What is an area of competence for an elected mayor?
Not, I would imagine spending public money on a publicity campaign calling for a debate on the merits of nuclear power. And doing so in tandem with the less than open-minded Greenpeace takes this from being dodgy to the status of full blown public outrage. That, however, is what we London council tax payers will be funding for one Kenneth Robert Livingstone. More details, straight from the horse's, erm, mouth here.
"Under the headline '£70 billion - Nuclear Waste?' the Mayor invites Londoners to participate in the debate now taking place about energy policy. The posters will appear on tube stations across the capital from Friday". But, so much for the debate as KRL says "Nuclear power is yesterday's solution to our energy needs. In London we want to lead the way in combating climate change by using the cleanest energy and most efficient technologies rather than adopting solutions that damage the environment. Developing the infrastructure for decentralised energy would be financially and environmentally more cost effective than using nuclear power, it would mean less carbon emissions and it would help reduce Londoners' fuel bills".
As I have noted before in a post called 'Livingstone's nuclear straw man' posted at Anyone But Ken, which I cannot as yet lay hands on, it is inconceivable that a nuclear power station would ever be built in London, either in Hyde Park or deepest Croydon, as British energy policy has always been to site plants in coastal areas well away from population centres. So, KRL is explicitly addressing an area wholly outside his competence, both geographically and in terms of legislation. He can mouth off all he likes, but when it comes to us paying for his opinion to be plastered all over poster sites, a line has been crossed. Do I hear 'propaganda on the rates' redux? Quite apart from the direct cost of renting the sites (or is Transport for London compelled to give them gratis?) , there is also the opportunity cost occasioned by others not being able to rent the sites.
"Under the headline '£70 billion - Nuclear Waste?' the Mayor invites Londoners to participate in the debate now taking place about energy policy. The posters will appear on tube stations across the capital from Friday". But, so much for the debate as KRL says "Nuclear power is yesterday's solution to our energy needs. In London we want to lead the way in combating climate change by using the cleanest energy and most efficient technologies rather than adopting solutions that damage the environment. Developing the infrastructure for decentralised energy would be financially and environmentally more cost effective than using nuclear power, it would mean less carbon emissions and it would help reduce Londoners' fuel bills".
As I have noted before in a post called 'Livingstone's nuclear straw man' posted at Anyone But Ken, which I cannot as yet lay hands on, it is inconceivable that a nuclear power station would ever be built in London, either in Hyde Park or deepest Croydon, as British energy policy has always been to site plants in coastal areas well away from population centres. So, KRL is explicitly addressing an area wholly outside his competence, both geographically and in terms of legislation. He can mouth off all he likes, but when it comes to us paying for his opinion to be plastered all over poster sites, a line has been crossed. Do I hear 'propaganda on the rates' redux? Quite apart from the direct cost of renting the sites (or is Transport for London compelled to give them gratis?) , there is also the opportunity cost occasioned by others not being able to rent the sites.
Labels: Cant, Livingstone
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 15, 2006 at 11:45 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Are you really surprised?!
No, but disgusted nevertheless.
RAGE RAGE RAGE .
Following JT ( who is a chum in IZ actually) on the propaganda pennants , I noticed for the first time that the GLA was diverting public money into propaganda. It is just absolutely ...outrageous. Yes indeed, why must he comment on foreign matters, which he does regularly and usually against the Jews . Why exactly has tea with the IRA? Other-wise his role is to obscure the Town and Country Planning act’s operation in government housing policy. The fight to get him out has started and I will be expecting to see a blue rosette on the C chest.( Even if it is Boles)
I actually hate him .Christ when I think that this international embarrassment is supposed to represent London. A pathetic refugee from 6th Form lefty bar. I wrote to he GLA to say ,. If I do not want 13000 more “Social “Houses in Iz who do I vote agains t. They replied “It is indeed difficult for the average Londoner to understand?”
And that is the whole fucking point
Tremendous post C one of your very best !! Please excuse my intemperate language . I save it for special occasions
I aim to please...
C
Every issue is outside Livingstones area of competence.
How do we end up with fuckwits like that governing us?
Probably due to the fact that able people do not enter national politics.
Sorry to interrupt the righteous anti-Ken thread, but have now returned to Planet Blog, and the Conservative Arts post seems a long, long way to the South of here.
Anyone minded to pick it up again?
Nick - you are most welcome to take up the gauntlet. I'm e-mailed whenever a post appears, so I'll be aware of anything new and am more than happy to re-engage on this one.
'as British energy policy has always been to site plants in coastal areas well away from population centres.'
Well, not so much. Rather, somewhere with lots and lots of cooling water.
Given Thames Water's problems, that doesn't include London.
I `m interested Nick and I`m dying to hear what verity might have to say.
Come to think of it PHITCH does some satiric writing and is quite clearly an artist ...........
Yes, well, we've talked about the eternal verities, haven't we ...
Your question of many postings back was "? an example that you consider central to your view of Conservative values in the arts". To be frank, the dichotomy you and C are setting up isn't one I have preconceived views on (see below), even though it resonates immediately. Shakespeare would be an all-too obvious starting point, but I'm more inclined to broaden out from literature for a while, if we are looking for a General Theory.
So - how about... Handel? (Bach too obvious). We'll maybe get onto painters as well.
BTW, an earlier attempt at a meaningful dichotomy in the arts was proposed by Nietzsche: Apollonian vs Dionysian. You might like to follow up on that & see if it maps onto what you are looking to develop.
Shall we take this back to the original thread? I think it might be easier.
I `ll look in later . Working
Typical of Ken. It would be good if one of the Cons from the London Assembly could get some figures ont he money wasted. Would be very useful for the forthcoming mayoral campaign....
CU - this is being investigated...
On the art agenda C I wonder if we might return to it on occassion. It needs a bit more thought than your )(much appreciated) up to the minute fformat allows ...
( well for me anyway)
Nicks Comments have set me thinking but i `m going to come up with something a bit more inclusive
I could include a dedicated link on the front page to the art thread if that would help?
» Post a Comment