Ken Livingstone today sought to re-focus the London Mayoral race back onto policy as the campaign entered the final three weeks, reports Shamik Das.
.
Ken Livingstone today sought to re-focus the London Mayoral race back onto policy as the campaign entered the final three weeks, with opponents stepping up their attacks on the authenticity both of Labour’s party election broadcast this week and Livingstone’s tears at its unveiling.
The Evening Standard, Guido Fawkes and Labour Uncut have all reported claims this morning that the people in the broadcast were all actors, reading from prepared scripts, not genuine Londoners, and that Livingstone’s tears were contrived.
The allegations have all been denied, with the Livingstone campaign team insisting they were genuine supporters recruited by an advertising agency.
A spokeswoman for the campaign told the Guardian:
“Everyone who appears in Labour’s party political broadcast are ordinary Londoners who are backing Ken on 3 May. No actors were used in the broadcast.”
While Matthew Charlton, CEO of BETC London – the agency that produced the PEB – told LabourList suggestions the supporters in the broadcast were fakes was a “disgrace”, and those claiming thus were “trying to diminish the voice of the ordinary people”.
He said:
“For anybody to claim that the people featured in the Ken Livingstone broadcast are not valid voices in the debate is nothing short of a disgrace. The reason the film works is because it actually represents real truth. These are not actors but peoples’ mums and dads, brothers and sisters. People who never have a voice but on Wednesday night for 3 minutes did.
“Those who aim to diminish this through picking apart the process of making it are, I am afraid, trying to diminish the voice of the ordinary people.
“When Patricia, the old lady in the film, thanks Ken for the free bus pass, she does it because she really means it. It’s just simple truth. Does anyone really think that she is not speaking from the heart or that she doesn’t deserve to be heard for once in her life on prime time on the BBC??
“I for one find her more compelling and emotional viewing than anything else I have seen throughout the election and am not prepared to sit back back and allow her voice to be diminished or devalued.”
Watch the video:
• Boris and Ken clash over tax dodge claims 3 Apr 2012
• Ken vows to “ease the squeeze”, saying Boris has “betrayed” Londoners 14 Mar 2012
• Pound for Pound, you’re better off with Ken 13 Mar 2012
• Boris’s 9-point plan is a bridge to nowhere 5 Mar 2012
• Ken fights to save EMA while Boris fights to save top-rate taxpayers 1 Mar 2012
Elsewhere today, on policy, Livinstone launched his LGBT manifesto (pdf), ahead of tomorrow’s Stonewall Mayoral hustings, and the day after anti-gay London bus adverts – from religious fundamentalists – were axed.
If elected, Livingstone pledged to:
• Continue to support Pride celebrations across the capital and support World Pride coming to London this year;
• Put the Greater London Authority back into the Stonewall Employers’ Index;
• Appoint an LGBT adviser;
• Re-establish the Pride annual reception at City Hall;
• Operate a zero tolerance approach to homophobic and transphobic hate crime and prioritise work with the Met to improve awareness, training and
responses among police officers;• Oppose cuts to LGBT organisations imposed by the Tory-led government; and
• Overhaul TfL’s advertising standards so that we never again have the scandal of homophobic advertising on buses being approved.
He contrasted his plans with the charge sheet against Boris Johnson, under whose tenure:
• Pride is no longer celebrated in City Hall with an annual civic reception;
• The GLA was withdrawn from the Stonewall Equality Index;
• Funding was removed from Soho Pride;
• The Tory government weakened the Equality Act.
Livingstone said:
“With a Conservative agenda at Westminster there is much work to do to deliver equality and protect the standard of living of LGB&T Londoners. I will do everything I can to defend Londoners against spending cuts and to develop an alternative…
“I want London to be a world leader on equality – and proud of its work with its lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans citizens. I stand on my plans to champion of equality – if you elect me you can be sure that I will champion LGB&T equality and work closely with the community to oppose cuts, celebrate equality and difference and ensure Londoners are free to live the lives they choose.”
As Owen Jones wrote in today’s Independent, on equality, the records of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson and plain for all to see:
Some of the smears thrown at Ken have veered between the ridiculous and the offensive. The award for chutzpah has to go to Tories who have accused him of homophobia. Ken may be straight, but he is Britain’s equivalent of another local government campaigner for gay rights, 1970s US politician Harvey Milk.
When Ken made the case for gay rights as leader of the Greater London Council in the early 1980s, he was courageous indeed: at the time, two-thirds of the population thought homosexuality was wrong. The Tories went on to introduce Section 28, deliberately dipping into the deep well of homophobia.
