Guardian blogger Dave Hill has been blogging about the various TV debates, including the most recent Question Time on BBC One.
The problem with the national TV debates has been that the producers have been desperately trying to make the Mayoral contest relevant to people all over the country. But, although the job of Mayor is a highly influential position, with potential hotlines to the Government and the many other perks of being a world-class city leader, it's genuinely not of any interest to the people of Aberystwyth or Aberdeen, Belfast or Bournemouth.
The same situation is apparent in the national press, although Joe Public arguably gets more opportunities to ignore the London coverage when flicking through their copy of the Daily Mail. Put the other way, it would be like people in London being forced to watch televised debates of the Kesgrave Parish Council by-elections every day for a month.
The two-way (at best three-way, if you count Brian Paddick) debates become inherently confrontational as the programmes have to simplify the issues, and broaden their appeal to justify their airtime. Both Johnson and Livingstone had to resort to getting a little nasty with each other on the ITV debate the other night, and even Paddick, often praised for his good nature, told Boris Johnson to "shut up" on Question Time. Not exactly the most Parliamentary of language, is it? Or perhaps a different set of rules applies for candidates who are not bound by the conventions of the House of Commons...
Perhaps that's why this election, more than any other, will be won by the bloggers and other media outlets where TV targets the wrong audiences, and does so in a way which patronises not only the electorate of London, but the poor souls in the provinces who have to be bored to death by our own local politics.
Friday, 25 April 2008
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Three men and a dog - take two
The success of our little stunt outside the Stonewall hustings on Saturday convinced a group of us Labour activists to pull it off again. This time, it was the turn of ITV to hold their big Mayoral debate. A more raucous, less civilised affair than it's BBC counterpart, the 'Big Three' as they're becoming known all took part, taking questions from the audience sporadically. We decided to focus our protest by the queue waiting to go into the studio - this time we had to make do with a stuffed dog from the Disney store, but he more than served the purpose. In fact, we got rather attached to 'Lucky'...
Brian Paddick bounded up with his entourage, probably seeing the yellow banner and thinking we were Lib Dems. Ken arrived and nodded at us cheerfully on his way into the studio. He seemed to appreciate the effort we'd gone to, though I'm not sure he knew which party we were from.
Most telling was the fact that Boris' campaign visibly panicked when they noticed our presence, and their man was nowhere to be seen. Presumably because he didn't want to be photographed in front of our banners. Johnson claims half his campaign team are gay - really? I haven't met a single gay man or lesbian in London who's backing him - and when he was writing such ignorant bile about LGBT people as recently as 2000, is it surprising?
Sunday, 20 April 2008
I've been pierced!
My first ever bit of metalwork, which I had done today at Selfridges on Oxford Street.
It doesn't hurt as much as I thought it would, either!
Saturday, 19 April 2008
Stonewall fosters healthy debate in Mayoral election
I went to the Stonewall Mayoral hustings this morning - an event I had been eagerly anticipating for weeks. It was refreshing to see a room full of gay and lesbian people who were actively interested in politics - and on all sides of the spectrum - in an age when apathy is rife and my apolitical friends tell me that no politician could do anything for them.
The candidates were true to form - with a few surprises thrown in. Each candidate spoke in the order in which they had accepted the invitation to the hustings.
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrat) was first up, although touched on very little of what I would call 'policy'. He's actively exploiting his openly gay police officer status, and the accolade of having successfully sued both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Paddick comes across as remarkably dull and not a particularly coherent speaker. A bit like a date you can't wait to get rid of.
Boris Johnson (Conservative) speaks at breakneck speed. He had been carefully coiffured for the occasion, the scruffy blonde mop being conspicuously absent. Boris' main argument seemed to me to be that he was a man who wanted merely to tinker with the successes of Ken's eight years as Mayor - not someone with radical new ideas, and worse, someone who couldn't be trusted to manage a city of eight million people. As the Beano candidate, Boris amused the audience with his posh, clumsy way, but got angry at one point, thumping his fist on the table when one questioner took him to task over the discrepancies between his stated positions on civil partnerships (the infamous 'two men and a dog' quote) and the fact that he had voted for the repeal of Section 28. This was a debate Boris' campaign advisers couldn't save him from.
