Labour for London Mayor, but who?

Alan Johnson isn't running for London mayor, therefore it looks like a battle between Oona King and Ken Livingstone to be Labour's candidate. If King is to prevent Livingstone winning she will need to show she has the ideas and vision to change London. I'm convinced that Labour needs a new candidate to stand a chance of winning.

Comment among friends and colleagues in the Labour Party tallies with my feeling that it is time for Livingstone to move on. Labour needs a new candidate to convince the electorate that Labour is forward looking and has new people and ideas for London, and the country. A Livingstone - BJ fight would risk a re-hash of 2008.

King's pitch is focused on community engagement and young people. I agree with her that Boris Johnson has done very little with his role. It is still too early to compare King's plans for London with Livingstone's as neither has set these out in detail yet.

I don't think there is a danger of Livingstone running as an independent should he lose the selection. Nothing is ever certain with him but in 2000 he was prevented from standing as Labour's candidate. Losing a fair and open selection would be different. It would also be wrong of Livingstone to hold the threat of running as an independent over the Labour Party to force a result in the selection. There is no evidence this is the case, though scarred by the split in 2000, many in the London Labour Party fear a repeat.

King's appeal, as detailed by Dave Hill, is toward the younger members in the Labour Party. It is unclear as yet whether this enthusiasm is shared by Londoners in general and, importantly, those living in outer London boroughs.

There isn't too long to go and this race will run parallel to that for Labour leader, though the winner is (perhaps) likely to taste power sooner than the victor of the leadership election if the hype of the Con-Dem coalition can carry it through for a full five years.

Oona King for Mayor?

With Oona King joining the list of potential candidates for Labour's London mayoral candidate this particular race could be deemed more interesting than that for the Labour leadership. Alan Johnson is rumoured to be standing and previous mayor Ken Livingstone also plans to run. Is this race looking to be more heavyweight than the race to be Labour leader?

I've not yet decided who I will support for leader as I don't feel there is much choice - perhaps this is because I wanted Johnson. If Johnson runs for mayor, together with a female candidate in King, does Livingstone stand a chance? I feel that any of these three candidates gives Labour a good chance of beating incumbent Tory Boris Johnson. If Labour wins the mayoral election that will give the party a springboard for the next general election. Victory will mean that Labour is a credible option for power nationally.

Having been mayor for eight years, having made many major improvements to London but also looking to have run out of steam I don't think Ken Livingstone would be the best candidate. He would risk focusing the campaign on the past when what Labour needs is fresh ideas and a fresh candidate. I'm a big fan of (Alan) Johnson, but King could provide the freshness Labour in London needs.

Did social media revolutionise the UK's general election campaign?

This post first appeared on Metrica's blog, Measurement Matters. 

I have been looking at what other commentators have had to say on whether we had an internet election. Did social media revolutionise our election campaign or merely show an evolution towards digital media?

There were victims who committed their “crimes” in social media, though very few. The spoofing of election posters at MyDavidCameron were the most memorable social media aspect of the campaign. Tech Radar argues that social media has “diluted the power of political posters…and it’s done the same with newspapers”. This is certainly true. Was this a revolution? Not really. This election will be remembered as the television election. It was the first in the UK with televised debates between the main party leaders. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown will likely also be remembered for criticising a voter when he thought his TV microphone had been turned off.

In a detailed account of the internet election Mark Pack points out that internet polling was widely used for the first time. This enabled polling companies to deliver almost real time poll results after the leaders’ debates. The internet has certainly fed mainstream media outlets with faster access to voters’ views, either through polling or raw comments on Twitter. Social media and the internet has helped parties and candidates organise their campaigns and volunteers. Whether it really changed how anyone voted is unclear. The resources available online make it easier for voters to find out about their candidates, as Left Foot Forward suggested. 

Echoing the findings of Metrica and Fishburn Hedges’ Mood-O-Meter, Tweetminster concluded that “there is a strong correlation between online buzz and party performance.” Our Mood-0-Meter showed positive buzz for the party leaders in line with party performance at the polls. Whilst it wouldn’t be right to say that social media provides an online opinion poll, people talk about what matters. The huge increase in buzz for Nick Clegg after the first leaders’ debate reflected public opinion and polling surveys.  

The BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones asked if politicians and voters are likely to be more inclined to use social media in the future. I think so, with many new MPs elected, many of them much younger than those they replaced, the appetite for social media will grow and is likely to become an integral part of future elections.  

The revolution hasn’t happened yet though. So far social media has played a role without taking centre stage, far more evolution than revolution.

House of Comments podcast

On Tuesday I took part in my first House of Comments podcast. This is a weekly political podcast run by Lib Dem blogger Mark Thompson of Mark Reckons and Stuart Sharpe of Sharpe's Opinion. Alongside me the final guest was Allen Green, Jack of Kent. You can listen to it free through iTunes. I recommend that you don't just listen but in fact subscribe. Each week a different group of bloggers from across the political spectrum discuss the issues of the day. I hope to be back on there again soon.

