Labours Ken Livingstone: the rioters need someone to 'care about them'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100100126/ken-livingstone-the-rioters-need-someone-to-%E2%80%9Ccare-about-them-and-speak-for-them%E2%80%9D/

Labours Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone: the rioters need someone to 'care about them and speak for them'


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/hackneyCar_1967240i-460x287.jpg
All he needs is care and representation, according to Ken Livingstone


It is hard to overstate how wrong Ken Livingstone has been getting his response to the riots. This was what he told the BBC News Channel last night (about 1 minute 33 seconds in to this clip (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14454246)): “A lot of these young people, they are criminals, yes, but there’s a disengagement – they feel no-one at the top of society, in government or City Hall, cares about them or speaks for them.” I spent most of yesterday in Tottenham, talking to Londoners who have lost their homes and everything else they own in the riots. They want politicians to care about and speak for them, not make excuses for the rioters who destroyed their lives.


http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1271607241_80.177.117.97.jpg
Ken and Labour members



Later, on Newsnight, Ken described the riots as a “revolt” against the cuts. He said: “If you’re making massive cuts, there’s always the potential for this sort of revolt against that” (bout 22 min 28 seconds into this clip (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b013dv5k/Newsnight_08_08_2011/)). Nor can any tragedy, however huge, be allowed to stop Ken working his way through his election talking points. Here’s what he told the News Channel: “We got police numbers up to 32,000, and we thought that would cope. But the Government’s going to have to review the policy of cutting. They’re planning to cut almost 2,000 police in London…When I was elected Mayor, we only had 25,000 police… The police have got to be confident the Government stands behind them, and the Mayor stands behind them, and when you’re cutting 2,000 police they don’t feel that….

“You can’t just be a mayor when you’re opening fetes and doing charity performances. You’ve got to be a mayor when it’s going wrong…. What people need is the reassurance. What I did when I came back from Singapore [after 7/7], I was on London’s tubes and buses, I was meeting the victims. It’s that reassurance.” And to Newsnight:
“You’ve got to crack down on this, and I got 7,000 extra police in London. If we hadn’t got those, this would be out of control tonight.”

Lip visibly curling, his fellow guest, Shaun Bailey, the black former Tory candidate and youth worker, said:
“It’s quite horrible to watch people try to make some mileage out of this for their own political thing. It’s not about Ken, it’s not about 7,000 police. These are young people who are not scared of the police, not concerned about the police. It’s a set of kids picking a nice place to riot. To try and link this to the cuts is just electioneering.” There is, of course, a time and a place for electioneering. But last night, with the city on fire, wasn’t it.

Well I don't advocate voting Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat at the best of times but I would urge those living in London not to elect this throwback marxoid at the next election because I think what he's said above says it all doesn't it without an explanation? I do wonder what Mr. Livingstone would say the same if his house, business and property were smashed up? it'd probably be Margaret Thatchers fault right down to the dog poo on the pavement.

Oh and concerning the 'cuts' Mr. Livingstone is talking about, they don't exist; http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7122543/what-you-need-to-know-ahead-of-tomorrows-growth-figures.thtml

Thoughts? is Mr. Livingstone fit for office?

[Wig44.]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100100126/ken-livingstone-the-rioters-need-someone-to-%E2%80%9Ccare-about-them-and-speak-for-them%E2%80%9D/

Labours Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone: the rioters need someone to 'care about them and speak for them'


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/hackneyCar_1967240i-460x287.jpg
All he needs is care and representation, according to Ken Livingstone



http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1271607241_80.177.117.97.jpg
Ken and Labour members




Well I don't advocate voting Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat at the best of times but I would urge those living in London not to elect this throwback marxoid at the next election because I think what he's said above says it all doesn't it without an explanation? I do wonder what Mr. Livingstone would say the same if his house, business and property were smashed up? it'd probably be Margaret Thatchers fault right down to the dog poo on the pavement.

Oh and concerning the 'cuts' Mr. Livingstone is talking about, they don't exist; http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7122543/what-you-need-to-know-ahead-of-tomorrows-growth-figures.thtml

Thoughts? is Mr. Livingstone fit for office?
I don't understand your logic on there being no cuts. Cuts are being made (in the wrong places) but they are outweighed by the increases in spending.