Ken Livingstone (Labour) was the only candidate who not only successfully hit all the right LGBT buttons, but also the wider issues facing London - transport, climate change, affordable housing, and so on. As the current incumbent he has an inbuilt advantage, but he clearly understands that gay and lesbian citizens not only care about how much City Hall gives for the Pride march each year, but astonishingly - they want decent homes and a reliable tube service as well! With a pedigree of serving London which goes all the way back to the early seventies, and long-standing support of the LGBT community, Ken is the candidate with the broadest appeal - at least on paper.
Sian Berry (Green) was well informed on LGBT issues - she understood the frustration of the LGBT community on issues such as the promised LGBT museum, which the GLA had mooted back in 2004. For various reasons, this hadn't happened - and it was a slightly obscure point anyway, as most gay Londoners will be more concerned about bread and butter issues like policing and transport than cultural niceties, which although important, shouldn't be the things on which elections are won and lost.
I didn't have a particularly high opinion of Lindsay German (Left List) before today (she's a long standing member of the Socialist Workers' Party/Respect), but she comes across as a passionate speaker, especially on issues such as child poverty in London. Lindsey advocated Left List supporters voting for Ken as their second choice, although why they can't all vote for Ken, who's quite possibly the most powerful socialist in the country, is beyond me. Still, that's third-camp Trotskyism for you...
The candidates were true to form - with a few surprises thrown in. Each candidate spoke in the order in which they had accepted the invitation to the hustings.
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrat) was first up, although touched on very little of what I would call 'policy'. He's actively exploiting his openly gay police officer status, and the accolade of having successfully sued both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Paddick comes across as remarkably dull and not a particularly coherent speaker. A bit like a date you can't wait to get rid of.
Boris Johnson (Conservative) speaks at breakneck speed. He had been carefully coiffured for the occasion, the scruffy blonde mop being conspicuously absent. Boris' main argument seemed to me to be that he was a man who wanted merely to tinker with the successes of Ken's eight years as Mayor - not someone with radical new ideas, and worse, someone who couldn't be trusted to manage a city of eight million people. As the Beano candidate, Boris amused the audience with his posh, clumsy way, but got angry at one point, thumping his fist on the table when one questioner took him to task over the discrepancies between his stated positions on civil partnerships (the infamous 'two men and a dog' quote) and the fact that he had voted for the repeal of Section 28. This was a debate Boris' campaign advisers couldn't save him from.
Ken Livingstone (Labour) was the only candidate who not only successfully hit all the right LGBT buttons, but also the wider issues facing London - transport, climate change, affordable housing, and so on. As the current incumbent he has an inbuilt advantage, but he clearly understands that gay and lesbian citizens not only care about how much City Hall gives for the Pride march each year, but astonishingly - they want decent homes and a reliable tube service as well! With a pedigree of serving London which goes all the way back to the early seventies, and long-standing support of the LGBT community, Ken is the candidate with the broadest appeal - at least on paper.
Sian Berry (Green) was well informed on LGBT issues - she understood the frustration of the LGBT community on issues such as the promised LGBT museum, which the GLA had mooted back in 2004. For various reasons, this hadn't happened - and it was a slightly obscure point anyway, as most gay Londoners will be more concerned about bread and butter issues like policing and transport than cultural niceties, which although important, shouldn't be the things on which elections are won and lost.
I didn't have a particularly high opinion of Lindsay German (Left List) before today (she's a long standing member of the Socialist Workers' Party/Respect), but she comes across as a passionate speaker, especially on issues such as child poverty in London. Lindsey advocated Left List supporters voting for Ken as their second choice, although why they can't all vote for Ken, who's quite possibly the most powerful socialist in the country, is beyond me. Still, that's third-camp Trotskyism for you...
Thursday, 3 April 2008
A response to the Time Out editorial, issue 1963 - 3 April
I wonder how the Time Out editorial team think that political parties are run in this country?
