioned _employment_.If you meant in terms of re-deployment and stuff then fine. You need to expand on that then. If that's what you meant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've no desire to make people unemployed. But then again, I've no desire to see people employed doing essentially useless things. Could such people not be employed elsewhere by TFL doing something more useful? I don't think that's an unreasonable question.


I refer you to a post I made earlier.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> Sorry, you're right. You didn't end with a question mark so you were making a statement. Because you're always right. Right?


 
Yes, i was stating that lbjs post mentioned 'employment'. It wasn't a question.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I refer you to a post I made earlier.


The one that didn't exist when i replied to the original post.  Just do that in later posts. I hate that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

I edited about 10 seconds after posting. Sorry you missed it. But I'm not arguing for what you think I am, and never was.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The one that didn't exist when i replied to the original post. Just do that in later posts. I hate that.


 
You hate people expanding their thoughts because something may of occurred to them afterwards?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> You hate people expanding their thoughts because something may of occurred to them afterwards?


I hate them doing it in posts where there's no indication that it's happened. The process is good. Where did you imagine that i said "hate people expanding their thoughts because something may of occurred to them afterwards?".

Each time that you have a new thought (sic) do you go back and edit your original posts?


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I hate them doing it in posts where there's no indication that it's happened. The process is good. Where did you imagine that i said "hate people expanding their thoughts because something may of occurred to them afterwards?".
> 
> Each time that you have a new thought (sic) do you go back and edit your original posts?


 
Because you said "I hate that".

Yes, sometimes I do. But I know what you mean, sometimes the thread moves so fast it gets missed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I edited about 10 seconds after posting. Sorry you missed it. But I'm not arguing for what you think I am, and never was.


You've got to choose how you approach this differently then because throwing around 'employment' is going to lead to trouble. As is cripsy's' extravagant'.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

A commenter on the LR articles makes an interesting point: 

One wonders whether the relative lack of expansion in the past 40 years has its part to play in deteriorating industrial relations and the slowing of evolutionary change in the organisation? If staff can’t move to other compariable roles resulting from expansion then the risk will come up that that particular job will become redundant from evolution; hence pressure will be exerted to stop whatever evolution from occuring. Perhaps then, paradoxically, expansion is key to enable rationalisation?

Crossrail will provide just such an opportunity, as it will be a TfL-operated line. Still a while away, though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You've got to choose how you approach this differently then because throwing around 'employment' is going to lead to trouble. As is cripsy's' extravagant'.


Ok. By 'employment', I meant 'deployment'. This was a misunderstanding, I think.

My initial comment about the platform guards was a bit facetious, I admit.

(What's wrong with calling them platform guards, btw - that's exactly what they are.)


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

Isn't a 'platform guard' a safety device between passengers and the railway, as at say Canary Wharf station?

eta: It seems the "bellowing" people you're talking about are 'Train station or platform assistants'.

http://www.careersinpassengertransport.org/index.php/cipt_career_pathway/rail/103


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Isn't a 'platform guard' a safety device between passengers and the railway, as at say Canary Wharf station?


I don't know, but ironically, those safety devices on the Jubilee extension appear to do away with the need for guards of the human variety.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know, but ironically, those safety devices on the Jubilee extension appear to do away with the need for guards of the human variety.


Which, incidentally, will be on Crossrail too.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know, but ironically, those safety devices on the Jubilee extension appear to do away with the need for guards of the human variety.


 
Not really, the doors still have to close once they're open. And if the driver cannot see clearly down the whole platform then someone could get hurt.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

I edited to include a link - tells you the job description.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> Not really, the doors still have to close once they're open. And if the driver cannot see clearly down the whole platform then someone could get hurt.


I think the whole point of the second doors is that they only close after the train doors have closed, and that there is not room between the two for a person to get trapped, so once they're both closed, you can know that nobody is stuck between them.

I might be wrong, but I thought that was the whole point of them - plus stopping anyone from jumping/falling in front of trains.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think the whole point of the second doors is that they only close after the train doors have closed, and that there is not room between the two for a person to get trapped, so once they're both closed, you can know that nobody is stuck between them.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I thought that was the whole point of them - plus stopping anyone from jumping/falling in front of trains.


 
Yes but what about a _really, really_ tiny person?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Isn't a 'platform guard' a safety device between passengers and the railway, as at say Canary Wharf station?
> 
> eta: It seems the "bellowing" people you're talking about are 'Train station or platform assistants'.
> 
> http://www.careersinpassengertransport.org/index.php/cipt_career_pathway/rail/103


Station guards at train stations have been rebranded 'assistants' too. Personally I prefer the old terminology.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know, but ironically, those safety devices on the Jubilee extension appear to do away with the need for guards of the human variety.


 
Platform staff aren't 'guards'. They assist the public with queries and assist drivers pulling into and leaving busy platforms.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think the whole point of the second doors is that they only close after the train doors have closed, and that there is not room between the two for a person to get trapped, so once they're both closed, you can know that nobody is stuck between them.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I thought that was the whole point of them - plus stopping anyone from jumping/falling in front of trains.


They also prevent strong winds from pushing people around on the platform, and litter from getting in the tracks. Where stations are air conditioned (not anywhere on the tube afaik!), they help keep the cool air in the station and not wooshing away down the tunnels.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Platform staff aren't 'guards'. *They assist the public with queries and assist drivers pulling into and leaving busy platforms*.


 
In traditional railway terminology, that's what guards do.  You've just described what a train guard does. And they're called 'guards' specifically because they're not just ticket inspectors - their job is fuller and more important than that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In traditional railway terminology, that's what guards do.  You've just described what a train guard does. And they're called 'guards' specifically because they're not just ticket inspectors - their job is fuller and more important than that.


 
I thought guards were on the trains themselves. 

Any way, the barriers at Canary Wharf can't assist the public with queries/emergencies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I thought guards were on the trains themselves.


