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.

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.

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?

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).

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?

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.

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? 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.

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.

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?

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…

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.

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.

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

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?

Pax?

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.