BB FANS

UK Big Brother Forums






Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 9:49 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Livingstone and Johnson battle for second votes


By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent

Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson made final pleas to Liberal Democrat supporters for their second preference votes as the battle to become Mayor of London headed for a photo-finish.

The Labour and Tory candidates poured praise on Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick during last night's final televised clash. With the two front-runners apparently neck and neck, the second preference votes of Mr Paddick's supporters could clinch Thursday's poll.

Mr Johnson told the packed debate, sponsored by The Independent and broadcast live on Sky News, that he disagreed with parts of Mr Paddick's manifesto. But he praised the former Metropolitan Police commander for protesting against hospital closures and said he had "some wonderful things to say".

Mr Livingstone has urged supporters to give their second preference votes to Sian Berry. But he told the meeting at Cadogan Hall, Chelsea, he agreed with 90 per cent of Mr Paddick's policies.

Asked who his supporters should put second on their ballots, Mr Paddick said: "They should vote for the best candidate first – me. Then make your own mind up which of these candidates you want to keep out."

Mr Johnson denounced Mr Livingstone for leading a "stale and wasteful" administration and promised "a fresh approach". He attacked Mr Livingstone for his "cronyism" and promised to bring a new transparency to the role. He also criticised Conservative members of the Greater London Assembly for not holding him to account. Mr Livingstone appeared to acknowledge the damage that accusations of cronyism had done and said he would offer jobs to Mr Johnson and Mr Paddick. He also said he was the man to oversee the construction of the £16bn Crossrail project.

Mr Paddick said the Mayor was out of touch and ridiculed Mr Johnson as an outsider born in New York, educated at Eton and representing an Oxfordshire constituency in Parliament.

The live debate was sponsored by The Independent, Sky News and Intelligence Squared.
Independent


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 9:52 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Cameron doubles poll lead as election looms
Independent


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 9:53 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
The Sketch: Frankly, it's Field who has solution to Gordon's woes
Independent


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 9:54 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Steve Richards: Gordon Brown cannot stand alone in the storm – he needs his cabinet stars to shine

If Labour were to lose an election, there is no one capable of becoming an effective leader...
Independent


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 9:59 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
As he battles to become London's mayor, the bizarre truth about the BNP boss, his ballerina fiance and bitter wife
Mail


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 10:14 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London

Gordon Brown says sorry for 10p tax axe as poll fears deepen
PM humble as poll fears deepen

By Jason Beattie, Deputy Political Editor





Gordon Brown said sorry for his 10p tax blunder yesterday as the row risked derailing Labour's local election hopes.

The PM's rare apology came after MPs warned the party could get hammered in Thursday's polls.

It is feared up to 200 councillors could lose their seats as the dispute is causing loyal supporters to turn their backs on Labour. Asked if he was sorry for the 10p tax rate axe, Mr Brown replied: "Of course, because it's unfortunate when things go wrong for people and we've tried to sort that out immediately over the last few days."

He said in the long term people would remember the cut of the 22p tax band to 20p, not abolishing the bottom rate on low-earners.

He also brushed aside claims by Lord Levy that Tony Blair had told him Mr Brown could not beat Tory leader David Cameron in an election.

The PM stressed steering the economy through tough times was more important to him than gossip.

He added: "I'm going to concentrate on the job ahead, on the priorities that matter for the British people and not on rumour." Yesterday Mr Cameron tried to claim his party was the best to fight poverty - despite figures showing child poverty doubled under the Tories.

He said: "This was the Government that promised social justice. But now there are 600,000 more in severe poverty than a decade ago."

Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell hit back: "While child poverty rose under the Tories, after they let the real value of child benefit fall, our extra support for families has already lifted 600,000 children out of poverty."

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne caused further anger by signalling a future Tory Government would squash hard-won union rights by stopping workers going on strike at "the drop of a hat".

TORIES LEAD

The Tories have doubled their lead to 14 points in the latest poll. They are on 40 per cent, up two, Labour on 26 per cent, down five, with Lib Dems up three on 20 per cent.
Mirror


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 10:20 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
The 50 most influential US political pundits

By Toby Harnden, US Editor
telegraph


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 15:42 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London

Channels Sued Over Poll Broadcast


The BBC and ITV will face a High Court challenge after making changes to a party political broadcast in the run-up to this week's local elections.

