And who thought those tube strikes weren’t political?

Last December there were a number of strikes on the Underground that I described at the time as blatantly political, I said that they were almost nothing to do with ticket offices and a great deal to do with the reelection campaign of Ken Livngstone.  A number of people told me that I was being either cynical or mildly paranoid (or a bit of both).

To those people, and you know who you are, I would like you to ponder the latest attack on Boris by Livingstone and his running mate Val Shawcross.  They highlight figures which show that compared to the same point a year earlier there was a small increase in delays and a massive increase in station closures in December 2010.

Livingstone’s running mate Val Shawcross (far left) with
protesting RMT and TSSA union members last December

The increase in delays we have to hold our hands up to, they were caused by the major program of upgrade work on a number of lines.  The 1200% increase in station closures, the figure that really grabbed the attention of the news editors, was caused by strikes called by the very unions which Livingstone and Shawcross champion and who bankroll their campaign.  The strikes were called in order to create this very story.

The people who need to “get a grip” are Livingstone and Shawcross, a grip on reality.

2 responses to “And who thought those tube strikes weren’t political?

  1. I certainly had my doubts that there was a deliberate management of strikes to benefit Ken Livingstone's chances, but it appears that the Labour Party have proved me wrong with such a ridiculously selective use of figures. They are demonstrating that they will use these strikes for electoral gain. But then didn't Boris promise us a no strike agreement – a promise that he must have known he could not fulfill?

    What this, and the 'Progressive London' conference show is that Ken still operates over the Labour Party, he is not just the Labour candidate, he is the Socialist Party candidate and the Respect candidate, and the Rahman candidate, and the Ahmadinejad candidate, and just happens to have been selected by Labour as their candidate as well.

    Why is it that all there people with 'special relationships' with Gaddafi are now resigning for public posts, but those associated with the equally brutal Iranian regime – through their fees on the Iranian state controlled Press TV, are running for high office – supported by the Labour Party?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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