I'm amused to see the blog "furore" over suggestions that Journalist of the Year Andrew Gilligan has been posting comments on blogs both anonymously and under other names. Whenever I've written any post mentioning his name, or to that matter most posts about Boris Johnson, I get at least one hit from Associated Newspapers.
After some posts about bendy buses and transport fares in London "anonymous" commented on my blog. The timing of the comments coincided with a hot on my blog from the Associated Newspapers IP address. "Anonymous" had used a Technorati blog feed with the key words "Andrew Gilligan" as the search terms. Coincidence? During the Mayoral election I frequently got hits from the same IP address and with the same referrer. The use of language by "anonymous" also bears great resemblance to Gilligan's writing, using terms such as the "Ken Livingstone fan club."
On a personal note I've never been an ardent fan of Ken, though I came to believe that on balance, London was a better place after eight years with him in charge than if someone else had won.
I used to ban anonymous comments for this very reason. I'd much prefer an open and honest debate where people can agree and disagree. I don't see what there is to hide. Not least from a high profile journalist when his views are well known. I'm also quite prepared for people to point out if I am wrong, though I'd rather never be wrong...
Read on:
Media Monkey
Dave Hill's blog
Tory Troll's current discussion. Previous accusations, including mention that Gilligan was up to it in 1995 as a student can also be found.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Mandy
Wherever Peter Mandelson has been there is sure to follow a media storm. The Prince of Darkness has been known as a master of spin, however his abrasive style has always attracted mud. The Tories fear Mandelson so will attack him. The media dislike Mandelson so they will attack him.
Mandelson will always give as good as he gets. George Osbourne was naive to think he could make Mandelson's criticisms of Gordon Brown public and get away with it. Bringing Mandelson back was still a good move by Brown. At the very least the media is now talking about the Tories and about Mandelson and has left Brown to get on with his job.
I expect Mandelson to survive the current maelstrom of media attention. It doesn't look like he has done anything wrong. He hadn't broken any rules previously with the loan from Geoffrey Robinson or the Hinduja passport "affair." Contacts between powerful businessmen and powerful politicians may look distasteful but it is naive to think they will never happen or never did.
Osbourne has now apologised: "To be honest this didn't look very good and that's something I regret." Both parties have slung mud at each other. Nothing can be proven either way. Mandelson can live with the attacks. It is going to be interesting to see how the Tories deal with their first real public scrutiny in some time.
State funding of political parties would of course remove many of the suspected underhand deals between business and politics. Neither of the main parties want this as they both seem to be infected by the desire to woo big business and big donations.
Mandelson will always give as good as he gets. George Osbourne was naive to think he could make Mandelson's criticisms of Gordon Brown public and get away with it. Bringing Mandelson back was still a good move by Brown. At the very least the media is now talking about the Tories and about Mandelson and has left Brown to get on with his job.
I expect Mandelson to survive the current maelstrom of media attention. It doesn't look like he has done anything wrong. He hadn't broken any rules previously with the loan from Geoffrey Robinson or the Hinduja passport "affair." Contacts between powerful businessmen and powerful politicians may look distasteful but it is naive to think they will never happen or never did.
Osbourne has now apologised: "To be honest this didn't look very good and that's something I regret." Both parties have slung mud at each other. Nothing can be proven either way. Mandelson can live with the attacks. It is going to be interesting to see how the Tories deal with their first real public scrutiny in some time.
State funding of political parties would of course remove many of the suspected underhand deals between business and politics. Neither of the main parties want this as they both seem to be infected by the desire to woo big business and big donations.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Cameron's speech: "I am a fiscal conservative" .
Yesterday David Cameron came across well without wowing me. He comes across well because he is a natural speaker and PR man. Gordon Brown is not one of those. Brown's speech was as good as one could expect, likewise Cameron looked better.
Cameron's focus was very much traditional Conservatism. His focus was on the family and small government as the remedies to the so called "broken society." This was predictable and showed Cameron appealing to his core vote, socially and economically conservative with a big and a small c. Brown's speech was a similar appeal to his party who needed reassurance that he was up to the job. Cameron didn't need to do that, but still touched on the Tory hot spots.