It was predictable that some politicians would claim this was about the government and the black community being let down etc when these riots are just a lust for violence and a chance to loot. The real reason these riots didn't end after day 1 is the human rights act.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't understand your logic on there being no cuts. Cuts are being made (in the wrong places) but they are outweighed by the increases in spending.

It was predictable that some politicians would claim this was about the government and the black community being let down etc when these riots are just a lust for violence and a chance to loot. The real reason these riots didn't end after day 1 is the human rights act.

Thats not cuts, its always gone on (changes in allocation of spending) - when people say cuts they are thinking 'government is spending less' and its simply not true as the debts due to grow as is public spending in most areas. But yes, Ken is top clown-in-chief so it was always expected.

[Chippiewill]

There is, of course, a time and a place for electioneering. But last night, with the city on fire, wasn’t it.
I <3 this person.

[FlyingJesus]

Changes in the allocation of funds DOES mean cuts in some areas. There being an overall increase in spending in no way means that cuts aren't happening in certain departments and I cannot believe that you genuinely don't understand that.

That aside, Livingstone is an idiot. These people don't want a politician to tell them everything will be alright, they want to go smash things up and rule themselves in a barbaric "survival of the angriest" society

[-:Undertaker:-]

Changes in the allocation of funds DOES mean cuts in some areas. There being an overall increase in spending in no way means that cuts aren't happening in certain departments and I cannot believe that you genuinely don't understand that.

That logic would say that we always have cuts in every budget which is technically true - there are no 'cuts' as in what they are being portrayed. Government is continuing to spend more than ever before as is the debt growing.. no changes of importance in government finance have taken place.


That aside, Livingstone is an idiot. These people don't want a politician to tell them everything will be alright, they want to go smash things up and rule themselves in a barbaric "survival of the angriest" society

Like the ones who were saying its due to people being poor, yeah the kids on the blackberries standing around the poor sods. :P

[Mathew]

What a complete and utter ****.

[FlyingJesus]

That logic would say that we always have cuts in every budget which is technically true - there are no 'cuts' as in what they are being portrayed. Government is continuing to spend more than ever before as is the debt growing.. no changes of importance in government finance have taken place.

Yes there are always cuts in a new budget but not as drastic as some of the most recent ones. Cutting police spending by 20% over 4 years is something I would certainly say is of importance in government finance, especially in light of recent events.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/21/police-cut-30000-officers-staff HMIC expected to lose around 30,000 officers and staff at best, and you're suggesting that it isn't an important change?

[beth]

i don't think you can say this is a 'labour' issue since the leader of the party has displayed his disgust. ken is just a ****, really.

[Chippiewill]

That logic would say that we always have cuts in every budget which is technically true - there are no 'cuts' as in what they are being portrayed. Government is continuing to spend more than ever before as is the debt growing.. no changes of importance in government finance have taken place.
Problem is there's some idiot somewhere who thinks that because everyone else has made cuts that they can increase spending and not change anything. Too bad there's 100 idiots.

The Cuts Vs Increases difference is increasing quite rapidly, shame it's not doing much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes there are always cuts in a new budget but not as drastic as some of the most recent ones. Cutting police spending by 20% over 4 years is something I would certainly say is of importance in government finance, especially in light of recent events.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/21/police-cut-30000-officers-staff HMIC expected to lose around 30,000 officers and staff at best, and you're suggesting that it isn't an important change?

Firstly, I really don't believe these figures - now call that a non-argument but we were told the same about quangos a few months ago when government first took office along with staff redundancies at government departments, it actually turned out (as John Redwood Conservative MP pointed out) that staff numbers had actually continued to increase and any small reductions were drastically offset by increases in staff uptake, see here; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=714001&highlight=

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/03/article-2021729-0D461CFE00000578-546_468x712.jpg

So I really can't see these taking place just as quango bonfires didn't take place, rather they grew. If they do take place i'll eat my hat.

My overall point is that say your household spends £500 per month with £250 on food and the remaining £250 on other, Dad walks in one day and says the budget from now on is going to be £700 a month, but £1 is being taken off the food budget. Would you label that finance plan as cuts? no, you wouldn't. As we see from the chart above, its near-fraudulent to label government fiscal policy as 'cuts'.