Train guards are on the train. Station guards are at the station. Platform guards are on the platform. Guard in the sense of 'guardian', I would think. It seems a better term than 'assistant' to me - implying more responsibility.

Anyway, I fully accept that platform guards/assistants are more important than I initially implied.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

Platform guards can't even "bellow" at passengers, what with being inanimate


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Train guards are on the train. Station guards are at the station. Platform guards are on the platform. Guard in the sense of 'guardian', I would think. It seems a better term than 'assistant' to me - implying more responsibility.


 
Ah right. Any way, they're just known as 'station staff' on the tube.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Platform guards can't even "bellow" at passengers, what with being inanimate


The constant chivvying by automatic and real voices on the tube/buses is a pet hate of mine. It winds me up. I am doing my best to come to terms with it, but sometimes it gets the better of me. It is a blessed relief to me on the occasions when the automatic voices break down.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

We're so fortunate to have littlebabyjesus among us, an expert on so many subjects.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

It's wound you up that much that I called the platform guards platform guards?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

No, it's more your effortless ignorance. Again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 3, 2012)

Edited.

There must be better things to do than to bicker with L_C.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

Crispy said:


> 1-3, 4-6 and The Rest.


 
Yep. It'd make things simpler and cheaper.



> Biggest problem would be getting the railway companies to agree. They only just grit their teeth hard enough to allow PAYG oyster.


 
Maybe we could talk Ken into expropriating their material assets....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> He's not trying to get them the sack. He's merely debating the amount of staff needed compared to other underground systems.


 
TBF, a lot of the European metro systems designed-in features to compensate for low staff levels. Ticket machines *and *change machines tend to be more plentiful, for a start. The metro systems in Cologne and Berlin both had pretty comprehensive CCTV coverage (multi-angle, no blind spots) too (as the bastards who punched and kicked a poor bastard half to death at a Berlin U-Bahn station last Sept found out ). Here everything is half-arsed and done on the cheap, so of course commuters don't feel secure unless they see the occasional human face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Isn't a 'platform guard' a safety device between passengers and the railway, as at say Canary Wharf station?
> 
> eta: It seems the "bellowing" people you're talking about are 'Train station or platform assistants'.
> 
> http://www.careersinpassengertransport.org/index.php/cipt_career_pathway/rail/103


 
I think people tend to automatically think of guards because until recently ('90s?) it was the job of a "guard" on an overground or tube train, to do what a station/platform assistant now does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 4, 2012)

Do we have to call people's jobs by the names the companies employing them use? Would one be told off for not calling ticket inspectors 'revenue protection officers'?

I don't care particularly. I'm just puzzled by the hostility.


----------



## jakejb79 (Feb 4, 2012)

Maggot said:


> Has he promised to do this? Cos it would make a big difference to me. But I'll be voting Ken anyway.


 
Yes he has said he would do it,   i REALLY hope he gets in even just for this reason alone as it would save me loads.   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15820590

But for me the biggest shame was that Boris Johnson put Shoreditch and Hoxton East London Line stations in zone one, meaning that to avoid Zone 1 means a long detour via Stratford, i hope Ken will change that (it was all meant to be outside zone 1 originally anyway).


----------



## Chz (Feb 4, 2012)

> But for me the biggest shame was that Boris Johnson put Shoreditch and Hoxton East London Line stations in zone one


 That was a decision made by the DfT. TfL had no choice but to accept it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Better off doing a Berlin, I reckon, with A central and outer zone, plus a "way out in the 'burbs" (Sachsenhausen and the like) zone, with most traffic being in the central and outer.


 
IIRC, before the 80's there were only 2 zones: inner and outer.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> There _is_ a vast amount of money being spent on improvements.


 
Ideally, the state should be stumping up the money. Fares in London are the highest anywhere in the world.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> What do you see as the purpose of a single flat fare?
> What do you think the economic dynamic is that makes it feasible elsewhere?


 
Fairer fares. Instead we have grossly inflated fares; the most expensive in Europe, if not the world. A single fare on the New York subway is $1.10 iirc. Yet, there is no mention of 'capacity' being an issue and I'm sure just as many people use the subway as they do the tube.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2012)

I agree that fares could be reduced, but you then have to ask - who pays for the subsidy? Anyone living outside London is not going to be happy paying to subsidise transport there. Public transport in London is already far better than anywhere else in the UK. Of course all public transport everywhere needs to have its price brought down - in that sense, I don't think you can talk about London in isolation.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 5, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Ideally, the state should be stumping up the money. Fares in London are the highest anywhere in the world.


And yet you're still disproportionately subsidized by other regions of the country when it comes to transport and get a better service.
Not saying high fares are good, but we also have them for a far far worse service. (Expect a train once a half an hour, if you live within a 5 mile radius of a station you're lucky, too).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> And yet you're still disproportionately subsidized by other regions of the country when it comes to transport and get a better service.
> Not saying high fares are good, but we also have them for a far far worse service. (Expect a train once a half an hour, if you live within a 5 mile radius of a station you're lucky, too).


It's easy to forget how bad public transport is in the rest of the country when you live in London, I think. I've been guilty of it in the past.

A thought about this - London transport is not just used by people who live in London. Obvious point, perhaps, but some of the richest people who regularly use the tube are commuters who live outside the London mayoral area. How can these people be made to pay a fair contribution towards London transport?

ETA: To answer my own question: the businesses these people work for need to be paying.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 5, 2012)

For future projects they could even call it something like the Crossrail Business Rate Supplement.

Or Crossrail Platform Guards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2012)

Are you capable of making points without being a snide twat?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 5, 2012)

tbh, this was a moderately enjoyable thread before you decided to lambast "bellowing" staff and review the economic model of public transport  from around the invention of the wheel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2012)

Nah, you chose to attempt to belittle me with that last post. That was entirely your choice.