By stating his priority to be low taxes and praising Thatcher's economic revolution Cameron was appealing to a Tory party that hasn't changed its values. The Tory part has changed, but only in that it now has the confidence to appeal to the country and behave like they expect to govern.
The lack of belief in government to enact positive change is the sort of Thatcherite mantra that dominated the 1980s of my childhood. "People create jobs, not government" stated Cameron. couple this with tax cuts and falling tax revenue in a declining economy and this signals severe cuts. Cameron won't say that now, but if the Tories win we'll see it happen. The Tories have shown this in local government in Hammersmith and Fulham.
The claim that the Tories are the party of NHS is laughable. However, t many in the Labour Party and on the left play into Tory hands and prepare the ground for Cameron to make that kind of claim by constantly complaining about details when the NHS is substantively better than it was ten years ago. When do you hear of patients left to die on trolleys each winter? That was commonplace when I grew up and simply doesn't happen anymore.
I was angered when Cameron claimed that Labour doesn't believe in community, that we only believe in government and individuals. By the end of his speech Cameron was aggressive and in his pomp. I've no doubt he'll rise to whatever challenge Brown sets. What is clear is that Labour has been divided and introspective, while the Tories are united and talking to the country.
Cameron's focus was very much traditional Conservatism. His focus was on the family and small government as the remedies to the so called "broken society." This was predictable and showed Cameron appealing to his core vote, socially and economically conservative with a big and a small c. Brown's speech was a similar appeal to his party who needed reassurance that he was up to the job. Cameron didn't need to do that, but still touched on the Tory hot spots.
By stating his priority to be low taxes and praising Thatcher's economic revolution Cameron was appealing to a Tory party that hasn't changed its values. The Tory part has changed, but only in that it now has the confidence to appeal to the country and behave like they expect to govern.
The lack of belief in government to enact positive change is the sort of Thatcherite mantra that dominated the 1980s of my childhood. "People create jobs, not government" stated Cameron. couple this with tax cuts and falling tax revenue in a declining economy and this signals severe cuts. Cameron won't say that now, but if the Tories win we'll see it happen. The Tories have shown this in local government in Hammersmith and Fulham.
The claim that the Tories are the party of NHS is laughable. However, t many in the Labour Party and on the left play into Tory hands and prepare the ground for Cameron to make that kind of claim by constantly complaining about details when the NHS is substantively better than it was ten years ago. When do you hear of patients left to die on trolleys each winter? That was commonplace when I grew up and simply doesn't happen anymore.
I was angered when Cameron claimed that Labour doesn't believe in community, that we only believe in government and individuals. By the end of his speech Cameron was aggressive and in his pomp. I've no doubt he'll rise to whatever challenge Brown sets. What is clear is that Labour has been divided and introspective, while the Tories are united and talking to the country.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Boris and bendy buses
Since the GLA's Labour group garnered a pro-bendy bus article in Monday's Evening Standard article, Boris Johnson has remained firm in his desire to get rid of them. I've posted many times about the folly of this and I'm pleased London's Labour assembly members have picked up on this.
BJ has vowed to rid London of bendy buses by 2015 even though his term ends in 2012. BJ is aiming to sign new contracts for new buses running past his term in office. This year I've travelled around Europe a little and have seen the same buses on the streets of Helsinki, Tallin, Hamburg, Berlin and Brussels. In the UK we have them in Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham.
This whole bus obession is little more than the euqivalent of the vanity projects BJ and his team criticised the previous mayor for. Political Animals provide a great breakdown of these. The Cross River Tram would make a tremendous difference to parts of London like Peckham and Camberwell, which suffer from dreadful transport links at present. The cost of this against the potential costs of a new bus that doesn't yet exist or an airport on an island in the Thames Estuary doesn't compare.
BJ has vowed to rid London of bendy buses by 2015 even though his term ends in 2012. BJ is aiming to sign new contracts for new buses running past his term in office. This year I've travelled around Europe a little and have seen the same buses on the streets of Helsinki, Tallin, Hamburg, Berlin and Brussels. In the UK we have them in Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham.
