Who cares what Lord Sugar says?

Well, for starters, I don’t. Yesterday, the anti-Ken brigade was cock-a-hoop over Alan (Lord) Sugar’s tweet, which urged his followers not to vote for Ken Livingstone. Personally, I think Sugar, who has let the title of “Lord” go to his head, takes the word “follower” a little too seriously.  Here’s what he said,

I don’t care if Ed Miliband is backing Livingstone . I seriously suggest NO ONE votes for Livingstone in the Mayoral elections

Naturally, this made Kennite’s day.

Lord Sugar donated a total of £69,424 to Labour or to Mr Miliband’s office in 2011, including £12,576 as rcently as December. He is of course a prominent member of the Jewish community and was believed to have been extremely angry at Ken’s behaviour towards Jews.

Ken’s campaign is in crisis now.

Livingstone’s campaign is hardly in crisis. Going by those tweets that I saw on the #skylondondebate hashtag last night, I’d say Bojo the Clown’s campaign was in crisis.   What I find so dishonest about Kennite’s blog is the fact that he continues to repeat the lie that Livingstone is an anti-Semite. If he’d have said that about George Galloway, he’d find himself slapped with a libel suit so fast, his head would spin. But is Sugar really a “prominent member of the Jewish community”? If so, where is this homogenized Jewish community? It’s like talking about Trevor Phillips and saying that he represents the ‘black’ community.  There is no homogeneous Jewish community any more than there is a homogeneous black or Asian community; it exists only in the collective mind of the media. Sugar is more likely to be a prominent member of the capitalist class than anything else. He just happens to be Jewish. So what? But remember, Gilligan is the one who claimed that there was a “white establishment”. So if anyone is obsessed with ethnicity, it’s him.

What Kennite and others have missed in their haste to describe Sugar as some sort of model Labour peer is the fact that not only is this the man who gave us crappy Amstrad products, he was a firm supporter of Thatcher in the 1980’s. Thatcher also admired him as a businessman. No surprise there then.  In fact Sugar supported the Conservative Party right up until 1997 when he switched his allegiance to Nu Labour. This man is no friend of anybody’s but himself. Indeed he is the very model of buccaneer capitalism. A real bully of a man. The ideal Tory in fact.

This morning’s edition of City AM,

Did you see the way they juxtaposed the image of Ken crying at his campaign video with one of Sugar with his finger raised as if to point to someone and say “You’re fired”? Yes, it’s a cheap trick and no, it did not happen in real time but such is the nature of propaganda. City AM is supportive of the City and all the evils that flow from it. No prizes for guessing which mayoral candidate this paper supports.

If Bozza wins the election, he’ll spend most of his term preparing to oust Cameron as leader of the Tory party. He’ll also moonlight by penning numerous articles for the Telegraph and The Spectator for which he will be paid a handsome sum of money. He will continue to bullshit and bluster his way through interviews and he will offer no real policies that improve the lives of ordinary Londoners.  London will become a city for the rich (it’s heading that way now), which is just what City AM and the likes of Sugar want.



Filed under Internet, Journalism, London, London Mayoral election 2012, Media, Tory press

6 responses to “Who cares what Lord Sugar says?

  1. Don’t agree with what you’ve written at all. Ken is a droning bore and his idea of bringing a bendy bus to London’s cramped streets was ridiculous.

    • Um, where did I mention bendy buses? But as you’ve brought them up, you realise that Boris Johnson’s claim that bendy buses “killed cyclists” was a lie, don’t you? London’s streets are crowded with or without bendy buses and I can’t say that I have detected a discernable difference in the levels of traffic since the buses disappeared.

      As for Ken Livingstone being a “bore” what do you mean exactly? Is it because he’s not a comedian like Boris?

      • That’s a rather judgemental reply. I don’t much care for Boris either, but to vote in a previous mayor who squandered money internally seems a regressive step. We voted him out, whoy should he stand a chance to get back in? Making Livingstone sound like a saint by insinuating that Boris is a money-hungry moonlighter is also bizarre. Livingstone hosts a radio show and makes a handsome fee for speaking in his annoying nasal tone. How is this any different to Boris writing newspaper articles, something he doesn’t do anymore. It’s nit-picking, and takes the tone of people discussing their football teams – lack of rational thought and unwillingness to back down when supporting an overpaid political figure.

  2. How is my reply “judgemental”? No one has made Livingstone “sound like a saint” either. Boris Johnson is a moonlighter.

    By the way, you didn’t really engage with my blog. Instead, what you have done, is to air your considerable issues with Livingstone. You’re entitled to your opinion. However, you tell me that “you don’t care for Boris” but the tone of your reply suggests otherwise. Presumably you prefer him to Livingstone. But what really gets me is how those who support Johnson tend to conveniently overlook his numerous instances of casual racism. Perhaps you know something I don’t ?

    When you say “we voted him out”. Who is “we”? I didn’t vote him out though, presumably, you were part of the electorate who did. You shouldn’t presume to speak for everyone. That is a logical fallacy. The electorate voted out Winston Churchill in 1945. In 1952, he won the general election. Are you seriously telling me that because he lost in 1945, that he shouldn’t have stood in 1952?

    You said,
    “How is this any different to Boris writing newspaper articles, something he doesn’t do anymore”

    I think you’ll find he continues to write articles for The Telegraph. Here’s an article that he wrote for the Torygraph last month http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9122818/A-billion-reasons-to-close-the-stamp-duty-loophole.html

    You said,
    “lack of rational thought and unwillingness to back down when supporting an overpaid political figure”.

    What are you saying here? That you’re offering a more ‘rational’ argument and, for that reason, I should simply shut up? My, what arrogance.

    Finally, I just wondered if you could list some of Boris Johnson’s major achievements during his time in office.

    • He cut a lot of unnecessary spending. End of.

      • What “unnecessary spending”? He’s spent millions on a bus that few people actually want. A bus, I might add, of which there are only 6 or so. You’re going to have to do better with your counter-arguments, which all appear to be based on something [badly] extrapolated from the Tory press.

        Putting “End of” at the end of your comment sort of gives the game away. No?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s