Allies and critics rally round London's Livingstone

This is a transcript of the taped exchange between Ken Livingstone and Oliver Finegold outside City Hall last year

Saturday February 25, 2006
The Guardian

Oliver Finegold: "Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did it ..."

Ken Livingstone: "Oh, how awful for you."

Finegold: "How did tonight go?"

Livingstone: "Have you thought of having treatment?"

Finegold: "How did tonight go?"

Livingstone: "Have you thought of having treatment?"

Finegold: "Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"

Livingstone: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"

Finegold: "No, I'm Jewish. I wasn't a German war criminal."

Livingstone: "Ah ... right."

Finegold: "I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?"

Livingstone: "Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard. You're just doing it 'cause you're paid to, aren't you?"

Finegold: "Great. I've you on record for that. So how did tonight go?"

Livingstone: "It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags."

Finegold: "How did tonight go?"

Livingstone: "It's reactionary bigots ..."

Finegold: "I'm a journalist. I'm doing my job."

Livingstone: "... and who supported fascism."

Finegold: "I'm only asking for a simple comment. I'm only asking for a comment."

Livingstone: "Well, work for a paper that isn't ..."

Finegold: "I'm only asking for a comment."

Livingstone: " ... that had a record of supporting fascism."

Finegold: "You've accused me ..."

After the words "You've accused me" there is a gap on the tape followed after five seconds by a sound indistinguishable other than its being a male voice.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1717652,00.html

The adjudication panel's doctrine of zero tolerance makes a fool of British democracy

Mark Lawson
Saturday February 25, 2006
The Guardian

Last week a play about contemporary London opened at the National Theatre. In the published text of Southwark Fair, the writer Samuel Adamson advises future producers: "If 'Ken Livingstone' is obscure, replace throughout with 'the mayor'." The places in which Livingstone is obscure will now surely be rather fewer as the world of democratic politics absorbs the fact that he will be replaced throughout March as mayor because of a nasty remark he made to a bloke in the street.

When the government set up adjudication panels to discipline local government officials, we must suspect that the violations they had in mind were fingers-in-tills or perhaps hand-on-rent-boy, but surely not foot-in-mouth. But yesterday the three guys charged with keeping an eye on mayor Livingstone decided that he should be stripped of his powers for four weeks because he compared an Evening Standard reporter - who was Jewish - to a Nazi concentration camp guard, and then refused to apologise.

The general expectation (even of the Board of Jewish Deputies, which brought the complaint) was that the panel would settle for a letter of formal censure, or perhaps a quiet suggestion that some kind of meter might be put on the chablis at the sort of mayoral events that preceded the encounter with the hack.

It's worth remembering that when Bill Clinton was threatened with removal from office by the members of the House and Senate - over allegations of serious sexual and legal error - considerable concern was expressed about whether even elected representatives had the right to overturn the will of the people as expressed in an election. And ultimately the senators found that launching the impeachment process was as far as they could go.

Yet the clearly stated wish of voters to have Ken Livingstone running London during March 2006 has been reversed by an unelected panel comprising a pensions guru, a statistics expert and a retired Northern bureaucrat.

Messrs Laverick, Stephenson and Norris should pray that the leader-free period they have created does not bring a transport, terrorist or bird-flu crisis to the capital. A political mandate is all or nothing: leaders should be backed until the ballot box gets them or, in extreme cases of constitutional violation, sacked. The comparison with President Clinton is instructive, because there is a strong case for arguing that electorates who choose a leader for a second term have a reasonable idea what they're getting, and so "scandals" only cause damage if they are very much out of character. Americans knew that Clinton had a problem with his zipper; Londoners that Livingstone has a weakness with his lip.

But the overriding principle that democratic politics cannot be put on hold by three blokes that nobody has heard of does not remove the fact that mayor Livingstone has contributed to his own humiliation, in one obvious and another more subtle way.

His glaring omission was the inability to say the annoying but simple "sorry" that could have stopped the case short of the trio of supra-democratic overlords. One interpretation of this failure would be that the mayor has a problem with Jews but, while Livingstone's political views are explicitly pro-Palestinian, anti-semitism would be a surprising vice in a politician for whom tolerance of minorities has been a governing creed.

An explanation of Livingstone's blockage to apology is offered in what now seems a startlingly prescient line in the aforementioned Southwark Fair. Someone mentions that he might give a story to the Daily Mail, prompting another character - a fictional deputy mayor of London - to snap: "Never joke about collaborating with the Mail."

What a laugh that must have got last night. But the gag makes a serious point: for politicians of Livingstone's generation and ideology, the Daily Mail is, as it were, a blue rag. They call it the "Forger's Gazette" because of the Labour-damaging fake "Zinoviev letter" in the 1920s. They refer constantly - as Livingstone did in the career-interrupting conversation - to the paper's soft line on Hitler in the 1930s and its infamous 1934 "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" headline.

If the reporter had come from the Sun or the Mirror rather than the Mail's London sister paper (which had also previously pursued Livingstone over an incident at a party), the mayor's March engagements would have been carried out as planned.

But Livingstone is the architect of his own idleness in another sense as well. The GLA, picking up on standards pioneered by the mayor's old GLC, can claim to be the most aggressively tolerant, the most violently sensitive, institution in UK history.

In everything from job advertising to workplace practices, the authority has seemed to be seeking the ideal of an offence-free zone, in which discrimination and upset will be eradicated. The only logical explanation for the adjudication panel's draconian overreaction is that they were applying this doctrine of zero tolerance on intolerance towards the mayor himself. Even so, they should have realised that a letter of censure or warning was the only tolerable option.

Because the pensions bod, the statistician and the other one have started Ken's gardening leave on March 1, he will return to office by April 1. This is doubly appropriate. True, the mayor has been a fool, but through its response the adjudication panel has made a fool of British democracy.

comment [at] guardian.co.uk

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1717471,00.html

Ken Livingstone is, by far, the most high-profile scalp of the Standards Board for England.

Last month the local government watchdog reprimanded the slightly less well known Pete Allen, a Labour councillor in Hull, for objecting to a park and ride bus scheme which would go past his house - without declaring an interest.

Today's suspension over the 'Nazi' jibe he made at an Evening Standard reporter - which appears to have taken everyone from Ken on down by surprise - is an entirely different matter. It leaves the country's capital - a city of nine million people - essentially rudderless for four weeks.

A slap on the wrist was the most that was expected, if Ken was found guilty at all.

As news of the verdict came in, the mayor's office was in pandemonium - a simple request to confirm that Labour deputy mayor Nicky Gavron would now be taking over the reigns of power was met with a panicked, "We don't know - we'll call you back".

Fortunately, the one biggest formal duty of the mayor - putting together a budget - has already been passed.

Local elections in London (not for the mayor and assembly itself, but for the 33 boroughs) are take place on May 4. The Labour mayor was supposed to spearhead his party's campaign. That's a party political problem for Labour, not a concern of the adjudication panel, but with Labour fearing wipe out in many of the boroughs, the political mischief his opponents will make of his plight, are manna from heaven for the Liberal Democrats and Tories.

But love him or hate him, most of the country thought Mr Livingstone handled the suicide attacks of July 7 last year with authority, aplomb and a great deal of genuine moral outrage that the city with which - more than any other politician - he will forever be linked with had been attacked.

If, God forbid, something similar happens between March 1 and April 1, will the city and nation rally round to stand-in Nicky Gavron, once dubbed "the quango queen", in quite the same way. And does she have the experience to be quite as effective?

Essentially the adjudication panel is the final buck-stopping place for complaints about councillors' behaviour made to the Standards Board for England. A separate body, they were both set up just five years ago by the Labour government.

So who are the three-man panel who have left London deprived of its democratically elected mayor?

Step forward David Laverick, chair of the adjudication panel of the Standards Board.

A former solicitor, his daytime job is as the pensions ombudsman, responsible for monitoring complaints about private pensions schemes abuse - running at around 4,000 a year.

His two sidekicks are Darryl Stephenson, who, as you will no doubt remember, is the former chief executive of East Riding council.

The other household name in his own household is Peter Norris, according to the adjudication panel's press officer, a "former civil servant and currently an independent consultant for local authorities and children's charities". He was also - how could you forget? - a member of the department of constitutional affairs committee on appointments to the lay judiciary.

All three are unelected, appointed to the post by the lord chancellor.

Are they entitled to override the wishes the 828,380 voters who put Ken back in city hall for the second time in June 2004?

"That's not something we comment on," says the press officer for the (somewhat strangely) Harrogate-based adjudication panel.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/02/24/setting_the_standard_for_ken.html#more

Mockking a prophet and insulting a relegion and offending its followers is a freedom of speech. Offending a jewish journalist bringings the office of the mayor of London into disrepute and his suspention. Long live Western democracy!

Mohamed Zahi, Malta

Added: Friday, 24 February, 2006, 18:35 GMT 18:35 UK

I am not aware of what the journalist said, or of his manner in saying it but this seems like an overreaction on the part of the Jewish community, Livingstone after all was nor denying the holocaust. Jews do not have a monopoly on being interned in concentration camps. Perhaps all Boers should be offended also. Suspending Livingstone in this manner flouts the democratic process and steps nearer the type of dictatorial state represented by the perpetrators of the holocaust.

Lionel A Smith, Fareham

We have elected Ken, We pay his wage through our tax and we are proud of him. No board has the right to suspend our elected mayor. He has not insulted the Jewish Community; he has only offended a journalist who has ignored his right to privacy outside the office hours. It was in fact the Evening Standard who translated this into an insult to the Jewish community and ran the propaganda against him. It is certainly a very sad day for democracy and free speech and a good day for increasing powerful news barons.

Foad, London


Added: Friday, 24 February, 2006, 18:36 GMT 18:36 UK

And what happens to the journalist who was harassing Ken Livingstone?

It is not widely understood how people in public office face daily intrusion and pursuit by representatives of the media - who are certainly not elected or accountable to anyone.

Vincent Coles, SW1A, United Kingdom

Added: Friday, 24 February, 2006, 18:37 GMT 18:37 UK

"Has Ken Livingstone’s comments brought the office of mayor into disrepute?"

Certainly not.

The stupid reaction has brought into disrepute those who constitute the thought police.

Stick to your guns Mr. Lvingstone.

David Bridgen, CAMBERLEY, United Kingdom


Added: Friday, 24 February, 2006, 18:35 GMT 18:35 UK

This is not simply an over-reaction to a private comment made in an occasional gloves-off war between Ken and Associated Newspapers out of which neither particularly comes up smelling of roses. This is a travesty of democracy, and must be fought. What the hell is the Adjudication Panel for England? who elected THAT? This is not about political correctness, but about political control - from a government that should be ashamed to claim heritage from the Labour movement.

Simon Gilman, London

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=1145&start=30&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20060225023602&#paginator

I could never see myself voting for Ken Livingston and I disagree with most of his politics, but this ruling is outrageous. Firstly, it is people trying to remove him from power through the law courts because they failed to beat him in the ballot box. This is a threat to the democratic process. Secondly, he was drawing a reasonable parallel that applies to all people who try to justify despicable behaviour by saying "I'm just doing my job". Oh how it pains me to have to defend Ken Livingston, but it just shows how stupid this ruling is!!!

IainM, Oxshott

Ros Taylor
Tuesday February 28, 2006

A high court judge has frozen the four-week suspension handed down to Ken Livingstone by the Adjudication Panel, which was due to begin tomorrow.

The ruling means the London mayor can continue fighting what he describes as the "McCarthyite" decision to suspend him without having to abandon his office for four weeks.

Mr Livingstone, who was suspended after the government body ruled that he had brought his office into disrepute by comparing a Jewish Evening Standard reporter to a concentration camp guard, said earlier this morning that he would take the case to the appeal court and "most probably" the Lords, even if it cost him "hundreds of thousands of pounds". He added that he had no intention of apologising for his remarks.

"For far too long the accusation of anti-semitism has been used against anybody who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government," Mr Livingstone said in a statement delivered at City Hall today.

"The fundamental issue is not whether or not I was 'insensitive', it is the principle that those whom the people elect should only be removed by the people or because they have broken the law.

"It is because this fundamental principle is at stake that I pledge to do everything in my power to have this attack on the democratic rights of Londoners overturned."

The mayor said he had not broken the law and that he reserved the right to treat journalists with the same robustness as they treated him. "As far as I am aware there is no law against 'unnecessary insensitivity' or even 'offensiveness' to journalists harassing you as you try to go home," he said. Mr Livingstone was leaving an event at City Hall last February when Oliver Finegold tried to interview him.

He denied that his comments were influenced by alcohol: if he had been drinking, he said, it would have been much stronger.

"I treat journalists on the basis of the way I am treated by journalists," the mayor told a press conference. He said the incident had been "blown out of all proportion" and was part of a "25-year running battle I have had with Associated Newspapers", which publishes the Standard.

Mr Livingstone said the paper's editor, Veronica Wadley, "has had an irony bypass" after publishing a profile of him "in which I was described as a 'snappy, snarling brute', 'voracious', 'frightening', 'ugly', 'raging' and 'gripped by paranoia'".

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which pursued the complaint against Mr Livingstone after members of the London assembly had already censured him, represented only a "small section of the [Jewish] community," he said. A higher proportion of Jewish Londoners had given him their first preference vote in the 2004 mayoral election than had Londoners as a whole.

Asked whether, as mayor, he should be able to behave "as he liked" within the law, Mr Livingstone replied: "That is exactly what I'm saying." He added that, unlike him, journalists had resisted pressure for an independent body to be set up to rule on complaints against them.

The mayor's deputy, Nicky Gavron, will take charge if Mr Livingstone is forced to leave his post.

The mayor said this morning that if he were eventually suspended he would use the time to take a holiday or write "something useful about the history and context of the Middle East".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1720139,00.html