This whole bus obession is little more than the euqivalent of the vanity projects BJ and his team criticised the previous mayor for. Political Animals provide a great breakdown of these. The Cross River Tram would make a tremendous difference to parts of London like Peckham and Camberwell, which suffer from dreadful transport links at present. The cost of this against the potential costs of a new bus that doesn't yet exist or an airport on an island in the Thames Estuary doesn't compare.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Gordon Brown's speech
Now everyone has had time for reflection and I've had time to speak to other people across the Labour Party about Gordon Brown's speech to conference yesterday it is a good time to pass judgement.
He started well and themes of fairness and being on 'your' side worked well. Brown needs to keep on at this as a key differentiator between Labour and Tories. There is a gulf but nobody will know if Labour never make it explicit:
Gordon, where have you been? The rabble rousing, tub-thumping, robust policy laden speeches of the past seemed to have disappeared but there were glimpses yesterday of the Prime Minister we all thought we were going to get. Jonathan Freedland writes well about this.
Focusing on himself as the only person to steer Britain through troubled economic times was expected but important. This unique value proposition marks him against Cameron-Osbourne well. Brown took decisive action last week to allow Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS and for me, that was the start of the Brown fight-back.
BBC's John Pienaar, together with The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh on Five Live after the speech yesterday stated today that Brown's speech served it's primary purpose - to get the party back onside. Telling the party that"fairness is in our DNA" was an easy, but important point scorer. So far it appears to have broadly brought the party back onside. This was a stay of execution, Brown has more time now.
According to The Sun:
"This speech won Mr Brown precious breathing space. But his exhausted face revealed the strain this battle for survival is inflicting.
With a stronger team and (hopefully) showing the robustness of yesterday to the country, Brown needs to attack the Tories and to show the country why he said yesterday of the Tories:
"And when salesmen won't tell you what they are selling, it's because they are selling something no-one should buy."
For now, the challenge is with the Tories, but Brown will need to respond.
Yesterday the old Brown was back. I hope he stays.
He started well and themes of fairness and being on 'your' side worked well. Brown needs to keep on at this as a key differentiator between Labour and Tories. There is a gulf but nobody will know if Labour never make it explicit:
"Just think where our country would be if we'd listened to them. No paternity leave, no New Deal, no Bank of England independence, no Sure Start, no devolution, no civil partnerships, no minimum wage, no new investment in the NHS, no new nurses, no new police, no new schools.
"So let's hear no more from the Conservatives - we did fix the roof while the sun was shining."Gordon, where have you been? The rabble rousing, tub-thumping, robust policy laden speeches of the past seemed to have disappeared but there were glimpses yesterday of the Prime Minister we all thought we were going to get. Jonathan Freedland writes well about this.
Focusing on himself as the only person to steer Britain through troubled economic times was expected but important. This unique value proposition marks him against Cameron-Osbourne well. Brown took decisive action last week to allow Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS and for me, that was the start of the Brown fight-back.
BBC's John Pienaar, together with The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh on Five Live after the speech yesterday stated today that Brown's speech served it's primary purpose - to get the party back onside. Telling the party that"fairness is in our DNA" was an easy, but important point scorer. So far it appears to have broadly brought the party back onside. This was a stay of execution, Brown has more time now.
According to The Sun:
"This speech won Mr Brown precious breathing space. But his exhausted face revealed the strain this battle for survival is inflicting.
His ‘great clunking fist’ still managed to land a blow on David Cameron. Mr Brown portrayed the Tory leader as a carpet-bagger selling snake oil and patent cure-alls.
Mr Cameron must respond next week by filling the gaping holes in Tory policy — on Europe, taxes, spending and the NHS."
With a stronger team and (hopefully) showing the robustness of yesterday to the country, Brown needs to attack the Tories and to show the country why he said yesterday of the Tories:
"And when salesmen won't tell you what they are selling, it's because they are selling something no-one should buy."
For now, the challenge is with the Tories, but Brown will need to respond.
Yesterday the old Brown was back. I hope he stays.