We discussed the ongoing Labour leadership election, the Con-Dem coalition and its prospects and the libel trial of left wing blogger Dave Osler.

Taking each issue in turn. I'm undecided about who to support for the Labour leadership. I would have supported Alan Johnson, but he isn't standing. Interestingly both Mark and Stuart thought he would be Labour's best choice. He has a great Labour story of a working class upbringing. He is from the south and Labour needs to win seats in the south if it is to regain power. He comes across naturally on TV. Without him in the race I am waiting for the other candidates to convince me that they are worthy of my vote. Though I've not decided if I'll vote for him yet I'll include a picture of one of my election campaign highlights: straightening David Milliband's tie at a fund-raiser for Edmonton MP Andy Love.

The Con-Dem coalition deal has now been set out in more detail. I think this could well last the distance though I expect there to be casualties. In the short term Vince Cable looks like a strong contender for early victim having been given little real power as Business Secretary and the responsibility for privatising Royal Mail. John Major's Tories failed to do it. Gordon Brown's Labour failed to do it. Now it looks like it is the Lib Dem's turn to get embroiled in an unpopular mess. It couldn't happen to nicer people. In the longer term the Lib Dems may well suffer electorally as a result of working with the Tories. Their seats in Scotland where the Tories are widely despised look increasingly vulnerable.

Finally, Dave Osler's libel case. He was sued for libel after linking to someone else's blog post. After two years the case was thrown out of court. Jack of Kent gives a far better account than I ever could so I suggest you read that. There In closing I'd like to congratulate Jack of Kent for being short-listed for the Orwell Prize, a great honour for some great blogging.

Johnson versus Johnson for Mayor?

Last week The Guardian's Dave Hill speculated that Alan Johnson may have withdrawn from the Labour leadership race to instead focus his attention on fighting Boris Johnson for London mayor in 2012. The Evening Standard and New Statesman has now picked up on this.

I would have voted for him in a leadership contest and would certainly back him for Mayor. He is a person first and a politician second, someone who comes across as having humility and the style to work on TV - while coming across as genuine.

I think Johnson versus Johnson would be a great fight.

The two-headed beast

After spending an intense month campaigning to turn Islington Labour again I can now turn my thoughts back to blogging. Politics is interesting again. Everyone is talking about it. Nick Clegg is talking to everyone.

My expectation was that the election would produce a narrow Tory victory. It has produced a hung parliament which has left Nick Clegg as king-maker despite his party's own disappointing election results. I have commented on the World Service twice since the election that this was the election that everybody lost. Labour lost being in charge. The Tories had expected to win a majority and failed after the electorate who might have been ready for a change were not convinced by David Cameron. The Lib Dems failed to capitalise on Clegg's short-lived popularity after the leader debates.

Which way should the Lib Dems face? I have said before that until they decide whether they are predominately a classical liberal party or a social democratic party the Lib Dems will not be able to progress. Having to choose between a coalition with the Tories or Labour might force the issue. It could end up breaking the Lib Dems as members and voters might punish them for picking the "wrong" side in a coalition deal.

The evidence from local government suggest that the Lib Dems are happier bedfellows of the Tories than with Labour. This counters the commonly held view that the Lib Dems are quite left wing. They are not. Their party has typically sided with the Tories in local government when given the option to keep Labour out. See examples in Birmingham and Southwark. Now that they can smell power they are doing whatever they can to get their hands on it and I expect the Lib Dems to do whatever they can to get what they want. They want power and the want electoral reform.

Positions in cabinet could do for the Lib Dems what the second world war did for Labour. It will give them experience and credibility in government that they currently lack. Electoral reform is the important second stage because it then gives them a chance of an electoral breakthrough, impossible for a third party under first past the post.

Getting a referendum on electoral reform might get the Lib Dems a temporary seat at the cabinet table but it might not deliver the full scale reform the party wants. If the country votes against reform or if it seriously wounds the party by angering those against a Tory/Labour/any coalition then the Lib Dems might go from king-maker to dodo.

On the campaign trail

I need to keep this blog warm while I spend my evenings on the doorstep. Enjoy this little gem courtesy of Corby Labour Party:

Clean politics: state funding of political parties

I've long said that the only way to clean up politics is to end all interference from outside interests is to stop MPs taking second jobs and stop outside donations to political parties. That means state funding of political parties. The same argument is usually given against it - that people already fed up with politics and politicians won't want to pay even more for it. A clean politics free of vested interests and sleaze is a price worth paying and a price those fed up with corruption would be prepared to pay. I was pleased to read that the Evening Standard's city editor Chris Blackhurst agrees with state funded political parties. It is the only way for voters to be able to believe politicians from all parties are free of vested interests.

Whatever happened to Boris' 'war on roadworks'?