A Christian party says both broadcasters insisted on "censoring" its short film critical of plans by an Islamic group to build Europe's biggest mosque next to the 2012 Olympics site in east London.

Alan Craig, the Christian Choice candidate for the London mayor, said neither broadcaster would not allow his party to describe Tablighi Jamaat, which is behind the proposed £75 million mosque, as a "separatist Islamic group".

Craig said he was forced by the BBC to change his description of Tablighi Jamaat from "separatist" to "controversial". ITV said the word "controversial" could be applied only to the mosque plans and not to the group itself.

The edited broadcasts were shown in the London region on April 23.

Christian Choice's legal team is calling for a judicial review of the decision and will ask the judge to order for the unedited party election broadcast to be shown by election day.

Tablighi Jamaat is a Muslim missionary movement which started in India in the late 1920s. Its internet site says the group "refrains from political or controversial activities and stands for democracy and freedom" and "promotes social and religious integration".

waveguide.co.uk


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 29 Apr 08, 15:48 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London

A vote against this effete and frivolous Tory is a no-brainer


Ken Livingstone has relentlessly worked to improve London's lot. Boris Johnson is running only for fun and fame
Associated Newspapers, the owner of the Daily Mail, has used the London Evening Standard as a daily nuclear strike in the city's mayoral campaign. Its billboards across London every day claim spurious "scandal" after "scandal" involving Ken Livingstone. Few read the paper, but all London sees the newsstands.

The choice for Londoners on Thursday is stark - and it should be simple. It's not about a clash of personalities, it's between a rightwing lightweight and a seriously successful Labour mayor. By their policies you know them. Ask whose side are they are on? Boris Johnson campaigns mainly in the rich white suburbs, Livingstone in the inner city. Those with no vote in this race should be watching every bit as tensely as those who live in London: in many ways, here is a practice run for the general election. It is also a dummy run for how the Daily Mail will conduct the next general election for David Cameron.

Since few of you will ever read it, here is just one day's Standard coverage. Yesterday's front page sported a glowing picture of Cameron and Boris out with their wives, with a poll putting Johnson 11 points ahead. Page two hammered Labour's 10p tax troubles. Pages six and seven had a double-page anti-Ken spread. Page eight had "Ken accused of dirty tricks", written by Andrew Gilligan. Page nine had a Ken photo in Muslim dress with another Gilligan attack story. A leading article backs Boris, then another column by Gilligan attacks Ken for "The great Olympic 'con'". Opposite, another large opinion piece by Simon Jenkins begins "Londoners should vote for Boris Johnson". The diary, on pages 14 and 15, carries six anti-Labour items, followed by a double-page spread attacking Livingstone's architectural record. Other anti-Ken bites appear on page 20.

This is no newspaper, it's a Tory campaign sheet more virulent than any previous one I can remember. Rumour has it that this is the loss-making paper's swansong, so it doesn't care how many readers it bores to death. It just wants to paper every London street corner with billboards damning Ken. The assault works: many who can't quite list his crimes feel that Livingstone is too sleazy to vote for.

Johnson looks dangerously close to squeaking in, thanks to a toxic combination of Labour's woes and the Standard's campaign. Day after day it has sent Gilligan and others digging for anything they can find. Dutifully repeated in the press and on the BBC, the actual stories exhumed have been pretty slim pickings for a mayor in power so long and in control of so much money. The worst they found was that 0.07% of the London Development Agency's huge grant budget since 2000 went to dubious or now defunct ethnic minority charities. That's bad. But ask any grant-giving foundation, including the lottery, how many small grants to community groups go wrong and the LDA's failures are not unusual. Giving to small local start-ups always risks money going awry.

Ken's history spans London's recent decades and we know him well - his monster side, his obstinacy, but also his foresight in the causes he espouses, more often right than wrong. He has always championed underdogs others were kicking, long before it was fashionable. His espousal of poor Muslim groups will be seen as prescient and right - just as he was ahead of his time on gays, women and other ethnic minorities. He is now miles ahead of other politicians on climate. His backstory is London government's history, defying Margaret Thatcher, defying his own party too - which would often have gladly abolished him. He has reinvented himself to suit London's needs. The City, to its own surprise, responds positively to him, giving him much credit for seeing off Frankfurt as a competitor and even trouncing New York.