Boris cuts bus capacity in London
I was pleased to see that the GLA's Labour Assembly members agree with my concerns about Mayor Johnson's decision to start taking bendy buses off London's busiest bus routes. This was picked up by yesterday's Evening Standard.
I'm worried that this gimmicky policy hasnb't been thought through and that the consequences for London are manifold:
I'm worried that this gimmicky policy hasnb't been thought through and that the consequences for London are manifold:
- Longer journey times: buses will take longer to board so will spend longer at stops
- More blockages at bus stops: spending longer at bus stops means buses will block spaces at busy stops, such as those at Angel, creating more congestion
- More carbon emssions: using smaller buses than at present means more buses on our streets to keep the same capacity, this means more emissions
- Higher costs: more buses and more staff will be more expensive
- More overcrowding: smaller buses on the busiest routes will mean less pleasant journeys. The bendy buses are already full, so replacing them with smaller buses seems a lunacy
MySpace Impact
A version of my last post "Labour = mess" was featured on MySpace UK's Impact page yesterday. Impact promotes networking in the Third Sector, helps fundraising and is a hub for politicians and comment on current affairs. In the USA, the Impact page hosts profiles and updates from all the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
In my opinion, MySpace has the edge over Facebook in hosting content, which should mean it becomes a hub of activity during November's elections.
In my opinion, MySpace has the edge over Facebook in hosting content, which should mean it becomes a hub of activity during November's elections.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Labour = mess
Labour has a few problems at the moment:
No political party will ever be successful if it is preoccupied with naval-gazing and in-fighting. The electorate only ever takes notice of political parties that offer solutions to their problems, look disciplined and cohesive. Labour offers none of these at the moment. Laying the blame for this might be fun but is futile. Labour would look even worse to the electorate by triggering a leadership election and engaging in even more naval gazing and blame laying.
In the 1970s and 1980s Labour tore out itself apart and the country wasn't interested. In the 1990s the Tories tore themselves to pieces and the country switched off. Why hasn't the Labour Party remembered this primal lesson?
However, both Labour and the Tories learnt to change their leader to make themselves more popular, but only when an alternative leader was more popular with the public. Labour switched to John Smith in 1992, then chose Blair. The Tories were quick to dump Thatcher when it looked like they would lose.
Conversely, there wouldn't be any of this bickering if people were happy with Brown's performance. He needs to start behaving like the political bruiser he was made out to be. He is meant to be an expert on finance and economics so it would be good to hear Brown offering solutions to the meltdown of our under-regulated financial sector. The economic woes fill the news at the moment but there is very little comment from Brown or Labour about what we are going to do about it.
"At our best when at our boldest" Blair once said. If only Brown would listen.
- Labour is unpopular, especially Gordon Brown
- Labour is bankrupt
- Labour can't afford a general election
- Labour can't afford a leadership election
- The economy is in turmoil, we don't need political turmoil too
No political party will ever be successful if it is preoccupied with naval-gazing and in-fighting. The electorate only ever takes notice of political parties that offer solutions to their problems, look disciplined and cohesive. Labour offers none of these at the moment. Laying the blame for this might be fun but is futile. Labour would look even worse to the electorate by triggering a leadership election and engaging in even more naval gazing and blame laying.
In the 1970s and 1980s Labour tore out itself apart and the country wasn't interested. In the 1990s the Tories tore themselves to pieces and the country switched off. Why hasn't the Labour Party remembered this primal lesson?
However, both Labour and the Tories learnt to change their leader to make themselves more popular, but only when an alternative leader was more popular with the public. Labour switched to John Smith in 1992, then chose Blair. The Tories were quick to dump Thatcher when it looked like they would lose.
Conversely, there wouldn't be any of this bickering if people were happy with Brown's performance. He needs to start behaving like the political bruiser he was made out to be. He is meant to be an expert on finance and economics so it would be good to hear Brown offering solutions to the meltdown of our under-regulated financial sector. The economic woes fill the news at the moment but there is very little comment from Brown or Labour about what we are going to do about it.
"At our best when at our boldest" Blair once said. If only Brown would listen.