I saw that there are now record levels of roadworks in London. I remember going to a mayoral hustings where Boris Johnson scoffed at then mayor Ken Livingstone's claim that disruptions then were largely due to Thames Water. He now uses that as his excuse for the current disruption - probably now that he has actually checked his facts. Like many of his other campaign and manifesto pledges, where is Boris' 'war on roadworks'?  That needs to be added to the growing list of unfulfilled pledges:

• Chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority
• 50,000 new affordable homes
• Closing tube ticket offices
• Giving Londoners more bang for their buck with the LDA
• No cabinet for London

Boris Johnson's mayoralty has no purpose. The only point was simply to gain power for the sake of it. He is demonstrating that by consistently failing to deliver on even his own promises - let alone the expectations of  Londoners.

Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt look rather silly today after being caught on camera boasting about how they could influence government policy for money.

Lobbying has happened for a long time. It isn't new. There are 61 companies registered with trade body the Association for Professional Political Consultants who represent the lobbying industry. The industry has largely been self regulating to date though the current backlash against politicians following expenses means that Hoon, Hewitt and Byers' antics won't be popular with voters.

Neither is it new for politicians to seek lucrative employment making money out of their connections once their political career has peaked. A high profile example is former Prime Minister John Major is working for the Carlyle Group.

What has changed is people's attitude to money. This might be an effect of the recession. The fact that it is now news may be a good thing for the long term probity of politics because it shows that people are becoming less tolerant of people making money for the sake of it and distorting the political process at the same time. If we have a system where those with the deepest pockets get what they want at the expense of those who can't afford to pay confidence in democracy will be hit.

That these particular three former Labour ministers have been caught red-faced won't worry too many Labour members. They have never been well liked. The bigger impact will be felt on the doorstep where voters will tire of another piece of the political block of confidence being chipped away. Remember that Hoon and Hewitt were also behind the January failed coup against Gordon Brown. This affair and particularly Byers' boasting on camera smacks of fallen stars trying to prove to their egos that they still matter. Unfortunately their latest intervention could mean that ordinary members will face the backlash from voters at the doorstep.

Clean politics: Tory donates £142,000 to his own campaign

Edmonton Tory candidate and nightclub owner Andrew Charalambous has reportedly donated over £142,000 to his own election campaign.

The figures released by the Electoral Commission and first reported by the Financial Times, have since been followed up by the Evening Standard after the local Labour Party highlighted it. I have had reports that Charalambous has paid for mugs with his name on, an air balloon with his face on and has been leafleting local churches. For his sake I really hope he realises that there is a spending limit of around £30-40,000 per candidate, per constituency. I guess that looking at recent results in Andy Love's constituency there isn't much likelihood that Lord Ashcroft's Belize fund would deem it a marginal seat and Charalambous has felt it necessary to dip into his own pockets.

Wouldn't the Tory party have preferred his money to be spent elsewhere?

Cashcroft debate on BBC News Channel

Last night I debated the gravity of the Ashcroft affair with Politcalbetting.com's Mike Smithson and Chair to Tory Future Michael Rock. Watch the clip. My key point was that we need people to have confidence in politics and whether Ashcroft has broken the law or not, the stench from his secretive affairs chip away at this. Could the Tories enter office already tainted by sleaze?

Cashcroft and Hague's pals

The Ashcroft heat has rightly turned to William Hague after Tory colleagues expressed dismay that he kept Cameron in the dark over his knowledge of Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status. Did Billy Fizz think he was still leader by mistake?

Lets remind ourselves of some of Hague's highlights whilst leader:

• That Hague baseball cap
• Boasting that he used to down 14 pints a day
• Describing Jeffery Archer as a man of "probity and integrity" - before seeing him go to jail for lying
• Recommending Conrad Black for a peerage
• Promising that Michael Ashcroft would pay tax in the UK in return for a peerage

This story still has legs as long as questions remain about William Hague.

William Hague's pals: Ashcroft and Black

The continuing furore over Lord Ashcroft's tax status and his funding of the Tory election campaign has left William Hague "exposed". It should also be stacked alongside his other high profile recommendation for a peerage: Conrad Black, who is in jail for fraud.

Hague judgement is facing serious questions not least because even recently he denied knowledge of Ashcroft's tax status, which he has now admitted to knowing. Hague has also claimed that it was not his business to question Ashcroft about his tax. This doesn't stand up when set against Hague's prediction that AShcorft's "move" to the UK would bring in "tens of millions of pounds a year” in tax revenue. Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Tuyrnbull has criticised Hague for saying that "that this was the real deal. It turns out that Ashcroft is being economical with the truth and that Hague fell for it".


Hague has seemingly lied about his knowledge of Ashcroft's tax status very recently. He has protected an ally who has consistently backed the him and also the Tory party when they were at a very low ebb, post 1997. The political capital of continuing to back Ashcroft is now running out. If this story continues to run it will stain any Tory victory and if that happened, they would enter office with suggestions of sleaze already hanging over them.

Cashcroft?

