So, for the civil libertarian, that would be a vote for Boris Johnson then?

I have never understood how it is that people think that because they’re writing an article accusing someone else of factual inaccuracy and smear, they are automatically licensed to reciprocate.

And I’m smearing Brian Paddick how?

he has spent his life serving the most authoritarian organisation in the country, which is the main body pushing for extending the 42 days pre-charge detention period

That is a claim of guilt by association which is completely unjustified, especially given the publicly available facts about Brian’s conduct and the manner of his departure from the Met. My point being that it’s just as groundless a statement as ‘Ken Livingstone supports police shootings’.

Accusing him of lacking courage and ‘sanctimonious posturing’ was wrong in my view, although it’s a subjective judgement and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Of course, the original attacks on Ken were over the top too – nobody can seriously believe that he’s in favour of ‘executions’, although his pro-ID card stance is bad enough for me.

Accusing Peter David of “laying into Livingstone for its own sake without evaluating the policy or principle on its own merit” really is just disagreement for the sake of it. There are perfectly good reasons for keeping two different incentives – the incentive to keep cars out of London and the incentive to drive lower-emissions cars – separate. As Peter’s post pointed out, increasing the incentive to drive low-emissions cars reduces the incentive to stay out of London. Now, you can argue about the trade-offs here, but you can’t deny that these trade-offs exist, and that it’s perfectly legitimate for Peter to have taken the view that Ken’s plan is wrong. He wasn’t “laying into Livingstone for its own sake”. You’re a smart enough person to be aware of these issues, so why not credit Peter with the same intelligence?

Well, caling him automatically illiberal because he used to be a police officer. You never heard of the concept of changing the system from the inside?

he has spent his life serving the most authoritarian organisation in the country, which is the main body pushing for extending the 42 days pre-charge detention period. That hardly makes him the most liberal choice around, does it?

Hmmm I think you’ll find he’s been one of the better coppers out there though Sunny, he’s even well liked on the Brixton based community site Urban75.com: http://www.urban75.org/paddick/

I didn’t say he was automatically illiberal, I was saying he would be more of a candidate for that smear than Livingstone. I know of his liberal record on policing on cannabis, on Ian Blair and De Menezes. I fully acknowledge it. He’s not said anything on 42 days as far as I can find (yes, I researched for this blog post).

My other point, which I didn’t make, was that the Mayor has no real bearing on issues like ID cards or 42 days, so laying into him for that reason is superflouous. Its a bit like voting for Ken entirely because of his opposition against the Iraq war.

Accusing him of lacking courage and ’sanctimonious posturing’ was wrong in my view, although it’s a subjective judgement and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Let me clarify – the sanctamonious posturing point was directed towards Peter’s article, not Brian. I fail to see how Peter can have a go at Ken for Labour activists not endorsing Brian Paddick (I’m not a Labour activist but I’ve promoted him here enough) when Brian himself refused to say aything about where his second vote would go on Newsnight.

There are perfectly good reasons for keeping two different incentives – the incentive to keep cars out of London and the incentive to drive lower-emissions cars – separate.

It doesn’t make sense to try and limit coming into London entirely. There is already a base congestion charge, which is going to be extended across the city, which will affect people who come into the city.

His point was explicitly about different tiered levels for different vehicles. Is it not true that increasing the cost uniformly across the capital is regressive? I would think Liberals would be for having big polluters paying more, since its the most equitable solution.

As Peter’s post pointed out, increasing the incentive to drive low-emissions cars reduces the incentive to stay out of London.

It also increases the incentive for car makers to focus on more efficient cars, increase their production, and spend money on R&D to make cars more efficient. OVer the long term that is the only way to reduce pollution… just taxing people to hell until they can’t drive at all doesn’t make sense (I don’t know why I’m arguing this because I don’t even drive but the point still exists). This is why I think Peter is posturing.

Well, caling him automatically illiberal because he used to be a police officer. You never heard of the concept of changing the system from the inside?

and Jeanie, I didn’t say he was illiberal – I said he came from the most authoritarian org in the country. That is a matter of fact.

Its a matter of fact like saying Ken Livingstone embraced al-Qaradawi without saying he endorsed or agreed with his views.

“That hardly makes him the most liberal choice around, does it?” is not an accusation of illiberality, Sunny? FFS. Journalistic dissembling is not big and it’s not clever.

Like Rob says, you are doing exactly what you accuse Peter of doing. Which, you know, your blog, your rules. But don’t try and deny doing it, it just makes you look either dishonest or stupid, and I know you’re not stupid, so…

Bleh. Didn’t mean that to sound quite that harsh. But it really winds me up when people spell my name wrong.

