A new bus for London? Why bother?

Is anyone going to design this new "Routemaster" bus for London that was such a hallmark of Boris Johnson's mayoral campaign to the suburbs? TfL recently issued a reminder to budding designers, though I wonder what the hurry is when going from conecept to public service is going to take years anyway. Perhaps nobody is interested?

After seeing BJ hike pulblic transport fares at the first possible opportunity, it is foolhardy to spend £100m on designing a new bus. BJ's specification will result in less capacity on London's busiest bus routes. It could also cause more delays. Bendy buses can stop, load and unload very quickly because there are three sets of doors and a single deck. Double deckers can be very slow. Just compare the 38 (bendy) and 19 (double decker) at Angel.

This is hardly efficient. This is pointless. This is also unfair on people who need public transport most. Less buses, higher fares. Tory all over. It didn't take long.

Ken Livingstone put it succinctly:

"London has a Mayor who transfers millions of pounds from ordinary Londoners who use public transport to drivers of gas guzzlers and residents of Kensington and Chelsea."

Mayor = big picture; London Mayor = no plan

I'm slightly surprised that rumour has it Tory "Central Office" bigwigs agree with me that Boris Johnson's first few months in office have been a disappointment. Again, not because of the resignations and sacking, but because of the total lack of vision presented.

What is Boris in City Hall for? What does he want to do? So far all we have are increases to public transport fares at the expense of every Londoner to curry favour with the Chelsea set and their gas guzzlers. I'm disgusted. I'm not surprised at all.

Transport and environmental projects like the Oxford Street Tram (which he claimed to support in his manifesto), Cross River Tram and instead wasting money on replacing the much needed bendy buses with something smaller and less adequate on our busiest bus routes.

Boris' only plans before he was elected were to sort out crime and make City Hall more efficient. Crime is an almost impossible problem to fix, at least in four short years. Efficiency - he has made cuts, though has also spent heavily on staff and employing a chauffeur for himself.

BJ has plan for London. I'm worried. Central Office should be too.

Lammy on the money

Writing in the latest Progress magazine, David Lammy admits the obvious, that the Tories' language under Cameron has wooed the public. There is nothing startling about that to anyone who has lived in the UK for the last year. There is if you are The Daily Mail. The Mail has triumphantly dubbed Lammy's article "Labour minister publicly admits David Cameron has 'touched a nerve" like it is a revelation that someone in the Labour Party has admitted that Cameron's Tories are leading in the opinion polls. Lammy's glasses must be good.

No such thing as a broken society

In his Telegraph column yesterday, Mayor Boris Johnson dubbed Tory leader David Cameron's claim that British society is broken, "piffle." Conservative Home rightly pointed out that this high level disagreement was overshadowed by Tim Parker's resignation yesterday. Some other titles picked up on this (Daily Mail, Paul Waugh at the Evening Standard).

Cameron wants to denigrate today's society and is positioning himself as best placed to fix it. Aside from my view that the Cameron/Osbourne proposals (supporting marriage, being tough on crime, fewer tax credits) to fix the breaks are likely to make things worse not better, I think we really need to highlight how this analysis is wrong in the first place. Therefore BJ's intervention is most helpful. Of course there are social problems in Britain, but to claim that Britain is socially broken is both cynical and wrong.

Cameron needs to tar British society with the brush of failure because governments lose elections and for Labour to lose they need to be shown to have failed. However, aside from political necessity I think this analysis is more dangerous. In the same way that talking of a looming economic recession can damage business and consumer confidence leading to lower spending and investment and recession, talk of a broken society can make people feel less safe, more cynical and negative about their neighbourhood.

I don't always agree with him, but on this occasion Jack Straw is exactly right:

Boris Johnson has exposed David Cameron's mantra that Britain is broken for what it is: Piffle.

'Only this week, the Tory leader was again saying our country is broken. Yet today the mayor has been frank in his opposition to his leader's claim, which has always been the most cynical nonsense.

'Whatever David Cameron might say, Britain is a decent, compassionate and vibrant nation, and on almost every measure it has got better in the past decade. No one has broken Britain and no one ever will.'

Our country is not broken like Cameron wants to claim, far from it. We should not write off our young people otherwise we may get the response we deserve. Hopefully our mayor can show the leadership where he has so far failed and ensure London's young are not written off.

Another of Boris Johnson's deputy mayors quits

BBC London radio and others are reporting that another of Boris Johnson's fabled deputy mayors has quit. This really is getting a little careless. Latest one is union buster Tim Parker, a canny double for BJ's sports commissioner, Kate Hoey. And yes, I do think she should be kicked out of the Labour Party.

Parker has apprently resigned as he thought it inappropriate for an unelected official to hold the positions of First Depurty Mayor and Chair of Transport for London. I couldn't agree more. London may have elected Jonson, they elected him to lead London, not a team of co-opted Tory cronies.

Do we need a new captain?

Does Labour need a "captain" in charge to arrest the slide in the polls as most media comment suggests, or do we need to back the one we already have?

Writing at Labourhome, John Prescott claims that "it wasn’t the Captain that sank the Titanic – a ship they claimed was unsinkable - it was the iceberg. The best way to avoid disaster is to manage your way around the problem...For me, it’s all about setting the right course. That’s why I’ve always favoured policy over personality and why I believe Gordon’s the right captain."

Favouring policy over personality is a virtuous ideal but politics isn't ideal. New Labour's success was based on pushing a slick, well branded personality politics onto the country when politics had become tired after the Major years. In London recently Boris Johnson won a battle of personality politics over Ken Livingstone. This is the battleground on which political fights are won. Without the personality the policy doesn't matter.

Gordon Brown has become a victim of this. Media commentators have decided that the Tories are credible for the first time in a generation and that Brown is not. Once momentum is lost and is running against you it is impossible to regain. However, a new leader might not be the answer, as last week's polls showed that Labour would be just as unpopular with David Milliband at the helm. Labour cannot afford a leadership election financially, let alone a general election that would become impossible to resist if a new leader were elected.

Labour is faced with Hobson's choice. It would be far simpler if the party showed discipline. To backed a Brown leadership the party and country needs to see him offering strong leadership and fresh ideas. At the moment that isn't the case. I fear that the party could end up in the worst of all positions, new leader, new elections and yet the same result than if Brown stays = defeat.

This is likely because Labour feels rudderless with the party and country reacting to the media fervour for blood. Following the media rather than leading it, new Labour was once famed for doing the latter, is exactly what put Labour in this mess in the first place. The nonsense over the election that never was permanently damaged Brown's leadership credentials and he has never recovered. At the time I thought a general election unnecessary yet the speculation was only nipped in the bud when the damage was already done.

DUP: "minority views are more important than the majority views"

This blogger has been on holiday in Finland and Estonia. More about that another time perhaps. It is good to be back. As much as I enjoy travelling, I always love being back in London and the UK. When I'm away I sometimes think of "England" with rose tinted spectacles about how advanced my country is.