You are unremittingly negative on urban. You mostly don't post about the subjects of a thread, but merely about the way other posters are posting about the subject of the thread. I don't think I've ever seen you say a kind word to or about anyone.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 5, 2012)

The post wasn't about 'you'. It's  about the fact that argument - business contributions to public transport costs - is very mature and developed. It's not new because it's just entered your head, although people might think otherwise from your definitive statements.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2012)

Of course the post was about me, hence the dig about guards. And the point under discussion was how to bring down the price of the tube from where it is now. Nino suggested state subsidy. I suggested making businesses pay more.

It is possible to contribute points, correcting other posters even, without trying to belittle them. And to bring this back to the subject of the OP, this is a political battleground that is not even being fought over at the moment. Ken suggests reducing fares, Boris suggests reducing the mayor's share of the council tax. I haven't heard either talking about making businesses pay more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> IIRC, before the 80's there were only 2 zones: inner and outer.


 
3. Inner, central and outer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2012)

Here is last year's statement of accounts of tfl. It includes a breakdown of revenue. Income from businesses is not included as a separate entry, and any that there is must come from the 'other' section, which is 6 per cent of overall income. So businesses are paying really very little towards the running of London's public transport - less than 6 per cent, probably far less than 6 per cent (I can't see the 'other' broken down anywhere - perhaps someone else can say what it might include).

Aside from concessionary passes, the only significant subsidy the tube and buses receive comes from the congestion charge. If you're going to increase that subsidy to bring down fares for everyone, imo a business levy is the best way to achieve that. The argument about that may well be 'mature and developed', but it certainly hasn't been won.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 5, 2012)

Income from Olympic Delivery Authority and from bond sales?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 5, 2012)

I'm nervous about complacency this time round. I can definitely imagine a scenario in which Boris sneaks back in because the polls say it's looking like a Ken landslide and people don't bother voting...


----------



## JHE (Feb 6, 2012)

Mr Livingstone calls Dr Qaradawi a "leading progressive Muslim"






Dr Qaradawi explains his views on Jews, Hitler and divine punishment.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 6, 2012)

Ah good, intelligence insulting negative campaigning is underway.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do we have to call people's jobs by the names the companies employing them use? Would one be told off for not calling ticket inspectors 'revenue protection officers'?
> 
> I don't care particularly. I'm just puzzled by the hostility.


 
I actually didn't know what they were called until I worked for LU where they're called 'station staff'. Any hostility was directed towards notions they could be 're-deployed' due to mechanising their duties.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Feb 6, 2012)

tldr....

BUT... do u think an 'independent' candidate running on a 'street/homeless' platform can beat the fash n make some noise?
seriously.....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 7, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I actually didn't know what they were called until I worked for LU where they're called 'station staff'. Any hostility was directed towards notions they could be 're-deployed' due to mechanising their duties.


I don't have a problem with the idea of mechanising jobs. The more drudgery can be carried out by machines, the better, I'd have thought - all other things being equal. We live in a callous world in which people lose their jobs due to mechanisation, and increased efficiency leads to the wealthy getting wealthier, but that's a bit of a separate issue, imo.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 7, 2012)

Since we're already way off topic...

A pedantic point or two -

in railway language, a "guard" is a person who travels on a train, usually towards the rear, and is responsible for the safe starting of trains from stations - they may also be responsible for opening and closing doors.  They also have safety responsibilities for protecting the rear of the train from collisions and "de-training" passengers in emergencies. 

The Underground has not had guards on any line since (from memory) the mid 90s - the conversion to driver-only operation took place from the mid 80s.  Some bits of the Overground and some 'national rail' lines are also driver only.  Some train companies now call their guards 'conductors' to reflect that they also have ticket checking / selling responsibilities.  Some call them 'train managers' which sounds more exciting than it probably is.

[Not to be confused with buses and trams, which - when they had such things - traditionally had "conductors" in the UK, although the term "guard" tended to be used in north west England for reasons unknown]

Station staff are station staff, and are different.  "station assistant" or "customer services assistant" is generally the term these days.  "railman/woman", "station-man/woman" and "porter" are pretty much obsolete terms.

As far as "bellowing" station staff is concerned, if the travelling public weren't so bloody stupid, and realised that it's not the last bloody lifeboat off the titanic, it's a tube train to high bloody barnet, and if they get out of the way of the bloody doors as they close then there's another train practically up its tail lights, then maybe they wouldn't be needed so much...

But it's also worth remembering that one of the purposes of any transport worker (and I include everything from station assistants to airline pilots here) is being there to do whatever they have been trained to do in any emergency - 99% of the job is fairly routine, but a significant chunk of the training is about what to do in the other 1% of the time.

I can't help thinking that the people who complain most about "surplus" staff (despite the railways having considerably less front line staff than in the past) are also likely to be the loudest to complain if there's nobody round to deal with any sort of problem.

I have seen some tory types arguing one some forums that railways should be completely automated, staff should somehow be casualised and yet still be able to arrive (presumably summoned by mobile phone from the queue at the dole office) at a moment's notice and deal competently with emergencies - I'm not quite sure what planet these people are on...


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't have a problem with the idea of mechanising jobs. The more drudgery can be carried out by machines, the better, I'd have thought - all other things being equal. We live in a callous world in which people lose their jobs due to mechanisation, and increased efficiency leads to the wealthy getting wealthier, but that's a bit of a separate issue, imo.



I agree but as it stands all things aren't equal. People need jobs regardless of how dull the duties are. Mechanising jobs is to the benefit of the wealthy and detriment of the working class.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 9, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> As far as "bellowing" station staff is concerned, if the travelling public weren't so bloody stupid, and realised that it's not the last bloody lifeboat off the titanic, it's a tube train to high bloody barnet, and if they get out of the way of the bloody doors as they close then there's another train practically up its tail lights, then maybe they wouldn't be needed so much...
> 
> But it's also worth remembering that one of the purposes of any transport worker (and I include everything from station assistants to airline pilots here) is being there to do whatever they have been trained to do in any emergency - 99% of the job is fairly routine, but a significant chunk of the training is about what to do in the other 1% of the time.
> 
> ...


