« Tory MPs protest Anglicans' Israel boycott | Main | David Willetts: The three ingredients of successful school choice programmes »

Comments

Excactly Editor.Livingstone was offensive in thje extreme but the only people who should have the opportunity to get rid of him are the voters from London and not a bunch of unelected beaurocrats.

I agree with the Editor. This not the Kremlin - YET!- I heartily dislike the newt lover, but this was not the way to go about it. We just need a damn good candidate for the next time the job is up for grabs. Not that it affects me, I'm oop North.

I wonder, will his pay be suspended for the same period? Also, who paid "private citizen" Ken Livingstone's legal bills?

I never thought I'd want to defend the odious Ken Livingstone but this decision is an attack on democracy. First the Human Rights Act empowers unelected judges to strike down democratically-reached decisions they don't like. Now an appointed panel suspends a directly elected mayor.

Of course there is an exquisite irony that a politician who has done so much to foster the climate of Orwellian PC thoughtcrime should be its victim. Nevertheless all Conservatives should defend Livingstone's right to be an obnoxious, extremist creep without being temporarily removed from office by sinister bureaucrats.

Has Theresa Villiers started a 'Jail Livingstone' campaign yet?

No London mayor for a month ? The capital will grind to a halt. Has anyone got a contingency plan ?

What happens if Gavron is suspended for 4 weeks?

Any one got anything on her?

The Labour Party which Ken Livingstone represents has set up all sorts of ridiculous new rules which all elected representatives must abide by. Ken Livingstone has absolutely no-one to blame but himself. A simple apology for a tasteless comment would have sufficed. I have little sympathy for Livingstone.

The Labour Party is rapidly eroding the civil liberties we enjoy in Britain, this is just the most high profile example.

I have to confess that I am less worried about this than others seem to be. While elections should be the main way to reward or punish politicians there needs to be some other form of censure as well.

Livingston committed a very public misdemeanour and needs to have a public punishment. The suspension is mainly symbolic but it will still be in people’s minds come election time, I am not sure that the incident or the reports of it would be such a factor in the elections otherwise.

Whether it should be the Standards Board that does this kind of thing I am not convinced, perhaps this should be one of the jobs of the assembly members.

DVA: "Has Theresa Villiers started a 'Jail Livingstone' campaign yet?"

Very good, Daniel!

Ken Livingstone would probably have gone on hands and knees and started wailing if he had trodden on a newt, but apologise for tastelessness to other human beings, forget it.

Let's put principle above our natural desire for Schadenfreude. If Ken does or says something wrong, the electorate can, if it wishes (and we put up a decent candidate) remove him. If it is criminal, the law can. At a push I would welcome the concept of impeachment (albeit I could see this being abused). Yes what he said was offensive and yes it serves him and his ilk right that the law has come back and bit them on the behind but I have to say the whole concept of this Standards Board is very Soviet.

The man is a prat but this panel should not be able to overturn the electors of the Capital City. There should be a way for the Assembly to no-con a mayor but not removal by fiat.

Still, funny that he of all people has fallen foul of the PC Police.

"This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law. Three members of a body that no one has ever elected should not be allowed to overturn the votes of millions of Londoners."

This from one of British politics' most unreconstructed Europhiles? Wow.

How many of those people here defending the Divine Right of Kens would have voted for David Irving to be Mayor of London?

Both Irving and Livingstone support fascistic, anti-Semitic causes. (As far as we know, Livingstone still thinks Yusuf al-Qaradawi is like Pope John XXIII.) Both are personally unlovely. But there is a difference between them.

The difference is that Ken Livingstone is an elected official, and as such has certain moral responsibilities. Those who complain about political correctness (and I am one of them) might like to reflect that there is a reason why it is actually called POLITICAL correctness. A report by the Community Security Trust (CST) three weeks ago made it quite clear that Livingstone's comments provoked multiple anti-Semitic incidents. And the difference between Livingstone and Prince Harry is that Prince Harry apologised.

To those people here who think we're going to get rid of Livingstone by "democratic" means, you really need to re-connect with reality. Even the Evening Standard, Livingstone's supposed bete noire, supported him at the last election. There really is no alternative but to hope that sooner or later he'll be hoist with his own politically correct petard -- as seems to have happened here.


You're missing the point Oliver. None of us would have *voted* for Livingstone, but most of take the view that is for his voters to remove him, not unelected Quangos.

I would be highly sceptical about any claim of a causative link between what Livingstone said to Feingold, and physical violence against Jews.