DUP MP Iris Robinson is one such example of why my thoughts that the UK is a progressive country can be mis-guided. After recently suggesting that homosexuals should be referred to psyhchiatrists fro "treatment" she has gone one better and has now publicly likened her abhorrence for paedophilia to homosexualty. She said:

"I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both."

I'm totally repulsed by Robinson. She has apparently felt the need to act becuase:

"“I am speaking out more now because we are getting it more and more rammed down our throats that the minority views are more important than the majority views. I am not trying to alienate anyone. Anyone can come to me with any problems. I do not turn anyone away."

I can't see any children in her consituency who have suffered homophobic bullying feeling like their MP will provide the answers they need. This sort of vile hatred simply makes that sort of behaviour more acceptable.

City Hall = circus

While I've been away I've missed lots of action at City Hall.

BJ's team, in training before they (hope to) move to Downing Street after the next election is depleted and is continually defending itself from multiple accusations. At first sight it looks like little planning went into the construction of BJ's team, Ray Lewis' background clearly wasn't looked into, otherwise I can't imagine he would have been appointed. His planning deputy Sir Simon Milton had to step down after the legality of his role was questioned while at the same time as leading Westminster City Council.

Today Boris Johnson announced that he wants to cut 15% of the GLA's spending. He has tried to pass all his powers to unelected deputies or back to the boroughs. The GLA was established to take strategic decisions that the 32 boroughs (+ the City) couldn't take by themselves. Johnson is trying to degrade the post of Mayor. Before the election I spoke of the need for city mayors to take bold decisions, build capital projects, host festivals and build pride into city life. Very quickly Johnson has shown he has no interest in this.

Charges that can easily be levelled at Johnson are many of the same that his team and the Evening Standard leveraged against Ken Livingstone to get him elected in the first place:

• Cronyism - his "independent Forensic Audit Panel that "investigated" the spending of the LDA under Livingstone was nothing but a Tory whitewash
  
• Waste - Brain Coleman's taxi bill, Johnson's use of a Government Car Service private chauffeur, all the wages for his "interim team" and legion of deputies

I've been away too long to list them all, The Liberal Conspiracy does a much better job anyway, or you can read Dave Hill's well referenced Guardian article.

The problem we face is that most Londoners no longer care about this now the election is over. Boris is doing his best to do nothing as mayor, why be mayor if he doesn't believe in the office?

More from The Onion

Today Now!: How To Pretend You Give A Shit About The Election

Is the mayoral system accountable enough?

So far we have only had two London mayors, Ken Livingstone and now Boris Johnson. Early signs are that Johnson will take a very different approach to Livingstone. This matters because the political structures are still quite new and established practice, which forms the basis for much of British democracy, hasn't yet settled down.

The mayor is meant to be scrutinised by the assembly. This is supplemented by media scrutiny. The assembly's role is set by law and is quite limited., largely to investigation of issues. Scrutiny of the mayor is tempered because politically the assembly needs a two thirds majority to veto the mayor's budget. With 11 of 25 current members Tory (44%), this is unlikely.

The media's role isn't set by law but is more important in brining City Hall closer to the electorate. The Evening Standard's high profile campaign against Livingstone at the recent election brought the whole event a much higher profile. Johnson campained on the basis that he would be a more transparent, accountable mayor. So far the evidence is that he is being less open and less accountable. This goes against what he campaigned for and makes a little understood institution more distant from Londoners.

Johnson has limited journalists to a single question, while Livingstone, widely known as a master of detail, stayed available until all questions had been answered. Even the Standard are pointing this out. One London's Damian Hockney isn't impressed and neither am I: "one question per journo, Boris? Come on, you're not Madonna or David Beckham - that's how anyone who doesn't want to answer a question deals with accountability."

During the election Johnson was certainly kept from talking to the press and it looks like this is set to continue.

Johnson pledged to bring in people's question times, a great idea, however only two are planned per year. My feeling is that the overall level of scrutiny will be far less under this mayor. This isn't a good start, though hardly a surprising one.

City Hall a waste of money?

The GLC was abolished in 1985 because, it was claimed by Thatcher's government, city government was a waste of money and simply duplicated the work already done by the boroughs. Fast forward to 2008 and much of the local coverage of the GLA mayoral elections focused on possible wasted money. The inference of this campaigning was that Ken Livingstone wasted public money and that Boris Johnson would be more careful.

Therefore I was shocked to find that BJ's "handover" team is going to cost at least £465,000. This team is simply there to aid the transition to a new administration, not to actually run it. When much fuss was made over the salaries to officials like TfL's Peter Hendy, this revelation is at least a surprise and at most a disgrace.

ToryTroll reports that this is 70% of the cost to pay BJ's full time team for a whole year, while these "consultants" and Tory activists will only be working for between one and six months.

I sat at several mayoral election debates where BJ constantly berated Ken for the type of people he had employed and how much he paid them. He clearly doesn't feel the need to apply the same standards he expects of others to himself.

Conrad Black just can't help himself (enough)

Conrad Black really does have some guts. Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague's buddy has had his legal fees paid by the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, despite him being in prison for defrauding that company. Someone please explain that.

Black and his three co-convicts have collectively received $70m in legal fees defending themselves from charges of defrauding $6m from the company. I will be watching this carefully as Black's appeal is due to be heard next week (June 5) with a ruling on the Sun-Times' fees to follow later, presumably after they've paid out more for the appeal.

What a wonderful concept. I rob Peter to pay Paul and then get Peter to pay for my trial.

Crime really does come free.

TfL take over Metronet

As the new Mayor takes over the failed Metronet PPP contract for the tube upgrade I do wonder what happened to the private sector taking on the "risk." If only all that extra money wasted on lawyers had been spent directly on upgrades...

Indeed, the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee reported in 2002 that "it is however apparent that the position on risk has moved dramatically in favour of the private sector companies" - this is obviously what happened.

Bendy buses and London

Transport for London introduced bendy buses to London's streets primarily to transport large numbers of people on busy routes quickly. These buses can legally carry 150 people, though I'm sure more usually pack on in rush hours. If Boris' transport team can come up with something better I'd like to see it. Perhaps they could try Mercedes Benz even bigger articulated bus, carrying 193 people?

I don't have a problem with bendy buses. This whole debate is a smokescreen for what London's transport really needs. More capacity, more high speed transit, tubes and trams.

Boris bus bunkem part 2

The Boris/Evening Standard campaign for Mayor focused on the pledge to get rid of bendy buses and replace them with a new Routemaster, which I repeatedly pointed out doesn't exist. In today's first Assembly questions the Mayor faced criticism from Labour members of the vagueness of his plans.

I also picked up from the Standard itself (great to see some balanced reporting) that BJ's transport advisor Kulveer Ranger admitted that a hop on - hop off bus might not be possible. Now the idea seems to be to bring an iconic design to London, a slight departure from the original Routemaster pledge.

I'm delighted that my assembly member Jennette Arnold took the Chair today. I heard her on LBC's breakfast show this morning and I know she is very proud to be the first female to chair the assembly. It has also given her national press exposure. Early reports seem to show that the wit and quips mostly absent from the election campaign are back from Boris. I hope he doesn't use these to divert attention from the seriousness of the job.

