Brian Paddick for Mayor

[London_Calling]

Yes, and you've also overlooked my question in post #6.

I didn't overlook it, didn't think it's really my place to re-ask other people's questions.

 

[Maggot]

I was talking to Bob, not you!

 

[London_Calling]

Well don't quote me and talk to someone else !


Who said that ? *twitch*

 

[tippee]

The buses are massively improved since ken came in, and the congestion charge has meant an easier commute on my bicycle. He gets my vote for those two at the very least.

Due to the extra buses the road surfaces are now rutted to hell and never fixed - unpleasant for pushbikes and lethal for motorcyclists

 

[London_Calling]

Due to the extra buses the road surfaces are now rutted to hell and never fixed - unpleasant for pushbikes and lethal for motorcyclists

As best I know, the roads aren't the Mayor's responsibility - besides, the displacement of weight on bendy busses is much kinder to roads (and bridges) than double-deckers.

But you're right, if there ween't any busses - or cars - then the roads would be in pristine condition.

 

[Bob]

Bob - you seemed to have overlooked the crime issue you raised to begin with, please have a look at posts #1 to #5.

I think there's a big difference between 'this year crime has fell' and 'crime is at acceptable levels in London'. In other words I think there is a very serious crime problem - and if you don't then you're not looking at the other threads on this board enough...

 

[Bob]

Yes, and you've also overlooked my question in post #6.

It's very easy to criticise an incumbent, but you haven't said anything about what Brian will do, apart from on crime.

Well he hasn't actually announced formally that he's going to be candidate yet - let alone been selected, let alone publishing his policies.

I'm making my judgement on the impressive character and record of the man. He's shown utter integrity in difficult circumstances and been very effective in his jobs.

 

[Bob]

As best I know, the roads aren't the Mayor's responsibility - besides, the displacement of weight on bendy busses is much kinder to roads (and bridges) than double-deckers.

But you're right, if there ween't any busses - or cars - then the roads would be in pristine condition.

The main roads are TFL's responsibility.

 

[Maggot]

I'm making my judgement on the impressive character and record of the man. He's shown utter integrity in difficult circumstances and been very effective in his jobs.

I'd agree with that, but it doesn't mean he'd make a good mayor.

 

[keicar]

2-page article in today's Mail On Sunday, Brian telling his story about the Stockwell incident.

Which to me gives the strongest suggestion yet he is going to run.

He needs at least the 2nd preference votes from suburban MoS readers to stand a chance (plus enough 1st preference votes from anywhere to make the final two)

 

[detective-boy]

It's a good article in so much as it fleshes out the timeline as Paddick contemporaneously* recorded it.

Definitely has a ring of truth about it (in terms of the factual sequence of events, anyway). I can hear Moir Stewart saying exactly these words:

'You'll never believe what we've done now,' said Chief Supt Stewart. 'We've shot a Brazilian'

as opposed to imparting the news in any different and, perhaps, more usual formulation.

 

[Orang Utan]

Well he hasn't actually announced formally that he's going to be candidate yet - let alone been selected, let alone publishing his policies.

I'm making my judgement on the impressive character and record of the man. He's shown utter integrity in difficult circumstances and been very effective in his jobs.

Hang on a minute - he hasn't even been selected or announced his candidacy? Why did you post this thread then?

 

[Orang Utan]

What will Brian do then?

So this is why you haven't answered this question yet. You don't know cos he's not running for mayor!

 

[Maggot]

Even if he does want to run, he'll have to be chosen as the Lib-Dem candidate first.

 

[JHE]

Even if he does want to run, he'll have to be chosen as the Lib-Dem candidate first.

Indeed. Has he even joined the Lib Dems? How high a level of agreement does he have with Lib Dem policy? Is there any evidence that he'd be a good candidate? Will the Lib Dems want to adopt someone who has no record of Lib Dem activism? Or would they prefer to avoid the stupid mistake made by the Tories in Southall in the recent by-election?

 

[keicar]

In the MoS today he looks like a man about to make a run to me, or at least interested in doing so. Trying to project a little gravitas to appeal to those who think Boris is a buffoon. Also trying to mend fences with the Daily Mail group (who of course own the Standard)

But we shall see.

 

[lang rabbie]

Indeed. Has he even joined the Lib Dems? How high a level of agreement does he have with Lib Dem policy? Is there any evidence that he'd be a good candidate? Will the Lib Dems want to adopt someone who has no record of Lib Dem activism? Or would they prefer to avoid the stupid mistake made by the Tories in Southall in the recent by-election?

It is pretty difficult to have a record of political activism, if you have been a serving police officer. And I'd be surprised if Brian has been donating substantial amounts of money to the Labour Party recently

Yesterday the Liberal Democrats released a statement saying: “We have been in talks with Brian Paddick, among others. We hope and expect him to go forward for the nomination as part of a full and open selection process which will begin shortly.”

A source suggested that Mr Paddick had made the initial approach, but would not say whether he had met Sir Menzies Campbell, the party leader.

Advertisements will be placed in papers in a week. The party will then draw up a shortlist that will be released a fortnight before next month’s party conference, during which hustings will take place. Then, everyone who has been a London member of the party for more than a year will be invited to vote. It is hoped to have a candidate in place by mid-November.

