| |
|
|
My Disagreements with Ken Livingstone's
Administration
My objection to the way Ken Livingstone governs exists on several levels. In
this essay, I will discuss my disagreements with his:
• Philosophy
• Practical decisions
• Tone and Style
• Wasted opportunities
My disagreement with his philosophy
Ken Livingstone appears to revel in the politics of provocation and
confrontation. In a city with the complex structure and sensitivities of London,
it is bizarre that he believes there are benefits to be gained from creating
division and alienation. His attacks on specific groups - whether intentional or
otherwise - never cease to cause disharmony.
I also find it hard to fathom his choice of people to revere - whether it be Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, the controversial Islamic scholar; Fidel Castro, for whom he is
planning a 50 year celebration in Trafalgar Square in 2009; or Hugo Chavez,
the volatile and combative President of Venezuela. His association with each
of these causes offence. What possible philosophy could link an alignment
with such dysfunctional, atypical and frankly unpopular figures - other than a
congenital desire to cock a snook at common sensitivities?
I do not know whether it is because I am female, but I simply cannot relate to -
let alone comprehend - such a petulant approach to the grown-up business of
running one of the world's greatest cities. For my part, I see so much more
value and benefit in an emotionally intelligent, empathetic interaction with
people, their problems and, in particular, their differences.
My disagreement with his practical decisions
The key areas of Ken Livingstone's responsibility as Mayor of London are
Transport, for which he will direct a budget of £5.3 billion this year, and the
Metropolitan Police, where he will direct the expenditure of £3.2 billion.
Leadership is very much based on setting goals and motivating people to join
in and work towards achieving them. I fully accept that it is the right of an
elected leader to set a direction, whether I agree with it or not. Delivery,
though, so much depends on a leader's management ability and readiness to
step up - or even in - when a programme, project or service is falling short.
Elsewhere in this collection of essays I discuss the performance of the Police
and criminal intelligence gathering in London and make reference to the key
policing cases of Jean Charles de Menezes; the East London raid in Forest
Gate, which resulted in an innocent man being shot; and the arrest in August
2006 of 25 people in the airline terror plot, none of whom has been convicted.
Holding the police and intelligence gathering community to account falls
squarely on Ken Livingstone's desk and is a responsibility within the £3.2
billion budget. I do not believe he has set the lead needed to encourage and
support the police and security services in their incredibly difficult and
sensitive roles.
Instead, he devotes time to launching a vicious attack on 4x4s. In the grand
scheme of things, this has absolutely nothing to do with the environment: most
modern 4x4 engines have less impact on air quality than any of the thousands
of seven year old saloon cars on the road. Ken Livingstone's attack on 4x4
owners is nothing less than the good old-fashioned socialist politics of envy.
As a result of his approach to the Mayor of London, highlighted by some of
these examples, I am perfectly content to describe myself as poles apart in
the practical way I would approach the challenging issues facing London.
My disagreement with his tone and style
With reference to international political figures, Ken Livingstone has declared
his interest in seeing a foreign Royal House swinging from the lampposts 1; he
has referred to George W Bush as the most corrupt American President since
Harding in the Twenties 2; and he declared the democratically elected Prime
Minister of another country a war criminal 3.
At home, the comments he made likening a Jewish reporter to a concentration
camp guard prompted a unanimous vote by the London Assembly asking him
to apologize 4. In another incident, he accused Brian Coleman, one of the
elected Members of the London Assembly, of behaving like the Nazi
propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, when Mr. Coleman objected to Ken
Livingstone's insulting treatment of David and Simon Reuben 5.
Ken Livingstone revels in confrontation and provocation. I am well aware that
media attention on people in the public eye puts every slip of the tongue and
inadvertent gesture under the magnifying glass. But these examples are too
numerous and frequent to be simple lapses or for his style to be
misconstrued.
I believe so strongly that elected officials should dignify the office they hold
and, thereby, the citizens they serve. I do not believe offending people is an
emotionally intelligent way to conduct this hugely prestigious, internationally
prominent and important leadership role.
My disagreement with his wasted opportunities
If, in Walter Bagehot's classic analysis, Ken Livingstone thinks he has
sacrificed the dignified parts of government for the sake of the efficient, I
would be sorely pushed to identify anything of the latter.
This year, Ken Livingstone will direct the expenditure of a staggering £9.66
billion of taxpayers' - your and my - money. Whenever he is asked to account
for shortcomings in his Administration, he had better not blame them on a lack
of resources.
Furthermore, from an aspirational viewpoint, the scale of the budget the
Mayor of London commands and the goodwill that could be generated from
that Office would render any issue, challenge or problem worthy of being
tackled. Instead of pursuing his perpetual provocations, his antagonism and
his talent to offend, I would use the extraordinary influence of the Mayor of
London to try and build bridges and create harmony between different groups.
I cannot bear to think of this opportunity or these massive resources being
squandered for any longer.
Summary of my disagreements with Ken Livingstone's Administration
I am not motivated by a dogmatic ideology, the desire to seek attention or the
urge to provoke. Quite the opposite. I also do not take a Pavlovian dislike of
an idea simply because it comes from someone who disagrees with me or
does not share my philosophy.
I want contributions from the best talents, whatever their political views - or
their opinion of me. My approach is totally rooted in common sense and a
desire to empower the development of solutions from where ever good ideas
might come.
In this collection of essays I am excited to introduce and explain my own very
different philosophy to the challenges of London - encapsulated in the
Cosmopolitan Community. This radical new empathetic approach of elected
officials to the interactions of citizens in London very clearly differentiates me
from Ken Livingstone.
The philosophy inherent in the Cosmopolitan Community exposes the
yawning gulf between Ken Livingstone's approach to governing and mine in
terms of our philosophy, practice, style and empathizing with the human
condition. In essence, it points to the key difference between Ken Livingstone
and me - I actually like people.
1 Telegraph.co.uk, 9th April 2004
2 bbc.co.uk, 8th May 2003
3 Guardian Unlimited, 4th March 2005
4 bbc.co.uk, 14th February 2005
5 Wikipedia, ADL, 24th March 2006
|
| |
|