You quite rightly took the decision to stand down your candidate Michael Hodges from the London mayoral election. We agree that standing a candidate on the popular ideals of Time Out readers is the basis for a politically confused campaign (and don't get me started on Boris Johnson...).
But where on earth did you get the idea that political parties can pay their members to go out and campaign on their behalf? I've been a member of the Labour party for the last five years, and I can't remember a single occasion when a cheque dropped through the door for my Sunday morning efforts leafleting on a Lambeth council estate. Political parties are made up of people who care about politics and have a shared set of ideals about how they want to see a country or a city like London run. And, apart from a relatively small number of full-time staff, they certainly don't expect monetary renumeration for their efforts.
(Incidentally, political parties get access to the electoral rolls because they are democratically accountable to their members, unlike fringe loony magazine candidates who are accountable to whatever decisions you take over a cosy cup of tea in your editorial meeting!)
One more thing - what are the discriminatory barriers standing in the way of anyone wanting to run for election as Mayor? There is at least one genuinely independent candidate standing in the election this year - as well as representatives from every other major party. In democracies, people naturally join together to form common associations of like minded people. The 'people's manifesto' which you champion exists in every single one of the manifestos promoted by this year's candidates, no matter how much I disagree with the people in other parties. That's genuine democratic choice.
Yours sincerely
Paul Prentice
Thursday, 13 March 2008
A listening post
For the past couple of years I've been searching for the perfect volunteering opportunity, since deciding I wanted something to fill the rather empty gap between work and play.
Apparently, I'm quite a good listener, and I've always wanted to get involved in a cause where I can use those skills to help someone through a problem. I really believe people can be helped through their demons by listening to someone who's got the time and willingness to hear them, helping them through logical steps and positive thought to find solutions.
Personally, I guess I was brought up in the 'pull yourself together and get on with it' school of thought, but that doesn't mean I'm somehow emotionally distant or incapable of showing it when I've got a problem. Perhaps that's a sort of strength - a sign of a true Taurean maybe - but it makes it all the more frustrating for me when other people don't talk about their problems!
Towards the end of last year, I thought that the London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard might seem the perfect outlet for my skills. After an interview back in January they offered me a place on their core assessment training (CAT) course. I tried something quite similar once during my university days - it was 'Niteline' then - or 'Gayline' on Wednesday nights. I remember getting very passionate and angry when the union decided to close it down and even took motions to our union council condemning it. University distractions and the lure of the pub meant that I never persevered with it.
Last night was the second session, in which we learnt lots of useful tricks on how to answer a call. For example, 80% or so of communication is through face to face contact, so you have to make up for it on the phone. You can give verbal 'nods' so a caller knows you're listening, and callers can be encouraged to divulge more of their problem through reflection and 'echoing' of the question. I've started to irritate Andy already with my practice of my new-found skills in everyday conversation. I don't want to give away too much about the training here, because it's probably not the done thing!
I think this might turn into quite a worthwhile distraction for me - the course is very well run, and I'm confident I can reach the standard required to pass and become a fully-fledged volunteer. It'll also be another string to my bow in terms of communication skills - I passed the first stage of British Sign Language level one course last week. There's still a long way to go with both, but the journey's immensely enjoyable.
London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard
020 7837 7324 (daily 10am -11pm)
Apparently, I'm quite a good listener, and I've always wanted to get involved in a cause where I can use those skills to help someone through a problem. I really believe people can be helped through their demons by listening to someone who's got the time and willingness to hear them, helping them through logical steps and positive thought to find solutions.
Personally, I guess I was brought up in the 'pull yourself together and get on with it' school of thought, but that doesn't mean I'm somehow emotionally distant or incapable of showing it when I've got a problem. Perhaps that's a sort of strength - a sign of a true Taurean maybe - but it makes it all the more frustrating for me when other people don't talk about their problems!