“the Mayor has no real bearing on issues like ID cards”

Actually, there are a lot of councils around the country refusing to co-operate with any ID card implementation and they’ll be promoted heavily by the Govt as an “entitlement card” for things like free bus passes and similar.

So if the Mayor’s Office refused to adopt them for any purposes it has authority over, their “voluntary” take up will be slowed substantially. Sure, it’s not a main issue but…

Now onto the other point.

“That hardly makes him the most liberal choice around, does it?”

There are three choices and a bunch of also rans. Blame the BSVS. Of the three, I’d say yes, Paddick is the most liberal choice. If you’re looking at “liberal” using the traditional English usage based around Mill’s harm principle and opposition to state authority over the individual, Boris is more liberal than Ken.

So yes, he is the most liberal choice, ignoring the cracks about him having been employed by an organisation he famously didn’t quite mesh with, he made national news more than once after all.

Whoops – sorry for spelling your name wrong.

I meant that sentence in the way of saying that I can’t imagine seeing a senior policeman as a liberal figure. Its an authoritarian and rigid organisation. One that’s needed, don’t get me wrong, but I rarely look at the police and think they’ll share my views on the world. I have given Brian credit on various issues but he’d never come close to say Charles Kennedy, who I’d have voted for in a second if he was standing. Maybe I went slightly overboard in that last sentence…. bleh.

* offers brandy and posh ginger bikkies *

Pax?

The most divisive element sof the whole mayoral election are not, unbelievably, the candidates. Its the various groups that have gripes with other groups.

The LGBT Ethnics seem to have their own outlook, allied to the Likudniks wanting to kick to death the muslims. I don’t see any other agenda running here. Do you?

Oh and the BNP can carry on regardless.

I’ve never seem such a shambolic attempt to play group politics, and hanging it all on the candidates.

‘I don’t see any other agenda running here. Do you?’

Oops forgot. And associated newspapers who could not have the monopoly over distributions rights of their rags on the underground.

I think that covers it.

Yes, I must point out at this point that I was being more than a little facetious in my insta-response. My actual position is, in line with comments 5 and 6, to consider Paddick to be the most liberal candidate and indeed at this point to be the one I will be giving my one and only Mayoral vote to.

I for some time flirted with giving Ken my second preference in order to keep the Tory (Boris) out, but following his ridiculous ‘nanny state’ comments and his approach to NO2ID (no representative, no written answers to the hustings questions) I consider him thoroughly undeserving of my vote.

I am, however, should Boris win, looking forward to the YouTube video showing him eating his ground up ID card on his cornflakes

If you’re looking at “liberal” using the traditional English usage based around Mill’s harm principle and opposition to state authority over the individual, Boris is more liberal than Ken.

Pop quiz: which Tory candidate suggested that we should be all banned from drinking in the Tube? To me, that’s a much more obvious example of a harmless activity being banned for expediency’s sake than caring much (in either direction) about an overpriced way of duplicating the passport and driving license system that the vast majority of us already sign up for…

“Firstly, in what way is Livingstone “divisive” that is different from other politicians?”

Other politicians don’t ignore constitutionally elected assemblies, dabble in socialistic fantasy with south American dictators and merrily insult London’s most substantial and historical minority communities. Although on the final point, Ken is admittedly little better than Boris.

Which begs the question, what makes it so difficult for you to believe that Brian Paddick *genuinely* hasn’t made up his mind about who (if anyone) he ought to put as second preference?

“Too bad Brian did not have the courage to do the same. This sanctamonious posturing does not do anyone any good I’m afraid.”

A Beeb editor put this to me today and I thought it was bollocks, and I still do. *I’m* still fairly undecided, on a default choice of no second pref unless one or other of Ken or Boris does something so outrageous I have to vote for the other one. I gather that Peter David was in the same position, but that Boris on Newsnight proved to be outrage enough.

So what on earth makes you think Brian is any different to me? Or Peter D? The latter’s whole point in his original article is frustration at the default assumption of Labourites that Lib Dems “should” be supporting Ken – when he stands for so many things that Lib Dems are resolutely opposed to. Do you honestly not see how all this stuff about “having the courage” to give Ken a second preference when many of our very souls revolt at the thought is only playing up to the worst expectations many Lib Dems have of Labourites? Suppose we *don’t* think it is our moral duty?

And if Brian is thinking along the same indignant lines, which is a reasonable assumption, he’s probably doing what me and Peter D are doing, looking at the alternative of Johnson, and roundly despairing. How many people do you need to state that their thinking resembles this pattern before you concede that Brian might just have been telling the truth?

I said he came from the most authoritarian org in the country. That is a matter of fact.

How is that a fact Sunny? Except maybe insofar as it part of the job description of the police to act in an authoritarian manner. Would you describe the military as the being most violent organisation in the country? I suppose that would be a fact too.

I rarely look at the police and think they’ll share my views on the world.