Mayor's question time
Boris is cutting capacity on London's key bus routes.
Interesting notes from the Boris Johnson's recent Mayor's question time. He is carrying out his pledge to banish bendy buses from our streets. As the contracts expire on each route they will be replaced. First will be the "Red Arrow" 507 and 521 buses between Waterloo & Victoria/London Bridge. There doesn't seem to be any explanation yet as to how the overall capacity on these routes will be made up with running smaller buses.
Routes 38, 29 and 73 are to follow. Whatever replaces them will be slower and carry less people. Has this really been thought through?
Interesting notes from the Boris Johnson's recent Mayor's question time. He is carrying out his pledge to banish bendy buses from our streets. As the contracts expire on each route they will be replaced. First will be the "Red Arrow" 507 and 521 buses between Waterloo & Victoria/London Bridge. There doesn't seem to be any explanation yet as to how the overall capacity on these routes will be made up with running smaller buses.
Routes 38, 29 and 73 are to follow. Whatever replaces them will be slower and carry less people. Has this really been thought through?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tube PPP mess
As has been mooted for several months, London's tube upgrade faces spiralling costs and could run out of money. The PPP was meant to take these sorts of risks away from the public purse, but as we have seen with the collapse of Metronet, if the private contractors can't make money out of a project, the risk ends up in public hands.
In my first post-university job I screened PFI bids. PFI bids were normally deemed "better value" than direct public investment because of the transfer of risk to the private sector. The risk of delay and spiralling costs was with the private, not public sector.
The Guardian quotes tube boss Tim O'Toole as stating that without full funding for the PPP, "The infrastructure is so old and unreliable that we are going to see a contraction in capacity," - London cannot cope and needs more capacity, not less.
Boris Johnson has stated he will go to the Department for Transport to seek additional funding. This represents a test of how the Labour government will work with a Tory mayor - or not. For London's sake I hope that Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly opts in the best interests of Londoners and pays up. I worried political point scoring might win and our tube may crumble.
Read more:
In my first post-university job I screened PFI bids. PFI bids were normally deemed "better value" than direct public investment because of the transfer of risk to the private sector. The risk of delay and spiralling costs was with the private, not public sector.
The Guardian quotes tube boss Tim O'Toole as stating that without full funding for the PPP, "The infrastructure is so old and unreliable that we are going to see a contraction in capacity," - London cannot cope and needs more capacity, not less.
Boris Johnson has stated he will go to the Department for Transport to seek additional funding. This represents a test of how the Labour government will work with a Tory mayor - or not. For London's sake I hope that Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly opts in the best interests of Londoners and pays up. I worried political point scoring might win and our tube may crumble.
Read more:
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Creative accounting from Gilligan again
According to Andrew Gilligan in yesterday's Evening Standard, Ken Livingstone was responsible for raising London's public transport fares by one third in 2007 (when a zone 1 cash single increased from £2 to £3). Of course, this ignores that cash fares were increased to persuade more people to use Oyster Cards instead. Oyster fares were frozen last year.
By 2005 (three years ago) over 80% of tube and bus journeys were made on Oyster cards, report contractor Transys.
Gilligan has fired a political shot at the former mayor in trying to bolster the current one after Boris Johnson announced large rises in public transport fares.
Update: information on former mayor Ken Livingstone's fare changes for the start of 2008, when cash fares did not increase. Season tickets did rise, though this is because they include payments to the rail operators in London, who are not regulated by the Mayor.
By 2005 (three years ago) over 80% of tube and bus journeys were made on Oyster cards, report contractor Transys.
Gilligan has fired a political shot at the former mayor in trying to bolster the current one after Boris Johnson announced large rises in public transport fares.
Update: information on former mayor Ken Livingstone's fare changes for the start of 2008, when cash fares did not increase. Season tickets did rise, though this is because they include payments to the rail operators in London, who are not regulated by the Mayor.
Friday, September 05, 2008
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."
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."
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, August 29, 2008
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.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
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.
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.Tuesday, August 19, 2008
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.
Monday, August 04, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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:
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?
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
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)