Lib Dems = Tories

When reading the papers for LBC yesterday I was not suprised to read that Nick Clegg has decided he will support the Tories in the event of a hung parliament. Thanks to Tom Miller for reminding me.

I've often said that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Tories, not just because we have a two party system. In 1979 the Liberals voted with the Tories to let in Thatcher in the vote of confidence. In local government there are plenty of examples of Tories supporting the Lib Dems and vice versa. Southwark, Lambeth , Birmingham...

When people claim the Lib Dems are a left wing party they should think about this first and realise their vote goes straight into the Tory pocket.

Ken and me on LBC

Perhaps not at the same time. I made my LBC debut yesterday morning reviewing the newspapers for the LBC News 1152 breakfast show.

I highlighted the backlash over Labour sending supporters around the Crewe and Nantwich by-election dressed as toffs. Not a wise move when one of them was privately educated. I know the "other one" and he was not. Perhaps a few checks there might have been wise. The Daily Mirror was the only newspaper to cover David Cameron's professional huntsman being the first person to be taken to court over fox hunting since the 2004 Hunting Act. Cameron a toff? Lord no!

I also mentioned the potential black hole in the Crossrail finances. It will be interesting to see whether Johnson chooses to raise fares for any cost over-run or if he will persuade the Treasury to help out. I just can't see a Labour run government helping him out. Forcing Johnson into raising fares would potentially make him unpopular so I think that might be forced upon him. The private sector has already invested heavily in the project so I can see any further requests for funds falling on deaf ears. The East London Advertiser reports that Gordon Brown might choose to shelve the project. This would be disastrous for London.

I enjoyed the radio slot and hope to be featuring again soon.

Ken Livingstone has today agreed to host a phone in show on LBC 97.3 FM. It'll be great to have Ken back in the public sphere. Whatever people think of him, I think most Londoners respect his career commitment to the city and his wit. In the election he seemed tired so I look forward to hearing his wise cracks again.

Indeed, BBC quoted LBC programme director Jonathan Richards: "Ken Livingstone brings unique insight to LBC.

"After eight years as Mayor of London, no-one knows this city and its people better."

Facebook censors Boris Watch

I'm disappointed though not surprised that Facebook has banned the Boris Watch group. This was set up after the election to promote debate about London's new mayor and sparked a great deal of interest from the 3000 plus members, both positive and negative.

Apparently the group was a violation of the sites terms because it attacks a group or individual. This seems to be very heavy handed when a quick search of any major company name brings up scores of groups dedicated to criticising them.

An acquaintance of mine was banned from Facebook when a friend of his had jokingly flagged his account as having "objectionable content." He was banned automatically and is now on Facebook under a false name.

I have joined the "Bring Back Boris Watch" group - lets see if BJ's team get that banned too. This saga could really roll on...for about four years...

Trots on the election

Whenever I want to amuse myself I take a look to see what rubbish Leon Trotsky's disciples are spouting. Apparently, Ken Livingstone lost the mayoralty because "by promoting policies that centred on building the capital as a centre for world finance." This is obviously why the Tories won and the Left List candidate only polled 22,000 votes. If anyone seriously thought Ken was too right wing there cannot have been too many of them using that statistic.

You can read the rest of the Socialist Workers Party "analysis" for yourself. Like all their prose it was far too long winded for my short attention span.

What Brown should do next: me on Five Live

I managed to record my appearance on Tuesday's Simon Mayo show on BBC Radio Five Live thanks to TV Eyes and Gareth Owens. Listen away. So far this year I've managed to feature on The World at One on Radio Four, so just the Today Programme to do now...

Bold Labour

I wrote yesterday of how I spoke on BBC Radio Five Live of the need for Labour to be bold, mark its territory set out a clear Labour vision.

I am a big fan of James Purnell and in the latest New Statesman he argues the very same thing. It is another as to whether Labour will successfully do so. Set out a bold vision showing that Labour really wants to remove children from poverty to open up opportunity. Because we believe this to be morally right, not because we think it will make people vote for us, like Cameron's Conservatives.

Be bold, be Labour, then make a concerted effort to show why a Labour government will be better and different from a Tory government that pays lip service to social justice. It pays lip service because New Labour has shifted the centre of political gravity after ten years in power. Don't forget that. Otherwise, why would the Tories even be talking about poverty? When I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, they denied it was even an issue.

Marking out clear divisions between Labour and Tories might also help recapture voters who have become cynical of political parties and have ceased to engage in the political process. This is the challenge for Brown. He needs to meet it, otherwise I fear for the future.

Election post mortem on BBC Radio Five Live

I admit to having spent the weekend out of London, which helped stave off the depression of defeat. My words here have been sparse after weeks of intensive campaigning. Finally, my life seems to be falling back into place. I'll leave Ken, BJ and Gilligan for another day.

Labour needs to avoid an internal massacre, now is not the time for root and branch change. The recent elections were always likely to be tough, being in the third term. However, Labour needs to take a few relatively easy steps towards salvation. I even find myself agreeing with Ann McElvoy on this.

I was asked to speak (as a follower of Progress) on Simon Mayo's BBC Radio Five Live show yesterday lunch time about where Labour should head from here. There was some common agreement between the guests, Graham Stringer MP, Khalid Mahmoud MP, Michael Meacher MP, Lorraine Davidson and Gavin Hayes (Compass) that Gordon Brown doesn't have much more than six to twelve months to show strong leadership. Views differed about how exactly Brown should improve his and Labour's fortunes.

Brown needs to communicate a clear and consistent message. At the moment I find it difficult to crystallise what his leadership is trying to achieve. The same couldn't be said for Blair, whether right or wrong.

Brown needs to make public services more responsive to peoples' needs, making their lives easier, not more complicated. This means simplifying the over bureaucratic (but redistributive) tax credits system and better communicating the changes to (particularly) the NHS. Longer opening hours for GP surgeries is a fantastic change, making the lives of many much better. However, like the Young Fabian mentioned in McElvoy's article, many of those potential Labour voters who I speak to, do not correlate changes like this, the minimum wage, or better buses in London, with Labour.

Labour also needs to talk about aspiration and talk to the whole country, not retreating to the core vote. This is dangerous and will only lead us towards the nadir or 1983, much as the Tories did in 2001.

Labour needs to rediscover under Brown the secrets of the success of the mid 1990s. There is a young team in the cabinet in Balls, Milliband, Milliband and Purnell who should be able to match Cameron's Tory team. The success of the mod 1990s was based on a young team, strong PR and communications focused on providing solutions to what people wanted. The young team needs to harness this approach. I also wonder what the PR experts recently appointed by Brown have planned. They need to act fast.

You can listen to my thoughts when I manage to upload the excerpt, or the whole debate (click on Tuesday, this will work until Tuesday 13 May 2008), I come on about 32 minutes in, after the sports news.

