It is not that he has 5 children per se that bothers me - we need more children of the indiginous population.
It is that he has had them out of wedlock and in such close proximity of time that he obviously has no committment to any of these silly (in the sense of their wasting their time on a man who will not marry and be faithful) women.
I do not regard a man with no commitment to his family (be it by marriage or civil partnership in the case of homosexuals) as suitable to receive my vote.
The candidate Alan Craig has some suggestions to encourage marriage and decent family life. He may be my man.

CAM, East London/Essex,

More kids that's what we need, and if us indigenous folk are too fond of our sports cars to have them, then lets bring in some foreigners to make babies...oh and yes pay welfare to young single mums. When I grow old I don't want to be surrounded by moaning old codgers whose pensions and savings are worth nothing because there are no young people generating wealth.

Ken's weird, Boris is amusing, but returning to work and commuting in London after 20 years is great. Where have all the cars gone? You can actually cross the road, and the buses are quicker than walking.

Tim, Sussex,

Granted you are not a scientist, but it is not hard to find the subscript button on your version of Word Mr Samuel. As a Science teacher it becomes harder every year to teach children the use of chemical formulae, and for people in public like yourself to not be able to correctly write the formula for Carbon Dioxide is a lamentable symbol of the growing entrenchment of scientific ignorance of British society

Richard, Quebec City, Canada

How interesting that I have just linked here from an article bout Shannon Matthews dysfunctional family (7 kids, 5 fathers). I know of lots of people who have many children, many different fathers, mothers, whatever, but they don't go around pontificating about the environment. I am surprised they haven't taxed the use of the word yet, as they do whenever it is used in conjunction with something to keep us donwtrodden.

If people in the public eye don't like intrusion get a normal job like the rest of us.

Paula, MK, UK

I agree with c chapman's view of stopping child benefits after the 1st two kids (with a 9 month delay to account for those who've just become pregnant).
I'd go further and suggest promoting free contraception, sterilisation, and even abortions as well for those on benefits with >2 kids (this will get some members of the religious lobby in a rage but hey ho). If you can't afford to reproduce then you shouldn't expect the general taxpayer to pick up the tab.

We only produce 60% of our own food now, we should be trying to engineer a population heading down by 10 million, not up. And the cost of the benefits system also desperately needs bringing under control.

paul, sheffield, uk

Overpopulation and overpowered cars are both equal problems. Critisising one to whitewash the other doesn't cut it.

Malcolm, Wirral, UK

It is high time that child benefits were revised to apply only to the first 2 children with 9 months notice being given of the change of policy. Existing children could still benefit but as they reach 16, the extra ones would be phased out. This would not only encourage responsible parenting but also discourage benefit fraud. Ina n overpopulated world it is criminally irresponsible to breed indiscriminately.

c chapman, corridonia, italy

is that he has five kids your problem or that they are by different women? Or are you saying that if he is entitled to having energy-consuming children, the public should be entitled to dangerous life threatening 4x4 cars also? recyclying is intrusive to your private life... really? a little selfish i would say. complain about his politics if you will, complain even about overpopulation if you must... but you have three children and he has five... if you had none you would have more of a leg to stand on, what are you suggesting he should have drugged his three women with abortion pills or used a condom to avoid having a child, or better still abandoned them because the whole see no evil ergo there is no evil policy seems to work well with you (as in don't recycle, one can pretend there is no need)... your article is funny, sarcastic and you write well... find something worthwhile to say and you could make a career out of it.

v.p., london,

With regard to the out of date figures on population growth in the UK quoted here, I think you will find we have a very willing and fecund group in society, part of whose religious doctrine is to reproduce as rapidly and, if necessary, incestuously as possible in order to outnumber the 'infidel'. I have no fears for the population figures - due to rise to 70 million over the next 20 years. I have more fears for the collapsing infrastructure to support such growth and the huge consumption of energy and resources that are not, whatever one may think, infinite.
Marc - critcising the journalism is just nitpicking and missing the point. Livingstone is just symptomatic of the 'I got my rights' generation, determined to fluff up their egos by ensuring they will live on genetically through their progeny (Heaven help us!) who then preach to others. Ghastly hypocrites in the extreme! Back to your newts Fink-Nottle!!