LOL. Heartfelt and justified!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> LOL. Heartfelt and justified!


 
I am told that at one time, about the first thing to be taught to underground staff is (or was) "never under-estimate the stupidity of the travelling public"


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 15, 2012)

In case you missed it, the Livingstone surge is over:



> Boris Johnson has clawed his way back to a two-point lead in the closest mayoral race yet despite Ken Livingstone's hugely popular pledge to cut fares.
> Our exclusive YouGov poll today shows a dramatic turnaround from last month, with the Mayor now ahead by a super-slender 51 to 49 per cent margin.


 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...4990-boris-takes-lead-in-closest-ever-race.do


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2012)

Great article from november 2011. Once is daft, twice is...


----------



## JHE (Feb 15, 2012)

*"It's this close!"*


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't have a problem with the idea of mechanising jobs. The more drudgery can be carried out by machines, the better, I'd have thought - all other things being equal. We live in a callous world in which people lose their jobs due to mechanisation, and increased efficiency leads to the wealthy getting wealthier, but that's a bit of a separate issue, imo.



There was a short delay when pulling into canary wharf station last night so that station staff could assist as the mechanised doors had failed.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Feb 20, 2012)

I wonder, if Ken ends up first in front of Boris, Boris who opposed the Alternative Vote in last year's referendum will turn round and say "Don't bother to count the 2nd preference votes. You win as you were First Past the Post".


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 1, 2012)

Interesting article from the Guardian here

Nothing to make you vote Boris.  Does anyone else feel that Ken's only standing because no-one else can take on Boris.  Strange election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2012)

I would have thought paddick in with a serious challenge (law and order, community coppering etc).

But I suspect on a yellow ticket he will be shunned


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I would have thought paddick in with a serious challenge (law and order, community coppering etc).
> 
> But I suspect on a yellow ticket he will be shunned


You mean under 6% again.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You mean under 6% again.


 
With a bit of luck the yellow ticket will be so toxic that he won't get anywhere near even that this time!


----------



## JHE (Mar 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I would have thought paddick in with a serious challenge (law and order, community coppering etc).


 
No. The London mayoral election is _even_ more a contest between (perceived) _personalities_ than other elections in this country. Even if Mr Paddick has sensible things to say, he stands no chance whatsoever up against Ken and Boris (the two politicians almost universally known by their first names). Last time Paddick was an utter flop, with all the charisma of a limp piece of lettuce. The Lib Dems aren't going to choose him this time, are they?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Already has been. Which is why he's popping up everywhere now.


----------



## JHE (Mar 2, 2012)

Bad choice, then. Even among Lib Dems there must be hundreds of people with more appeal than our daring erstwhile fellow poster (to whom "the concept of anarchy has always appealed").


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2012)

Walked past Ken the other evening by Euston Station. He is cracking on a bit, isn't he? How old is he now?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

47


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 47


 
Jesus, that Mayor's job must really suck the lifeforce out of you.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> No. The London mayoral election is _even_ more a contest between (perceived) _personalities_ than other elections in this country.


Mavericks. Two 'mavericks'.

Aren't we the lucky electorate.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 2, 2012)

What I don't understand how these polls keep giving Ken 51% and Boris 49% or vice-versa. How can this be if Paddick and some Green candidate and presumably some others will be standing too? With the result so close surely how many votes these get is vitally important, even if it's only 1%. The polls should be asking who you're going to give your first vote to and then ask who chose the minor candidates (including Paddick) who'll they'll be giving their second vote to. Or would that spoil the spectacle of a head-to-head between two celebrity politicians?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

Jean-Luc said:


> What I don't understand how these polls keep giving Ken 51% and Boris 49% or vice-versa. How can this be if Paddick and some Green candidate and presumably some others will be standing too? With the result so close surely how many votes these get is vitally important, even if it's only 1%. The polls should be asking who you're going to give your first vote to and then ask who chose the minor candidates (including Paddick) who'll they'll be giving their second vote to. Or would that spoil the spectacle of a head-to-head between two celebrity politicians?


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...addick-in-fight-for-mayor-poll-third-place.do


----------



## hipipol (Mar 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Mavericks. Two 'mavericks'.
> 
> Aren't we the lucky electorate.


Mavericks
What a crying shame


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 47


 
Yep. He took over the GLC while still a teenager.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. He took over the GLC while still a teenager.


The tash was an attempt to look old enough to be served at the bar.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 5, 2012)

Just got some bloody spam from Boris in my in box.


----------



## Chz (Mar 8, 2012)

JHE said:


> Bad choice, then. Even among Lib Dems there must be hundreds of people with more appeal than our daring erstwhile fellow poster (to whom "the concept of anarchy has always appealed").


I believe the only other person who wanted the job was Lembit Opik. Take that for what you will.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 8, 2012)

Not the ideal time to be standing as a LibDem anywhere at any level.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 8, 2012)

Good start:



> It’s no secret that both Boris and Ken have had their run-ins with the Cathy Newman’s Factcheck blog. But neither had crossed the line into the lowest scoring fiction zone … until Channel 4 News turned their eyes upon his 9-point manifesto.
> 
> On his second pledge, “Putting £445 back in your pocket by freezing the Mayoral share of council tax”, the Boris campaign have been caught, erm, making stuff up.


 


> “The actual cash saving this year is nothing like £445. It’s £3.10, barely enough to buy you a pint of beer in a central London pub.”


 
An exaggeration of 14 000% according to someone on twitter.


----------



## JHE (Mar 8, 2012)

Chz said:


> I believe the only other person who wanted the job was Lembit Opik. Take that for what you will.


 
At least he's got an interesting face.  There's something strange about that jaw.  He's not ugly, but he is borderline deformed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The tash was an attempt to look old enough to be served at the bar.


 
And to "get in" with the notorious GLC "gay mafia".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2012)

Chz said:


> I believe the only other person who wanted the job was Lembit Opik. Take that for what you will.