People don't get it

It is hardly suprising that according to YouGov, large swathes on London voters don't understand how the voting system for mayor and assembly works. Neither is it surprising that a great number of voters, including many I have met recently, don't realise that they will have up to four votes on three different ballot papers.

The Electoral Commisson has spent a great deal of effort and money running ads in all of the London newspapers and at bus stops reminding people that there is an election. I'm sure everyone knows there is an election on. I'm also sure most people don't really get how the preferential Alternative Vote system works.

Voters get two choices as I'm sure my readership knows. Of course, those voting for Ken or Johnson for Mayor only really get one. The second preferences only count for those voting for candidates finishing outside the top two after the first choices are counted. Only in the last decade has Britain moved away from plurality (First Past the Post) voting to more proportional voting systems for regional and European elections.

It probably doesn't matter that much that some people might not make a second preference as most will vote Labour or Tory. What does matter is much of the effort in explaining the voting system has been left to partisan door-to-door canvassers and party literature. How about using some of the broadcast slots reserved for party election broadcasts for a spot by the Electoral Commission to actually explain this in a neutral way?

Boris bus bunkem

Even the Evening Standard was forced to print Johnson's admission that his plan to replace bendy buses was a total mess. I can't believe how Tory editor Anne McElvoy managed to allow him to be dubbed "Blundering Boris", though it barely detracted from another edition of biased and unbalanced reporting of the race for Mayor.

I'm pleased the total lack of substance to Johnson's "flagship" transport "policy" has finally been exposed. I have been writing for weeks that this new fabled replacement to the bendy bus doesn't even exist on a drawing board, let alone on any streets.

Dave Hill gives a fantastic account of the spiralling costs of the pie in the sky costing of this policy. This includes last week's Newsnight debate where Paxman persistently asked Johnson to cost his policy, which he could not do. Last month Hill quoted one of my posts and asked that despite the fact I am ""Labour-focussed," but does that mean a lot of neutrals aren't thinking the same thing?" Good question. I think they are thinking that.

Now that all polls show both candidates neck and neck, the real challenge starts for Johnson to prove himself. As polling day nears it will be almost impossible for Lynton Crosby to keep him out of the news and this must be a good thing for Livingstone.

Integrity

The Gilligan - Johnson campaign has sought to taint Ken Livingstone and his team as lacking in probity and integrity. The constant drip of allegations has been unhelpful of course. Ken has been in power for eight years so it is much easier for the mud to leave a smear even if it doesn't stick than if he was enjoying his honeymoon period in office.

The Gilligan - Johnson team has constantly attacked Ken's aides like Lee Jasper and civil servants, Peter Hendy of TfL. Surely this should open Johnson up for questions about his own team. Hypocritcally, he has refused to say who they are. That isn't fair game, though politics has never been fair. Johnson will not say because he is protecting them and becuase his master, Lynton Crosby has been working hard to keep attention away from Johnson and on Livingstone. The less exposure Johnson has the less damage he can do.

Ken seeks a third term just has he is becoming more radical and has really grown into what was an unknown job in 2000. London needs his vision and ambition and it looks like he is finally coming into his own.

Johnson is "flakey" according to Michael White. I agree. He has made much of his "plan" to replace bendy buses with a new Routemaster. On LBC this morning he admitted that "The bus we are going to bring in is not yet on the drawing board,'' so why make a play of something you can't deliver?

Will the green agenda win?

How green London can be is one policy area the Mayor has real power to make a difference in. Ken Livingstone has already moved London towards becoming a "sustainable city 2020" and introducing the low emission zone and Congestion Charge. I have documented my support for this previously and it needs stating again because it is so vital.

In today's Guardian Society John Vidal appraises the leading candidates, quoting numerous 'greens' who variously support Livingstone. Anyone who cares about London and who cares about the envirnment should read it.

London currently leads world cities in tackling climate change. Boris Johnson would see this end. Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth says that "(London) has emerged as a leader in the struggle to avoid catastrophic global warming. This is in large part down to the leadership of Ken Livingstone." Stephen Haile of the Green Alliance dubs Ken a "trailblazer (who) sets the standard for leadership and action matched by no one else in British politics."

This is fine praise. Coupled with progressive transport policies that will make a real difference to London, Ken really trumps it for those who can bothered to find out.

The Evening Standard's grossly biased coverage of the election makes it easy for Labour/Ken supporters to get pessimistic. I don't believe this is necessary and it certainly won't help get Ken re-elected. Thankfully The Ipsos Mori poll published today shows Ken in the lead, if only by 2% - though this is remarkably similar to last week's ICM poll. A significant number of Londoners are progressively minded and will back Ken. The Labour movement needs to keep reminding them why. A better environment and better transport are two great reasons.

Second preferences have it

Any form of opinion polling should be looked at with a careful eye. Whether by telephone or web, successful polls always need willing respondents and that will inevitably exclude some people. Nevertheless, Ken's campaign was still on risky territory by initially challenging the Evening Standard's YouGov polls, which showed at least a 10% lead for Johnson. This is based on the theory that many Labour voters are hard to reach.

YouGov didn't weight their results for the ethnicity of London or filter out those unlikely to vote, rendering their results unreliable. They did garner positive

Today's Guardian ICM poll puts Johnson one point ahead. Livingstone is far ahead among women, non-whites and those in inner London. The key to victory resides in getting Labour voters to actually vote. Closing the "Labour gap" between those who identify with the Party and actually vote.

Labour also badly needs the Lib Dem second preferences. My belief that most Lib Dems are inherently more right than left is borne out by the poll findings showing that Paddick supporters are more likely to give Johnson their second preferences than Ken. Having watch Paddick "perform" at the Evening Standard's Influentials debate on Monday I can understand why Lib Dems might like our Brian. He was wooden, as if being interviewed for a job. Most of his responses were taken straight from a management manual. When asked what book would guide him through mayoralty he said "I want to listen to London, not be guided by a book." Great. Thanks Brian. Unfortunately his supporters hold the key, but Ken's strategy of wooing them by bigging up his environmental credentials is exactly the right one for the sandal brigade.

Spin it all

This is too good not to share, politicos and PR people among us, is this really what we do? Of course not.

Are bendy buses really London's biggest problem?

If you only read Andrew Gilligan's column in the London Evening Standard you might think so. He quotes an October 2007 Daily Mirror article describing the horrible death of 21 year old Lee Beckwith in East London, after the young man was dragged for "more than a mile" by a number 25 bendy bus, without the driver realising.

Clearly the safety of bendy buses needs to be looked at properly, because nobody wants to see unnecessary harm caused, together with fare evasion on those routes. The fact remains though that Boris Johnson's much fabled new Routemaster doesn't exist. Bendy buses were introduced to high demand routes where double deckers are inaccessible and impractical because boarding takes too long.

I noted with interest a report to Swansea City Council by First Group about introducing bendy buses to the city (they are also used in Nottingham, Leeds and Manchester already, among others). Though conditions there were not thought to be comparible to London, it was noted that accidents involving the buses are "well below expectations when compared to the standard UK First Bus fleet." Worth noting. Perhaps we can learn from this in London? Or listen to it?

The most important transport issues facing London are capacity and affordability. Our network is over crowded, so we need more of it. Simple. Ken Livingstone has already got these projects agreed and underway for London, Crossrail, East London Line extension and has proposed further schemes like the Oxford Street Tram. Johnson has no new ideas of his own, which worries me. If he became Mayor , I doubt he would offer anything new or exciting, only projects he didn't devise or think of.

When offered a choice between two candidates, with the same policies, I'll be voting for the one who actually thought of them in the first place. Not the one who only has one, unworkable idea.

Ken versus Boris and Andrew

Taking transport and the so called "issue" of bendy buses in London, Andrew Gilligan has sought to attack Ken Livingstone's campaign in favour of his former paymaster Boris Johnson, yet again.

Despite the claims of Gilligan tonight that TfL's Peter Hendy acted politically in defending the use of these buses against Johnson's slurs, this wasn't the case. The "evidence" he presents shows Hendy defending the policy he enacted. That he names Johnson's campaign doesn't make a civil servant political, he was simply stating the case against someone who was criticising TfL policy. Civil servants are also meant to be anonymous traditionally, so Gilligan's article flouts that practice.

This is a red herring. Ken's transport policy for London is progressive, making travel affordable for those on low incomes and free for the young and old. Expanding the network by delivering Crossrail and better rail services will make London easier to get around for everyone. Contrast this with the Tory proposals. Replace bendy buses with an accessible Routemaster that doesn't exist. Scrap the £25 congestion charge for gas guzzlers. What effect will that have? The bendy buses will remain on the streets (where they are needed on crowded routes like the 38, 73 and 29), while the air will be more polluted. That is it. Progress versus regression.

The two visions laid out by the leading candidates for the Mayoralty are starkly different. One is ambitious, one is piecemeal at best. However, Ken's campaign needs to work hard to ensure this message gets through to voters. Johnson is being treated as a serious candidate because, with the help of his friends in the media and at Associated Newspapers, he is being seen as one, according to opinion polls.

This is going to be a hard fought campaign. For the first time since I was a pre-teen, the Tories are being treated seriously. However, the last time that happened, Labour had no record of delivery to speak of. Ken does and that gives him a position of strength.

Ken's campaign launch

I attended Ken Livingstone's campaign launch today at Royal Festival Hall. He set out his vision for London, one with better transport, lower crime, more youth provision, more affordable housing and less pollution. I was impressed, though not suprised.

Following my earlier post that Boris Johnson had no actual plan to replace bendy buses with these mystical new Routemasters, he admitted today that he really doesn't know how he plans to implement one of his best known "policies."

The choice for London is stark, ambition and progress versus stagnation and confusion.

How exactly is Boris Johnson proposing to bring back the Routemaster?

Boris Johnson keeps saying that he wants to bring to London a modern version of the Routemaster bus. Great. Only one small snag, how exactly? Where does this new bus exist and how much will it cost?

It doesn't. So nobody knows how much it will cost to research, design, build and buy. A mayoral term lasts four years, product development and licencing would take longer than that. So even if Boris managed to get a design approved it is unlikely that he would be able to replace bendy buses with a new Routemaster duting his term of office anyway.

If this is all he has to offer then London deserves more ambition than a vague and unresearched idea. It is nothing more than that.

"A spokeswoman for Johnson said the new Routemaster bus had not been designed yet it was not possible to say how many would be needed or what the total cost would be."

Boris commits to air-conditioning on tube

Boris Johnson has "pledged" to add air-conditioning to the sub-surface (District, Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan) lines on the tube. Great. Except that this is already happening as part of the PPP upgrade. Something new would be nice.

Livingstone's London cycle hire scheme

Just thought it worth pointing out that Ken Kivingstone's proposed bike hire scheme was not copied from Boris Johnson's. Mayorwatch quite rightly points out that Ken's scheme was proposed over a month before Boris was even selected as Tory candidate. There is nothing like incumbency. Ken was negotiating this in August.

Ken's London transport manifesto

Reading Boris Johnson's transport manifesto last week one could be forgiven for thinking that Crossrail and the East London Line extension weren't happening. He just seems obsessed with bendy bus soundbites. Ken's manifesto, out today, is full of ambition and progressive proposals for London.

There is a lot to get excited about in London over the next four years with the Olympics and new transport developments. On my way to watch Leyton Orient I go past the Olmypic site at it's Northern peak, by the A12 in Hackney Wick. The sheer scale of the development and the positive change it will bring to London hits you. The city will change immeasurably in the next four years.

I feel that none of the ambitious projects, Olympics, Crossrail and the East London Line Extension, would have happened under the Tories or if Johnson had been Mayor. There is obviously a great deal that could go wrong.

One part of Ken's transport manifesto that didn't get much pick up today was the plan to introduce a bicycle hire scheme, a mirror of the hugely successful one in Paris. Other new projects of note include extending Croydon Tramlink to Crystal Palace and the Oxford Street transit. Wresting control of London's railways is also being discussed. This would make a massive difference to South Londoners who don't get the benefit of the tube or Oyster pay as you go.

Progress versus posturing. That choice was made very clear today.

Jasper quits, what next for the Evening Standard?

Hopefully now that Lee Jasper has quit after the reporting of his embarrassing flirty emails yeaterday we can focus on policy in the run up to the election.

In the last couple of days there have been some good articles focusing on the issues vexing London at the moment. The Independent on Sunday's Gilligan interview, today's Guardian Livingstone interview, we have to remember that it is Ken versus Boris, not Ken versus Gilligan/Evening Standard.

Gilligan claims he isn't returning a favour to Boris Johnson for employing him at the Spectator after he lost his position at the BBC after the Hutton Enquiry. Dave Hill's "What if Boris wins?" reminded me that Johnson previously offered his support to the thankfully now jailed convicted fraudster Conrad Black.

More importantly for London, Boris has unveiled his transport manifesto. This includes "consulting" (read abolish) on the western part of the Congestion Charge zone and to get a no-strike deal with the tube unions. I can't see that happening and anyway, strikes have hardly been the scourge of the travelling public in London recently. There was no vision, no schemes to get excited about or to reduce carbon emissions.

Perhaps the only thing exicting about what Boris says is how he says it, not what he says. London needs more.

What else has Lee Jasper supposedly done?

Now the Daily Mail is accusing Lee Jasper of sending "sexually charged" messages to a woman in charge of an organisation in receipt of LDA money. This doesn't look great and takes the campaign onto a new level.

However, I'm more interested in the concept that many of the accusations against Jasper stem from alleged relationships, personal or political, that he may have with those in the ethnic minority community network. I don't think I'm missing the point, but isn't that exactly what you want in that sort of position? Surely the reason Jasper was appointed was precisely because he had such connections?

Oxford Street tram

I have just picked up that on Tuesday Ken Livingstone renewed his pledge to run a tram from Tottenham Court Road to Marble Arch along Oxford Street. Oxford Street is always blocked with buses and taxis despite all other traffic being banned. I always feel embarrassed that this is meant to be one of our flagship tourist destinations, rather it resembles a noisy and polluted shambles.

Getting rid of traffic will make the street more pleasant and show that London can really take on the challenges of climate change and of creating livable spaces - like the changes in Trafalgar Square from a few years ago.

Big up Ken. What vision has our Boris offered so far? Mayoralty should be about big projects and making people proud to live in their city. Look at the work of Bertrand Delanoë in Paris in bringing the Paris Plage and Rock en Seine or the transformation of Barcelona under Pasqual Maragall i Mira to see the pride and rebirth a forward thinking mayor prepared to face criticism from conservatives can do.

Conrad Black's appeal should fail - get the man in jail!

Does anyone remember the Canadian who renounced his nationality to become British and become a British peer? Conrad Black was recommended to become a Lord by then Tory Leader and current Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague.

Black was convicted of fraud last summer and has somehow dodged jail. His days of freedom seem numbered now though as his latest appeal against his conviction. The Press Association reports that:

"US prosecutors said an emergency request by lawyers for the 63-year-old former owner of the Daily Telegraph that he should remain free on bail pending the outcome of an appeal should be denied."

Get him behind bars like all other convicts.

Oh, I must thank Hague for giving us this wonderful man.

The campaign against Ken

It has been commented that I was wrong to state that the campaign against Ken Livingstone and Lee Jasper has singly been at the hands of the Evening Standard. It was cited that Channel 4's Dispatches aired an attack of Ken's powers. The programme argued that the Mayor has too much power. The summary states that Martin Bright:

"(investigates) the lack of checks and balances on the mayor which allows him to create and instigate costly and controversial policies, at public expense without wider scrutiny or approval."

Ken himself stated that if extra checks and balances were put in place, he would be happy. He also responded in more detail in Bright's New Statesman, setting out why he thinks he deserves to win in May. You may recall that part of Bright's programme sought to investigate whether a glass Ken had used contained any trace of alcohol. I really cannot take this seriously. Radio 4 reported on Dispatches and what others were "reporting."

Dave Hill reports on last night's Influentials Debate, where Ken gave a strong defence of his record and against Gilligan's attacks. Ken stated "what hasn't been produced is any evidence to sustain...the Evening Standard implying that Lee Jasper has been a beneficiary of this. That's what's outrageous." Without laying specific evidence and proof, Richard Barnes' "tide of corruption" claim does not stand up.

The Evening Standard and those campaigning for Boris want us to be caught up in these arguments rather than positively campaigning on Labour's undoubtedly progressive record in London. I'll finish with a short list:

• Congestion charge
• More social housing
• Free travel for the young and those on income support
• Plans for a sustainable city by 2020
• Improvements to buses

Lee Jasper, the media...

Yesterday's post that the police have stated that they cannot charge Lee Jasper with any offences seems to have caused a stir. There are two points here:

1. My main point from yesterday being that the Evening Standard had been all over the Lee Jasper story, but once something that didn't suit their line came out, almost nothing
2. Second being that commented on here yesterday by the "GLA Spokesperson" that nobody has actually presented the police with criminal allegations - they'd much rather mouth off to the press than have to offer substantive proof

I have no vested interest in Lee Jasper and I've no idea whether any of these allegations have any vestige of truth about them. My point is that the Tory media are hounding him and are using people like Richard Barnes to do their dirty work. As yet Barnes hasn't come forward and given whatever evidence he may have for making these allegations to the police.

Therefore, I find Libdemvoice's thoughts amusing, when they say my post was "Labour spin" about the police "clearing" Jasper of charges he hasn't been charged with. The challenge is actually to see whether Barnes will put up or shut up - and the Evening Standard will follow suit.

I'm not going to respond in detail to Sharon's charge sheet, these charges are not for me to answer. If the police cannot investigate because nobody has made any allegations to them, the same applies to the District Auditor, someone has to complain for there to be an investigation. My experience from Islington and the Standards Board's investigation into the appointment of Helen Bailey by the Lib Dems as Chief Executive of the council isn't a good one. Aside from the findings, it took three and a half years, lots of expense, while Bailey remained in post.

Lee Jasper to face no charges

The police have decided that Ken Livingstone's suspended race advisor Lee Jasper hasn't committed a criminal offence. The politically motivated campaign against Jasper and Livingstone by Associated Newspapers and the London Evening Standard has been brutal. Trawling thisislondon and dailymail.co.uk I see no mention of this. So far this "scandal" has only been written about by BBC, The Guardian and a couple of local papers.

I'm sure there will be a response from Gilligan and the Standard but as yet, they haven't published one. Not that surprising really when one considers this is hardly the news they will have wanted and likely to be exactly the news Livingstone expected when he asked the police to investigate.

There is a bit more buzz on the blogosphere. Laughably the "Battle for Britain" now claims the police are corrupt for convicting Nick Griffin on "lesser charges" than Jasper. Author Philip Bryant does describbe himself as a "nationalist nutter" though. Some more balanced and journalistic reoprting is found on Mayor Watch, while Lib Dem Voice thinks that Livingstone was possibly wrong to ask th epolice to investigate in the first place if there was nothing to answer for. I think that is a little naive considering the mealstrom that built up.

Next up for Jasper, complaints that despite his job being politically restricted, that he told The voice newspaper that he was backing Ken for Mayor. Does that count as campaigning? It shouldn't really surprise anyone that he would say this when he owes his position to his boss, Ken.

Emily Thornberry and poverty in Islington

Thank you to Emily Thornberry's office (MP for Islington South and Finsbury) for putting some useful statistics my way on how unemployment levels and tax credits have helped people in her constituency. This follows yesterday's post citing a Telegraph article claiming that some of Thornberry's consituents are among the most depenedent on benefits in the country.

In last year's budget debate, Ms Thornberry cited that:

"In Islington, South and Finsbury that means that, whereas unemployment was up at 5,319 when Labour came to power in 1997, it has now more than halved to 2,386.

"Here is an example of where our policies have helped one of my constituents. Ms B is a single parent who works about 20 hours a week as a nursery nurse. Her net wages—the Liberal Democrats should listen to this; I urge them to change their ideas on tax credits—are only £127 a week, which is about the same amount that she would get if she stayed at home on benefits. However, working tax credit, child tax credit and child benefit together contribute another £123 a week, bringing her total to £250 a week. Now that really is making work pay."

So getting people back into work and making it worthwhile financially to do so are so important. However, subsidising low pay is not ideal and therefore we need a higher skill set so that the jobs people get actually pay them properly.

Black Watch

My previous conrad Black post was linked in the comments to a running story at Toronto Life. I like their dedicated Conrad Black section. I wish I'd discovered this before. I wonder if they will visit him in jail, when he finally bothers to turn up?

Islington dependent on benefits?

According to the Daily Telegraph, Islington South is one of the five constituencies most dependent on benefits in Britain. Another former home of mine, Manchester Central is the most dependent, with 49% of households dependent on benefits. Others in the list include Liverpool Riverside, Poplar and Glasgow North East.

The New Deal was a good start but more must be done to break the dependence on benefits and to help people back into work, provide affordable childcare where needed and give people the skills they need. No small matter of course.

It doesn't really surprise me when I think of Manchester Central and large parts of Islington South. What is galling is that both areas mix great poverty and wealth, wealth which clearly isn't filtering through to everyone.

A Labour London Mayor will help, with what might seem like small gestures making a huge difference to those on low incomes, these include concessionary fares on public transport for those on income support.

I'm waiting to see if any local politicians or media pick up on this...

Conrad black still not in jail

I find it unfathomable that convicted fraudster Conrad Black remains a free man, despite being sentenced on 10 December 2007. He is due 'inside' on March 3, almost three months from sentencing and eight months from his July 2007 conviction.

It gets better, now Black is asking for the start of his jail sentence to be delayed while he composes his appeal. What about all the other convicts languishing inside while they appeal their verdicts? I suppose they have never been a lord so it is different for them. Black has put up $21m bail, but still stands guilty so should be inside. I am hopeful after his previous request for a delayed start to his sentence was denied on Janaury 31.

Just as a reminder, this is the man William Hague recommended for a peerage when Tory leader.

Councillor pay

With the cash for honours affair, Derek Conway and the stupidly poor administration of some of Labour's deputy leadership candidates, paying for democracy is high on the agenda. There are many stories of lazy councillors, some of which I've highlighted here, so living in Islington with the highest paid councillors in the country, I was intruiged by a Dorset councillor's plan for "pay as you work" allowances.

Tory cllr Nick King of Bournemouth Borough Council believes councillors should be paid for the work they do. I agree. Like any normal employee, publicly funded representatives should account for what they do. I don't agree that they should be paid according to the meetings they attend, but I do agree that performance should be rewarded where appropriate and the lazy ones "fined."

Looks like fraud to me

Fraud was my first thought on reading that Tory MP Derek Conway had paid his two sons to work for him while students. The full facts need to be established, but weith the Standards Committee having already found no evidence of the work of one, this looks incredibly fishy. I don't think suspension from the Commons is sufficient. Most people caught stealing from their employers would be sacked and prosecuted. Conway deserves the same and I'm expecting the police to investigate fully.

Council candidate too ill to work climbed ladders

More from the Birmingham court case of Saeed Aehmed/Ahmed (he changed his name to Aehmed to move up the ballot paper, allegedly). See this from the birmingham Post for details of his name change. I've often thought I'm unfairly disadvantaged to be called McLoughlin. I welcome suggestions to get me m oved up the ballot paper. Comments please!

Readers may recall that Aehmed claimed Incapacity Benefit for 25 years but felt fit enough to stand in several local elections, hold local party positions and campaign. Apparently this included carrying ladders and putting up posters.

These absurd cases would amuse me if they weren't true. I can't quite believe that people think they can get away with this, if it is true, or that these intra-party squabbles have to end up in court. These guys should take a reality check.

Attacks on Ken Livingstone are politically motivated

I agree with my Labour GLA member Jennette Arnold that the recent spate of media attacks against Ken Livingstone are politically motivated. Like others I know that the Evening Standard, Andrew Gilligan and others who attack Ken are doing so to boost the Tory campaign for mayor. London's voters are faced with a choice between Ken who has massively improved London's transport, had the courage to introduce the congestion charge and lead on climate change - or Boris Johnson. This is serious.

I'm disappointed but not surprised that Meral Ece, Jennette's Lib Dem opponent, has tried to fire a few cheap political shots at Jennette and Ken on her new blog. Clearly Meral's blog is a first draft, having known Jennette for some time, describing her as "one of Ken's most loyal bag carriers" is laughable and simplistic.

London global leader for electric vehicles

I read the automotive trade press for one of my clients and was pleased to see that the industry regards London as a market leader for electric vehicles. Automotive News Europe quoted Steve Schneider, CEO of electric car maker ZAP, "London has a very environmentally friendly congestion charge as well as free parking and free recharging for electric cars, the demand seems to be there, which is why London is the first place in Europe we're launching."

This pleases me as it shows that political leadership from Mayor Livingstone has created demand for more environmentally friendly products. Introducing the congestion charge and low emission zone has seen London take top spot in Europe for the technology.

Livingstone has shown effective leadership in tackling climate change, establishing a blueprint for a sustainable London in 2020, something I have written about previously. London needs Ken.

Hain quits

Peter Hain has quit the cabinet after his funding mess was referred to the police. He has been naive in not making sure his papers were in order, if not malicious and has paid a heavy price. For something rather avoidable and pointless I think this was inevitable but also a bit of a waste of a long career.

Hain and party funding

All along my thoughts are that Peter Hain has been a very silly man in letting himself get embroiled in a funding "scandal" at a time when political funding was high on the agenda. Surely this is the time to be super careful? After the whole cash for honours or not fiasco, following years of corruption claims against the Tories, surely a seemingly able politician should have been aware that he needed to be water-tight?

On Sunday Andrew Rawnsley had it right: "the political classes even now don't get it. After all the sleaze eruptions of the Major and the Blair years, you would have thought that any politician with a care for his or her reputation would be careful to the point of paranoia about funding. If only for reasons of self-preservation, they ought to have the rules lasered on to their eyeballs and those of everyone who works for them."

I just don't get why leading politicians don't employ decent lawyers to work with the electoral commission to make sure everything is above board. What is even more absurd is that many of these problems are arising from laws that Labour put in place only recently. So we should know better.

It appears the Tories are still frightened about Michael Ashcroft and would rather not make themselves targets by attacking Labour on funding when there are so many questions about their own banker.

By refusing to look at state funding for political parties and allowing these pointless "scandals" to repeat themselves, leading politicians are damaging faith in politics when it really isn't necessary.

Meral Ece's blog

Yesterday I was alerted to Islington Mildmay Lib Dem Councillor and GLA election candidate Meral Ece's new blog. She fought Dianne Abbott's Hackney North and Stoke Newington seat in 2001, coming third behind the Tories.

Personally I find the blog quite hard to read because the posts are too long, a bit of a brain-dump it seems. However, I'll be keeping an eye on it over the coming weeks and months. It looks to me like she has started it purely because there is an election coming up in May.

I was interested to note that she thinks that "Brown of (sic) Cameron, who lead parties with far more common ground (than the Lib Dems have with either)." What a load of tosh. She might be interested to recall that both the Lib Dems and the Tories voted against the National Minimum Wage.

Decline in trust?

An interesting circular about social media arrived on my desk from one of our competitors yesterday. The un-named company quoted data from Datamonitor's 2003 Euromonitor survey, where people in several Western European countries were asked whether they trust:

The press
Radio
Television
Political parties
Big companies
Religious institutions

For the UK, according to the survey, 78% of British people don't trust the press. This is a typical result. People frequrently say they don't trust journalists, politicians and estate agents. Nothing new there, people are never going to admit to believing everything they read if you ask them. However, compare the supposed distrust of the press with some views you often hear on the doorstep and the reality is somewheat different.

Quite often people will tell me that eastern Europeans/asylum seekers/immigrants have taken all the housing. Where do they get this information from? It must be the press. According to a survey reported today, only 1% of social housing has gone to east European migrants.

Interestingly, the French and Germans are less trustful of politicians than the British. The Dutch are the most trusting. Voter turnout in these countries doesn't seem to be affected by a direct relationship to the trust levels. In elections since 1960, turnout in Germany is 86%, in France and the UK are identical at 76%. This shows that trust is only one factor to take into account, though obviously still important.

Lib Dem Council annual report - Summer 2007

I have just received a copy of James Kempton's (Lib Dem Leader of Islington Council) annual report, dated Summer 2007. Not bad getting that in mid-January 2008.

So taking a look at his claims I thought I'd see how many Lib Dem "achievements" are actually because of Labour Government policy or money. These three stand out:

More police
All secondary schools refurbished or rebuilt
Building new homes

In the centre there is a map of Islington with arrows pointing to specific points, where it implies specific improvements have been made. Only political zealots like me will read this, but I did and it transpires this is just another list of Islington's achievements, which are actually because they have either been forced into them by government policy, like improved recycling, or given ring-fenced money by the government for specific purposes.

Affordable housing: Kempton claims the borough has built 3000 new homes. Actually, developers and housing associations have built new "affordable" homes. Islington has failed to meet the Mayor's standard of 50% affordable, instead falling well below 20%.

More police and PCSOs: Safer Neighbourhoods is another Labour policy. Cutting crime? Crime figures have fallen nationally for several years.

Common sense parking: new parking guidance for councils is to be implemented nationwide from March, on the basis of Department for Transport guidance.

All this simply reinforces my view of Islington's Lib Dem council, they haven't offered a vision of change for the area, they have simply managed the council. We could really do with much better at a time when we've seen so much public renewal. Perhaps it wouldn't be possible to produce a leaflet showing only their own achievements as there would be nothing on it. Got to get rid of that glossy paper some how.

Ken Livingstone unveils first manifesto pledge

Today Ken Livingstone unveiled his first manifesto pledge ahead of this spring's London Mayoral elections, giving pensioners 24 hours of free travel. Despite 80% of over 60s being retired, many need to travel before 9, so this will extend all day free travel to them, the same benefit enjoyed by under 18s in education.

This shows London leading the way as a progressive city that the rest of the UK and EU can look up to and has been welcomed by Islington's Labour Councillor Wally Burgess. Cllr Burgess said: “This is great news for Islington’s older residents – a manifesto pledge for 24 hour freedom on London’s tubes, buses and trains. With Ken as our Mayor in London, Islington is moving in the right direction. Also, more people using public transport reduces carbon emissions.”

Party donations

Thinking more about Peter Hain's "mistakes" and that he this is now to be officially investigated is it worth speculating more on what happened? For me, he made quite a large oversight at a time when political donations were high on the political agenda. There really was no need for this. It shows incompetance at the very least. I don't think it was malicious, but this affair has heaped negative publicity when the Party needed it least.

If Hain survives he deserves a severe ticking off at the minimum. I still can't understand what he needed all that money for. Having had it, he didn't spend it very wisely. I suppose I feel slightly sorry for him that he let himself get in this situation. For the Party, I'm just fed up with this series of administration blunders diverting attention from trying to govern and setting the political agenda.

My previous posts on this matter were linked by "Guy Fawkes" under the banner "Labour rank and file disown Hain." This is turn led to attention from BBC Radio 4's World at One asking for my views.

Clegg makes first keynote speech

Unfortunately for Nick Clegg and Peter Hain, Clegg's first keynote speech as leader of the Lib Dems isn't the top story anywhere. Hain is. A quick glance around the news sites shows Hain firmly perched in pole position. BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, The Times, even the Indie (well it is a magazine really and they probably can't afford to update their website at the weekends). People obviously don't care. What is clear is that nobody is remotely interested in the Lib Dems and that Hain has been in the headlines for too long and will be off shortly.

Poor administration, what about your department?

So as Peter Hain continues to blame "poor administration" for the funding mess surrounding his Deputy Leadership campaign, some rather large questions need to be answered. Some already have. If he is unable to run his own small office effectively, how can one expect him to properly manage the Department for Work and Pensions?

One question I do have, is why did he need £200000 to run a campaign he was never likely to win for a post that is totally pointless?

Donations, paperwork...

Now that Peter Hain has got in on the act and "forgotten" to declare over £100k of donations that he himself solicited, I'm feeling a little tired of all this. He has said he "takes responsibility" for this. So what does that mean? Saying sorry and taking the heat and carrying on in Cabinet?

Normally I feel quite tolerant of genuine mistakes, however, even if Hain didn't personally have to fill out the forms for the Electoral Commission himself, surely he is responsible for ensuring that it got done. Political parties need to be more savvy and ensure they appoint good lawyers and get everything checked to be absolutely certain everything is above board.

I have come across people who have worked (or do work) for Hain in the past and I sincerely hope that he hasn't filled his office with political zealots who have never worked outside politics. With that amount of money coming in I'm sure he could afford some proper staff.

If there is nothing illegal about the money itself (there has been no suggestion that there is), then why get embroiled in a row over poor administration? Totally avoidable.

Being a councillor isn't working?

It obviously doesn't count if you are a Lib Dem.

In Birmingham a Lib Dem has been claiming Incapacity Benefit because he is too ill to work. However, Saeed Ahmed obviously didn't have a problem with running for election in 2002, 2004 and 2007. The reason why - according to the Birmingham Mail, because "he thought it would be an easy life." !!!

Ahmed was kicked out of the Labour Party after originally being selected as a Labour candidate when he failed to answer questions about this.

I suppose it is if you don't bother doing anything to help the people who might have elected you in your ward.

The pure cheek of it. This country.

Tim McLoughlin is one of the cleverest public intellectuals in Britain

Yes, indeed, it is true. Tristam Hunt has named me as one of his "new generation of public intellectuals." This features in Arena Magazine's February issue, page 118 to be precise, in an article on the cleverest men in Britain. Me. Yes. More soon. Read the article:

New Year, New Labour?

There is no doubt this is a big year for Labour. The biggest since 1996. Gordon Brown needs to re-take control of the political agenda otherwise he will be a lame duck PM. In the same way as one's boss is always asking one to be proactive at work, Brown needs to be proactive and pre-empting problems. He has taken a hit for things that haven't been his fault mainly because he hasn't looked strong enough or reacted in the right way.

How can he do this? Seeking to be firm and fair on party funding would be a start. It might not be that popular but state funding of political parties is the only way to stop accusations of cash currying favour. State funding would need to gain the support of the voting public by showing it to be fair and impartial. Democracy and politics has to be paid for somehow and this is the least bad option.

He also could do with looking at key posts in government and the civil service? Are all key personnel comptent? Ratings would tumble if another example of government incompetance arose.

Is Brown up to the challenge? I think so, but I'm not quite sure.