Bas, London,

Martin Samuel has grasped THE hot potato.

The UN published a report in October 2007 that came to the same broad conclusions, underling the position by recording the fact that the land available to each person is shrinking, from 19.5 acres in 1900 to 5 acres in 2005.

Livingstone’s rival, BORIS JOHNSON, could well have been the first British politician in recent times to voice the uncomfortable truth is a reasoned article in the Daily Telegraph on 25 November 2007.

I myself must admit to complete hypocrisy on this issue, having advocated child licensing in the 1960s, then fathering three sons (though to the same mother).

The inescapable truth is that people are pollution, nature is a system of life forms living within their means in which life is death recycled. Homo sapiens, led by the march of Western uncivilisation, has broken the cycle. It may never be restored.

Ed Burrows, Knutsford, England

I can't believe this tripe. What is wrong with you people? He should be commended for bringing children into this room and not aborting them.

There is no overpopulation problem. There is plenty of undeveloped arable land, and the countries that have widespread hunger problems do so because of unstable or repressive governments. Standards of living are improving all the time, but to read this, you'd think there was an actual crisis and we were about to run out of everything.

People are ridiculous with this nonsense. If someone wants five, ten, or twenty kids and can pay for them, good. If they can't--well then, that's the real problem.

James Deppeler, Brielle, New Jersey, USA

Population is the elephant in the room.

david, Bromley,

While I strongly believe that lower population is not only desirable but inevitable, I am very reluctant to condemn people for having more than 2 kids especially if they have done so more than 3-4 years ago. It is only in the last few years that the climate change movement has become mainstream and we realize the impact of our actions on the planet. Let us do what we can now, instead of looking backward.

S.Mahesh, Emeryville, USA

Succinctly written, beautifully put, truth.

Becky, Epsom, UK

I can't see what there is to complain about. Ken plus 3 partners have produced 5 children - that's 5 children from 4 procreating adults. Which is about 1.2 children per adult. Given that a substantial number of adults never procreate, that sounds about right to me, and far less harmful than your columnist (and partner) who have produced 1.5 per adult.

Assuming that anyone who finds Ken attractive (quiet at the back!) would not procreate with anyone else.....

Andrew, London, England

Martin Samuel for Mayor. Excellent article!!

Mrs Sun Day, Northwood, Middlesex

I have no opinion about London's mayor, but this sorry piece of spite is hard to believe. Britain does not have an over population problem. In fact, like most of Europe the problem goes the other way. Some people have very good reasons for not having children. Others simply don't want to sacrifice their luxuries or way of life by having children. Of course, they also should not have them. But to make not having children a point of virtue as some of the respondents do is a bit much. I wonder whose children will take care of them when they hit their dotage---which---- judging from their comments---is not too distant. Livingston may be a poor mayor--I really don't know--but attacking him for having five children whom he supports (nobody's suggested otherwise) is stupid and mean-spirited.

Joseph Anthony, Lexington,, Kentucky

Having 5 children is just about the least important thing Mr Livingstone has done in my opinion.

The utter wrecking of the capital city is of far more significance.

Have you tried driving into London from the north lately? Hundreds upon hundreds of traffic lights, zebra crossings, pelican crossings, cycle lanes, speed cameras, speed humps, 'traffic claming measures'. All needed to be paid for but almost none do any good.

Lets not start on the congestion zone!

For heaves sake vote him out!

David, St Albans, UK

I read years ago david Suzuki's book and decided then to only have one child - my wife agreed and she also agrees that we can get a DB9 as a substitute for the other little darlings that we are missing......Vasectomy and an Aston, promising future and environmentally friendlyish...

peter, montpellier, France

I am more amazed that there are three women willing to sleep with him.

Dave, Slough,

Thank you Martin; an excellent article.

You are absolutely right that overpopulation is by far the single biggest driver behind every major envirionmental issue the world is facing. The deathly silence on this issue by all politicians, everywhere, is a major reason for my own eco-cynicism.

I'm not against having children at all; I hope that I will have several of my own one day.

I just hate the fact that those who lecture others on the morality of minute aspects of their everyday lives are often the biggest hypocrites, and it doesn't surprise me that Ken is among them.