Well that’s rather a pity Sunny, because now we have a needless “us and them” scenario in the making. I have occasional dealings with the police in my capacity as a neighbourhood watch coordinator, and I must say it has never occurred to me to wonder whether they might share my views on the world. I just see them as ordinary men and women doing a difficult job and deserving of our full support. It seems to me that you have made a rather sweeping statement there which you might think better of in the morning.

Alix:
Other politicians don’t ignore constitutionally elected assemblies, dabble in socialistic fantasy with south American dictators and merrily insult London’s most substantial and historical minority communities.

Other politicians don’t ignore opinions polls, judges or the even their own parties? That’s news to me! If you’re referring to Chavez, technically he isn’t a dictator (though I’m not defending that embrace either, but it has little relevance to my life) and when you say insult entire communities, again I’m unsure what incident you’re referring to.

My point isn’t whether you or Brian have not made up your minds about who your second choice is. That’s up to you.
My point of annoyance was over Peter saying that Labour activists “are not prepared to reciprocate”… essentially saying Libdems have no reason to support a Labour candidate when Labour can’t support a Libdem candidate. But that deal with Sian could very well have been a deal with Brian – right? You pointed that out. So his point is moot. And Ken actively chose Brian over Boris on Newsnight. So why is this guy going on about how Labour activists have not reciprocated? In effect its Brian Paddick who himself killed off any chance of a reciprocal deal.

when he stands for so many things that Lib Dems are resolutely opposed to.

As far as I can see, the main policy proposal that gets Peter’s goat is the way the congestion charge is priced. I think his criticisms are terrible. But KL’s the man who brought the CC in, not the Tory candidate who was against the CC before he’s for it. Either way, if you’re pro-environment KL comes closer than BP does. ID cards are broadly a non-issue for the Mayor. But if you want to include it, then you might as well throw in the Iraq War there and Boris’s slavish support for George Bush.

Hold your nose – fine, I am too! But we can’t pretend there are little policy differences between Ken and Boris.

“Look, the principle here is quite simple: people pay for the damage they cause when it comes to pollution. In my view this is the fairest way to extend the congestion charge otherwise extending it as a flat tax is regressive, not progressive.”

The £25 charge is pure tokenism. It’s pathetic.
Oh, and (according to King’s College London) it may *not even work* since although the smaller cars may pollute less, more of them will come into town as they now have to pay less (or nothing) so there will be no net change in pollution.
(Though TfL dispute their report – it’s clearly not clear cut.)
But there will unequivocally be an increase in, erm, congestion.
Brilliant.

(I have no personal interest in this as I live within the zone and walk or cycle everywhere.)

Ken has lied too often.
Lied about standing for only one term.
Lied about not increasing the CC.
Lied about not knowing where his campaign contributions come from.
Lied about the sleaze – “we have a complete audit trail, ooops, no we haven’t”.
And, yes, lied about the routemaster.

BJ doesn’t fill me with joy but, please, anyone but Ken.

“Other politicians don’t ignore opinions polls, judges or the even their own parties?”

I didn’t say opinion polls, judges or their own parties, I said constitutionally elected assemblies. Meaning the GLA, which Ken has famously and flagrantly ignored, grandly refusing to answer questions or even turn up to Q&As and preferring to take advice from an unelected cabinet. This is undisputed fact. He is accountable when it suits him.

On insulting entire communities – the two incidents I had in mind were the concentration camp guard thing and his apparent endorsement of homophobes. The point, as ever, is not that Ken actually *is* an anti-semitic homophobe any more than Boris is *actually* a racist, but that a Mayor who is supposed to represent the population of a whole city cannot be seen to take sides or display cringe-making off the cuff inappropriateness. And most London MPs, with a similar sort of cultural mix on their patch, make a perfectly decent fist of not doing this. Ergo Ken is something of an exception.

“But we can’t pretend there are little policy differences between Ken and Boris.”

Ah, then this is a root of a misunderstanding. I don’t think anyone would argue that there are little policy differences. But it’s still perfectly possible to find both policy stances inimical, for entirely different reasons. Which is pretty much what Brian said on Newsnight when asked about his second pref.

As for the whole he-said-she-said business about alliances, look at this from our point of view: Ken asks Brian for an alliance, we say “no” because too much of his history and policy just isn’t going to work for us. Ken then goes with the Greens instead, which is entirely their prerogative but we *still* get Labourites telling us it’s our duty to vote for him, despite the fact that they’re now offering nothing in return! The arrogance, from a Lib Dem perspective, appears total. In protesting that Brian had the chance to do a similar deal, you’re saying something like “Well, you should have taken what was offered when you had the chance, shouldn’t you!” I feel slightly like I’ve had my entire dinner taken away because I wouldn’t eat all my greens (no pun intended).

