Ken Livingstone

Well you know, glass houses and all that! ;)

Or the Daily Mail!
(in which rag people may have enjoyed the memoirs of Tony Benn! - and other Labour notables).

It's like taking a poll - or holding an election - it is the Don't Knows who hold the sway.

Jalima, Calling the Mirror a 'rag' is a bit snobbish! ;-) Kevin Maguire, who wrote the article, used to be a senior reporter for the Guardian and has worked for the BBC amongst others. Are the Guardian and BBC 'rags'? I actually think he's one of the best journalists in the UK, without going off into intellectual philosophising or making up supporting 'facts'. I can usually rely on him to give a basic summary of what's going on in not too many words.

The Daily Mirror is just about the only Labour supporting mainstream newspaper left. BBC News has gone 'tabloid' and the Guardian doesn't seem to know where it stands any more since Jonathan Freedlander became Editor. I read the Independent Online, but its website is awful and often crashes my computer.

I read at least twenty online news sources a day, about half of which are foreign, because I try to get a balanced view and look at issues from different perspectives. The Mirror has been one of my regular daily sites for months. I read the Mail Online about once a week (with gritted teeth) - the Mail on Sunday has a different editorial team and is better. I don't actually know how anybody can consider the Daily Mail a serious newspaper, certainly not the online version. Unless some item of news fits in with its agenda, it's buried somewhere amongst the 'toned bodies' or gossip about the Kardashian family (who?) or just doesn't appear at all.

I refuse to pay Murdoch for reading his newspapers, so don't read the Sun or the Times. The Telegraph allows 10 articles a month for free and I usually read them, but have to be selective.

or playing political ping-pong- but then you chose to do so, no? Personally I'd consider it quite rude, but hey ho
There is plenty of political ping-pong on the threads; I never realised it was rude.

But I have done, Alea, honestly. I have even linked to the DM and the Times!
I am really clever and can do google searches. I do read the article linked to first, before I put the link on, like I did with the Mirror ones. I can't imagine those criticising me have done so.

Neither do I- but as I love learning, and even at times actually change my mind due to great information- I really do appreciate people who try hard to give relevant links and information which help the debate progress inteliigently- on both sides and even in between. What is rude is saying that those who do, are 'über vocal' for the sake of, rather than informative - whichever 'side' they are on.

Intelligent, informed and informative debate is more than welcome as far as I am concerned.

Of course you read the content of the link first - what would be the point otherwise? As long as the article fits with your way of thinking it's worth postinv.

No one except you has used the phrase 'uber vocal' granjura.

über vocal' for the sake of, rather than informative - whichever 'side' they are on

Your words, GJ , nobody else's .

Intelligent, informed and informative debate is more than welcome as far as I am concerned
Excellent ideal!
Long may it continue on every thread, even the non-political ones and that no-one is ever brow-beaten or upset by diatribes from other posters.

Anyway, why has this thread descended into near farce yet again and lost its way so as to be virtually unrecognisable when juxtaposed with the Original Post.
1) was/is he a prat or merely ill advised?
2) given the timing with the Mayoral elections within just a few days, were his words deliberate, ill-chosen, "foot in mouth" disease or calculated? I for one may not like him, but he is not stupid
3) was he set up? Or does he have a deep hidden agenda?

Answers to these questions would seem to me immeasurably more relevant than discussing tabloids and broadsheets or the inevitable political ding-dong .

LOL- what else did that mean then, come on:

'Or perhaps just more vocal? According to the GN survey last year, there are more Tory supporters than Labour supporters who are members. Not everyone has an appetite for being embroiled in political ping-pobg matches.'

posting links and comments to counter an argument or comment- (often NOT accompanied by any information or explanation at all) is not being 'vocal', nor is it playing political ping-pong. As said, I find both insulting- and add absolutely nothing to the debate, that is for sure.

1 No, I don't think he is a prat actually, and would he take any notice of any advisers?
2 Deliberate and calculated. He comes across as affable but he can be manipulative and devious as past actions have shown
3 No, he wasn't set up (he is not that stupid) and I have no idea what his agenda would be since:
Labour's London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan believes his chances of winning the election next week could be damaged by the anti-Semitism row that has erupted. So why would Livingstone do this?

What could happen is that more people may vote for Khan because they feel indignant on his behalf - Goldsmith has probably retaliated and shot himself in the foot.

"LOL" nobody is laughing.
I am assuming that last commenvr referred the one before mine? As I think my questions were succinct and pertinent, but if you are complaining about posters who post links without explanation or comment, there are plenty to choose from on this thread and others. And with respect, I think DJ must hold the record for links, not infrequently without commentary,

A poster asked 'why are there so many lefties on here' and was answered with, there are actually more Conservative ( and possibly Lib/ Dem) but maybe the left are more vocal.This is true ( it's a fact not a slur) the Left like to get into a debate on the political threads more than others do, so it just seems as if there are more of them, than there actually are.

I like that analysis, jalima.

Alea yes, answers on a postcard please for those questions you raised in your last post.But will anyone be able to answer them, other than Ken himself?

You're probably right rosesarered
Does anyone know what makes Ken tick (perhaps not even Ken himself!).

Loose cannon is a phrase often bandied around and probably used too much and inappropriately, but it does seem to be an apt description.

Surely a side of A4 at least rosesarered!!

I wonder for instance how many of us were aware of the Havaara Agreement- as it is so relevant to this thread.

I am amazed at the number of lefties on this site - from a post by someone this afternoon. Not me. Do get your facts straight.

As for KL being a prat, I still think he is one, because he thinks he can say or do whatever he wants and get away with it because there are so many rushing to excuse him.

In answer to Alea

1. Prat -I don't think anyone could make him say something he didn't want to say
2. I suspect his ego got the better of him, again
3. No he wasn't set up, he's too Wiley and experienced for that. Increasingly, ken's agenda seems to be self promotion. How can his actions and statements have helped Naz Shah, Sadiq Khan or the Labour Party?

I honestly believe he's a liability and have commented earlier about allegations of drinking -, I won't detail but get anyone can find links on google if the want to.

Goldsmith was never in with any real chance.

There are more conservative supporters on this site because as people age they become more conservative. It's just how it is.

Wouldn't it be boring if we lefties did not comment on the news and politics threads.