Towards the end of last year, I thought that the London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard might seem the perfect outlet for my skills. After an interview back in January they offered me a place on their core assessment training (CAT) course. I tried something quite similar once during my university days - it was 'Niteline' then - or 'Gayline' on Wednesday nights. I remember getting very passionate and angry when the union decided to close it down and even took motions to our union council condemning it. University distractions and the lure of the pub meant that I never persevered with it.
Last night was the second session, in which we learnt lots of useful tricks on how to answer a call. For example, 80% or so of communication is through face to face contact, so you have to make up for it on the phone. You can give verbal 'nods' so a caller knows you're listening, and callers can be encouraged to divulge more of their problem through reflection and 'echoing' of the question. I've started to irritate Andy already with my practice of my new-found skills in everyday conversation. I don't want to give away too much about the training here, because it's probably not the done thing!
I think this might turn into quite a worthwhile distraction for me - the course is very well run, and I'm confident I can reach the standard required to pass and become a fully-fledged volunteer. It'll also be another string to my bow in terms of communication skills - I passed the first stage of British Sign Language level one course last week. There's still a long way to go with both, but the journey's immensely enjoyable.
London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard
020 7837 7324 (daily 10am -11pm)
Monday, 10 March 2008
A Routemaster response from Boris' campaign team
Further to my earlier blog post, I got in touch with Boris Johnson's campaign team about Boris' ill-thought out plans to replace London's Routemaster buses with a 21st century replacement. Here's my email, my reply and my response to Boris' policy team.
Dear Mr Swaden,
Thank you for your detailed reply, which I was pleased to receive. I was already aware that TfL do not own the bendy buses outright, this being a by-product of the London Buses privatisation in the 1990s. I think my issue is with the costs of designing and producing an entirely 'new' vehicle essentially based on what is essentially a 1900s design. Your projected £8 million cost of wholesale bendy bus replacement ignores the fact that the original Routemaster took some five years of development, some fifty years ago,and even then it wasn't perfect. Who would pay for the cost of a new bus? TfL? The private companies? I am also sceptical of a bus with an open rear entrance (leaving TfL and the bus companies open to expensive lawsuits from a higher accident rate) would be the safest and most appropriate solution for London in 2008. Personally, I love the Routemaster for its 1950s charm and classic design - I've worked on them as a conductor in a part-time job for a private hire company too, so I know how they operate down to the last detail! So, for Boris to envisage wholesale replacement of the bendy bus with a replacement vehicle within the four-year term of the Mayor's office is just impractical. A new double decker with ample Oyster readers, wide doors and disabled access is what is needed. London doesn't need special treatment as other European cities will testify.
With regards to consultants, it's easy for politicians to demonise the 'army of consultants' employed to suggest improvements to services. But, when you consider that London has a transport system which is the envy of the world, an extra £79 million a year, with the 2012 Olympics coming up is hardly a huge price to pay. Ken Livingtsone, to his credit has placed great faith in public transport and the slightly extended price of a professional, expert opinon is far lower than the potential cost overun which could be caused by a Mayor who has never run anything bigger than a political magazine. Mr Johnson would easily be out of his depth.
With kind regards, but a vote for Ken Livingstone,
Paul Prentice
Dear Mr Prentice,
Many thanks for your email, Boris has asked me to reply on his behalf. Boris feels that Londoners want an iconic bus that they can identify with. Pensioning off bendy buses will not cost anything, as when we renew the bus contracts we will specify to the bus companies that they must not use bendy buses. TfL doesn’t even own the bendy buses, so the removal of this unloved bus will not cost Londoners anymore than it has already. TfL claim getting rid of bendy buses and introducing a new Routemaster with conductors wouldcost £60 million. This is untrue. The current per annum cost of the 24 conductors on the remaining Routemaster routes is £590,000. That is £24,600 per conductor. If you replaced the 337 bendy buses with new Routemasters,with conductors, that would cost £8,290,200 per year, not £60 million.
To put that into context, TfL plan to spend an extra £79 million next year juston consultants, so even if it did cost £60 million, we could afford it by scrapping the extra consultants without having to increase fares. If there is anything else you would like to raise with us, please do nothesitate to do so, it is vital that we hear from Londoners on issues thatconcern them.
