Mayor Ken Slams 'Idiot' Parents

By Gavin Cordon, Whitehall Editor, PA News

Parents who use four-wheel drive vehicles to take their children to city schools were tonight branded “idiots” by London Mayor Ken Livingstone.

In an interview to be broadcast on GMTV’s Sunday programme, he said that such vehicles had no place in the capital.

“When I see a farmer, going over rugged terrain in their four-wheel drive, I think that’s a reasonable decision to have made,” he said.

“When you see someone trying to manoeuvre it round the school gates, you have to think ‘You are a complete idiot’.

“These are not cars which people should be using in London. They’re bad for London and they’re totally unnecessary. They’re largely a status symbol. If you’ve got that much money to spend, you could spend it on a better holiday. I would.”

Can't argue with that.

owch.. he'd hate america..

Maybe he'd put in the conjestion tax to travel in conjested areas just like in central London if he were in America.

I like this guy.

I like what they do in Singapore...You drive into the congested central business district..They meter the time you are there, and you pay for each minute in that given area..

I think they do that in London, too. You know, I used to commute past a school, and occasionally I'd do it at the times people were picking up their children. All I can say is, forget the type of vehicle they drive, the biggest problem there is idiots generally!!! I lost count of the number of examples of driving that blatantly endangered the lives of children that I saw, and this driving came from parents! What I'd like to see done is for schools to be given the power to suspend (or even ban outright) certain people from parking within 200 metres of the school grounds on account of the fact that these people are just basic morons!

I like what he said he wouldn't last 2 seconds as a mayor in any American city and that is too bad.

I still disagree with your helmet position (not starting anything) I have to give you points on this one closet. FWIW You're off my ignore list.

If it's any consolation, even though our reasoning disagrees in an area of concern for both of us, I just got to say, I'm pleased Tampa's in the final.

IS it still the case..I read that the new mayor of Paris, France...He is green oriented.
He has actually taken some lanes away from the cities' expressways or major thorough fares and turned them into bike lanes..The guy is a fanatic cyclist.. He says cars from the suburbs is destroying his town and he will not tolerate it.
I like the sound of that guy.

Seriously, for that politically incorrect statement, he would be impeached in the states. I mean, could you imagine the misplaced outrage that soccer moms would throw his way? Moreover, the oil, and auto industy would certainly pile on also.

Goes to show who runs the show in the States. Oil, not people.

Don't forget the others of the ruling class...Wall Street financiers and Insurance/finance companies.

I've said many times that I'd rather ride past a bar at 2:05am than an elementary school at 7:45am.

I'll second that sentiment.

I dislike the fact that most politicians here feels the need to tread lightly on anything oil-related. They can't speak out against oversized and unjustifiable SUVs for fear of offending the gas-guzzling electorate. The overriding sentiment of entitlement in the United States is sickening. The whole idea that we are the greatest nation in the world, are fundamentally superior, and are thus entitled to anything we damn well want, including consuming half the world's resources, producing 2/3 of its waste, and driving a Hummer H2 through Manhattan.

Don't forget, it's that garish sense of entitlement and superiority that motivate the great minds of the world. The people who design and create new gas-guzzling SUV's, appliances, methodologies ... bicycles do so because they know it will afford them any luxury they want, not because they feel some altruistic sense of duty to provide you with all the luxuries you enjoy.

There's nothing wrong with working hard to that end. The problem is the general public concensus that Americans, as a whole, somehow deserve better than anyone else, regardless of what they do or accomplish on a personal level.

Oh I couldn't agree more. No one is entitled to something they haven't worked for ... and most Americans don't want to work for anything.

There's a particularly invidious strain of this regarding parents: it's the Mommy Industrial Complex. They're out to get you to buy the most ridiculous products because "Don't you want the best for your precious child?" If it can be marketed as somehow safer or more comfortable for your child, they'll do it.

The car companies are particularly good at this kind of marketing.

As I look at Hummers...I like to think different strokes for different folks..Let everyone live with their own choices.
But a question..Say you are stuck on a desert island with a 375 pound food devouring glutton..Would you give up a part of your limited ration of food( limited supply) because this person needs more food than you.??
I think limited supplies of gasoline applies to Hummers..They are hungrier..The make the supply more scarce and raise prices for you...Make you feel any better, since they can afford the luxury of a vehicle that conumes eight times the gas per mile.
It is your allotment the gluttons are demanding.

I heard something on the radio this morning suggesting that a number of countries (including, but certainly not limited to, the US) were calling on the oil producing nations to increase their output/reduce their prices. I always thought in a capitalist state, the idea was that people were free to make as much money as they possibly can? Yet here were the same people who preach the capitalist gospel trying to apply a communist principle. Am I the only one who can see the double-standard?

Mayor Ken for President! Oh wait! Nevermind, if we allow mayor ken to run then we would have to allow Arnold to run too. There's always a downside...<sigh>

No. Being in Canada, I wasn't too keen on the free trade agreement when it was being worked out in the 80's and after it passed I thought it was even worse when the US slapped huge traiffs on our BC wood because, the US wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

I recently read, "From Free Trade to Forced Trade" and the premise was that, despite the retoric surrounding "free" trade, the reality is, arrangements will always be made throughout the economy to encourage certain industries and endenvors. Most industries require and receive help in the early stages of development to be healthy, and believe it or not, the WTO actually keeps industries and countries in line by forcing them to follow a set of rules even if it doesn't benefit the strongest intrests (like when Canada won a ruling on the US tariffs being unfair)

** Just a reminder - these are the books lessons - I'm no economist, and I don't pretend to be one (in life or on TV)**

The question here...As I see it...Fair prices are based on a competitive market..Did we not face this question when we supposedly inacted anti-trust laws as a result of the racketering era..
So if production is not subject to competition, do we have true capitalism?