Before we all disappear up our own squabbling bottoms, this does have wider relevance as well. The relatively recent (post-Clegg) Lib Dem shift towards refusing alliances appears to be upsetting people who would rather we obediently played our normal tie-breaker role.

First, Paddick has spent 30 years in the Metroplitan Police. In the Met, he has successfully stood up for sensible liberal and non-authoritarian viewpoints. That has proven that Paddick has backbone, very considerable competence and the ability to hold his own when things get tough. It DOES make him the most liberal choice around!

Second, Ken is willing to take money from Hugo Chavez for London. For all that Chavez is throwing money around like a drunken sailor, Venezuela remains a developing country with the sort of poverty Britain has not seen for a hundred years. Is it liberal or progressive to take from poor Venezuelans to give to rich Londoners?

Stop using that word! Progressive just means “making progress”. It’s not a political stance!

Hear hear, progress towards what ? Hitler could have argued that he was “progressive”.

Laurence:
Would you describe the military as the being most violent organisation in the country?
Isn’t it?

I just see them as ordinary men and women doing a difficult job and deserving of our full support.

Who doesn’t, but I’m talking about politicial leanings here. And I’m sorry if I don’t share your rosy attitutde but I’ve been on far too many protests where the police have blatantly denied us our political rights. Even during the pro-Tibetan protests recently the police were seen threatening protestors with anti-terrorism legislation. And you’re surprised I don’t share your rose-tinted view?

This is undisputed fact. He is accountable when it suits him.

I never said he was a great guy – I’ve acknowledged he’s far too arrogant for his own good. But we can point to similar examples with most politicians. I just think the word “divisive” doesn’t say much.

a Mayor who is supposed to represent the population of a whole city cannot be seen to take sides or display cringe-making off the cuff inappropriateness.

On the concentration camp remark – it may have been offensive to the guy, but it doesn’t insult all British Jews, I don’t know how you can make that connection. On Qaradawi – again the Mayor has a stellar record on gay rights long before it became fashionable for the Tories to try and chuck mud at him from that perspective. You’re basically saying he should screw the Muslims and protect the gays. I’m saying he could have defended the Muslims (without embracing Qaradawi) and yet maintain he doesn’t share his views (which he doesn’t). I’m afraid I don’t see that as evidence that KL has become a homophobe. Surely thats whats important? Again, I want to stress I’m no fan of Qaradawi or that move, I just saw that a lot of the posturing over Qaradawi was also quite hypocritical (by the Tories, Daily Mail etc).

The relatively recent (post-Clegg) Lib Dem shift towards refusing alliances appears to be upsetting people who would rather we obediently played our normal tie-breaker role.

Possibly. But, until the Libdems get a strong electoral breakthrough, the kingmaker/tie-breaker leverage is what you have to push your ideals forward. If you’re then saying we don’t necessarily care about pushing our ideals, only our electoral opportunities, then that’s fine, it just limits the influence you have. But there’s always going to be some people (incl like myself) who look at the bigger picture rather than party loyalty. This could be more due to the fact I’m not tied to the Labour party and wouldn’t care if either Labour or the Libdems win, just not the Tories.

That’s not whining, that’s just a different form of political thinking. Like the people who criticised Ralph Nader for splitting the vote and helping George Bush get in. (don’t take that analogy too far – I love the fact the Libdems offer competition to the two parties and would never say they shouldn’t run).

It is important to be able to distinguish the person from the hat they happen to be wearing at that point in time.

I mean, c’mon Sunny, this article does show some divergence from official policy on this site, despite your personal straddling of roles in both camps – if you can do it, why can’t you see that others also have this ability?

“And, yes, lied about the routemaster.”

Come, come – retreating from an idiotic statement and adopting a wholly better policy is something quite creditable (not quite as creditable as getting the policy right first time, but there you go. It’s hardly in the top league of mendacious politicians).

The alternative is the absurdity that TfL should have been forced to adopt a wholly suboptimal approach to the Mayor’s stated aim of increasing bus transportation merely to avoid the Mayor being perceived to have changed his mind. This is what they’ll have to do with Johnson’s Routemaster plans, of course.

Another point – if you adopt ‘anyone but Ken’ because you think the congestion charge changes will increase congestion, you’ll get Boris, whose plans to scrap the CC western extension and shift to car friendly policies (coded as ‘stop clobbering them’) will, er, increase congestion.

Tom – I put the routemaster last on the list.
Though I don’t believe Ken “changed his mind”; he lied.
Care to address Ken’s other lies?

Congestion is not the primary reason why I will be voting against him.
However on that front I am mostly concerned with congestion (or rather more simply with the number of cars, since I rarely drive myself) within the original zone, which is where I live. His policy will increase the number of cars.