Lord Ashcroft probably thought that by ending years of speculation and announcing his status as a non-dom that after a couple of days of hysteria, the story would be killed. So far the hullabaloo around Ashcroft's tax status has grown rather than diminished. This is a problem for the Tories and politics generally because his donations to the Tory election fund open suggestions that his money is 'buying' the election. Cash for honours and covert funding of political parties undermines confidence in the UK's political process.


The Ashcroft affair suggest politics can be bought. With a high number of extremely marginal seats fought in this year's election increased funding for local campaigns from Ashcroft's money will be able to make a key difference. Aside from the promises he is said to have made about paying tax in the UK to gain a peerage, Ashcroft's money raises  serious questions about the influence of private money over our elections.


Michael White highlights how it isn't just the non-dom problem that is an issue here. It is the influence of someone who doesn't pay tax here having over Tory policy making and campaigning in marginal seats: "Ashcroft is using what should have been taxpayers' money to finance his campaign in the marginals". This affair also leaves serious questions unanswered abut Ashcroft's influence over Cameron and Hague - the latter of which also recommended convicted fraudster Conrad Black for a peerage whilst Tory leader. 


State funding of politics would ensure that accusations over political donations, such as those by Lord Ashcroft, would be banished. A fully elected second chamber would also banish the potential to buy influence in our legislature. James Purnell, a sad loss to the commons, agrees. Only this way can we start to restore faith in our politics.

Facebook readers remember to comment on the official blog at http://timmymc.blogspot.com

"A different type of people"

According to Tory MP Nicholas Winterton "a different type of people travel in standard class on trains." That would be people like me. Apparently standard class is noisy and full of people spying on each other. 


David Mellor said after being attacked by Ann and Nicholas Winterton about his affair in 1992, that "Being attacked by the Wintertons always brings the rest of the party behind you." Perhaps Winterton has always been an outsider. His comments mean that he should remain so and it is a good thing that he is standing down after the election. His comments and attitude is unhelpful for politics at a time when public confidence in politicians has hit a low after the expenses scandal. His attitude to the public shows a desire for the deferential politics of yonder. Good riddance.

Electioneering on Google Maps

The Brighton Argus has started an interactive Google Map, inviting readers to mark where they have seen local parliamentary candidates campaigning and what they said, if they spoke to them. This is a great way of showing how much campaigning is actually going on and how active each of the candidates is. What it is likely to show is how each party focuses their campaign on different parts of the Brighton Pavillion seat. Each party will be focused on getting out their voters. I'm going to be interested to see if all of the three main parties, plus the greens, are targeting the same areas.

Do politicians respond well to being tracked down? The recent re-launch of Eye Spy MP on Twitter caused a minor stir after the complaints from MPs about the original incarnation, Parliament Spy, were aired in the Telegraph. It mirrors those occasionally amusing and rather pointless spots of celebrities the public send in to trashy mags: "I saw Cassandra from Only Fools and Horses in Highbury Fields." That I actually did see. There is certainly a place for the cheeky anonymous posts and I enjoy reading them.

The politicians may not like it, but this is a great example of tracking political campaigns and I'd be keen to see this rolled out. From a campaigning perspective it provides fantastic intelligence on the opposition's activities.

Something for nothing? The London Evening Standard to begin charging again

This post first appeared on the Metrica blog, Measurement Matters

It has emerged that the Evening Standard is to charge again, for newspapers sold in the outer suburbs of London, having been free since August 2009. Is this a minor distribution shift or does it signal the end of free evening newspapers in the capital? 

London’s streets were littered with celebrity focused free-sheets every evening between 2006 and summer 2009. This resulted from a “war” between Rupert Murdoch’s News International, incarnated by thelondonpaper and Associated Newspapers’ LondonLite. This phenomenon ended after Associated sold theEvening Standard to ex-KGB officer, Alexander Lebedev and Rupert Murdoch embarked on his paid-for content crusade.The title then shifted its positioning from being London’s paid for (self proclaimed) “quality daily”, became free itself and took back the London evening monopoly it had enjoyed for decades.

Distribution soared to over 600,000 copies a day after the cover price was dropped. This is more than double the paid-for circulation. There have since been murmurings that customers in the suburbs had complained that theycould nolonger get hold of the newspaper, as distribution networks focused on central London after the title was given away free. It appears that this move is a response to those demands.

Further details of the Evening Standard’s plans are yet to emerge; though it is clear that charging for suburban copies covers the additional distribution costs. On a grander scale, does the shift to charging suggest that the title is again to become paid for across London? Cynics might expect that this is exactly the plan having seen off the free-sheet competition. I’d suggest otherwise, as Steve Busfield, Editor of Mediaguardian.co.uk, outlines:

“Once Associated Newspapers no longer owned the Standard, it no longer made sense (if it ever did) for it to be fighting a free paper war with News International. Thus London Lite closed. Over at NI, thelondonpaper was costing a lot of money and it didn't really fit in with the Murdochian paywall philosophy.”

The market has opened up for the Evening Standard, giving it the opportunity to experiment with different charging models, while maintaining a monopoly. That the paper is to launch a free mobileapp, granting free access to its content online would indicate that the free model will be maintained. The Standard would not be about to undermine its hard copy mainstay. Editor Geordie Grieg told last year’s AMEC Awards that the paper would have gone under if it had not gone free.

Charging in some parts of London offers the Evening Standard anopportunity to widen distribution and little more. It is interesting to notethat a quick search of Twitter today shows far more interest in the Standard’s new mobile app than the return of charging. Customers in the outer London suburbs will soon be able to readtheir evening newspaper for free with a phone app, inferring that charging for paper copies in outer London could be a short lived experiment. It also supports the idea that newspapers can best survive by diversifying and embracing technology.

People are always more interested in something for nothing. It is clear that the London Evening Standard is committed to the free model. This poses serious questions to Murdoch’s commitment to the alternative, something for something, paid-for model. 

Nick Clegg campaigns to save Kingston Hospital: AFTER the "plan" was exposed as a Lib Dem lie

Nick Clegg has given an exclusive interview to the Hounslow Chronicle defending SW London Lib Dem MPs for campaigning against its closure. It is a shame for him that earlier this week Southwark Lib Dem Political Assistant Dan Falchikov was outed by the Daily Mirror's political editor Kevin McGuire as having boasted into his mobile phone, while on a train, about making the whole thing up.  Labour candidate Max Freedman has the whole story at Labour List. 

Great to hear Clegg state: "Susan (Kramer) and Ed (Davey) are absolutely right to bring this issue out in the open." Shame that it was made up by one of their activists isn't it? Many voters see the Lib Dems as the "friendly party", one they can trust as being outside the political mud-slinging of the two main parties. This shows that they will resort to the dirty and dishonest, feeding lies to major newspapers and even allowing their leader to become embroiled in the row. 

That the Hounslow article should come out now is embarrassing and makes Clegg and his team look very silly indeed. 

George Osborne: it was acceptable in the 80s

George Osbourne's speech today outlining the Tory economic plans should they win power suggests they are looking to reprise many of the economic policies of the 1980s. 


Specifically, the Tory plans to raise the private sector's share of the economy in all regions means only one thing: less government spending. Less government spending means fewer public services. While all parties agree that public borrowing (and spending) needs to be reigned in, it should not be ignored that public spending has helped reduce the impact of the recession. Cutting it severely and quickly could put the recovery back. 


The Conservative Party are recycling the rhetoric of the 1980s. Yet even then, a Thatcher government that regularly espoused a desire to cut public spending, failed to do so. David Blanchflower, Former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee recently asked: "how exactly are the policies of the 1970s and 1980s relevant this time round...these are one-size-fits-all economic policies, and are out of place and out of time." Blanchflower later quotes Nobel Prize winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, neither of whom think public spending should be cut now. 


If the Tories really are serious about being a serious government, they will need some serious and credible policies. Osbourne's speech today failed to deliver. Perhaps that is why the Tory poll lead has come down to seven points, pointing at a hung parliament? Many voters may have fallen out of love with Labour, but they are far from convinced by the Tories and their lack of ideas. 

I'm quite big in Sweden

I've always wanted to be a Swedish Hero and now I am. Click on play to see what I've been up to...



Perhaps the UK's TV Licensing should try the carrot instead of stick approach here? Or would we British not respond to that?

Social recession?

David Cameron has claimed that Labour has caused a "social recession." Perhaps he is pointing this out as he aims to deepen it?

His timing is ill thought. Figures released today show overall crime down again, following yesterday's fall in unemployment. This also comes a day after the Tories confirmed that they would close thousands of Sure Start centres. The Tories would take help away from ordinary working families, using the money to instead reward marriage. How they think a small tax break will convince people to either get married or stay married is beyond me. Instead they will penalise single parents or those who choose not to get married by taking away support they would otherwise have had to bring up their children. That will lead to a social recession.

The level of social support the poorest have had under Labour is unprecedented in the modern era. A minimum wage, better schools and hospitals, Sure Start, tax credits and regeneration of our cities are just a few of the major Labour achievements. It is also incredibly short sighted to suggest that whatever social problems we have today have just arrived.

If Cameron's support for marriage is the only answer he has to our social ills then we are in for a really deep social recession if the Tories were to gain power.


Facebook readers please comment on the official blog at http://timmymc.blogspot.com

Oyster pay as you go on South West Trains? Part two.

I tested the confusing and complicated implementation of Oyster Pay as You Go (PAYG) on South West Trains last weekend. I have a monthly zones 1-2 travelcard and wanted to travel from Finsbury Park in zone 2 to Teddington in zone 6.

Starting my journey at Finsbury Park I added an Oyster Extension Permit (OEP) and topped up my PAYG balance. When I touched out at Teddington my card showed a £2 reduction. Everything had worked as I expected.

