'A consultation' - Livingstone style.

Maybe I am being naive, but the concept of 'a consultation' suggests that something is being investigated without there being pre-ordained aim. Not, however, when it comes to City Hall and the Mayor of London.

The 'consultation' is about an exciting new class war attack on folk fortunate enough to drive large and / or luxurious cars. Not that it is phrased thus, it is all about CO2 emissions, which Livingstone has determined to have caused the recent floods. Uh-huh.

There is, as one would expect, some rather poor reasoning at work in the press release, and some fairly masterful sleights of hand. The attack on the owners of these cars is justified by their only being driven by '8% of Londoners'. Given that the congestion charge zone covers Westminster and K&C, the honest figure to dig out would be the percentage of these chariots of CO2 owned by people living in those boroughs, but as the average Westminsterian / Kensingtonian probably drives something a little further up the food chain than a 10 year old Toyota that would not allow him to produce a figure of 8% for the rest of us to place, metaphorically speaking, in the stocks and pelt with unread copies of 'The Londoner'. Although doubtless he would love to do that too.

And it is 'argued' further, "Some of the worst examples produce two or three times as much greenhouse gases as the average family car". Per mile? Per day? Per whatever? If I have been taxed for the privilege of driving a car in town, having once paid the tax there is absolutely no disincentive to spend all day in it, rather than just use it for the originally planned scoot to the shops.

And there's more: "The proposals are part of the Mayor's strategy to do everything possible to reduce pollution and London's contribution to climate change - a top priority as the recent catastrophic weather has brought home".

"Everything possible"? Given that by Livingstone's own admission less than half of the non-aviation transport produced CO2 comes from cars, what is he doing about his ghastly bendy buses, for instance? And that is before he targets people for breathing out, plants for photosynthesising, etc etc.

And then compare this statement: "The Mayor will keep an open mind on the proposals until he has considered the responses to the consultation".

With this: "The highest CO2 emitting cars - like some of the so-called Chelsea tractors, high powered sports cars and luxury executive cars - can produce twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as the kind of car driven by the average Londoner. By proposing these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact on the environment of their choice of car".

Any bets on Livingstone deciding not to charge extra for some vehicles? I'll happily take any money anyone wants to stake.

Ken's "not-so-green" emissions counter

London Mayor Livingstone Ken has really outdone himself, with flagrant hypocrisy with his latest "green" gimmick.

As part of his "DIY Planet Repairs" campaign launch earlier today, he revealed a very large LED screen displaying a counter, which is counting the quantity of CO2 emissions being produced, and wasted, by Londoners.

Some of the ideas to for Londoners include switching off lights, and unplugging electrical items. However, the question has to be asked "how much CO2 is being produced to power this counter".

I would bet that if Ken switched his CO2 counter off, there would be a lot less CO2 produced. He really hasn't got a clue when it comes to green issues, every attempt he makes ends up producing higher emissions.

By their friends shall ye know them

From the other side of the pond we hear of the latest sinister antics of Livingstone's good friend, El Presidente Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Like our own unreconstructed Communist in London, Chavez intensely dislikes his opponents having a voice and a platform from which to use it. Democracy is inconvenient like that.

Unlike Livingstone, Chavez is able to use ruthless tactics to suppress the opposition's ability to argue their case and expose failings, human rights abuses and a naked thirst for power. Livingstone is limited to hurling abuse. So Chavez spins the line that all opponents must therefore have been involved in a coup attempt against him and takes draconian steps to silence them by removing the platform.

This time it is the independent TV station RCTV that is about to be silenced as Chavez has refused to renew its licence. Instead he will replace the station with... a publicly funded one - i.e. a government propaganda channel.

Marcel Garnier, RCTV's managing director, told a crowd of cheering protesters in Caracas that Mr Chavez was trying to "topple the country over the precipice of totalitarianism where not even his own supporters can express their opinions".

I could not have put it better myself. I wonder what Livingstone thinks about all this. Perhaps he prefers the "quiet diplomacy" approach of his friends in South Africa and will tell Comrade Hugo that his actions are not really on. Or, most likely, he thinks RCTV has had it coming and deserves all they get for daring to oppose such a visionary. Either way, there will be hugs, backslapping and tributes next time they meet - assuming Hugo is not too busy that is.

Yet more Livingstone antics

Today Livingstone is hosting 'The state of London Debate', with the aim being "a chance to discuss with London’s policy makers the reasons behind London’s success and how it can remain successful in the future".