 
If he promised to do another spectacularly-bad parachute landing on his face as a stunt, he'd get my vote!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2012)

JHE said:


> At least he's got an interesting face. There's something strange about that jaw. He's not ugly, but he is borderline deformed.


 
He did some skydiving and landed on his face.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

Yougov:

Boris Johnson 54%, Ken Livingstone 46%


----------



## TitanSound (Mar 20, 2012)

JHE said:


> At least he's got an interesting face. There's something strange about that jaw. He's not ugly, but he is borderline deformed.


 

It looks like someone's punched him *really hard* on his chin.

I cannot look at him for too long. I get faceouttashaperage.


----------



## JHE (Mar 20, 2012)

Livingstone: I will make London a beacon of Islam


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 20, 2012)

The really big surprise is 4% of the voting electorate think Paddick is "charismatic".

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/vrobpzwo69/Copy of Results 120315 London Mayor.pdf


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 20, 2012)

JHE said:


> Livingstone: I will make London a beacon of Islam


 
Misleading headline. if you watch the video he said that he would make London a beacon of the principle that people of all ethnic backgrounds should be treated equally. Anybody would think Andrew Gilligan and the Torygraph were deliberately trying to misrepresent him (whilst shoveling the relevant information at the end of the article to deflect criticisms of misreporting).


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 21, 2012)

You have to feel embarrassed for Gilligan. We all have to try and earn a living but .... .


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2012)

have bought a vote and will defray the costs by laying a wager so that if my candidate does win the bet will cover the vote and maybe even have change for a pint and pie.

forward to a new keningrad


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 22, 2012)

First Londanistan bollocks and now the anti-semitism card:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/21/kens-team-denies-jews-are-rich-comments/

Pathetic smear campaigns from the tories and the labour right underway again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> First Londanistan bollocks and now the anti-semitism card:
> 
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/21/kens-team-denies-jews-are-rich-comments/
> 
> Pathetic smear campaigns from the tories and the labour right underway again.


 
I love comment number nine, where the commenter says "...to a Marxist like Ken, or at least someone with a Marxist background who is unlikely to change his thinking, things like values, sociology and history don’t cut much mustard".

That's right, folks, for Marxists, values, sociology and history does not cut any mustard. 
Obviously one of those cunts who rattles on about Marxists, Communists and anarchists without actually knowing what the fuck they're talking about.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 22, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I love comment number nine, where the commenter says "...to a Marxist like Ken, or at least someone with a Marxist background who is unlikely to change his thinking, things like values, sociology and history don’t cut much mustard".
> 
> That's right, folks, for Marxists, values, sociology and history does not cut any mustard.
> Obviously one of those cunts who rattles on about Marxists, Communists and anarchists without actually knowing what the fuck they're talking about.


 
The cunt that wrote that, 'So Much for Subtlety', is basically a neo-nazi. He thinks disabled people are subhuman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The cunt that wrote that, 'So Much for Subtlety', is basically a neo-nazi. He thinks disabled people are subhuman.


 
Proving that he's the nearest thing to one himself.


----------



## Cerv (Apr 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He did some skydiving and landed on his face.


Paragliding actually.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2012)

Cerv said:


> Paragliding actually.


 
Knew it was something to do with daredevilism.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 1, 2012)

i'm voting for labour as always, plus i very much like Ken and he is the most labour. if everyone had voted labour before then we wouldn't have this current evil government who i despise.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Knew it was something to do with daredevilism.


 
A Cheeky Girl with particularly strong thighs?


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2012)

'You're a fucking liar, you're a fucking liar, you're a fucking liar.'


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2012)

no,
"It's all fucking lies, it's all fucking lies."


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 3, 2012)

> Boris Johnson has accused Ken Livingstone of being "a fucking liar" in a furious confrontation in a lift following a live radio debate.





> An incensed Johnson unleashed his ire after the debate in the confines of the lift. In front of Paddick, Jones, and LBC's managing editor James Rea, a reportedly red faced Johnson went "nose to nose" with Livingstone and told him three times over: "You are a fucking liar". The candidates then emerged from the lift to talk to the media on LBC's roof terrace


Marvellous:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/03/boris-johnson-rant-ken-livingstone

Telegraph reports it as:


> Travelling in a lift to the top of the LBCD building to be photographed, the Mayor shouted at Mr Livingstone "it's all f****** lies, it's all f****** lies".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...e-a-liar-in-furious-mayoral-race-bust-up.html


----------



## cybertect (Apr 3, 2012)

Exchange on Twitter this afternoon...





			
				Sutton Council said:
			
		

> @lbsuttonnews
> 
> Sutton Police News - Police warn residents over cold callers: Police are urging residents to be aware of cold callers... http://content.met.police.uk/News/P...756?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


 



			
				Me said:
			
		

> @lbsuttonnews A couple of days ago I had someone claiming to be from Boris Johnson's campaign cold call trying to elicit my personal details


 



			
				Sutton Council DM said:
			
		

> If you could please log this with Sutton Police station it would help build up a case to catch these people.
> 
> http://bit.ly/HNwUqX


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 4, 2012)

I *think* Paxman is hosting the next round between these two this evening on Newsnight ....


----------



## poului (Apr 5, 2012)

god that was a shit debate. there's a danger with all this scrapping that Paddick will come across as the reasonable choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

Boris Johnson six points ahead in new poll



> Ken Livingstone is losing voters’ trust as a result of the row over his tax affairs, an exclusive new poll reveals today.The Labour candidate has fallen six points behind Boris Johnson in the race to be Mayor.His support in his inner London heartlands has also been badly dented.


