Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Politics

Flip

1 2

Original poster

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

47 replies

longfingernails · 01/04/2012 15:10

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.

OP posts:

claig · 01/04/2012 22:27

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

Then why do so many of your posts read as if April Fool's Day is every day of the year?

Ponders · 01/04/2012 22:27

mind you the shoes were in Jan 2007. There aren't that many dodgy expenses in that article - if that's the best the DM can do, it doesn't compare too badly with a lot of the MPs' expenses (or instance, did we have to pay him £000s a year in mortgage interest on a "second" home in London as we did for eg Gideon?)

Original poster

longfingernails · 01/04/2012 22:29

Both Boris and Ken have had some disastrous underlings - Lee Jasper, Ian Clement, etc. But Ken changed the rules so his cronies got 6 figure payoffs.

OP posts:

claig · 01/04/2012 22:31

These articles show that they are worried about Livingstone's chances. Instead of concentrating on his policies, they are looking into his restaurant bills.

Original poster

longfingernails · 01/04/2012 22:33

claig "They" being the Daily Mail?

OP posts:

claig · 01/04/2012 22:35

The Mail and the Telegraph

claig · 01/04/2012 22:44

Here are some prices of quality shoes from a quality store. When you are meeting the world's elite at Davos, I don't think it is out of order for a Mayor of London, one of the most famous and greatest cities on earth, to wear top shoes and suits. The nation can afford to kit our representatives out; we don't want him turning up in a duffle coat like Michael Foot used to wear.

www.harrods.com/shoes/view-all-for-him?viewall=yes

Ponders · 01/04/2012 22:50

does the nation pay for Cameron's & Osborne's suits & shoes? (it has never occurred to me to wonder that before )

claig · 01/04/2012 22:51

And when he entertains dignitaries from across the world, I expect him to offer them a glass of quality chilled wine rather than a glass of vin de table, because he is representing all of us, the British people and the people of London, not just himself.

Ponders · 01/04/2012 22:52

& would Ken have left his behind for Boris after he ceased to be Mayor...???

(seriously, where is the line drawn?)

claig · 01/04/2012 22:56

And the people of London chose to vote him in as mayor. Just because he is not a toff and is a Labour man does not mean that he should not have access to things that are fitting to his position as representative of the people of London.

Original poster

longfingernails · 01/04/2012 22:56

I don't think we pay for politicians' clothes - I don't remember anything like that coming out in the MPs expenses scandal (though we did pay for Chris Huhne's trouser press) - and it is definitely not legitimate for us to do so.

OP posts:

Original poster

longfingernails · 01/04/2012 22:57

Dear God claig you have completely lost it. Do you have any idea how much he was paid as Mayor of London?

OP posts:

claig · 01/04/2012 23:02

Do judges claim for their wigs and cloaks out of expenses?

I presume that some of these clothes are allowable on expenses because they are necessary for the work they have to do.

claig · 01/04/2012 23:05

'it is definitely not legitimate for us to do so'

Then why is there no court case as there was with Boris's deputy mayor?
I don't know the rules, but my guess is that Livingstone has done nothing wrong in claiming his expenses.

Original poster

longfingernails · 01/04/2012 23:09

I don't know whether or not Ken has done anything legally wrong or not with his expenses - from the story, it definitely seems he has been morally wrong though.

I think there is probably more legal interest in how he used Silveta Ltd though.

OP posts:

claig · 01/04/2012 23:18

They are trying to paint him as a hypocrite and as doing something morally wrong, because he is a Labour man and dared to order quality wine to entertain guests with. I think that they would have done no different.

As far as I understand it, the use of his company is also not illegal.

Think about it, if any of it was illegal, then we would be sure to hear about it, as his enemies would make sure of it.

My impression is that this is an attempt to smear him. It is the usual spin again.

Original poster

longfingernails · 02/04/2012 23:23

I see the BBC still haven't covered either story.

OP posts:

glasnost · 03/04/2012 08:15

Because they are non stories and claig has it spot on. Smears and spin.

Ponders · 03/04/2012 11:59

now \link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/apr/03/boris-johnson-and-ken-livingstone-live-hustings-transport-london#block-17\this} is a story

'We've learned that things did not go well in the lift after the hustings was over. Boris went nose to nose with Ken in a small lift and told Ken three times: "You're a fucking liar, you're a fucking liar, you're a fucking liar."'

ophelia275 · 03/04/2012 12:27

A socialist spending other peoples money and avoiding paying taxes. How unlikely cough.

ReactionaryFish · 03/04/2012 19:53

I am too humble to be able to speak for the judiciary, but barristers' wigs and gowns can be set off against tax. Shoes, suits, tights, and other smart items of court attire, even though necessary to enable barristers to work, cannot.
I would be very, very surprised indeed if the expenses claim for the shoes was legitimate. Well, legitimate in what passes for Livingstone's mind, yes, but not anywhere else.

Flip

1 2