There is an alternative to Livingstone as Mayor. It is for the Conservative Party to find an electable candidate who begins campaigning early and who actually has his heart set on the job (rather than the director of a Plc blamed for rail disasters who never thought he could win). In addition to the Party finding an electable candidate who works hard, London Tories need to build a London conservative movement. Leaving it to CCHQ or local Party associations will only produce another defeat unless the political pendulum takes a massive swing. Winning a City from the right is possible - hell, if Rudy can win NY despite a 5:1 ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans, anything is possible!

Well said, Donal - although the party is hardly moribund in London. We've won both London Assembly elections, and we won London in the European Elections, as well as making more gains in London than almost anywhere else at the General Election.

It's only in the Mayoral elections we keep getting appalling London results.

I am opposed to all legal limits on freedom of speech. But as an elected politician Livingstone has certain responsibilities that ought to be contractually enforced. One of these is not to make childish and offensive comments.

In my eyes, Livingstone's offence is not the fact that he said something offensive, but that he breached a duty to the electorate.

The point I am making - and that I will make until someone listens! - is that elections are winnable with a small core of trained activists. That way scarce financial and human resources can be deployed to best effect. We still act as though we have an army of canvassers and tellers, a neutral media and the deference of swathes of the electorate. We don't. Labour has created a client state (see Fraser Nelson in the Spectator this week), the mainstream media is biased as hell and the Party active membership is on the decline.

Smart politics requires that we maximise our resources. Development of a movement, rather than hoping things will change or plodding on in campaigns as we did last time, will give us a good chance of success. Maybe we ought to tout names of London mayoral candidates (as well as training our London activists to ensure that, come 2008, we win the Mayoralty).

Livingstone shouldn't have said what he did. He should have apologised once he had said it. But being offensive (and Livingstone has many years of experience in that) is not a crime! He didn't break any laws. What is the country coming to when an elected politician (who stand for everything I, and most others here I suspect, don't) can be removed by an unelected cabal of 'PC' nut jobs?
The correct way to rid ourselves of this odios man is to vote him out. We may have a chance if we put up candidates better (which won't be hard) than Archer or Norris. This is not the way to run a democracy, and is in my eyes a frightening precedent. God help us all.

If someone would like to write a Platform piece - touting possible mayoral candidates - please email me: [email protected]

Could I ask those of you who are piously and sanctimoniously calling for those who make offensive comments to be removed from the offices to which they were elected to stop and think. How on earth would this be enforceable? One man's supposedly offensive comment is offensive to one person and not offensive to another.

I might be offended by calls from politicians to ban hunting or to ban smoking in public places, or where there are calls to increase taxes or to spend money on homo-erotic art. The point is that while Ken's comments were childish and designed to be offensive, they were not unlawful (and God forbid if we had yet more laws to restrict free speech). I worry that there is a puerile partisan tone developing among some posters here just because we all loathe Ken as Mayor and everything for which he stands. The right thing to do is to attack the quango that pursued him and to attack Ken. Arbitrarily deciding that because you think bien pensant people do not like certain opinions or beliefs, those opinions or beliefs should be prevented from being aired or espoused is unconservative.

Well said, Donal. Some people here seem to have lost all sense of what democracy means. Can you imagine if a Tory mayor had made an offensive remark to a left wing journalist - and then was removed from office by an unelected quango? We'd all be outraged, and rightly so.

We need more democracy - not less. It should be possible for a certain number of signatures to trigger a recall vote - as can happen in California.

The sad truth is that, last time, there were too many idiots in London who thought Ken was great. Until the Tories can persuade them otherwise we don't deserve to hold the mayoralty.

"Can you imagine if a Tory mayor had made an offensive remark to a left wing journalist - and then was removed from office by an unelected quango? We'd all be outraged, and rightly so."

I wouldn't be. Like I said above, elected officials ought to be bound by a contractual duty. That duty should include not making childish insults.

That is absurd. Who decides what constitutes "childish insults"? A quango? Robust debate includes the right to offend and insult. If an elected politician goes to far it is up to his or her electors to administer punishment.

What if a politician stood on a platform of "robust and uninhibited expression, including speech that others may deem childish insults" and was elected? Is Richard seriously suggesting that, even in that situation, a clique of unelected bureaucrats should be able to over-ride the explicitly stated decision of the electorate?

Hmmm. That sounds remarkably like the Iranian system.