I have had a look at the speakers, all 83 of them, and done a rough and ready sorting into politicians, wonks, lobbyists and the like.

This is what I've divined:

Elected politicians: 16, of whom two are Conservatives.
Livingstone's office, advisers etc: 10
Quangocrats: 13
Media types: 3
Arts / sports: 5
Special interest groups / lobbyists etc etc: 24. Of which, there are three from Muslim organisations including that nice, moderate Mr Bunglawala, and fancy, no Jews.
Business people: Gita Patel of the remarkably obscure Stargate Capital Management and Alistair Soyode of BEN TV. Both are very specifically ethnic minority businesses.

CEO's of FTSE 100 businesses, senior partners from Big Four professional services organisations, senior partners from 'Magic Circle' law firms, Lloyds brokers, London Stock Exchange, money market figures etc etc : Zero.

Given that "Londoners have always known they live in a great city – a place where people from around the globe come to do business and enjoy all that the capital has to offer. Now an official report identifies London as one of the most successful cities in the world" what chances are there that this particular set of people is going to have much insight into the successes of the City of London - the engine of the London economy?

Now taxi drivers are Ken's Enemy No.1

If you drive a motor vehicle that transports less than 40 people at a time, then Ken Livingstone wants to price you off the road. You would have thought that with his fondness for using London's black cabs, Livingstone would be supportive of the fleet and its dedicated drivers. Not a bit of it.

As Iain Dale has explained, Livingstone is:

... making every cab fit a piece of technology which is supposed to reduce exhaust emissions. Not a bad thing in theory, but the technology doesn't work. It doesn't reduce emissions, it actually increases them! Newer cabs have it fitted as standard but older cabs have to have it fitted retrospectively at a cost of £2500. The cabbies are issuing legal challenges but Livingstone won't talk to them and still maintains the technology works despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Now there is a shock. A group of people prove Livingstone wrong and want to talk to him about it and he will not give them the time of day? Who would have thought? If you think we are being harsh on London's communist Mayor, why not watch the film below for yourself and make your own mind up?

Livingstone finds more people to offend

This time the Japanese government and its people. There may, or may not be a case for arguing that the congestion charge is not a tax, but this hardly classes as diplomacy, especially when conducted on the radio:

"Commenting recently about Japan's decision not to contribute toward the central London congestion motoring charge, Ken Livingstone told the LBC radio station, "I think there are several problems with Japan that we could go on about here. "Admitting their guilt for all the war crimes would be one thing. So if they've not got round to doing that, I doubt they're too worried about the congestion charge." (Source)

Showing his usual cavalier disregard for the facts, he fails to note that the Japanese authorities have made numerous apologies. Quite apart from the issue of diplomatic niceties, it is hardly good business to offend a major source of foreign direct investment, and the £312,000 which the Mayor considers Japan owes is a trifle compared to the potential investments that he may have deterred. He has taken aim at the US in similarly crass terms, and given that around 50 diplomatic missions are not paying the charge, perhaps we can anticipate a whole range of specially tailored slurs for individual countries.

Sickening hypocrisy

From the BBC:

Mayor Ken Livingstone has formally apologised for London's role in the slave trade.

He called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to follow suit by issuing an official apology on behalf of the country.

"The government's refusal of such an apology is squalid," he said, on the eve of the bicentenary of legislation to abolish the slave trade.

Mr Livingstone urged fellow Londoners to join him in apologising for this "monstrous crime."

This is absolutely pathetic. If Ken Livingstone was so guilt-ridden about slavery why has he waited until now, years after his election, to issue his apology? This is nothing more than a publicity seeking stunt by a man who apologises for something no one alive today had any involvement in or control over.

Meanwhile Livingstone lauds Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Castro runs a regime that rejects democracy, jails political opponents and reporters who tell the truth, and clamps down on trade unions. Chavez tells public workers to support him or leave the country, sanctions beatings and intimidation of unions who oppose his style of government and allies himself with Iran, a country which has called for an entire country to be wiped out (Israel). By their friend ye shall know them.

The squalid one is Livingstone who is displaying hypocrisy of the worst kind. He wraps himself in the blanket of suffrage and tells the population to wear sackcloth and ashes, while supporting and promoting a man in Cuba who is still enslaving an entire country and another who commits human rights violations in Venezuela.