Well, I'm just repeating what you've already said now, so I'll stop - just wanted to let you know I thought it was a terrific article, and you're absolutely damned right!

Mike, London, UK

Has he never heard of birth-control?

Frederick, London, UK

Sorry Marc but Martin has got it spot on. Stick to French politics and leave us to criticise our pitiful politicians such as Livingstone as we will.

Livingstone is a hypocrite and downright unpleasant example of humanity and perfidity. He sucks up to supporters of terrorists and fraudsters. And then tries to preach to us on 'green' issues while pumping out offspring who will no doubt be living in nicely feathered nests. No politician has a private life. If they want to remain private, let them get jobs in an office with the rest of us nobodies...

.

Jay, London,

I agree that there is a wholely counter productive, authoritarian and hypcoritical attitude amongst some green advocates. it is right that the author points this out. When people who are trying to curb your life choices but indulge their own (at potentially greater cost), it's outrageous and unfair.

I'm all for common sense recycling, looking to more efficent fuel sources and all the rest, but not via the "tax, ban and moralise" everything approach of some in the green movement.

Tom, Newcastle,

What a wonderful "politically incorrect" article - well done Martin.
Marc from Paris can't you concede he has some valid points?

Roger Leach, Widnes, UK

Martin Samuel is right in criticizing Livingstone for inconsistency, but wrong about overpopulation. A country is overpopulated if it is both densely peopled (relative to the agricultural area) and poor, i.e. if it cannot produce enough food, and cannot afford to make up the deficit by imports. If an overpopulated country cannot get rich by rapid industrialization or oil exports, it has no alternative to population reduction. For many countries, this means making the one-child family obligatory until the population is well past its peak. Most Asian and all African countries are overpopulated on the basis of this criterion, but only China has adopted a rational population policy which, in combination with economic growth, will solve the population problem.
The high oil consumption per capita in the affluent countries has nothing to do with overpopulation; it is a passing phase, as oil can and will be replaced by nuclear and other forms of energy. Food cannot be replaced.

Bernard Gilland, Espergaerde, Denmark

Actually, Marc from Paris, I don't think the bias is as obvious as you suggest. Mr Samuel may be as ham-fisted as a Melton Mowbray upper-cut in his political analysis at times but the direction is generally anti-authoritarian in a Jeremy Clarkson stylee, so at least this is consistent with that. Obviously this points towards an anti-Ken position but from a philosophical position rather than crude political point-scoring - I doubt this will influence many voters one way or t'other.

Jonathan M Smith, Edinburgh, UK

All of this environmentalism is based on Global warming but even if Global warming is true, the targeting of "polluters" is absurd. Victimising 4x4's and air travel in the name of carbon emissions is just a way to stop the rich from enjoying themselves, or to try to tax or guilt trip them if they do. Ken can't stand the rich and neither can the environmental lobby wityh their pious grandstanding.

No one suggests we cut back on beef and milk consumption because everyone does it, not just the rich, but to quote an article in the Independent:

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together"

There are a many other examples where we just don't apply common sense in reducing carbon most affectively. If we really want to cut greenhouse gases we should put 1p on income tax and dedicate it to researching technologies to solve emissions.

Matt, Cardiff,

Martin Samuel is right in criticizing Livingstone for inconsistency, but he is wrong about overpopulation. A country is overpopulated if it is both densely peopled (relative to the agricultural area) and poor, i.e. does not produce enough food and cannot afford to make up the deficit by imports. Most Asian and all African countries are overpopulated on this criterion. If an overpopulated country cannot get rich by rapid industrialization or oil exports, it has no alternative to limitation of family size. For many, this would mean making the one-child family obligatory until the population is well past its peak. China is the only overpopulated country that has adopted a rational population policy which, in combination with economic growth, will solve the problem.
The high oil consumption per capita in the affluent countries is a passing phase, unconnected with population; oil can and will be replaced by nuclear and other energy sources. Food cannot be replaced.

Bernard Gilland, Espergaerde, Denmark

Great read, I enjoyed it immensely and some very valid points made.