The idea of a mayor is a larger-than-life character with personal power and determination. It is not a consensual, collaborative role. Anyone any good, in New York or here, should expect to arouse strong emotions. Livingstone has been relentless in defending the poor and the weak, relentless in championing the idea of London, successful in binding together interests in transport, housing, policing, and now £78m for youth projects focused on gang culture.

Corrupt? Hardly. Money, celebrity and high society never interested him. His entire political life has been devoted to improving the London of his Brixton council estate youth. Whatever it takes, if it means pacts with devils, he will do it: nothing much interests him except London, its prosperity and its poor. It has taken political brilliance to prise huge transport investment from the Treasury - under Gordon Brown, his old enemy - for Crossrail, buses and the tube. Under him, London bus passenger numbers have risen 46% since 2000, while bus use is falling nationally. The local transport bill going through parliament will re-regulate buses with the intention of duplicating Livingstone's success around the country: that would never have happened without his lead, showing that local authorities need to control their own buses. His congestion charge made London a symbolic beacon for climate policy, as other capital cities flock to study it. He has shown that political bravery works.

So why isn't Livingstone winning hands down? Labour's woes are hanging around his neck - especially the 10p tax crisis, although he still runs far ahead of the Labour party nationally. Originally the Standard supported him to spite Labour; now it attacks.

When Londoners vote on Thursday, surely it's a no-brainer? Here is an effete and frivolous Tory only doing it for fun and fame. Never known for passionate commitment to anything but himself, his strongly rightwing views are contemptuously ignorant of all social policies: we know this from his writings. His bewilderingly few policies are to stop Ken's requirement that developers include 50% affordable housing in new building projects; to replace bendy buses at a cost he cannot name; to abandon local policing; to cut costs; and ... well, that's it. Or there is Ken.

Londoners must go out and vote for the assembly too, where big abstentions risk letting the BNP gain the 1-in-20 votes it needs to win a London Assembly seat. If you can't bear Ken, then vote for nice Siân Berry the Green, or Brian Paddick the Lib Dem - but give Ken your second preference. That's the joy of the alternative vote we need for Westminster.

polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 30 Apr 08, 16:59 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Boris Johnson - the truth behind the bluff facade
Mirror

Mirror man Kevin Maguire on Boris Johnson
Mirror

David Cameron says he will play dirty against Gordon Brown
Mirror


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 30 Apr 08, 17:16 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Ken: Voters will reject Boris at the crunch
thisislondon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 02 May 08, 15:45 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Battle isn't over - Brown must launch all-out war on Cameron
Mirror


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 02 May 08, 15:49 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Tory Boris is ahead in polls
Sun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 03 May 08, 15:37 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Cripes! Boris takes London (and rounds off a rotten day for Gordon Brown)

David Ashdown/INDEPENDENT

Allowing Mr Johnson to become the Tory candidate was seen as a gamble by Mr Cameron after a chequered political career.



Boris Johnson rubbed salt into Gordon Brown's wounds last night by winning a sensational victory over Ken Livingstone in the election for London Mayor.

Labour's gloom at suffering its worst council election results for 40 years deepened when Mr Johnson, the colourful Tory MP and journalist, ended the political career of Mr Livingstone after eight years as Mayor.

In a major coup which handed David Cameron a landmark double election victory, Mr Johnson won 1,168,738 votes (53 per cent) to Mr Livingstone's 1,028,966 (47 per cent) after the second preferences of people who backed the other eight candidates were redistributed to the two front-runners.

Mr Johnson won 1,043,761 first-preference votes, Mr Livingstone 893,877. Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate, trailed in third with 236,685.

After the result was declared just before midnight, Mr Johnson paid a generous tribute to Mr Livingstone and hoped London would continue to benefit from his "transparent love" of the city. He said his victory did not mean London was now "a Conservative city" but did mean the party could be trusted again.

An emotional Mr Livingstone said the fault for his defeat was "solely my own". His voice trembling, he said: "You can't be Mayor for eight years and then if you don't win that third term, say it was somebody else's fault."

Labour sources said Mr Johnson had won by piling up a mountain of votes in outer London suburbs in a £1m campaign. Labour could not match the high turn-out of Tory supporters in its inner London strongholds. In Bromley and Bexley alone, the Tory candidate amassed a huge 81,382 majority over Labour, winning by 122,052 votes to 40,670 in the first Mayoral result declared.