 
Interesting New Statesman commentary:



> But with Labour nine points ahead nationally, it's quite something that the Conservatives' mayoral candidate is six points ahead in London, where Labour led the Tories even at the last election. Livingstone outpolled Labour in 2000, 2004 and 2008 but Labour now outpolls him. The poll shows that while 14 per cent of Londoners like Ken but not Labour, 17 per cent like Labour but not Ken. Boris, by contrast, is still favoured over his party. 28 per cent of voters like the mayor but not the Tories


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 10, 2012)

Mayoral contests operate very differently to council and parliament elections.  Most of it's just personality isn't it ?

The London Cycling Campaign have released their analysis of candidates cycling policy statements:

LCC


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

> 57% of Londoners say they like Boris Johnson, compared to just 36% who say they like the Conservative party – *meaning Boris is outperforming his party by 21 points*. Compare this to Ken: only 41% of Londoners like Ken, compared to 44% who like the Labour party, so he is underperforming his party by 3 points.


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## agricola (Apr 10, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


 
Boris not being best chums with Dave probably helps him a lot in this respect.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

They are best chums. 

I'm pretty sure the London electorate grasp the theatricality of their 'differences'.


----------



## cybertect (Apr 10, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> The London Cycling Campaign have released their analysis of candidates cycling policy statements:
> 
> LCC


 
Did they _really_ have to release it as a Word document?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Apr 11, 2012)

cybertect said:


> Did they _really_ have to release it as a Word document?


It could be worse. The Ramblers refuse to conduct much of their campaigning/management electronically because members of their committee don't have email.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 11, 2012)

I wish this thread had a more accurate, (as of now) title.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 11, 2012)

Report the OP with a suggested new title maybe?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Apr 11, 2012)

I'd suggest 'Londoners not excited about candidate first elected to local government 40 years ago'


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 11, 2012)

Just change the names around - hopefully for not too long...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2012)

Cringe-off competition:


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2012)

The Lib Dem's contribution:



(that is actually a video from his official youtube channel!)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 12, 2012)

Is that Ken vid the one he reportedly cried at earlier (caught a Standard front page on the way home this evening)?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Is that Ken vid the one he reportedly cried at earlier (caught a Standard front page on the way home this evening)?


 
Yeah, tbf I almost cried as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 12, 2012)

cahm on ken


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 12, 2012)

Caught the end last night of a report on BBC London of a hustings meeting for the mayoral election organised by the London _Evening News_. But there were only 4 candidates on the platform -- the usual suspects (Tory, Labour, LibDem and Greens).

One of the principles of democracy is that all candidates should have equal time to put over their point of view, but this is not happening in this particular election where there 7 candidates not just 4. Three candidates (UKIP, BNP and an Independent) were excluded, despite the fact that they have overcome the considerable obstacles in the way of standing (raising a deposit of £10,000 and get 30 signatories in each borough or 330 in all). 

No doubt they are being excluded because having 7 candidates would not have the same entertainment value, but elections are not supposed to be entertainment. Clearly, this election is not being run on fully democratic lines. They do things differently in France. There are 10 candidates standing in the first round of the presidential election on 22 April. Each of them are getting TV and radio broadcasts of exactly the same length.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 12, 2012)

What's the London Evening News?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2012)

Jean-Luc said:


> One of the principles of democracy is that all candidates should have equal time to put over their point of view


no it isn't


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 12, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> What's the London Evening News?


Sorry, a bit behind the times. It merged with the Evening Standard 20 or 30 years ago.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Apr 12, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Cringe-off competition:



Heh, only one mention of the Tories in the entire thing.

I like how Boris is claiming the tube upgrade and Crossrail are part of _his_ nine point plan. Presumably Ken would take a sledgehammer to all of the new trains and lie down in front of the tunnel boring machines.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/11/dont-want-boris-vote-ken


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> What's the London Evening News?


 
Dead since 1979.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Jean-Luc said:


> Sorry, a bit behind the times. It merged with the Evening Standard 20 or 30 years ago.


 
*More* than 30 years ago.


----------



## fjydj (Apr 12, 2012)

Damarr said:


> Heh, only one mention of the Tories in the entire thing.
> 
> I like how Boris is claiming the tube upgrade and Crossrail are part of _his_ nine point plan. Presumably Ken would take a sledgehammer to all of the new trains and lie down in front of the tunnel boring machines.


 
at least you can add a comment, unlike kens where comments and (dis)likes have been turned off.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 12, 2012)

Jean-Luc said:


> No doubt they are being excluded because having 7 candidates would not have the same entertainment value


 
Since when does extra clowns mean less entertainment?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 12, 2012)

Live stream of the hustings tonight: http://bambuser.com/v/2548370


----------



## Greebo (Apr 12, 2012)

Facepalm of the day goes to the green party candidate - sending out an election leaflet printed on glazed paper.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2012)

I just really want that fucking cunt Boris Johnson kicked the fuck out. Posh bigotted cunts like him shouldn't even have the luxury of oxygen let alone fucking elected office. The people that vote for Boris are even worse than he is - really despicable filth who are only of any use for whiping shit off the soles of your boot onto - everything that is wrong with country: thick fucking cunts. Ken is a twat of course, a purveyor of piss weak liberal multiculturalism mixed with 'neo-liberalism with a human face', but a not bad politician by this country's dismal standards. The whinging middle class zionist cunts that keep banging on about his supposed anti-semitism are self-pittying arseholes - the worst oppression they've ever faced is getting served a bad bottle of wine in a restaurant. I want him to win just to piss off those liberal/tory shitheads.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 12, 2012)

fjydj said:


> at least you can add a comment, unlike kens where comments and (dis)likes have been turned off.


 

You know what these Reds are like for restricting freedom of speech.


----------



## poului (Apr 15, 2012)

Paddick's just been on Sky News pretty much acting as campaign attack dog for Boris Johnson over tax issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2012)

poului said:


> Paddick's just been on Sky News pretty much acting as campaign attack dog for Boris Johnson over tax issues.


He madly thinks that he - as a lib-dem - is going to take anti-tory votes from labour. This is behind his _the lib-dems in coalition are shit but i as a lib-dem candidate aren't shit. _Madness.


