Ken Livingston is a dangerous reactionary

When something as devastating as the 7th of July attacks happens it is of paramount importance that the parties involved learn every lesson that can be learnt.

It is far too easy to look at the events, the horror and peoples undeniable bravery in responding to them and say, “we all pulled together” and “the blitz spirit pulled us through”.

Yes there were acts of immense bravery and selflessness, police officers, medical professionals, ambulance crews, transport workers and members of the public all stepped up to the challenge and were not found wanting.

However, to brand the report on the 7/7 incidents as just an “insult to 999 crews” as Ken Livingstone has done is an insult in itself. He went on to say that “They (the London Assembly Committee set up to report on the events) set out to look for everything that didn’t go perfectly and they found some”. Well Ken, that was the point.

The report highlighted equipment, and resourcing failures rather than individual failings, it seems Ken would rather sweep these under the carpet. If we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to learn lessons from the attacks and our reaction to them we are condemning ourselves to repeat any mistakes that were made.

10 responses to “Ken Livingston is a dangerous reactionary

  1. James, he is Livingstone, and he is neither dangerous, nor reactionary. He is deeply loved, not only in the Labour movement, but way beyond, as you will no doubt discover (again) when his re-election come up.

  2. James, he is Livingstone, and he is neither dangerous, nor reactionary. He is deeply loved, not only in the Labour movement, but way beyond, as you will no doubt discover (again) when his re-election come up.

  3. James,You seem incapable, or more than one occasion, of even spelling correctly the name of the directly elected Mayor of London. Your commitment to driving up education standards does beg some questions!You really are a bit of a joke if you wan’t to comment on other politicians but are incapable of even spelling their names on a number of occasions.For the record some people strongly feel that the security problems facing London are due to Blair being so stupid in spporting Bush. At a local level Labour councillors, such as fromer Cllr Dave Bodimedate, accused anyone opposing the invasion of Iraq as idiots – he really did believe the claims made by Blair and Jack Straw about 45 minutes etc. Just look at Dave Bodimeades’s blog for evidence of what loyal Blair Labour politicians were saying before the Iraq war.However, where do you stand? Did you oppose Blair in 2003? Do you think that Blair was right in early 2003 in his campaign to invade Iraq? Do you think Blair has done a good job in helpling to settle disputes in the Middle East? Do you think London is safer under Blair than would be the case under a different Prime Minister? Do you think the loss of life and the casualties of British servicemen has been something we should easily accept?Finally, why is it that just London has received bombings in the last year and not Berlin, Paris?, or any other European capital? I personally don’t like Livingstone, but I have to accept that he is far more consistent in policy than you will probably ever be.

  4. James,You seem incapable, or more than one occasion, of even spelling correctly the name of the directly elected Mayor of London. Your commitment to driving up education standards does beg some questions!You really are a bit of a joke if you wan’t to comment on other politicians but are incapable of even spelling their names on a number of occasions.For the record some people strongly feel that the security problems facing London are due to Blair being so stupid in spporting Bush. At a local level Labour councillors, such as fromer Cllr Dave Bodimedate, accused anyone opposing the invasion of Iraq as idiots – he really did believe the claims made by Blair and Jack Straw about 45 minutes etc. Just look at Dave Bodimeades’s blog for evidence of what loyal Blair Labour politicians were saying before the Iraq war.However, where do you stand? Did you oppose Blair in 2003? Do you think that Blair was right in early 2003 in his campaign to invade Iraq? Do you think Blair has done a good job in helpling to settle disputes in the Middle East? Do you think London is safer under Blair than would be the case under a different Prime Minister? Do you think the loss of life and the casualties of British servicemen has been something we should easily accept?Finally, why is it that just London has received bombings in the last year and not Berlin, Paris?, or any other European capital? I personally don’t like Livingstone, but I have to accept that he is far more consistent in policy than you will probably ever be.

  5. Dear Anonymous,I would take your telling off about my spelling a little more seriously if your comments weren’t littered with spelling errors, but to make you happy I have now amended the original post (the title will have to remain unchanged or I will lose yor comments).The reasons behind the 7th July attacks are many and various but you could be right that they are linked to the conflict in Iraq, I would be surprised if they were not.The point that I was making was about Ken’s unwillingness to listen to the problems highlighted by the GLA report and take steps to address them. He seems keener on spinning the story to make it sound as though the London Conservatives were attacking the emergency services.Being unwilling to change makes him a reactionary, when that unwillingness to change affects the safety of Londoners it makes him dangerous.By the way, what makes to believe that I am not consistent?

  6. Dear Anonymous,I would take your telling off about my spelling a little more seriously if your comments weren’t littered with spelling errors, but to make you happy I have now amended the original post (the title will have to remain unchanged or I will lose yor comments).The reasons behind the 7th July attacks are many and various but you could be right that they are linked to the conflict in Iraq, I would be surprised if they were not.The point that I was making was about Ken’s unwillingness to listen to the problems highlighted by the GLA report and take steps to address them. He seems keener on spinning the story to make it sound as though the London Conservatives were attacking the emergency services.Being unwilling to change makes him a reactionary, when that unwillingness to change affects the safety of Londoners it makes him dangerous.By the way, what makes to believe that I am not consistent?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s