Mr Johnson started the race as an outsider with little chance of ending Mr Livingstone's reign at City Hall. Allowing him to become the Tory candidate was seen as a gamble by Mr Cameron after a chequered political career. Now the Tory high command will be keen to ensure Mr Johnson does not make embarrassing mistakes as Mayor, which could put a cloud over Mr Cameron's attempts to portray the Tories as a government-in-waiting. A strong team of experienced advisers is expected to be appointed by the incoming Mayor.

Mr Livingstone's fall from power will send shockwaves through Labour. His ratings were consistently 10 points ahead of his party's national figures – yet he still lost. His defeat highlights the scale of the fight-back Mr Brown needs to give Labour a chance at the next general election.

A battered and bruised Mr Brown is struggling to restore his authority after suffering a humiliating setback in his first elections as Labour leader. In the party's worst council results for 40 years, Labour lost more than 330 seats in local elections on May Day, finishing third with a 24 per cent projected share of the vote behind the Liberal Democrats (25 per cent) and the Conservatives (44 per cent).

Less than a year after he succeeded Tony Blair with high hopes of enhancing Labour's electoral appeal, Mr Brown had to promise to listen to the unmistakable message from the voters who had rejected his party.

Mr Brown conceded that the local results were "disappointing". Speaking in Downing Street, he said: "My job is to listen and to lead. We will learn lessons, we will reflect on what has happened and then we will move forward."

Mr Brown pledged to steer the country through difficult economic times and prepare for the prosperity that would follow. "The test of leadership is not what happens in a period of success but what happens in difficult circumstances," he said. He said he needed to show "strength and resolution as well as the conviction and ideas to take the country forward".

Tessa Jowell, the Minister for London, conceded that the voters had given Labour "a pasting". She said the Government had to conduct a conversation with ordinary people rather than inside "the Westminster village".

Labour's heavy losses exceeded the party's worst nightmares. Officials had predicted the loss of only 200 seats because many of those contested were last fought in 2004, when Labour did poorly and won 26 per cent of the vote amid a backlash over the Iraq war. In the event, Labour did even worse on Thursday.

The huge 20-point gap between the two main parties sparked comparisons with similar results at the 1995 local elections. Two years later, John Major lost the general election.

Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne, ominously called the results Mr Brown's "John Major moment". He said: "Gordon has committed spectacular own goals and the public is punishing him for it." He added: "We have to clear the crap out of the Cabinet ... He has until the conference season [this autumn] and, if he is still 24 per cent down in the polls, the party will have to take some pretty brave decisions."

There was unanimity among Labour MPs that Mr Brown's decision to abolish the 10p-in-the-pound lower rate of income tax proved an electoral disaster. Labour's vote dropped in many of the party's working-class strongholds as people rebelled over a change which hit 5.3 million low-paid workers.

As ministers rallied round, there was no immediate threat to Mr Brown's position. But the Labour MP Ian Gibson, a Brown ally, suggested the leadership issue might be reopened before the general election if Mr Brown failed to mount a successful fightback. "I'll give him six months to do it or there will be really hard talking," he said.

After his first electoral test as Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg said his party had "regained momentum" by gaining 30 councillors, even though its projected national share of the vote was four points down on 2004. "We have confounded the critics ... and gone forwards rather than backwards," he said. He described Labour as "a government that has run out of steam that is in power and nobody knows why, that has lost touch with ordinary British families".

Why all may not be lost ...


1968


The Beatles may have been singing "You say you want a revolution, well, you know we all want to change the world", but the British electorate did not want a changed world at all. They wanted to go back to the way things used to be. In London, the Conservatives picked up over 60 per cent of the vote, compared with Labour's 28.5 per cent, which meant that Labour lost all but four of London's 32 boroughs. The outcome was a harbinger of the 1970 general election result.

1981

An example of how misleading local election results can be. Labour did very well, seizing control of the Greater London Council and Liverpool among other prizes, taking every seat but one in Islington. The way that they ran these councils caused so much controversy that the party might have been better off nationally without them. The general election two years later was the worst for Labour since the 1930s.