Yours Sincerely
David Swaden, Boris Johnson's Policy Team
I'd like to know how Boris' plans for a 21st century Routemaster would befunded. I agree that bendy buses are not the ideal solution, but reintroducing buses with conductors (which would double the cost of staffing each individual vehicle) would be unworkable.
I can't see how any Mayor could develop an entirely new vehicle whilst continue to improve bus services at the sametime. Most cities don't have their own specially produced buses and I wonder how it would be possible for London to afford it, especially as the Mayor's fare rises are always criticised (I think, unjustifiably, given the price of oil etc) every year.
I'd appreciate a response, thanks.
Paul Prentice
Dear Mr Swaden,
Thank you for your detailed reply, which I was pleased to receive. I was already aware that TfL do not own the bendy buses outright, this being a by-product of the London Buses privatisation in the 1990s. I think my issue is with the costs of designing and producing an entirely 'new' vehicle essentially based on what is essentially a 1900s design. Your projected £8 million cost of wholesale bendy bus replacement ignores the fact that the original Routemaster took some five years of development, some fifty years ago,and even then it wasn't perfect. Who would pay for the cost of a new bus? TfL? The private companies? I am also sceptical of a bus with an open rear entrance (leaving TfL and the bus companies open to expensive lawsuits from a higher accident rate) would be the safest and most appropriate solution for London in 2008. Personally, I love the Routemaster for its 1950s charm and classic design - I've worked on them as a conductor in a part-time job for a private hire company too, so I know how they operate down to the last detail! So, for Boris to envisage wholesale replacement of the bendy bus with a replacement vehicle within the four-year term of the Mayor's office is just impractical. A new double decker with ample Oyster readers, wide doors and disabled access is what is needed. London doesn't need special treatment as other European cities will testify.
With regards to consultants, it's easy for politicians to demonise the 'army of consultants' employed to suggest improvements to services. But, when you consider that London has a transport system which is the envy of the world, an extra £79 million a year, with the 2012 Olympics coming up is hardly a huge price to pay. Ken Livingtsone, to his credit has placed great faith in public transport and the slightly extended price of a professional, expert opinon is far lower than the potential cost overun which could be caused by a Mayor who has never run anything bigger than a political magazine. Mr Johnson would easily be out of his depth.
With kind regards, but a vote for Ken Livingstone,
Paul Prentice
Dear Mr Prentice,
Many thanks for your email, Boris has asked me to reply on his behalf. Boris feels that Londoners want an iconic bus that they can identify with. Pensioning off bendy buses will not cost anything, as when we renew the bus contracts we will specify to the bus companies that they must not use bendy buses. TfL doesn’t even own the bendy buses, so the removal of this unloved bus will not cost Londoners anymore than it has already. TfL claim getting rid of bendy buses and introducing a new Routemaster with conductors wouldcost £60 million. This is untrue. The current per annum cost of the 24 conductors on the remaining Routemaster routes is £590,000. That is £24,600 per conductor. If you replaced the 337 bendy buses with new Routemasters,with conductors, that would cost £8,290,200 per year, not £60 million.
To put that into context, TfL plan to spend an extra £79 million next year juston consultants, so even if it did cost £60 million, we could afford it by scrapping the extra consultants without having to increase fares. If there is anything else you would like to raise with us, please do nothesitate to do so, it is vital that we hear from Londoners on issues thatconcern them.
Yours Sincerely
David Swaden, Boris Johnson's Policy Team
I'd like to know how Boris' plans for a 21st century Routemaster would befunded. I agree that bendy buses are not the ideal solution, but reintroducing buses with conductors (which would double the cost of staffing each individual vehicle) would be unworkable.
I can't see how any Mayor could develop an entirely new vehicle whilst continue to improve bus services at the sametime. Most cities don't have their own specially produced buses and I wonder how it would be possible for London to afford it, especially as the Mayor's fare rises are always criticised (I think, unjustifiably, given the price of oil etc) every year.
I'd appreciate a response, thanks.
Paul Prentice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)