Yet despite his warped idea of what real freedom entails, he has the temerity to demand the government join with him in his egotistical taxpayer funded guilt trip. Livingstone is behaving like a chiselling little egomaniac who appears to do nothing unless there could be a possible electoral advantage in it for him.

Junket Ken's wings clipped?

International travel is one of the things that should appear as an interest on Ken Livingstone's CV. The costs of Livingstone's overseas trips, at the expense of London taxpayers, have increased nearly ten-fold in just three years. The cost of foreign travel by the Mayor’s Office was £36,490 in 2004-05. This rose to £103,130 in 2005-06. However for the year up to December 2006 it had soared (like a Livingstone in Club Class) to £229,942.

Such is the concern about Livingstone's new found love of popping abroad and the huge additonal cost that comes with it, the London Assembly has supported a motion that states:

This Assembly believes that all international trips and visits by officers of the Mayor’s office must reflect value for money and clearly be in the interests of London, the London economy, the London environment, and Londoners.

All such international trips must have clearly defined objectives by which the success of these trips can be measured.

As Assembly Member Richard Barnes made clear: 'It is not acceptable to make trips at a significant cost to Londoners which do not seem to have a clear purpose, then attempt to justify them afterwards.' Such as those to Cuba to pay homage to Fidel Castro, when the destination was Venezuela, for example.

Put up or shut up Ken

The gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, has hit back at Chairman Ken, (following the disgraceful double standards shown in a Mayor's statement we touched upon in a post a couple of days ago) accusing Livingstone of dishonesty and making libellous comments. Tatchell has demanded that Livingstone provides evidence to support his accusation of Islamophobia and if he cannot, to make a public apology to Tatchell and campaign group OutRage!

Livingstone made his comments during a visit to London by the Mayor of Moscow. Russian gay rights leader, Nikolai Alekseev, who attended the press conference in London weighed in by calling Livingstone a hypocrite for saying one thing and doing another. The full story can be read on Harry's Place. It really is an eye opener.

Where Livingstone feels justified in comparing the American Ambassador to a 'chiselling little crook' for refusing to pay the congestion charge, I feel people will be justified in comparing Livingstone to a 'snivelling little arse kisser' for criticising the Mayor of Moscow behind his back, while sucking up to him face to face.

All hail Ken and open your wallets

The planned strike by London Underground has been called off after a deal was reached for a three year pay deal. Comrade Ken has been quick to celebrate the news and revealed that:

'This three-year agreement is great news for both Tube passengers and staff and is a real landmark achievement. Passengers will benefit from the stability provided by the first three-year deal for all staff in the history of the Underground. Staff will receive above inflation pay rises each year. At the same time, we will be investing record amounts in renewing the Tube.

'Whilst there will always be differences from time to time, my administration is committed to developing a partnership between the trade unions and management to deliver the best possible services to Londoners. This agreement is a good example of what that approach can achieve.'

It most certainly is. Never underestimate what can be achieved when you pledge other peoples' money to pay for those above inflation pay rises. The brothers flex their muscle to blackmail and Ken picks your pockets to give them what they want. It's a wonderful world when you scratch the backs of those who scratch yours.

Disgraceful double standards

It is quite apparent that Ken Livingstone makes his disdain or contempt for certain people or groups known through his press releases. You only need to compare and contrast issues that receive no Mayoral attention with those that spark a personal intervention to identify which people in our community Livingstone has no time for.

As we reported recently, following a wait of three weeks, the Mayor's media centre finally decided to mention the appalling rise of anti-semitism in London when it released brief details of a meeting organised by the London Jewish Forum to discuss the findings of Community Security Trust report. The impression it left was that the Mayor's team was paying lip service to the problem and Livingstone himself is not interested in it.

Contrast that example of the Livingstone horse being dragged to water with this article on the Mayor's website, 'Mayor of London supports rights of gays and lesbians to peacefully demonstrate throughout Eastern Europe including Moscow'. Far from one of Livingstone's cabal passing comment on the rights of gays and lesbians to protest peacefully in safety, Livingstone himself made a personal statement. One wonders if the reason why Livingstone chose to comment on this matter while ignoring anti-semitism is revealed in the final paragraph of the article:

'Mr Livingstone also criticised Mr Peter Tatchell. He said: "It is clear that there is a concerted attack on gay and lesbian rights in a series of East European countries fed by diverse currents. In Moscow the Russian Orthodox church, the chief rabbi and the grand Mufti all supported the ban on the Gay Pride march with the main role, due to its great weight in society, being played by the Orthodox church. The attempt of Mr Tatchell to focus attention on the role of the grand Mufti in Moscow, in the face of numerous attacks on gay rights in Eastern Europe which overwhelmingly come from right wing Christian and secular currents, is a clear example of an Islamaphobic campaign."'

