If New Labour really does see celebrity status as the only requisite qualification for running the greatest city in the world, it might as well just cut to the chase and check out whether or not any or all of Girls Aloud would be up for the job.

Ah, so that’s what went wrong with the elected Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent (to be scrapped this May): he wasn’t Robbie Williams.

Why Alan Sugar and not, say, Alan Johnson?

Also, how can a so-called “labour” party endorse somebody who’s a walking poster boy for workplace bullying?

Sralan’s antics on The Apprentice may be great telly, but if a manager in my non-telly, real world workplace talked to me like that, I’d be phoning my union rep and filing a grievance.

Sugar has also argued that prospective employers should be allowed to discriminate against women in the job selection process by questioning their plans to get married and have children and making them explain what childcare arrangements they’d put in place.

Sugar has also argued that prospective employers should be allowed to discriminate against women in the job selection process by questioning their plans to get married and have children and making them explain what childcare arrangements they’d put in place.

He’ll feel right at home with Purnell and Mandelson then.

“Sralan’s antics on The Apprentice may be great telly, but if a manager in my non-telly, real world workplace talked to me like that, I’d be phoning my union rep and filing a grievance.”

Doesn’t sound like the real-world to me. Most people work in a non-unionised environment.

Livingstone was successful because he played the role of Govt critic and used he’s genial personality to gather centre votes. He was also helped by the Tories twice choosing a scouser, who people remember more for his personal life than his political achievements.

With Labour likely to move further to the Left, KL will be unable to pretend to stand up to their leadership. He will, once again, be a focus for the hard-left, despised by most Londoners. Labour’s biggest hope is Boris becoming a disaster or getting a leading post in Cameron’s new Govt.

“Andrew Gilligan reported”

I see your problem right there. Given the suspect provenance of much of Gilly’s output I’m not sure I’d get too worked up on this. Anyway, as far as I know Sir Alan hasn’t appeared on Have I Got News For You yet, which is where London runs its primary elections.

There’s the other point that running London isn’t merely a matter of politics but hands on ability, where Sugar might well score over Boris, judging by today’s report on the response to the snow last month. Inculcating a public service ethos may be a bit more of a problem.

“Sugar has also argued that prospective employers should be allowed to discriminate against women in the job selection process by questioning their plans to get married and have children and making them explain what childcare arrangements they’d put in place.”

Sounds reasonable to me. It means that those women who aren’t intending to have children and wish to prioritise their career can gain an advantage. It means that you treat people as individuals with their own life plans rather than as a collective block with exactly the same interests.

I must be living in an alternate Universe to you guys, but what is the matter wth a self made successful millionaire being Mayor of London? The guy has a proven track record of organisation, fiscal dexterity, he knows what hard work actually is etc etc etc

What background did Livingstone have – and how successful could he be drinking whiskey at 10am in the morning?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-509891/Whisky-drinking-Livingstone-faces-fresh-scandal-aide-quits-star-freebie-trip-Africa.html

Please enlighten me?

Actually, Sugar could be the ultimate New Labour role model. The apprentice gives the impression of corporate success. However, the HQ used for filming is rented by the BBC – his offices are on an industrial estate in Brentwood, the yacht he appears on is also hired. His electronics company is dying; he makes money from property, which will be handy if you are mayor. As he said, he was a success under the Tories and now he pretends to be high fling businessman. All media spin and no substance. Very New Labour.

It will be funny to see the new series, to see if they still say his business is worth £600m.

I can’t believe I’m typing this, but I agree with Chavscum’s comment above. Nurse – the screens…

I would also add in the last series of The Apprentice, Sugar saw fit to award the prize to a man that had been caught out comprehensively lying on his CV and application? Caught out, I may add, by Sugar’s own hand-picked screening team. Given the current Mayor’s dubious appointments, could this be seen as (yet) another warning bell?

Andrew Gilligan: still a wanky two-bit hack. http://is.gd/lpv0

Nick:

“Sugar has also argued that prospective employers should be allowed to discriminate against women in the job selection process by questioning their plans to get married and have children and making them explain what childcare arrangements they’d put in place.”

Sounds reasonable to me. It means that those women who aren’t intending to have children and wish to prioritise their career can gain an advantage. It means that you treat people as individuals with their own life plans rather than as a collective block with exactly the same interests.

…maybe – but as soon as those life plans change to involve children for the 50% of the population who physically give birth to them, Suralan gets to treat them as a collective block he can fire/refuse to hire as he sees fit. Oh, and maybe he can’t be arsed to offer childcare support/resources so he can hire the perfect candidate who happens to have pre-school-age kids. Maybe he’ll be charging employees for using the toilet next, to keep down costs.

