Would you vote for Ken the lothario?
"I don't think anybody in this city is shocked about what consenting adults do. As long as you don't involve children, animals and vegetables, they leave you to get on, and live their own life in their own way."
Perhaps this is merely the wishful thinking of a man with five children by three different mothers. But will Livingstone's liaisons, revealed last night, affect your choice of London mayor?
It had been assumed that Boris Johnson, his main rival, was the most sexually active of the mayoral candidates. The dishevelled Old Etonian is known to have cheated on his wife more than once.
Brian Paddick, the Lib Dem long-shot, has also negotiated an eventful private life. His ex-wife says the couple shared a "wonderful marriage", but she is not thought to be best of friends with his current long-term boyfriend.
Does it matter what London's next mayor gets up to in his own bedroom?
I would rather die than vote for Ken Leavingsoon the mullah of multiculturism, his pandering to the minorities gets on my last nerve. Deciding factor for me was when he proposed that "The Knowledge" black cab driver course should be free for ethnic minorities, they should also get free child care and a free moped to learn the streets of London, while the poor white man has to pay out of his own pocket, learn it all himself and pay for his own child minder. GRRRRRRRRRR
Posted by: Martin | 15 Apr 2008 09:51:30
It's either Boris who used drugs or Ken who does not use condoms. Not much choice really.
Posted by: David | 4 Apr 2008 22:57:28
I dont care about his women. I just want him to resign and stop buggering London up
Posted by: wilson | 4 Apr 2008 22:39:38
no i wont vote for him because he has friends who are islamic fanatics. Just are I would not vote for anyone who was friends with the BNP.
Posted by: rich | 4 Apr 2008 21:06:00
no i wont vote for him because he has friends who are islamic fanatics. Just are I would not vote for anyone who was friends with the BNP.
Posted by: rich | 4 Apr 2008 21:02:50
(How can sexual relations NOT involve children, when the very purpose of sexuality is procreation?)
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy | 4 Apr 2008 13:40:29
Hmmmm........ how can sexual relations not involve children...hmmm. I would answer: easily.
Posted by: Chris | 4 Apr 2008 20:37:04
Having children scattered throughout Britain by unmarried fathers DOES involve children, and does affect negatively their quality of life. Wasn't it Livingston who claimed the root cause of epidemic crime amongst youth was absentee fathers?
High profile public officials who exert power should set a responsible and positive example for the community--not exert a destructive influence.
Livingston is a Marxist who has shown no regard for the institution of the family. Heaven forbid that a rule setting arbiter's actual life should outed.
Posted by: cathy hansen | 4 Apr 2008 20:24:23
I only have to hear the name Ken Livingston and I feel angry. His solution for everything is to hit the motorist.
Posted by: Justin Bilton | 4 Apr 2008 20:24:04
Having children scattered throughout Britain by unmarried fathers DOES involve children, and does affect negatively their quality of life. Wasn't it Livingston who claimed the root cause of epidemic crime amongst youth was absentee fathers?
High profile public officials who exert power should set a responsible and positive example for the community--not exert a destructive influence.
Livingston is a Marxist who has shown no regard for the institution of the family. Heaven forbid that a rule setting arbiter's actual life should outed.
Posted by: cathy hansen | 4 Apr 2008 20:22:51
No- He is a waste of money!
Posted by: Ian | 4 Apr 2008 19:51:56
Whenever "chairman ken" raises his ugly head I can't help but recall the leopard never changing his spots. He was ugly in thought and deed back in the early eighties. Unfortunately he has had the chance to bring much of that ill concieved garbage to fruition. His sexual prowness or otherwise should be of no concern to anyone. His gross mismanagement should.
Posted by: Chris | 4 Apr 2008 19:36:19
Vote for 'ethnic' Ken?
No way, dude!
Posted by: John | 4 Apr 2008 17:42:30
It's now clear to me why Ken feels so comfortable with his anti large car strategy. As soon as he thinks he's getting near the point that a larger car might be required for all his children he moves on to another woman. A sort of 3 small cars = 1 Volvo XC 90 approach.
Posted by: City worker | 4 Apr 2008 17:29:11
Vote for 'ethnic' Ken?
No way, dude!
Posted by: John | 4 Apr 2008 17:25:31
always has been and is a slimeball
Posted by: tm hama | 4 Apr 2008 17:23:47
I'm not sure that it should matter, the important issue is whether he is a good politician, but of course people judge anybody in the limelight, no matter what they do, everything seems to come under scrutiny
I chose my A levels this year, and a career I am thinking of persuing is politics. It has occured to me that any trouble I get into now, not neccisarily ( I apologize for potential spelling mistakes) in the bedroom, might damage a career in politics.