In the twisted world of Livingstone some people with religion are more equal than others. Jews - bad (some of them like Israel you see); Right wing Christians - bad; Left wing Christians - ignored; secularists - bad; Islamists and Muslims - good.

In respect of the singling out of Peter Tatchell, one wonders if Tatchell's criticism of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has made him a target for Livingstone's wrath. Livingstone has certainly gone out of his way to target the gay rights campaigner. Clearly you have to hate all the people Livingstone hates before you can be an approved member of the club.

The issue this whole subject lays bare is that Ken Livingstone is not a Mayor for all. He is only a Mayor for his chosen ideological favourites and woe betide you if you are not on Chairman Ken's approved list.

Anti Semitism acknowledged!

How could we ever doubt Chairman Ken? It took three weeks, but finally the Mayor's website has gushed forth about the action-packed response to a report by the Community Security Trust (CST) that showed anti-Semitic attacks in the UK had risen 31% in a year, with over half of all attacks taking place in London.

As pointed out on the Waendel Journal earlier this month, Livingstone had remained uncharacteristically quiet on the subject, despite his full throated demands for action when similar attacks have been visited on people from Muslims and Asian backgrounds.

The response to the CST report was in the form of a meeting between Jewish representatives and the GLA. It was not however initiated by the Mayor or the GLA. Instead it was organised by the London Jewish Forum (LJF). Livingstone himself was not involved. Instead he delegated Lee Jasper, Senior Advisor on race relations and policing, John Ross, Director of Economic and Business policy and Simon Fletcher, the Chief of Staff, to attend. It seems that only people like Yusuf Al-Qaradawi - who has called for the killing of Jews, approves suicide bombings and excuses the Muslim punishments proscribed for homosexuals - are worthy enough to receive an audience with the Mayor himself.

At least some progress has been made. The Mayor's site finally acknowledges the existance of the CST report, even if the rhetoric from Lee Jasper after the meeting that was noted in the article hardly infuses people with any great confidence that more will be done to stamp out anti-Semitic attacks in the capital.

Ken the eco-fraud

"Rethinking Rubbish in London" is Ken Livingstone's Municipal Waste Management Strategy. It was published in September 2003 and was in part supposed to address the issue of waste being taken outside of London and buried in landfill sites.

Livingstone was proud to tell us on the Mayor's website that: "Since the public consultation on the draft strategy in autumn 2002, a great deal has been achieved." and listed a number of what he considers to be successes. The release also stated:

'Over this period the Mayor has also worked closely with London waste authorities to develop waste contracts that deliver a consistent quality of service for all Londoners.'

But seeing as this was Livingstone's initiative you can understand my complete lack of surprise to discover in the Milton Keynes News that:

London waste is being dumped in Milton Keynes and the council knows nothing about it.

The revelation comes in the wake of a letter from city MP Phyllis Starkey to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, asking for more information about what action is being taken to curb the problem.

Environment Agency records show that 11,669 tonnes of London waste was disposed of at the landfill site at Newton Longville between April 2005 and March 2006.

The figures show that the amount rose to 15,169 tonnes between April 2006 and September 2006.

It is obviously happening elsewhere too. It seems that despite all the self congratulatory press coverage Livingstone tried to generate back in 2003, the reality is, more than two years on, his masterplan remains nothing more than demand more money and export the problem for someone else to deal with. As the article shows the Lib Dem-led authority (No overall control) in Milton Keynes knew nothing of the fact its landfill was being used to take London waste. Embarrassingly for them and for Livingstone, it is Labour MP, Dr Phyllis Starkey, who has raised the issue.

Dr Starkey has helpfully enquired of the Dear Leader what extra powers he needs to deal with this problem - as if he does not have more than enough power already - but this is unlikely to welcomed by the man who once called her 'Phyllis Stasi' in one of his regular abusive and childish outbursts at anyone who dares to criticise or disagree with him. Meanwhile the sham environmentalist trundles on...

Venezuela oil deal to go through

There are so many contradictions arising from the oil supply deal agreed between Livingstone and his communist presidential ally in Caracas, Hugo Chavez, that I barely know where to begin. The main one of course is that at a time when Livingstone is trying to assert his environmental credentials, he is buying a type of fuel that we are told contributes to carbon emissions and therefore climate change. This exposes Livingstone as a mockery of an environmental leader and the measures he takes in the name of ecological protection as nothing more than cynical tax grabs.

