Ken Livingstone spent £260 of taxpayers money on a pair of shoes

(48 Posts)
longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 15:10:44

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123395/How-man-people-Ken-enjoyed-lifestyle-jet-setting-executive--taxpayer.html

Unfortunately the BBC don't seem to be covering this, for some completely unknown reason.

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 15:14:21

I wonder how he will be justifying charging us for this lot?

"He bought fine wines from upmarket supplier Laithwaites, including four cases of Rioja Luis Canas Reserva 2001 (£475); two cases of Corneau Cyllene Pouilly Fumé 2005 (£199); three cases of Rovalley Estate Cabernet Sauvignon 2003 (£299); and six half bottles of Foudre No 8 Cognac (£95). One of his Laithwaites wine sprees cost £2,884. To ensure his drinks were chilled, he obtained a quotation for a £132 mini bar for his office."

chipstick10 Sun 01-Apr-12 16:13:41

Quel surprise the bbc are not covering it, it would be lead item if it were Boris.

EldonAve Sun 01-Apr-12 17:10:16
longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 18:34:14

EldonAve That is truly shocking. I don't think the fact that Ken had the secret child and then tried to deny it is particularly edifying, but in itself it is not too big a deal.

What is shocking is that, without any declaration in the Register of Interests, City Hall seems to have funnelled taxpayers' dosh to the mother of this secret child.

It stinks, frankly.

No doubt the usual left-wing cohort will be along any minute to say how oh, this is all OK (just like according to them, the use of Silveta Ltd isn't hypocritical), because apparently the rules don't apply if you're left-wing.

ttosca Sun 01-Apr-12 19:29:52

On the contrary, rules apply no matter what party you're in. It's just a matter of shame that reactionaries such as yourself and claig are quick to point out corruption when it comes to 'the other team', but don't take much interest in corruption from your own favourite team.

The fact is, the system itself is broken, and politics is utterly corrupt. Parliament doesn't represent the interests of the public, but of a tiny percent of the wealthiest individuals and large businesses.

The sooner you come to terms with this, the sooner you can stop feigning being <shocked> by allegations of corruption by whatever team.

EdithWeston Sun 01-Apr-12 19:36:22

I think whichever side corruption is detected, it is likely to get an airing on MN.

It's interesting that this surfaces mid-campaign. But Ken's big weakness is that he is spend spend, spend (his part of London Council Tax was always shooting up. Boris has kept it static for some years now). So it's bad timing for him that there is a reminder of profligacy.

ReactionaryFish Sun 01-Apr-12 19:43:03

I think Ken is actually out to lunch.
One minute he's throwing parties for Chris Smith. The next minute he's inviting the sort of crazy fundamentalists who would merrily toast said Smith on the nearest bonfire round for tea and cakes. Leave aside the hypocrisy over the tax issue, which he appears to be entirely incapable of seeing. Or the bonkers concentration camp remarks to the Jewish reporter. I don't think he's being disingenuous, he genuinely doesn't grasp what's wrong with this behaviour. He's lost the plot.

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 20:27:33

ttosca I refer you to the thread I started where I refer to Cameron as a complete prat for the Cruddas funding scandal - and yes, being pretty shocked by that.

I do laugh at the intellectual contortions many left-wingers go to in order to justify their support of Ken.

And please don't conflate my ideas and those of claig. Whilst I think her heart is broadly in the right place, her political philosophy is intellectually incoherent.

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 20:32:58

ReactionaryFish Though many Labour activists and some of the braver parts of the left are actually voicing their disgust at Ken - the Labour leadership is turning a blind eye.

ttosca Sun 01-Apr-12 20:36:07

OK, then, lnf. I'm glad you brought it up, but I'm surprised you would be shocked.

Did you really think that people and companies make hundred thousand pound donations to political parties and expect nothing in return? Really?!

And yes, I agree, claig is intellectually incoherent.

EdithWeston Sun 01-Apr-12 20:49:01

"Did you really think that people and companies and unions make hundred thousand pound donations to political parties and expect nothing in return?"

There really is nowhere to turn, is there?

claig Sun 01-Apr-12 20:50:32

Am currently rereading MN guidelines to see if this thread should be deleted forthwith due to progressive insults made towards a coherent student of the Daily Mail.

claig Sun 01-Apr-12 21:00:26

'"Did you really think that people and companies and unions make hundred thousand pound donations to political parties and expect nothing in return?"

It matters not what they expect, it matters only what they receive.
Do you think the unions got anything back from funding Blair? Did he overturn any of Thatcher's anti-union laws?

EdithWeston Sun 01-Apr-12 21:29:20

I suppose you can make a case that unions benefit from political funding is a little more transparent, in that it is known how some of that influence is exerted (votes for the party leader etc), but in terms of other influence and whether it is successful, it's exactly the same murky quagmire as the rest.

Ponders Sun 01-Apr-12 21:41:03

No apologies. I am disappointed. I thought he was better than this. Naive of me.

<sigh>

Ponders Sun 01-Apr-12 21:44:27

now, though...waiting patiently for figures for taxpayers' money spending on entertainment & travel for Dave & Gideon

I'm sure the DM can root those out for us too

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 21:53:41

Ponders The Daily Telegraph did that for you last year.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/

The Sunday Times, despite leaning right, will still devote investigative journalism resources to Tory sleaze. The Telegraph, despite being right-leaning, will still devote investigative journalism resources towards MPs expenses, of all parties.

Strangely, the left-leaning Guardian and BBC don't even report Ken's £260 taxpayer funded shoes... And I can't remember the last time the last time the Guardian ran a sting story on Labour...

Ponders Sun 01-Apr-12 22:08:18

I saw that page earlier, lfn. but where exactly do I find figures for No 10 & No 11? (with or without spending on shoes?)

claig Sun 01-Apr-12 22:11:09

I think you have to be sceptical about the articles against Livingstone. Maybe they are appearing now in time for the election. He had to entertain guests in his official capacity.

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 22:16:37

You can try here www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/MPExpenses/Pages/default.aspx though, like all Labour quangos, IPSA is a joke.

I don't see why they couldn't just give every MP a credit card, and make all statements public, and then let the electorate and press do their own investigation. Instead, Gordon Brown created yet more public sector non-jobs.

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 22:17:39

claig Could you please explain how entertaining guests required we the taxpayers to fund his £260 pair of shoes?

Ponders Sun 01-Apr-12 22:19:08

well, quite, claig (have you been hacked? wink)

you can probably justify taxi fares to the dentist too. not sure about first class fares to Florida though hmm or shirts, shoes & some of those dinners

claig Sun 01-Apr-12 22:21:59

The Mayor of London, one of the most important cities on the planet, cannot turn up at Davos in a pair of trainers. It is icy and snows there and he needed some sturdy footwear. All expenses are looked into. I don't think he has done anything wrong, otherwise his political enemies would have made capital out of it.

longfingernails Sun 01-Apr-12 22:25:03

Ummm you know April Fools Day ends at noon, right?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now