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

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/an...them%E2%80%9D/

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

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): “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.

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). 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/coffeehou...-figures.thtml

Thoughts? is Mr. Livingstone fit for office?

[Wig44.]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/an...them%E2%80%9D/

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

All he needs is care and representation, according to Ken Livingstone




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/coffeehou...-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 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.

[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/ju...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.