Chavscum – I’m forever in gratitude for bringing this to light?

Where can one find out what his business is actually worth

If Alan Sugar becomes their candidate, then New Labour will lose the last bit of support they have left anywhere.

“…maybe – but as soon as those life plans change to involve children for the 50% of the population who physically give birth to them, Suralan gets to treat them as a collective block he can fire/refuse to hire as he sees fit. Oh, and maybe he can’t be arsed to offer childcare support/resources so he can hire the perfect candidate who happens to have pre-school-age kids. Maybe he’ll be charging employees for using the toilet next, to keep down costs.”

He treats women collectively because the government does and hands out entitlements to women which their employers are required to discharge. Perhaps the entitlements are important (I don’t happen to think children are a public good, but I know many do). But if they are, they should be implemented transparently so that they don’t effect the labour market and make hiring women of childbearing age a minefield for employers (making them more likely to hire men if they can get away with it).

I am told by a Danish friend that this is how the entitlements are structured in Denmark (the state providing them overtly rather than channelling them through corporations), which as a consequence, can afford a less regulated labour market compared to ours.

But if they are, they should be implemented transparently so that they don’t effect the labour market and make hiring women of childbearing age a minefield for employers (making them more likely to hire men if they can get away with it).

Sugar sounds like someone who wants to hire men mainly because they don’t give birth and want/choose to have time off work to spend with the new-born kid. Even though there is a distinction between women who do/don’t have kids, such a hiring policy would mean either the women having to sign a ‘no pregnancy’ clause of some sort, or they wouldn’t be hired in case they get broody. Still, it’d be his loss if the talent goes elsewhere.

Sugar sounds like someone who wants to hire men mainly because they don’t give birth and want/choose to have time off work to spend with the new-born kid.

Pesto, I can tell from this comment that you have never run a business. (Please tell me I’m wrong.)

It is necessary to make decisions based on what is in the best interests of the business you are charged with running. In the absence of any other factors, you will, therefore, select a man before a woman of child bearing age because men do not have the disruptive propensity to give birth to children.

The effect of employment legislation in this area only makes the correct business decision even easier to reach.

It is necessary to make decisions based on what is in the best interests of the business you are charged with running. In the absence of any other factors, you will, therefore, select a man before a woman of child bearing age because men do not have the disruptive propensity to give birth to children.

Which conveniently ignores the other part of my post:

“Even though there is a distinction between women who do/don’t have kids, such a hiring policy would mean either the women having to sign a ‘no pregnancy’ clause of some sort, or they wouldn’t be hired in case they get broody. Still, it’d be his loss if the talent goes elsewhere.”

You refer to a scenario where there are two evenly matched candidates, with gender as the only distinguishing characteristic. I’m suggesting that in Sugar’s case the man would get hired – even if he’s the weaker candidate -because he can’t get up the duff. From a ‘business perspective’ not hiring any fecund women at all would make perfect sense as you’d have no pregnant staff or worries about maternity leave cover. How much ‘business experience’ does one have to have to take the view that fertile women are too much of a damn risky nuisance to employ, regardless of how talented they might be because they (and their partners) sometimes want to perpetuate the species?

Still, such an approach does offer opportunities for older (post-menopausal) female workers. Maybe Sugar could go for the grey vote and employ a lot of over-50 women if he did ever become Mayor.

I, too, find myself in agreement with Chavscum (#9) for the first time ever…

How much ‘business experience’ does one have to have to take the view that fertile women are too much of a damn risky nuisance to employ, regardless of how talented they might be because they (and their partners) sometimes want to perpetuate the species?

Not much.

He was a extraordinary success at Spurs, clearly identifying top managerial talent in Christian Gross and Ossie Ardiles. He also knows how to get rid of incompetent staff, brilliantly dispensing with Teddy Sheringham in 1997 when the player was past his peak and wasn’t going to contribute to the team anymore.

London will be in Safe Hands.

What’s Sir Alan’s attitude towards new fathers who want more time off to be with their children? Is it the same as his attitude towards expectant mothers?

Celebrities? Amy Winehouse for mayor!

I would vote for Amy.

Ray Winstone would get my vote.

Boris the Clown vs Siralan how depressing!

KL would do better to run as in Independant again!

a man whose background … antithetical to every last damn thing for which the labour movement used to stand

What’s his “background” got to do with anything? Criticise his views and actions as much as you like but his “background”?

Re the post by redpesto:

‘You refer to a scenario where there are two evenly matched candidates, with gender as the only distinguishing characteristic. I’m suggesting that in Sugar’s case the man would get hired – even if he’s the weaker candidate ‘

In his scenario how can the man be ‘weaker’ if they are evenly matched? Is this a sign of bias or just a logical error?