[FlyingJesus]

Your analogy is ridiculously overexaggerated to start with. Obviously a 40% overall rise and 0.1% decrease in police finances would not be such a bad thing, as opposed to the 20% cut to funding which is the actual figure - note that I'm using real numbers instead of invented ones that bear no relevance to the topic.

Then we come to your wonderful charts on government jobs. Here it simply needs stating that this has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here, as it refers only to changes that the government itself suggested it would make, rather than actually showing the effects of changes that really have been made. It's a great show of how the guys at the top change their mind before acting on their previous statements, but I see nothing at all about it that talks about the outcomes of things that did happen. It's like saying that after buying new shoes I still have as much money as before, since I once said that I was going to buy a shirt but didn't actually do it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your analogy is ridiculously overexaggerated to start with. Obviously a 40% overall rise and 0.1% decrease in police finances would not be such a bad thing, as opposed to the 20% cut to funding which is the actual figure - note that I'm using real numbers instead of invented ones that bear no relevance to the topic.

Then we come to your wonderful charts on government jobs. Here it simply needs stating that this has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here, as it refers only to changes that the government itself suggested it would make, rather than actually showing the effects of changes that really have been made. It's a great show of how the guys at the top change their mind before acting on their previous statements, but I see nothing at all about it that talks about the outcomes of things that did happen. It's like saying that after buying new shoes I still have as much money as before, since I once said that I was going to buy a shirt but didn't actually do it.

Firstly concerning offical figures the example I provided in relation to quangos was what the government had said had occured had it not been for John Redwood MP uncovering the actual recruitment figures for these departments, in other words the government fiddled the figures by not taking into account recruitment figures and only using redundancy figures - in the private sector this would be considered fraud if any individual performed statistics concerning finances or company information like this.

Secondly, I have not found government spending on the Police budget which provides any details on the amount of funding the Police recieve every year (in real terms) - even with that, do the figures for the Police budget include Police quangos (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/08/police-efficiency-quango-spends-65-million-taxpayer-funded-credit-cards.html) and are the government including or not including these in their predictions for Police 'cuts'? these questions haven't be answered and you won't get an answer on it because its uncomfortable for a government which pretends to be a savage monetarist government in order to keep its supporters happy to admit that actually, yes, government is growing and government spending is continuing to spiral out of control.

As it happens, I support Police cuts - I think the Police Force should stop spending money on sending Police officers on diversity days out, gay training, quangocracies and so forth. But as i've stated above with plenty of evidence including links the real-term government spending, its highly unlikely these will take place/are not taking place. As for the last example, its very clear concerning the quangos as an example - the government said that the quangos had been cut (yes, said they had been not would be cut) but John Redwood MP found this to be untrue as the figures had been fiddled. So why would I believe a government which is spending more than ever before, is hiring more staff in central government quangos that it is going to drastically make cuts to the Police Force?

Anybody can fiddle figures to make an outcome best suited to themselves and government has done this time and time again.

[FlyingJesus]

So what you're saying is that you have no proof of anything but are totally in the right because it's all a conspiracy

[-:Undertaker:-]

So what you're saying is that you have no proof of anything but are totally in the right because it's all a conspiracy

No, actually i'm questioning whether these cuts will take place as government has barely cut anything else during its time in office, despite pretending to - rather its increased spending overall and in many other areas despite claiming it has cut.

[FlyingJesus]

But that isn't what you've said so far at all, you're stating (as though it were fact) that cuts have not happened, not that you don't think they will happen

[-:Undertaker:-]

But that isn't what you've said so far at all, you're stating (as though it were fact) that cuts have not happened, not that you don't think they will happen

Because i've seen no evidence that they have happened concerning the Police budget and concerning other budgets I have seen the exact opposite of what they have stated has and is happening when in reality it is not. (see Spectator graphs)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8083036/Spending-review-The-cuts-that-mean-public-spending-soars.html


As page 17 of the Treasury statement made clear, far from cutting Government spending, Mr Osborne’s own projections show that over the next four years it will continue remorselessly upwards, by larger jumps each year, from £696 billion to £739 billion. For all the dramatic talk of 25 or even 35 per cent cuts in the spending of some departments, such as the Foreign Office and the Home Office, these are more than offset by massive percentage increases in those areas of spending which top the list.