I think people are letting their dislike of Livingstone cloud their judgement.

If you read what was actually said, according to the Jewish Anti-Defamation league,
1) He likened Finegold to a concentration
camp before he knew he was Jewish, so they could not be anti-semitic.

2) When he found out Finegold was Jewish, he didn't take his remarks back but clarified them by stressing that Finegold justified his behaviour with "i'm just doing my job".

While his comments were ill-judged and flippant, I am not convinced that
".....Livingstone's comments provoked multiple anti-Semitic incidents. " as Oliver McCarthy says above.

That is just ludicrous.

Oh come off it Biodun....the reporter had worked for the Standard for many years and had responsibility for covering the GLA and the Mayor. Livingstone knew him well and also knew his name. I accept a name does not prove antecedence but it is a safe bet that "Finegold" had a higher the average probability of Jewish ancestry.

I simply do not accept that a politician as astute as Livingstone did not know EXACTLY what he was saying and did so to cause maximum personal offence.

However, even if Livingstone did not know Finegold was Jewish it is no excuse for his behaviour. Just imagine if a Conservative politician was conducting a telephone interview with a black reporter and made a racist remark - then tried to claim mitigation by saying he couldn't see the colour of the reporters skin.

Having said all that - I do agree with the general tone of the posts regarding an elected representative being suspended from office by an unaccountable quango. I have been involved in a Standards Board enquiry myself (I wrote a leaflet for a local Councillor that ruffled the feathers of some sanctimonious LibDems). Although the Board found in our favour, the whole episode was quite stressful for all concerned.

A quick scroll through case histories of the Standards Board website (www.standardsboard.co.uk) indicate that well over 90% of complaints are thrown out at the first stage of investigation and only a tiny number (just 2 from 100 cases I have just studied) actually result in any form of sanction.

Most cases appear to be brought by politicians from opposing parties in an attempt to score political points. In the case in which I was involved, the local newspaper was only to happy to report "Tory Councillor Under Investigation" but the "Tory Councillor Exonerated" headline never appeared.

"It's only in the Mayoral elections we keep getting appalling London results."

Er no. Steve Norris increased his vote share in the 2004 Mayoral election in London, by a similar amount to the increase in the party's vote in the 2005 general election.

The Tory GLA candidates, however, saw their vote share drop on their result in 2000.


"It is for the Conservative Party to find an electable candidate who begins campaigning early and who actually has his heart set on the job"

Not well said, Donal. Not only did Steve Norris's vote share go up while the GLA candidates went down, but every major party candidate in that election had a day job which as it should be (remember Jeffrey Archer?). Unlike, Ken Livingstone and Simon Hughes, however, Steve's job was a real one and not funded by the taxpayer.

* real in the sense of: you have to show up and do the job properly if you want to keep it, that is.

"That is absurd. Who decides what constitutes "childish insults"? A quango? Robust debate includes the right to offend and insult. If an elected politician goes to far it is up to his or her electors to administer punishment."

A judge and jury I would have thought. Yes, I agree politicians should be allowed to offend and insult. But there's a difference between using facts against your opponent and calling them names.

"What if a politician stood on a platform of "robust and uninhibited expression, including speech that others may deem childish insults" and was elected? Is Richard seriously suggesting that, even in that situation, a clique of unelected bureaucrats should be able to over-ride the explicitly stated decision of the electorate?"

I can't see anybody voting for someone standing on that platform. If they did then I'd accept that maybe the rules might have to be changed. But I'm sure that most people prefer their politicians to act sensibly and not hurl abuse at people.

And it wouldn't be a clique of unelected bureaucrats, it would be a professionally qualified judge.

I know this may seem a trivial thing but politicians have sunk so low in public esteem (dodging questions, acting like children etc) that it is about time they were forced to grow up and govern the country properly. That means no more refusing to answer direct questions, no more unwitty abuse and no more lame excuses about using a car to protect your wife's hair Mr Prescott!

Then there's the Annoy.com repsonse.

Mein London

I imagine that Norris Supporter endorses David Cameron's strategy for Tory revival, namely that losing yet again is not good enough. The fact is that in 2008, we need to win the mayoralty. I am not comforted by the fact that "Shagger" increased his share of the vote. I want our mayoral candidate to win and for us to win control of the GLA. We will only do this if, in addition to choosing hard-working, electable candidates and a decent policy platform, we organise properly on the ground.

"We will only do this if, in addition to choosing hard-working, electable candidates and a decent policy platform, we organise properly on the ground."