 

[London_Calling]

I think there's a big difference between 'this year crime has fell' and 'crime is at acceptable levels in London'. In other words I think there is a very serious crime problem

What you *think* is here

I've seen him talk on crime - he's got really intelligent views on what works and doesn't from his experience at both the front line and at high levels in the police.

And I asked you how Mr Paddick's "really intelligent views on what works and doesn't" compares with the actual, factual real world crime figures.

From what I can tell you're just another tribal voter; 'My Party, right or wrong'.

 

[butchersapron]

Livingstone getting his shots in early, not sure backing Ian Blair is such a vote winner myself:

De Menezes cover-up claim attacked by mayor
London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, launched an attack on Brian Paddick yesterday after the Metropolitan police's former deputy assistant commissioner said he believed there may have been a cover-up over the police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. Mr Paddick has put himself forward as a mayoral candidate. The mayor said: "Most people reading Brian Paddick's account, in which he claims he had information that the person who had been shot was not a terrorist suspect but sat in a meeting with Sir Ian and said nothing, would conclude that Mr Paddick has no good basis for criticising anyone."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2142328,00.html

 

[London_Calling]

Meh. Cheap shot, Ken.

Chain of Command, etc. Paddick couldn't say anything at the time, assuming his account is the most accurate account.

 

[detective-boy]

Chain of Command, etc. Paddick couldn't say anything at the time, assuming his account is the most accurate account.

Yes, he could. "Chain of Command, etc." does not prevent the expression of contrary views. It does not prevent arcing intermediate managers if it is the right thing to do. It does not prevent asking for the minutes to note dissent or whatever.

"Chain of Command, etc." may well mean that you can't change the decision. It may well mean that you piss people off above you and fuck your career (I speak from experience!) but it doesn't actually prevent you saying anything.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I'm trying to be less political but here are my thoughts on this situation.

I'm not a lib dem. I don't trust lib dems. I've heard so many stories where voting lib dem has brought in councils who behave like tories.

However, something has got to be done to rid the city of Livingstone. I was a fervant supporter of Livingstone when he posed as a man of principle but the poster above who listed Livingstones faults is correct. He has crawled up the arse of those with power far more than would be required for the purpose of general day to day compromise.

Its a great shame that Mayor Livingstone who had the support of a whole load of good people, people who cared passionately about a revival of London Govt has let down his city and those who supported him.

I'd also like to add Livingstones appalling weaselly support of the Olympics that IS going to be a disaster despite many hundreds of thousands of pounds of OUR money spent by Livingstone and central govt in propaganda to convince us otherwise.

Livingstone is not fit for purpose. I would have reluctantly supported Boris on the grounds that an incomptant fool would at least allow the London Assembly to flourish away from Livingstones autocracy but now there is the possibility of voting for Paddick then that is where my vote will go. I would have voted for IWCA as a way of not voting for Livingstone even though I know it would be a wasted vote.

 

[London_Calling]

To detective-boy - Exactly, you don't rise to DAC without 'playing the game'.

 

[Lock&Light]

I see you haven't got very far with giving up on politics yet, KJ.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I see you haven't got very far with giving up on politics yet, KJ.

Its a bit like giving up nicotine. I'm now on the political equivilant of the 'nicotine patch' and only positng about politics once or twice a day. I'm certainly not taking low lifes like Respect seriously anymore so that is an improvement.

 

[Guineveretoo]

This "we", who are you speaking on behalf of?

How would you transport so many people in the rush hour on central routes which have bridges too low for double-deckers. Perhaps employ two drivers, with two engines, with two maintenaince schedules, with two insurance policies, etc, etc, etc?

'But it doesn't go under a low bridge when I'm on it . . . '

The first of the bendy buses was on the 507 route. It runs from London Victoria to London Waterloo.

Where is the low bridge on that route?

 

[Guineveretoo]

The buses are massively improved since ken came in, and the congestion charge has meant an easier commute on my bicycle. He gets my vote for those two at the very least.

The buses are a huge improvement, and have made an enormous difference to my ability to get out and about in London.

I will be voting for Ken. I honestly think he is the right person for the job.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I will be voting for Ken. I honestly think he is the right person for the job.

Open your fucking eyes the man is a dangerous arse licking autocrat. He is nothing like the brave defender of London govt that he was in the 80's. He is an utter sleazeball and so are those who take his shilling.

 

[London_Calling]

The first of the bendy buses was on the 507 route. It runs from London Victoria to London Waterloo.

Where is the low bridge on that route?

No idea. But if the route takes the bus up the ramp at Waterloo to the main entrance, I know I've never seen a double-decker up there. Whether it's the height of the roof up there or the weight displacement on the evelavated section, I dunno.

There's also that low bridge at the bridge end of Westminster Bridge Road.

Maybe a weight displacement issue at Victoria if it went via Ecclestone or Elizebeht Street bridges . . .

Not an engineer or black cabbie or work for TFL.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Open your fucking eyes the man is a dangerous arse licking autocrat. He is nothing like the brave defender of London govt that he was in the 80's. He is an utter sleazeball and so are those who take his shilling.

Can you give examples of that, and explain what you mean by the use of the word "autocrat" in this context?

Of course it is not the same as in the 80s! He ran the GLC, which was a completely different role from being the Mayor of London.

I have got a lot of time for Ken Livingstone, and I admire his commitment to London. He is certainly not someone who bows to authority, or he would not now be Mayor, would he?