D case, Newquay,

Thank you Mr Samuel for raising the issue. I belong to the finger wagging environmentalists group but I am consequent - we - have been married for many years and have no children and anybody looking at what those little critters will inherit from us, should re-consider how many children they want to put into this world. Once we get our carbon rations in a few years time - huge deductions should be made for each child born, and even bigger deductions for children born in countries where we have a large carbon footprint.
And whether the "I hate the nanny state but I can't be bothered to do my bit either" brigade likes it or not - this is what is in stall for us because restraint and contentment have been derided as values and replaced by "greed is good". Now we have seen where that led. Best regards.

Esther Phillips, Leatherhead,

Thank you for telling the real inconvenient truth.

Professor James Lovelock consistently points out that the planet can only safely sustain around 3 billion people. Today it is over 6 Billion and growing.

Yet the issue of population is taboo amongst politicians and lobby groups who can only focus on consumption. It is absurd to have these patronising preachers lecture us about reducing consumption but say absolutely nothing about the number of consumers there are in the first place. Any gains made by the present population in reducing consumption will be made negligible and meaningless by the next increase in population.

It is for this reason that I will still use plastic carrier bags, not recycle, go on cheap flights, carry on being a reckless consumer and will encourage others to do the same. If politicians and commentators start to talk realistically about population levels then I may listen and consider amending my behaviour. Until then I will routinely ignore them.

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

What sort of example does this set? "Two were born weeks apart". So he's comfortable with cheating and lying.

Should he be in a position of power and be making decisions for London? I was taught that cheating and lying were wrong. Times have changed, haven't they?!

Ken is just another chav who doesn't understand what contraception is.

Sascha, London,

Quite right. The world can't support all these people. End of stor y

(fortunately i'm gay and have no kids)

John Ware, London,

5 kids with 3 women. I can see why he says he wants to keep it private. Yea. We are not allowed to criticize him cause we will appear old fashioned or morally right wing.
Sorry, but I cannot accept someone pontificating on society who is then going to tell me that serial monogamy is fine for all concerned. And I thought he played with newts in the evening.

tim, yokohama,

Marc...

France


That is all I have to say.. Although I do admire the French as they can command a good bit of Civil Unrest when they need to!

Red-Ken must know his time is up. The commie ways cannot go on for any longer. He is like a cancer which must be removed.

Christian, UK, UK

What about Al Gore who has 4 children. They are going to leave a carbon footprints the size of hundreds or thousands of children in India. One of the more sordid aspects of the present debate on climate change is that we are being lectured by super energy consumers like Al Gore and Sting.

Dan H. Andersen, Copenhagen,

Not everyone capable of bearing children in our society chooses to do so. So, in terms of birthrate, the replacement level is about 2.1 children. That is if every couple has 2 children and every tenth couple 3, then the population will remain stable. In the UK the birthrate is lower than the replacement rate, so there is scope for couples wishing to do so to have even more children than this. In this instance we have four people involved; so to do their bit to maintain the population each would have to have 1.05 children or 4.2 in total. That they have had 0.8 children too many does not seem to me particularly catastrophic.

Terence Hollingworth, Blagnac, France

Livingston hasw lost the right to pontificate on environmental issues. What possible right does he now have to tell us how to live our lives?

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Excellent. Hit a very important nail on the head. Population is not the only driver of deforestation, global warming and general resource depletion but its continued growth is incompatible with a sustainable future. You could also have contrasted recent Catholic Bishop's outrage at research involving embryos, and their Church's continued damnation of birth control!

Mike Norton, Nagano, Japan

Excellently evaluated. I guess the reason why Ken doesn't have a 'people carrier' for his five children is that firstly, he doesn't have a driver's licence and secondly his secret would have been revealed. Could it be that his three families are now driving around in cars with five children whilst he's pointing fingers.It's not global warming but overpopulation Ken, that is causing the crisis the world is in. Get a grip and have a vasectomy for heaven's sake otherwise there won't be a bus big enough for your brood.

Theresa Felsinger, London, UK

Stick to sports and stay out of politics, Martin. This article is the sorriest piece of politically biased journalism that I have read in a long time. Boris, the clown, Johnson could have done better and that is no compliment.

Marc, Paris, France