Agreed.

"I am not comforted by the fact that "Shagger" increased his share of the vote"

I was merely pointing out that you had criticised Steve Norris, whose vote share went up, implying his responsibility for the lost election whereas the other Tory candidates standing at that election saw their vote share go down. Didn't make sense.

Should an unelected quango have the power to sanction an elected office holder for conduct which is not illegal?

Of course not. In fact, in our last exciting manifesto, we were pledged to abolish the Standards Board. That may even still be policy - I had it marked down for death in the Quango Cull.

Should there be a form of sanction for political figures who act in a disreputable manner?

Of course there should. Ultimately, we have things called ballot boxes, but for now the correct way of handling Livingstone's remarks would have been an internal discipinary proceeding from his party. All parties need to bear in mind the damage which out-of-control members can do to their position. I take it I don't need to argue this point among friends? The silence of London Labour on this issue is deafening.

If anyone is interested, this link will take you to the Adjudication Panels full decision in the Livingstone case:

http://www.adjudicationpanel.co.uk/documents/notice_of_decision.pdf

Not much to say here except that I agree with the Editor.

Good one btw DVA ;)

It shows how meaningful the Government intended the office of Mayor of London to be when he is disciplined as a Local Government official - not anywhere treated as equal to the importance of an MP.

It shows how little respect the Government has for any alternative democratic mandate - treat all elected officials as public employees imposing external standards commissions & disciplinary bodies. There is a perfectly good legal system and set of laws to cover criminal activities, civil upset is a matter for the voters. I think giving the voters power of recall would be a useful tool - but in the end Ken was elected, he can say pretty much what he likes and its the London voters he's answerable to.

Still with the new Enabling Bill we won't have to worry about either Ken or even our MPs democratic mandate - the Minister after all knows best.

Yes absolutely we should abolish all these ghastly quangos. I don't see that this means we should leap to the defence of the detestable fascist who currently resides in the glass testicle. Let's do a bit of street politics and use the outcome from this nonsense quango's work to amplify the fact that no one with any self-respect would publicly support the vile creature again. Then when we win westminster we can abolish the silly quango, having made Livingstone electoral history in the meantime.

It always astonishes me the number of Tories who thought that voting for Red Ken would be a bit of a laugh. Not if you're one of the many dead people who've been killed in our ever-more-lawless streets since he took control of the Met, it's not. ***Any*** electoral ammunition that we can use to destroy his career should be relished by us.

If the outcome of the quango is that the label anti-semite is forever attached to the Livingstone, then it has done one bit of good in its hopefully short lifespan. They might be useful idiots, but they're useful idiots serving our cause at the moment.

Sadly Graeme, it has been known for many years that Ken is an anti-semite. He has also shared platforms with organisations that have actively killed Londoners - the IRA and Palestinian Terrorists. Yet despite this, he has still been elected Mayor twice. This is either (a) a terrible indictment on the intelligence of the voters of London, or/and (b) a terrible indictment on the Tory party for not being able to field candidates who could beat him. But if we go with Archer and Norris, we really deserve what we get. Unfortunately, the good people of London deserve better.

Ken should trigger a by-election and give the people a chance to judge

(a) a terrible indictment on the intelligence of the voters of London, or/and (b) a terrible indictment on the Tory party for not being able to field candidates who could beat him"

It reflects poorly on both.

(a) a terrible indictment on the intelligence of the voters of London, or/and (b) a terrible indictment on the Tory party for not being able to field candidates who could beat him"

It reflects poorly on both.

Lots on this Blog about 'democratic due process' or whatever the bristling individuals choose to call it, but no mention, after a cursory glance, of the fact that old Trots like Livingstone (and his 'intellectual' bedfellow, Galloway), only cry foul when the 'system', dodgy as it might be, finds them out. If he had had genuine concerns about the undermining of his skewed notion of the democratic imperative, he would have done something about the system of tribunal that did for him as soon as he duped the somnambulant Londoners into voting for him in the first place.

Like many things British (not 'Londoner' you will notice - London is perfect), the system is flawed, but it bloody well worked in the the case of this anti-Semite, rather troubled, rather dangerous individual. To give a guy like this a huge, important city like London to play with was the first madness. I hope the High Court not only upholds his ban from public office, but, if it is within its gift, extends it. That would help dam the flow of this man's incoherent, prejudiced poison a little longer at least.

The needed reforms can come after he is a distant, bad memory.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker