18 April 2008

As The Polls Move Towards Ken, Is The Evening Standard Starting To Panic?

The Guardian's Michael White and this Stop Boris post on where the Evening Standard is going in its hate campaign against Ken. Is the ES brand so damaged that no-one can take it seriously anymore?

Whatever the Daily Mail's sister paper is up to, it is sad that this is the only paid for London-wide newspaper that Londoners have to put up with not only on the train home, but all the lying and smearing headlines on A boards around London. It must be worth millions in advertising to the Boris campaign - it is a clear attempt to rig an election.

The following comment on White's article sums it all up nicely.

"Thanks for this clarification Michael. It is shameful that All-London's only paid for newspaper is so overtly biased that nothing it says about the election can be trusted.
Its desperate and relentless efforts to get Ken over a very long time have turned up such a (relatively)few and (relatively) minor accusations ( and many of them like this one have proved to be untrue or unfounded)that it makes me think that Livingstone must be one of the most principled and 'clean'politicians around ( certainly amongst those that actually achieve anything). ES is reinforcing my belief that he is the most suitable candidate for mayor.
Two things do worry me though: 1) If Johnson should be elected the ES will not hold him to account (as he's their man and they will get their reward in terms of advertising money directed to them from the public purse)so Londoners should beware about the corruption, cronyism, ineptitude that he will be able to get away with . 2) Its bad enough people reading this relentless smearing when all they want is an evening paper on the way home ; but what about the mini billboards outside newsagents and paper stalls - they always have just the smear not even the article that goes with it. Why is this free advertising space on the public pathway allowed, shouldnt it be confined to within the premisis or at least the ES have to pay for the space?"


  1. Neil, do you think the Guardian is biased or just report it like it is!?!

  2. Would it be fair to say you are getting obsessed Neil? :-)

    I'm rooting for Barnbrook.

  3. R&W: I've only got a few weeks to talk about the Mayor elections then it is all over - I am making the most of it by cramming as much as possible in - this election realy matters!

  4. Snafu: You are right, the Guardian has a right-wing anti-Ken bias as well - just not as overt as the Mail/(Low) Standard.

  5. The so-called 'Decent Left', you know the ones that still think the Iraq War was a good idea, and that the sooner a hundred thousand Iranian civilians are killed by American bombs the better, are wholly opposed to Livingstone. Nick Cohen claims that Livingstone is an anti-semite. But the definition of anti-semite is drawn so widely in some political circles that any comment that does not contain fawning support for Israel may be considered proof of anti-semitism. According to Cohen, Livingstone is in alliance with extreme right Islamicists. When I challenged Cohen to produce some evidence he was strangely silent. I don't like Livingstone as mayor. He has been quite sectarian and he has tolerated some real wasters in his staff. But the hysterical libellious campaign against him by Cohen and others of his ilk just push me in favour of Livingstone. I think I'd like to see Ken win just to put the noses out of the nutters on Harry's Place. If I lived in London I'd probably vote for Paddick, on the basis that he's the only candidate that opposes ID Cards and isn't Boris Johnson.

  6. "If I lived in London I'd probably vote for Paddick, on the basis that he's the only candidate that opposes ID Cards and isn't Boris Johnson." (Stephen)

    That is an odd basis on which to decide whom to support as Mayor of London. ID cards are not a matter for the mayor.

  7. As an aside Neil, I wanted to mention that there Ken Livingston and Thaksin Shinwatra are the only two politicians that I dislike so much on a personal level, that I find it hard to be objective about them.

    Both have (or had) some good, populist policies and in most cases I can put my personal feelings aside but with the two aforementioned, my dislike of their arrogance is so strong, I can't manage it.

    BTW I think the "child murderer" heading was a bit unfair, mate.

    "I lived in London I'd probably vote for Paddick, on the basis that he's the only candidate that opposes ID Cards and isn't Boris Johnson."

    Richard Barnbrook!

  8. R&W: If someone called Blair a murderer for his support of Bush and the Iraq war, I doubt you would object, but when Boris Johnson (who also supports Bush and the Iraq war) suggests we kill 500 children by reducing the time people have to cross the road and then advocates revoking the smoking ban that will kill countless more, it is just 'loveable ol' Boris'.

    Finally are you seriously suggesting that Livingstone is some mad nasty egotist and that the BNP candidate isn;t? I think you have fallen for the media profile of Ken rather than judging him on what matters - his policies and achievements.

  9. Stephen: I am pleased you agree that Cohen and co have lost the plot. As PZT suggests, I think you should put aside your differences on issues the Mayor has no power over and use one of your preferences to stop the neocons led by Boris. It doesn't matter which preference you use.