----------



## poului (Apr 15, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He madly thinks that he - as a lib-dem - is going to take anti-tory votes from labour. This is behind his _the lib-dems in coalition are shit but i as a lib-dem candidate aren't shit. _Madness.


 
He still shot himself in the foot in true LibDem style though as he was questioned about the hefty fees he still receives by the Met. Bluntly saying that due to his political record (ie saying what the rest of the public thought about Menezes) and his charitable work that he deserved every penny of it from his resignation. It amazes how little his party pick up on this lack of self-awareness their electoral candidates display time and time again.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 15, 2012)

poului said:


> Paddick's just been on Sky News pretty much acting as campaign attack dog for Boris Johnson over tax issues.



And when Ken was up in the polls he was making friendly noises toward him. Now Boris is up he's turning coat and chumming up to him. The guy is starting to look like he's angling for a job and doesn't care what the administration...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> <snip> The guy is starting to look like he's angling for a job and doesn't care what the administration...


 
LibDem is he?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 15, 2012)

poului said:


> It amazes how little his party pick up on this lack of self-awareness their electoral candidates display time and time again.


I liked the LibDem candidate at the General Election out in the High Street - somewhere in the West Country - who, when quizzed by two member of the public, didn't think the economy and cuts would be the major issue of the new Parliament.

They just stood back in surprise and shook their heads at her like it wasn't possible to be this stupid. I think it was a marginal as well - on Newsnight. She was totaly convinced she was right.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 15, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> LibDem is he?



Paddick? Yeah...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 15, 2012)

Labour are busy losing this election, aren't they.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 15, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Labour are busy losing this election, aren't they.


I think they're doing ok. Ken's working the only issue he can and the volunteers are working hard. Paddick cost him last time which he won't do this time so much.


I just suspect Johnson is a rare election beast - he's currently out-polling the Tories by 20% FFS - and he may well go on to prove it in bigger polls than this. He pitches it just right; the reception he gets at Conference for his vacuous nonsense from the old Tory dears and their husbands is ridiculous. The suburban wrinklies will turn out for him again and again, as will their kind in the Home Counties and beyond in time

God help us.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 15, 2012)

I've been away so I haven't been paying attention, but a friend who has been covering the election for a media outlet told me that the Boris campaign are keeping him as far away from the press and public as possible, to minimise gaffes, while the Labour people are so busy infighting that they're totally failing to seize the agenda, and thus are being towed along in Boris's wake. Also having the Standard onside is helping Boris with that.
Dunno how correct any of that is, but that's their view.
From what little I've seen, it does feel rather stale, on both sides.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 15, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Paddick cost him last time which he won't do this time so much.


How could that be under the voting system for mayor, which is a variation of AV where voters can vote 1, 2 (but no more). This election is going to be decided by the second preference votes of the bottom 5 of the 7 candidates.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 15, 2012)

Ken  wins on second pref, he needs to be closer on first pref.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 15, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Ken wins on second pref, he needs to be closer on first pref.


Agreed. Better to build up your first prefs as they are certain rather than hope to rely on second prefs. Anyway, how many of Pillock's 2nd prefs will go to Ken?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 16, 2012)

Standard/YouGov poll: Boris 53%, Ken 47%. Yet 80% say Boris is 'a mayor for the rich'. Come on Labour, get your act together.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

YouGov again: Johnson 51%, Livingstone 49:



> Johnson is still significantly outpolling his party while Livingstone continues to trail behind his, though he has narrowed the gap in a contest which looks set to deliver a knife-edge result.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/23/london-mayoral-election-race-tighter


I'm no expert but that must just about give Ken the lead on second pref. Knife edge is right - 9 days remaining.


----------



## Chz (Apr 24, 2012)

Already voted. 

No way either of those tosspots got my first vote. No more detail than that.
Just saying that reminds me of how much the last election pissed me off. I had a few people come round the door asking me how I was going to vote! None of your fucking business!


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> YouGov again: Johnson 51%, Livingstone 49:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I reckon all these recent tory cock-ups are beginning to affect Boris's support.  One more moment of stupidity from the government could sink Boris.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

I suspect you're not wrong. If Labour or The Guardian has something up their sleeev/s on Cameron or the party at national level, Monday-Tuesday might be the day to break that story - proper tax evasion would be nice.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 24, 2012)

Heard another media conspiracy theory, that Boris is trying to lose. So that he can slip into some cosy safe seat somewhere and be ready on the national scene for 2015 and a challenge to call-me-Dave.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2012)

Yeah, being a losing candidate in a nationally high-profile election always looks good on the CV.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Yep, it doesn't work for me either.

The Guardian on Johnson's allure for female voters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/23/why-women-vote-boris-johnson


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, being a losing candidate in a nationally high-profile election always looks good on the CV.


 
Well, that was my thought. I also generally lean towards the 'cock up rather than conspiracy' viewpoint. I think he's just a bit lazy tbh. Lazy mayor, lazy campaigner. Not convinced that Labour can capitalise on this sufficiently though. Which says a lot about them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2012)

Labour are well ahead on the assembly elections though - its livingstone whose lagging here.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 24, 2012)

Should Labour have gone with someone other than Ken, do we think?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

I suppose it depends how to characterise the challenge - is it more about a candidate the outer suburbs can accept (if so, who?), is Johnson an electoral exception you can only do so much about, or something else...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 24, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> I've been away so I haven't been paying attention, but a friend who has been covering the election for a media outlet told me that the Boris campaign are keeping him as far away from the press and public as possible, to minimise gaffes.


