Oona King’s capital cringe

At last, something Londoners can rally around – is Oona King the most embarrassing candidate in any British election yet?

Here’s Monday’s entry from her campaign blog – I’ve reproduced it below in case it mysteriously gets deleted, because if I was in her campaign, I’d be trying to hide it…

Yeah, right, Big Brother, years after it stopped getting mass audiences… “the jungle I prefer is politics” – ouch… and what the hell does “I don’t mean to Glee” mean? And then she has the front to imply that Ken Livingstone (aged 65) is too old to do the job, when she’s sounding like an out-of-touch auntie?

Politicians trying to cling onto pop culture references nearly always end up looking like berks. With nonsense like this, and a weak set of policies to match, King will be lucky to still be in public life at 45, never mind 65. The tragic thing is, this is the only person the Labour Party could find to take on Ken for a shot at the big job. Doesn’t look like they hold London in much respect, does it?


  1. This is painful in so many ways. Somebody has obviously told her not to start too many sentences with ‘I’, so she’s started a few with ‘And I’ instead!

  2. Hardly the first cringeworthy moment in Oona King’s career.

    If you compare her votes in 2001 and 2005 it is clear that she lost her seat due to Conservative and Lib Dem voters supporting George Galloway to get Labour out. A few months after the election she started giving interviews such as this one in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/sep/12/interviews.labour
    sounding a bit like Ali G “Is it because I is Jewish?”

    Having re-read the interview I am a bit surprised that nobody is asking now about her support for the Iraq War. It is not as if murder and suffering has yet reduced to Saddam era levels.

  3. To honest, though, a blog post entitled “Another cringeworthy moment in Oona King’s career” would make for very boring reading.

  4. She doesn’t seem to have any actual viable policies, just poorly-articulated aspirations, like “making London more extraordinary”.

  5. Sadly Nu Labour in London is still swarming with careerist politicians who speak the language of twaddle. “Making London more extraordinary” is nothing compared to talk of a “renewal, settlement, progression,” and the Lambeth Labour favoured words of “fairness, accountability and responsibility.”

    These are all fine ideals to aspire to, but there’s bugger all behind the headlines. It feels like 1997 all over again. And we all know how that particular folly turned out.

Comments are closed.