I anticipated problems on my return journey later that evening. I would need a new OEP as (I thought) one is needed for each journey outside my zones. Teddington station doesn't sell any Oyster products and there is no local newsagent I could use instead. I gambled and tapped my Oyster in at the start of my journey. When I reached Waterloo I tapped out and £2 had been deducted. Exactly as on my journey with OEP, so not having one on my return made no difference. Is this a concession from South West Trains (unlikely) in lieu of not providing OEPs from their ticket machines?

If South West Trains close this loophole what am I to do? Buy a paper extension ticket? This would mean that Oyster PAYG on their services would be useless to me. I can't buy extension tickets from SWT ticket machines either. I'd be left with one option - paying for the same journey twice to cover myself.

Oyster pay as you go on South West Trains?

If you believed the leaflets and posters at South West Trains stations you'd be led to believe that you could use Oyster pay as you go on their trains now. You can if you want to pay for your journey entirely on pay as you go. What about those of us who have monthly travelcards and want to travel out of zone on SWT services by using pay as you go to "top up" our journey as we do on the tube? We have to get an "Oyster Extension Permit" for each out of zone journey.

I frequently travel from Islington where I live to South West London where I grew up. I can get an extension at Finsbury Park, Highbury and Islington or Angel. However, when I want to return from Hampton or Teddington I can't get another permit because SWT ticket machines don't sell them. The SWT stations I use are also far away from newsagents that sell Oyster and those that are "close" are closed after 6pm meaning I can't get a permit for evening journeys.

This means I'm stuck either having to queue for 20-30 minutes at Waterloo to get a paper return, risk fare evasion or buy a travelcard to avoid queuing and pay for parts of my journey twice. You couldn't make it up.

Boris Watch has written about this absurdity. Reading the comments shows how little SWT wanted to accept PAYG and how unwieldy the implementation has been. Diamond Geezer found the same. I really don't understand why something that could and should be so simple has to be so complicated. A little use of governmental iron fist would have been useful here, rather than leaving it to our disinterested mayor to negotiate.

Poor decision making at number 10 leads to media storm

I've already written that Hoon and Hewitt's call for a ballot on Brown's leadership was careless and damaging. Much subsequent comment has focused on the delay of the cabinet in supporting the Prime Minister. This has been taken to be a sign that the cabinet is not behind Brown.

Rather than sinister I believe this was a tactical mistake from Brown's team. A massive mistake at that. Perhaps Brown's advisers thought it better not to comment on the attempted coup for fear of making news out of something they thought they could get away with. How they thought that the Tories and media wouldn't find out or make great play of this is unfathomable. Absurd.

If they came out in support in the end then why not come out earlier? It is rather perplexing.  I've long suggested that Brown's major weakness is the poor quality of the team around him. He may have again received poor advice and unfortunately has agreed with it. Hoon and Hewitt have not, unwittingly, unearthed anything new here. Brown's advisers haven't helped him and he hasn't helped himself by taking so long to act on key issues, like MPs expenses.

Out of adversity comes strength and the level of positivity coming from all sides of the grass roots Labour movement since Hoon-Hewitt's letter has been heartening. The party is tired of infighting and is largely behind Brown in a manner that might not have been the case before this affair. As Labour List states, it is only Fiona Mactaggart who has come out in support of Hoon-Hewitt.

Labour needs unity - there is an election coming!

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt's letter to Labour MPs calling for a secret ballot on Gordon Brown's future is self indulgent and potentially destructive. Arguments are always best held in private and voters always take a dim view of political parties squabbling in public. That was the harsh lesson Labour learnt from the 1980s and many in the party seem to have forgotten this.

Less than five months before an election this only damages whatever credibility the Labour Party and Gordon Brown hold. It damages Labour because it shows that the party is more interested in itself than the country. Labour talks about internal issues draws a contrast with the Tories who are claiming to offer practical solutions for the country's problems. It damages Brown because any leader fully in command of his party is immovable. Hoon and Hewitt are saying to voters that not everybody in the part respects Brown. If the party doesn't, why should the country?

I'm happy for this letter to be a Labour suicide note for Hoon and Hewitt but not for the party. Labour needs to remember that the tough lesson of opposition was that only a united party is taken seriously by the public. Secondly Labour needs to remember that appealing to a core vote won't bring victory. Mandelson is right that the working class alone will not bring victory. It didn't in the 1980s and won't do today.

For Labour to appeal to anyone it needs to start talking to the country.

Facebook readers: please comment on the official blog: http://timmymc.blogspot.com/2010/01/labour-needs-unity-there-is-election.html

Boris hits Londoners in the pocket - again

Boris Johnson's increase to bus and tube fares was widely reported yesterday. His second successive above inflation rises to fares seem to have woken Londoners up to the stark reality that having a clown as mayor is far from funny.

Back in 2008 many Londoners might have thought that electing Johnson was a "funny" risk they could afford. The reaction to this year's fare increases as the city went back to work showed that voters now see that their mayor doesn't have their best interests at heart. He has denied himself millions in revenue by both scrapping the western extension to the Congestion Charge and unnecessarily spurned cash in scrapping bendy buses. We are being asked to pay more for less. An Oyster pay as you go bus journey now costs one third more than when Johnson took office. Increasing pay as you go fares disproportionally hits the poorest, those who can't afford to shell out for annual or monthly tickets.



Johnson doesn't care that he has put ordinary Londoners out of pocket in a recession. Those most affected probably didn't vote for him anyway. As Tory Troll has pointed out, Johnson's tone is very different when offering words of support to the bankers who paid for his mayoral campaign.

Boris campaigned to"stretch the taxpayer pound to give Londoners more bang for their buck " This is less bank and more buck.Will this finally awaken Londoners to the true cost of voting Conservative? A vote your pocket cannot afford.

Islington registrar loses appeal against marrying gay couples

I joined Labour because I believe in equality and civil partnerships are an important and lasting legacy of Labour in power. It grated me then that a registrar in my borough, Islington, had refused to carry out civil partnerships because of her religious beliefs.

Lilian Ladele had claimed that conducting the ceremonies went against her religious beliefs. I'm pleased that the High Court has ruled this not to be the case. The ceremony is civil, not religious. It is also about recognising that every couple has an equal right to celebrate their partnership, publicly and in the eyes of the law.

The challenge is now over and I hope we can all get on with being a more equal society.

Uganda's death penalty for gay people

I've not been able to blog regularly recently due to a protracted house move leaving me without broadband at home. I my share details of my complaint with Sky here in future. I've got a minute though and wanted to express my disgust Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill. I'm even more disgusted that a British "Christian leader", Stephen Green of Christian Voice who thinks the bill a just means of protecting children from gay people. I'm ashamed that someone from my country would assert such spiteful nonsense.

Film for the day: Kinnock the movie

It has rained all weekend, what better way to pass the time than a political masterpiece?

Poverty: better or worse under Labour?

According to David Cameron it has got worse and that because of Labour's reliance on the "big state". He proposes that charities and community groups should step in and boost social mobility. This was the Thatcherite message of the 1980s, one that failed disastrously. The result of 13 years of Labour government is that poverty has decreased, or at least increased less, depending on how you measure it.  


Channel 4's Fact Check has published a detailed analysis of Labour's record on poverty. I'll paraphrase the key parts here. 


"When looked at as a proportion of the population as a whole, the percentage of people in poverty drops by either eight or 10 percentage points, depending on whether housing costs are taken into account...there would be some more traction in Cameron's claim if judged only on the poverty figures in recent years."


It is true to say that Labour hasn't eradicated poverty. However, the picture is at worst cloudy and at best showing a clear effort to bring people above the poverty line. The increase in relative poverty that began under Thatcher in 1979 has slowed for the frist time, under Labour:


"This increase (of the last three years) pales into comparison with that which took place under Margaret Thatcher. Cameron's claim on poverty just doesn't wash - the number of people in general, and particularly children and pensioners, in poverty have reduced since Labour came to power, although progress seems to have stalled in recent years.


"It's worth noting too that Labour's tax and benefit reforms have been redistributive (Robin Hood-like). Had they kept the same system they inherited, there would be far more people in poverty today."


Richard Wilkinson of Nottingham University has been widely quoted by Cameron. He himself admits, unlike Cameron, that: "if Brown's budgets hadn't been redistributive then things would be worse than they are now."

That Cameron is talking about poverty at all shows that 13 years of Labour government have shifted the parameters of political debate. During the 1980s and 1990s the Tories consistently said that relative poverty didn't matter. If they have learnt one thing from being in opposition, I'd hope it was to admit that relative poverty does matter. I doubt however that they have the answers or the desire to eradicate poverty.


Liam Bryne thinks that Cameron's approach amounts to "little more than crossing your fingers." Cameron has no plan and no answers, and as such, he is wrong to make such play of poverty.

Cyprus

I shielded myself from the onset of winter with a couple of weeks in Cyprus. I have visited the island many times. Politics runs through the island.and I have over recent years started venturing into the Turkish occupied Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Turkish troops have occupied around 37% of the island since 1974, while British troops occupy 3% with two Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. I was pleased to read today that Britain is to propose returning half of the SBA land, to both sides of the divide, in order to help achieve a lasting peace.

Having only been divided 35 years ago, the occupation is still felt by many. The unresolved issues of compensation for land for people who had to move away, on both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot side is still to be resolved. For many years there looked to be little hope for a mutually agreed solution. The rejection of the Annan Plan in 2004, which sought to unify the island as a confederation, looked to hold back peace.  The election of left wing leaders on both sides of the border, both committed to negotiation offers a chance for peace. 

The holiday itself was immense fun and included watching Apollon versus Omonia on the Saturday night. The crowd made for a wonderful spectacle, the football somewhat less so. Playing for Apollon was English journeyman Junior Agogo, formerly of 14 clubs, including Bristol Rovers. It made me think, if I was a mediocre English league player, I'd much rather be a relative star and live on a holiday island. Playing on the Greek side, Agogo will get a few more plaudits and the chance to play in UEFA competition, something not yet available for his counterparts in the North's Birinci Lig.

This blog is on holiday.

I've gone to Cyprus. I'll be back in November.

Cameron = New Labour?

I haven't got the time for a more detailed post now, but my initial thoughts about Cameron's speech today are that:

• Poverty:  "Don't you dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative Party, to fight for the poorest who you have let down" - is this a joke? What about tax credits, the minimum wage, Sure Start and investment in education?
• A more comprehensive account is taken by Left Foot Forward, whoI defer to. They say: "According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (i) “between 1998–99 and 2004–05, Labour oversaw the longest decline in poverty since the start of our consistent time series in 1961"

More on this tomorrow.

Honesty on cuts or honesty on Tory motives?

I don't expect to but it would be good to hear something from the Tories this week admitting that Gordon Brown's fiscal stimulus was necessary to keep the economy going. They are more interested in highlighting the size of Britain's budget deficit. Cameron and Osbourne claim this is because honesty is needed about dealing with the deficit. I'd like to hear a little more honesty from the Tories about cutting public services. 

Osbourne didn't mention what he would do with increasing tax receipts as the economy begins to grow again. Alistair Darling intends to use these to reduce the budget deficit while protecting public services. The Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to make cuts to public spending. In both the 2001 and 2005 elections this was the predominant theme of their manifesto. 

What will George and Dave do when the economy picks up? Osbourne yesterday left the door open for make cuts to inheritance tax for the rich and mentioned that he wouldn't scrap the 50% top tax rate at the moment, leaving open the possibility of scrapping that in future. Cameron's Tories have been accused of being light on detail - they are now, at last, telling the public what they intend to do with government. Rather ominous gaps are still there and it will take a strong response from Labour to show the country why the Tories are wrong. Rachel Reeves at Progress agrees: "The banking crisis and recession will be used by the Tories to do what they always wanted to do. Cutting back the size of the state and then cutting taxes for the few."

George Osborne: necessary evil or nasty party incarnate?

George Osborne today made much play of telling the truth about the country's finances, while claiming that Labour are telling "lies" about it. All sides of the political spectrum agree that the government needs to start balancing the books as we head back into growth after global recession. Does Osborne's speech today set out the answers the country needs?

Public sector pay restraint is going to mean that again those working in the private sector will be able to benefit from a growing economy, while teachers and ordinary civil servants have to wait. Osborne has set the bar too low, with those earning more than £18k subjected to a pay freeze for one year. I doubt these workers will get much in year two from a Tory government. The economy needs public sector workers spending their money just like everyone else. I agree that high earners from the public purse should be subject to restraint, probably for longer than one year.

Tax credit and benefit cuts should be carefully targeted. Labour wants less people claiming incapacity benefit and more working. This needs to be balanced with jobs for the unemployed to go to. I'm unconvinced that Osborne's plan will deliver this part of the deal.

There is little in his speech about what to do with rising tax revenues as the economy recovers. Will these be used to pay for tax cuts or to keep public services running instead of cutting them?

There was plenty of detail from Osborne today. The Tories are setting out their agenda for government. I'm going to cast a very interested eye over the next set of opinion polls to see whether the public accept the Tories somewhat austere plans. My suspicion is that Cameron and Osborne would prefer cuts to taxes and services. This means we may be looking at the start of a very unpopular government.

House of Twits

As an avid social media user I've been a keen reader of political social media aggregator House of Twits for some time. I'm delighted to say that I am now a member of the site's Labour "Front Bench" of bloggers. I'll be blogging from there too from now on.

The site is a great way of keeping in touch with the best political Tweets - somewhere that gives me content from across the spectrum without having to look for it! Anything that saves time and puts everything in one place is a winner for me.

London at the Tory vanguard

Boris Johnson's mayoralty always looked like acting as a prototype for a future Tory government.

His proposed £5bn of cuts to London's budget through "efficiencies" looks impressive. How will it be delivered, if it actually can be?

What will he cut if the flagship projects remain? Delaying pollution curbs by implementing the low emission zone late? What about cutting London's income by scrapping the western extension of the congestion charge? That might not be legal or advisable. What about wasting money by getting rid of bendy buses - adding 12% to costs? That won't help,

He might take the headlines by freezing the mayor's portion of Londoners' council tax - but putting up fares on the tube and buses will impact Londoners pockets on a daily basis.

The cuts sound impressive, yet there is little in actual detail from Johnson. Much like David Cameron, he is able to make bold statements, yet founders on the detail. Londoners will want to know what BJ actually wants to do.