 
They did this last time to huge comedy effect (well from my point of view). I was a TV journo covering the election. No problem talking to the other two but pretty much a blanket ban on having anything direct from Boris, nobody even passed on interview offers to him. 
I managed to get an interview about an unrelated non mayoral matter (I think it was to do with bikes) but jumped in at the end with Mayoral questions, much to the press officers (count them - 3) horror, and they started to drag Boris away. 
To his (buffoon like) credit, he shook them off, but couldn't answer any questions sensibly (if at all).
We had been asking for over a month for him to take part in a TV show with all three main candidates, but his office kept turning us down. I asked why he did not want to take part, was he afraid to face the other candidates? He said he had not been told anything about it. The way his press officers act, I don't doubt it.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 24, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> They did this last time to huge comedy effect (well from my point of view). I was a TV journo covering the election. No problem talking to the other two but pretty much a blanket ban on having anything direct from Boris, nobody even passed on interview offers to him.
> I managed to get an interview about an unrelated non mayoral matter (I think it was to do with bikes) but jumped in at the end with Mayoral questions, much to the press officers (count them - 3) horror, and they started to drag Boris away.
> To his (buffoon like) credit, he shook them off, but couldn't answer any questions sensibly (if at all).
> We had been asking for over a month for him to take part in a TV show with all three main candidates, but his office kept turning us down. I asked why he did not want to take part, was he afraid to face the other candidates? He said he had not been told anything about it. The way his press officers act, I don't doubt it.


 
Sounds very similar to what I've heard this time too.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 24, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Sounds very similar to what I've heard this time too.


 
He did also say to camera "I will be there, I will be anywhere you want to answer whatever questions you want".
The press officers actually faceplamed. 

Personally I think they way campaigns are run and how Boris is shielded from doing or saying anything is newsworthy in itself. Boris employs so many extra people to handle what he should really be handling himself.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Apr 24, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Personally I think they way campaigns are run and how Boris is shielded from doing or saying anything is newsworthy in itself.


 
Totally agree. He's the same while he's in office as well - 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/09/boris-johnson-regular-press-conferences
http://snipelondon.com/scoop/boris-johnson-campaigning-on-the-rates-in-bexleyheath


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 24, 2012)

Ken's weekly press things were very handy, and Ken was usually pretty blunt and to the point. I got the impression Ken as actually a very busy man and the weeklies got everyone in one place to get all the weeks questions answered without too much fucking around. 
I'm not an uber ken fan, and he too could be difficult to get for interview, but you were always told you could get a question in on the monday meeting, and you could. You could film it and do anything you wanted. When I have filmed Ken (and Paddock) they were not surrounded by creepy press officers that far outnumbered the crew.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Should Labour have gone with someone other than Ken, do we think?


 
Not really, the whole contest has very little to do with politics and is all about personality. Does Labour actually have any big enough characters to even challange Ken? The tories only got in when they stuck their biggest character up for election, this is why the opinion polls in this contest are noticibly different to every other around at the moment. I think its less about Ken and more about Boris.


Anyway who is this independent standing that seems to be getting a bit of coverage recently?  Siobhan Benita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siobhan_Benita

She seems straight out of the New Labour guide to politicians.  Who's funding her campaign?  Is she being given a run out this year to get her name known before she stands for Labour next time around should Ken lose?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 24, 2012)

She's backed by a former civil servant I believe...


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2012)

I see Ukip Assembly candidates (not the London-wide list) are standing as "Better Choice for London" or some such bollocks in the constituencies. Is their own party name that toxic? Silly question


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2012)

Dunno, their current poll rating suggests otherwise..


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 30, 2012)

On first pref: Johnson 44%, Livingstone 41%

Not really accepting the second pref allocation in the link .. best I can tell it's desperately close:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## nino_savatte (May 1, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> I see Ukip Assembly candidates (not the London-wide list) are standing as "Better Choice for London" or some such bollocks in the constituencies. Is their own party name that toxic? Silly question


That should have said "Fresh Choice For London".
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2646-a-fresh-choice-for-london


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

Well, as suggested earlier, it looks like Ken needed to have been closer on first pref.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Well, as suggested earlier, it looks like Ken needed to have been closer on first pref.


Fuck me, Livingstone needed more votes to win. Genius.


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

^ #OddbinsO'clock.


----------



## editor (May 4, 2012)

I want Ken to win and voted for him, but he does seem tired.


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2012)

Slim chance but glad it is going to the wire.


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

Badgers said:


> the wire.


Election Day:


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 4, 2012)

Why has this 3 days out of date thread been revived at a time when people are looking for the latest information?


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Why has this 3 days out of date thread been revived at a time when people are looking for the latest information?



To annoy you


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 4, 2012)

Ken's vote isn't close enough to win on 2nd pref...tbh he didn't deserve to win given the stupid mistakes he made in his campaign (despite a great start). Looks like it'll be David Lammy gunning for the Labour candidacy in 2016 now.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 4, 2012)

Badgers said:


> To annoy you


Oh, Ok then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Ken's vote isn't close enough to win on 2nd pref...tbh he didn't deserve to win given the stupid mistakes he made in his campaign (despite a great start). Looks like it'll be David Lammy gunning for the Labour candidacy in 2016 now.


 
That'll keep Labour out of power in London until 2020, then.


----------



## Mr Blob (May 5, 2012)

Ken will find a seat in the House of Lords.  He never loses


----------



## London_Calling (May 18, 2012)

Excellent mapping and fascinating breakdown of the voting. LOL - see if you can spot leafy Dulwich. Drop-down menu on the left offers more options:



> • Ken Livingstone won two more wards than Boris Johnson, showing how tight it was
> • Brian Paddick didn't score above 12% in any ward in first preferences - and was beaten in 368 wards by independent Siobhain Benita
> • Green Jenny Jones won over 12% of first preferences in nine wards
> • The BNP won over 5% of first preference votes in 16 wards
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...don-mayoral-election-votes-ward-wap?fb=native


----------



## maldwyn (May 18, 2012)

Interesting post London_Calling, wished they showed the % turnout per ward or am I missing it.


----------



## London_Calling (May 18, 2012)

I didn't see turnout either. It seems a good study on preferences and their subsequent distribution.

If anyone  likes speadsheets, the download is pretty comprehensive.


----------