The oil deal is good for London, a wealthy city. It is apparently designed to provide cheaper public transport for those people on benefits. But because of the deal the people of Venezuela will not get market rate for their oil being supplied to our capital. Yet again we see more contradiction in the Livingstone rhetoric as his desire for political grandstanding and bestowing mutual unqualified support for an ideological comrade comes before the good of ordinary people who are not part of the political class. Any claims that Livingstone makes in the future about being committed to reducing poverty or to fair trade will be a sham.

Livingstone also claims he loves democracy and hails the right of trade unions to protest against unfairness. Yet the deal he will sign is with the state oil producer of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), which is nothing like democratic and is controlled by Chavez via his energy minister, Rafael Ramirez. In fact so democratic are the energy minister and his boss - Livingstone's friend - that last November Ramirez told PDVSA employees to back Chavez in December's election or leave their jobs. Far from censoring his minister, Chavez said that Ramirez should make the same speech 100 times a day and people who did not support him should emigrate to Miami.

In 2002 the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) union, in conjunction with PDVSA managers and employees, staged a lock out at oil facilities to try to force an early election in protest at Chavez's dictatorial rule. 19,000 workers were sacked and replaced with Chavez supporters and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was moved to call for an independent investigation into allegations of detention and torture of PDVSA employees who opposed Chavez.

These are the kind of people that Livingstone wants to link to London. These are the people he calls friends. Livingstone speaks of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of Londoners' money on commemorations about slavery, then ignores the behaviour of his own chums in Venezuela who are effectively enslaving and infringing the human rights of anyone who oppose them in the democratic process - which they are also seeking to subvert in order to cling to power.

Would we have seen Livingstone sign a similar deal if everything described above had happened and the oil producer in question was Chile and the leader was Augusto Pinochet? Somehow I suspect we would have heard Livingstone berating the Chilean leader and ranting about rights and freedom. So where is the moral outrage concerning the actions of Chavez? Of course Venezuela cannot be criticised because the violence there is carried out by the revolutionaries. Livingstone is moral relativism personified.

It is this kind of rancid hypocrisy that defines the nature of Ken Livingstone. He treats the pockets of Londoners as his own personal piggy bank and provides succour to odious regimes who are guilty of some of the worst abuses of democracy the world sees today. His ego leads him to generate his own foreign policy which taints London with the stench of vicious regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. Everything he does is with the consolidation of his own power in mind. He reserves his moral indignation for those people who oppose him rather than those who blight the lives of ordinary people for the sake of a bankrupt ideology.

London deserves better. Much much better.

Congestion Charge zone extends

From 7.00am this morning the so called Congestion Charge zone was doubled in size as it extended westwards into Chelsea, Kensington, Belgravia, Pimlico, Notting Hill and Bayswater among other places. Livingstone is rubbing his hands and the thought of yet more revenue and the hope of a small reduction in traffic levels.

Since the CC was brought in during 2003 (when TfL and Livingstone insisted that the £5 charge would not increase and that the zone would not be extended - both have since happened) TfL and Livingstone have consistently maintained that the scheme has been a success. Even in their press briefings concerning this extension they claim that congestion in the west of town will reduce by more than 15% and that the number of vehicles used in the zone will drop by around 10-15%.

But the fact is that since the charge was introduced and the initial reduction in traffic volume, more and more people have been forced back onto the roads by the state of public transport. Yet more tube strikes are on the way too as Ken's friends play on his communist ideal of putting self interest ahead of service. The fact is the reduction in traffic volume from prior to the charge's introduction in 2003 to today is a mere 8%, a figure stated on the BBC this morning - and even that tiny amount has been achieved at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds, many job losses and unnecessary business closures. Small businesses are crying out for change and being ignored. It is nothing more than vandalism dressed up as populist policy.

Motorists have a Hobson's Choice between poor public transport and paying a revenue raising levy of £8 per day. More and more are choosing to swallow the levy which shows the congestions charge is failing. The 55,000 residents given a 90% discount off the charge inside the western part of the zone will benefit as they can now drive into central London for 80p rather than £8 - meaning even more traffic in the centre of town. But do not worry about the Mayor in all this. Ken is OK. He can continue using taxis and passing the cost on to the taxpayer.