Surreal for a gay man like myself to imagine that, just a generation ago, we were widely regarded as perverts: it is a sea change in attitudes down to gay rights pioneers like Ken.
Contrast to Boris Johnson, who lauded Section 28 on the basis that “we don’t want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage”, referred to “pulpit poofs” in the Church, and suggested that if two men could tie the knot, why not “three men and a dog”? Not that anyone is scrutinising such bigotry: it’s just Boris being Boris, it’s just his clownish manner.
It’s presumably for the same reasons that so few journalists mention his slights against black people: all that talk of “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”, or slamming the Macpherson Inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case for “hysteria”.
If the campaign focuses on policy, expect Livingstone to be in with a fighting chance – in other words, expect his opponents within and without to focus on anything but, as the campaign gets ever more vicious, the attacks ever more negative, as May 3rd draws ever near.
66 Responses to “Livingstone looks to shift focus back to policy as “disgraceful” attacks intensify”
Anonymous
Depends on how you define wealth. 200K in cash is pretty wealthy compared to most people in the UK.
50% of the Uk population has less than 5K in savings. Having 200K in cash, plus pensions, plus other assets is vast wealth in comparison to most. Pretty awful as those with less than 5K have been forced to pay Ken to accumulate his wealth.
Paying bus fares. OK, who do we ask what these actors were paid? Are they members of an acting union? Were they paid the going rate or were they scabs?
I’m not quite sure what your argument is over Cash for Questions. It’s seems to be the Yorkshire ripper defense. You can’t prosecute me said Peter Sutcliffe, because you haven’t caught Jack the Ripper.
Has it occurred to you that they are all scum?
Tom Sadler
No, my argument over Cash for Questions is quite simple. I personally think paying somebody’s bus fare so they can get to a studio to film a PEB isn’t quite as bad as heads of industry, business and finance paying astronomical sums of money to influence government policy. Do you honestly see no distinction?
I think we need to hear at some point from the people in the broadcast. For my money, it would seem to me fairly simple. They got people who expressed a support for Labour to come to a filming of a PEB for Ken. They said we’ll pay your bus fares. And also, because not everyone is used to filming, we won’t have you stumble and stutter over what you say, we will give you a script of things to say. If you don’t want to say them, don’t, after all we only paid your BUS FARES.
And yes, £200,000 is a lot of money. Nobody can deny that. But he is Ken Livingstone, Mayor for two terms, as much of a celebrity as you can get in political circles and I’m not surprised he earns a lot. But if we look at the tax returns Boris earns a significant amount more. Over the four years they published for, Ken earned £342.041 and paid £113,861 in tax. Boris in the same time earned £1,699,257 and paid £684,719.
Ken also, unsurprisingly for someone who does end up paying some staff for work, including his wife, had his accountant set up Silveta Ltd. This is the controversial issue. Of course Ken doesn’t pay income tax on company earnings, it is a company and he is just a shareholder. But any income he receives from that company he pays income tax on!
And, yes, it often occurs to me that the whole political class are scum. But there are those who may be scum in their private lives. What I’m interested in is policy and politics and what they say and do publicly. Ken cares about ordinary people, I don’t think Boris does.
Anonymous
What about the millions spent by unions on getting government to do as they are told? Why omit that?
I don’t see any distinction. It’s fraudulent. It’s all about deceiving the public in order to obtain money. Livingstone is after an extremely well paid job and he’s prepared to use deceipt to get it, just as he has with his taxes.
As for Boris earning cash, yes that is wrong too. He’s in a full time job, and earning 250,000 on the side is odd too.
Which figures are you using for Ken? The revised ones?
Are you including his company taxes and omitting his company income? That’s the fraud he’s used to increase the perception of what taxes he pays.
Of course Ken doesn’t pay income tax on company earnings, it is a company and he is just a shareholder.
So why did he include his company taxes in the taxes he pays? It’s a fraud.
What I’m interested in is policy
Well look at how that works. You get to elect a representative, who then goes and does something different that they didn’t tell you about, doesn’t do what they said they would do. ie. You have no say over any issue. It’s decided by small cabals over the kitchen table in Downing street or over a coffee in the Testicle.
Ken doesn’t give a toss over anyone but Ken.
So what if Ken gets done for election fraud or company fraud for using Silveta funds for electioneering. Would you support him being jailed?
Anonymous
Ken cares about ordinary people
===========
So much so that he couldn’t find any and had to get paid people in to act as supporters.
Rob
So his Nazi guard comment ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4746016.stm) wasn’t raciest and his comment about the tory party being riddled with homosexuals wasn’t homophobic ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16955851)?