1990

The Conservative Party chairman, Kenneth Baker, cleverly outspun Labour by pretending to believe that the real electoral tests were whether the Tories could hold on to Bradford, Westminster and Wandsworth. When they held the two London boroughs, the result was interpreted as a defeat for Neil Kinnock, pictured. However, Tory MPs in marginal seats knew the results were bad, which is why they removed Margaret Thatcher from office six months later.

1995

This was the slaughter of the Conservatives. They lost nearly 2,000 seats, and were left in control of almost no councils of any size apart from some London boroughs and Buckinghamshire council. There were numerous major cities in the north of England, including Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle with no Tory councillors at all. This heralded the 1997 general election defeat. But there was an up side for the Tories: their results were so bad that they have made gains in every council election since.

2004


This week's elections were not the first in which Labour fell behind the Liberal Democrats. They hit what was then a historic low in 2004, because of the unpopularity of the Iraq war and student fees, losing control of councils in areas seen as Labour's heartlands, such as Newcastle, Leeds and Doncaster. This did not stop Tony Blair leading Labour to general election victory the following year.
Independent


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Politics / Elections
PostPosted: 03 May 08, 15:40 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Deborah Orr: The real tragedy after 11 years of Labour is that we have learnt so little


I think it is safe to say, in the light of this week's elections, that the New Labour project is not looking healthy. Suddenly, there is much discussion about how the Government's social democratic principles can be revived, none of it amounting, so far, to very much.

Suddenly there is fear as well, among social democrats anyway, because while Labour may not have addressed the flaws in its thinking, the Conservatives most certainly have not either. This is the real tragedy – that in the past 11 years we learned so little, and that it took a decade for Labour's basic problems to become so apparent to its leadership.

Interviews with voters at the exit polls suggested that among the many and varied difficulties former supporters had with Labour, the recent debacle over the removal of the 10p tax band was a strong influence. Voters are right to alight on this matter. Labour was caught in the act of taxing the working poor, then planning on somehow returning the cash, in the form of tax credits – so cumbersome, so dependent on means-testing, so expensive, and so hard to manage.

More generally, the Government has employed that system to transfer wealth from richer to poorer, earning itself a reputation for "quiet redistribution" that those concerned with inequality have broadly accepted as the best thing to do, under the circumstances. But the trouble with "quiet redistribution", it is now horribly apparent, is that it has been carried out without discussion and argument about its moral worth to society. Labour may have hoped to show, not tell. But it has not done so.

Brown's reliance on tax credits as a means of wealth redistribution arose from his hope that he could design a mechanism that would rebalance the tendency to inequality that existed in the economy he inherited, without unduly disturbing it. His practical measures to alleviate poverty may have been more timid than his instincts, but they were positive, and we told ourselves that this was enough.

Now, 10 years on, the tax credit system has not made sufficient impact on the underclass for the point to have been made (far from it), while the over-class still threatens to leave town if its tax is not cut, unwilling to face its own responsibilities, unable to see that in a stable society, everyone must feel secure.

The horrible feeling is that in philosophical terms, we are no further forward than we were in 1997, at the time when all could see what havoc an economy that condemned so many to uselessness and insecurity was wreaking. Sometimes, it even seems that the debate has actually managed to regress from what then seemed like a pivotal moment.

One or two of the allegations now circulating about the "state of Britain" would be comic if they were not so perilously ignorant, inflammatory and wrong. In the past few days it has been reported that "even asylum-seekers" are leaving Britain, fed up with the health service, and the weather, rather, presumably, than the hardline denial of their most basic rights, until their claims have been processed, that they are now subjected to.

Only last week, we were treated to the amazing spectacle of a prison officer contending that Britain's prison's – stuffed to the gills, understaffed and underresourced to a hellish degree – were so cushy that even given ladders, prisoners were choosing not to escape from them. In reality, our prisons have become holding pens for the mentally ill, who probably have good reason to fear release from incarceration anyway.

The rhetoric is frightening, and the worry now is that the moment has passed for sensible analysis even to begin to cut through the tumult of misinformation. The debate is becoming so distorted that the Conservative Party itself understands that it must do its best to keep a distance from such senseless and negative hyperbole. Sometimes it appears that it is the Conservative Party that the New Labour project has educated with most success. I guess we'll soon find out just how much of an illusion that faint hope is.
Independent


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Material breaching copyright laws should be reported to webmaster (-at-) bbfans.com. BBFans.com is in no way affilated with Channel4 or Endemol.