Q. Boris Johnson’s ‘five-point plan’ in your ‘Trident On Trial’ piece (TO 1957) is evidence enough why he should not be in Parliament, let alone a Mayoral candidate. Without pointing out the irrelevance of scanners at stations to the gun crime problem, his proposed solution of building sports academies is insulting. Not all young black men are 100-metre hurdlers. Why stop there? You could also build dancing schools and a libido museum. Education, careers and aspiration is an alternative to crime. A simple increased investment in teachers and schools would do more good than perpetuating the stereotype that we are all sportsmen. Fullen Bless, by email
A. Hear! hear! Though the Mayor has no direct control over education he can influence the course it takes. Unlike Ken we are campaigning for a city-based income tax that would divert money to facilities and educational projects in London’s poorer areas. And these wouldn’t just be sporting and musical, though these are obvious ways to reach disenfranchised youth, white or black, in London.
Q. When opinion polls are on a knife-edge, is it really that difficult to make a decision between Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson? Ken champions London’s multiculturalism and action on climate change, while Boris Johnson was critical of Nelson Mandela’s victory over apartheid in 1994 and welcomed George Bush’s ’scrumpling up’ of the Kyoto Treaty. This is the real choice. Is Time Out scared to take on the Evening Standard? Ben Folley, N17
Q. It is clear that in the run-up to the Mayoral election that there are only two obvious choices: Ken or Boris. For Time Out to launch a campaign for its own candidate in light of this is not only an ego-driven waste of time, but it shouts of a lack of courage to back a real politician. Ken Livingstone, no matter what you personally feel about him, is an accountable politician who stands up for his views and isn’t afraid of being unpopular. He celebrates multiculturalism in London and stands up for the poor. Boris Johnson knows that if he really stood up for his views in public (these include not only the well-documented racist comments, but also opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, minimum wage and affordable housing), he would be very unpopular, and instead woos voters with lies. He tolerates multiculturalism in London and would be a disaster for the poor. Is it a difficult choice? Sarah Joyce, by email
A. Time Out’s purpose is not to be an automatic supporter of Ken Livingstone, but the voice of creative London. This campaign is based in large part on a democratic canvas of our readers and many of them, unlike Ben and Sarah, are unhappy with Ken’s regime. Why, in a democracy, should we stifle that voice?
Continue reading ‘Hodges takes time off the campaign trail to answer your questions’
Latest Comments
RSS