Perhaps Livingstone should have given potentialy damaging decisions more thought, but then maybe we should focus on his credentials(If he has any) !!
This is the first time I've posted a comment!!
Posted by: Muffins | 4 Apr 2008 17:22:54
Why is The Times running this scurrilous campaign against Ken Livingstone? Afraid he might win on the issues? He has improved the environment of London considerably. Long may he remain mayor.
Posted by: Belsize Bertie | 4 Apr 2008 17:10:58
always has been and is a slimeball
Posted by: tm hama | 4 Apr 2008 17:05:07
Is this the same Ken Livingstone who recently claimed that the root cause of the terrible epidemic of gun/knife crime that's gripping the capital was due to absentee fathers shirking their responsibilities?
Why, I think it might just be!
Posted by: Jeff | 4 Apr 2008 16:56:56
Johnny, the analyst - I'm anti big business in London, it should be spread around the country, were there isn't a congestion charge, poor public transport, M25 congestion, high business rates, no parking, get people out of the cities and into towns.
Ken has put the rates up and we can't afford to live.
Posted by: VJB | 4 Apr 2008 16:30:01
I agree exactly with Alex, Who cares about Livingstone's personal life. He's a dictator and I don't want him ruining my city any more than he has already...
Posted by: mario | 4 Apr 2008 16:26:33
I agree exactly with Alex, Who cares about Livingstone's personal life. He's a dictator and I don't want him ruining my city any more than he has already...
Posted by: mario | 4 Apr 2008 16:26:24
Ken is anti big-business (read financial institutions)because of his communist inclinations. As London is the world's leading financial centre, I can only see him do further damage. Furthermore, the Lee Jasper case has shown how undemocratic he has become(for refusing the answer questions in assembly) and this is very worrying. For these reasons, I shall not vote for him.
Posted by: Johnny, the analyst | 4 Apr 2008 16:16:05
Couldnt stand him before, cant stand him now. Come on Boris!!
Posted by: Peter Mansell-Jones | 4 Apr 2008 16:14:47
HE HAS BEEN IN POWER TOO LONG AND ITS TIME FOR HIM TO GO AND FIND ALL HIS CHILDREN AND SPEND MORE TIME WITH THEM.
Posted by: Mr S. Port | 4 Apr 2008 15:45:22
This story has be released to distract us from the real story - Lee Jasper spending our money!
Posted by: VJB | 4 Apr 2008 15:44:24
I don't think this matters at all - of course if it turns out they are on the public payroll in any way shape or form this would be different. Given Ken's record of cronyism anything is possible. What is much more disturbing is the attempts to connect Johnson with the BNP - this type of shabby politics is reason enough not to vote for Livingstone.
Posted by: simon | 4 Apr 2008 15:12:57
Sounds like there are a few jealous posters here. Go on Ken my son 'dangerous green leftists' get my vote everytime.
Posted by: Nigel Scanlan | 4 Apr 2008 15:12:41
Wouldn't have voted for this corrupt dictator before this story broke - don't care about his family arrangements, just don't want him ruining my city any longer.
Posted by: Alex | 4 Apr 2008 15:11:06
Why have these disclosures just come out now? It seems what with this and the stuff suddenly revealed about the guy from the far right, our democracy is effectively managed by the Tory supporting rightwing press.
Posted by: liberty boy | 4 Apr 2008 15:07:13
Any news about Lee Jasper?
Posted by: VJB | 4 Apr 2008 15:04:52
Livingstone is a Marxist who hates the family as an institution. He claims these "sexual relations" did not involve children, when evidently they DID involve children. (How can sexual relations NOT involve children, when the very purpose of sexuality is procreation?) The only question decent, moral Londoners (Yeah, right!) should be asking themselves now is whether Boris Johnson (or even Paddick) will be significantly worse.
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy | 4 Apr 2008 13:40:29
It is grossly naive to think that anyone who is dishonourable and irresponsible in his private lfe....is going to be exactly the opposite in his public life!
An animal that slithers, hisses and
bites venemously....is not likely to be a lion or an eagle!
Posted by: Garth Strong | 4 Apr 2008 13:06:52
Ken Livingstone is a dangerous green leftist and I would not vote for him under any circumstances.
Posted by: Darren from Sydney | 4 Apr 2008 13:04:47
I cannot believe all this fuss. The man had consensual relationships with women which resulted in children. They seem to have taken place fairly far apart. There does not appear to be a suggestion that Mr Livingston cheated on a partner or behaved badly. He simply had serial heterosexual relationships over a period of 20 years.
How on earth is that a matter for any criticism? What was he to do after his first relatinship broke down - never have another heterosexual relationship (with the inferred accepted risk of pregnancy and birth) again?
Posted by: ESJ | 4 Apr 2008 12:57:05