Livingstone to gain control of rail outside London?

Commuters in the towns surrounding London may end up having their rail fares into the city dictated by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, under plans drawn up by the Department of Transport (DfT). The plan would see the Mayor take control of rail pricing in the Home Counties, which could result in people who have no say over the election of the Mayor in London being forced to pay for transport programmes inside the capital.

The obvious concern is that Livingstone, in the guise of Transport for London (TfL) could hike up fares for commuters who live outside London to pay for programmes in the capital. Livingstone could make use of this to benefit London taxpayers in the hope of enhancing his own electoral chances - at the expense of people who have no democratic ability to oppose any plans he makes. The whole idea flies in the face of democracy could hold non-Londoners to ransom. Unsurprisingly London TravelWatch backs the idea because of its vested interest in the capital's transport system.

I wonder what the reaction of Livingstone would be if the DfT handed control of transport pricing in London to Northamptonshire County Council, so the interests of commuters who go to London could be looked after from outside the capital? As long as the Mayor is Labour the flow of power seems to be one way into the Mayor's office. I wonder if the same would be true if a Tory controlled the city while a Labour PM sat in Downing Street?

Does Livingstone send 10 tonnes of newspaper a day to landfill?

As anyone living in London knows, it's only people like me these days that buy daily newspapers. Most people make do with the daily free sheets of which there are now three. The Metro (in the morning) and the London Lite and the London Paper in the evening.

As you can imagine these cause quite a lot of rubbish in the Tube and buses as people have a tendancy to leave them for the next person to read. According to TfL and the Mayor, the total weight of newspaper left on the Tube alone each week day is between ten and twelve tonnes.

What happens to all this paper is a little bit of a mystery. Obviously you'd expect, given the Mayor's "imppecable" green credentials it would all be collected and recycled, but I called TfL and asked and was told by a rather timid lady that the "majority of it gets binned". She suggested I email in for a more precise answer.

This does seem likely as another person I spoke to said that the cleaning contractors simply litter pick the trains at each end of the line, and then bin the bags when they're full. TfL/LUL's distribution services then pick up the bins from stations, and to this person's knowledge do not separate but instead send straight to land fill.

Should anyone be wondering what happens on the buses, the Mayor doesn't know as it's up to the companies that run them. So much for Livingstone's "green" strategy. I wonder if TfL would get fined for not recylcing like ordinary people might?

World Civilisation or Clash of Civilisation?

Douglas Murray at Livingstone's recent event.

Is it unfair to attack Livingstone?

As per the post on the 18 Doughty Street post below? Perhaps his ideolgocal allies and collagues - which include members of the now defunct Trotsykite Socialist Alliance - might think so, but consider the latest press release from his people on his budget, headlined, 'Free travel safeguarded for now - 'nasty' tendency unrepentant'.

The 'sustained' attacks on 'free' transport he has been mouthing off about for some time have come to a head with this nakedly partisan press release and here it is, verbatim, in its entirety:

"Commenting on the Assembly’s budget debate today, which finally agreed the Mayor’s draft budget, Mayor Ken Livingstone said: ‘The large number of Assembly members who voted to abolish the free bus travel concession benefiting thousands of families with children should be the cause of real concern across London. ‘They have not given up on these cuts. ‘Today’s budget debate has seen free bus travel for under-18s safeguarded for now but there are some members of the London Assembly who seem to want to abolish anything that is free. Free school milk, free entry to museums, the Freedom Pass, and now free bus travel for under-18s - anything that is free gets threatened. ‘The nasty wing of politics is alive and active on the London Assembly and we should not take today’s safeguarding of free bus travel for children as the end of the attacks on this scheme.’"

So, any opposition to anything he does is 'nasty', and presumably everything he does is 'nice', yes? No prizes for guessing which opposition party he has in mind when he uses the term 'nasty'. Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, 'free' transport is only free in the sense of being free at the point of demand - someone has to pay, in this case London's Council Tax payers.

Ken Livingstone attack ads

The team at 18 Doughty Street has launched the third of its attack ad campaigns designed to address issues politicians all too often shy away from discussing. The subject of this third ad is none other than the Dear Leader, Ken Livingstone.

You can watch the attack ad on the 18 Doughty Street website. When you have watched the ad do tell us via the comments section if you feel the ad is the sort of campaigning needed to energise politics and keep it honest. Or do you feel it would turn people off politics even more? Has Ken been hard done by, or has the ad accurately depicted Livingstone and his nature?