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.

Tory lead cut after Brown's speech

According to YouGov the Tory lead over Labour has been cut to 7% following Brown's speech. As I stated to LBC's Nick Ferrari this morning, the real test is whether Labour can keep this level after Cameron's speech to the Tory conference last week.

The Tories will get widespread positive press from a friendly media, so I'm more interested in seeing the polls next week. Nevertheless, some mildly good news.

Does The Sun lead or follow?

Last night The Sun announced that they will back the Conservatives at the next general election, 12 years after backing New Labour, with today’s front page announcing that: “Labour’s lost it.” In 1992 the newspaper’s election day headline “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights?, leading to the later claim “It was The Sun wot won it”. Can we judge the shift to Cameron with the same weight?

I was part of a panel discussing this last night on BBC Radio 5Live’s Richard Bacon show, with commentator Shane Greer and a host of senior media and political heavyweights calling in. It was no surprise that Labour politicians such as Ed Milliband thought the decision lacked the significance of the past, while it was welcomed by Conservative Chairman Eric Pickles.

Tony Blair’s former spokesman Alistair Campbell played down the significance, writing today that “Sun switches ain’t what they used to be.” He suggested: “It is a big media story, and the media love nothing more than a big media story,” adding that with a fragmented media very different from 1997, consumers are also savvier. “While the public may know the politicians spin them a line from time to time, they sure as hell know the papers do too.”

Roy Greenslade also took part in last night’s debate, confirming today his view that The Sun is “placing itself as a central actor in a political drama. It is saying that what it thinks really counts. But there's precious little proof of that any longer.” The Sun’s circulation today is 35% lower today than it’s mid 1990s peak. Greenslade, like Steve Hewlett, thought the newspaper a follower of public opinion, not a leader.

The Sun may not be as significant as it once was. Nevertheless, last night’s announcement hijacked the headlines and to that extent was successful for the paper’s new editor Dominic Mohan. Otherwise it wouldn’t have led last night’s debate on Five Live, or been talked about across the media today. Can a mainstream media title, like The Sun, be as influential as it once was? Does the fragmentation of readership habits mean that no single title will ever again be able to claim an election as its own?

Gordon Brown sets out voters' choice

Gordon Brown today set out his terms for the choice voters face at the next general election. He began strongly by ringing out Labour's achievements, the minimum wage, an end to NHS waiting lists and every school rebuilt. He stated clearly that the Tories would put this all at threat.

There were some new policy announcements such as the National Care Service, something that will extend the helping hand of the NHS to those needing full time care. Talk of tackling anti social behaviour was Brown attempting to talk to the mainstream.

What is clear is that there is a choice at the next election. A choice between a Tory party that would not have invested in public services, improving the NHS, education and regenerated our cities - and a Labour government that did. A choice between a Tory party that would have let the recession run its course and a Labour government that led the way in global action to re-energise our economies.

The Tories had no answers at the depth of the recession, a situation that has enabled them to bang their favourite drum - public service cuts. Brown made it clear today that this is the Tory ideology, it is in their DNA. Labour will ensure the market isn't left to itself and that those in most need will not be left to fend for themselves by an indifferent government. The Tories stand for change, but that is a change back to the 1980s.

Was today's speech the game changer that many commentators suggested it needed to be? Probably not. It was good enough. No general election has been won or lost on a conference speech. The real test of Brown's speech is whether voters will start listening to him again. Will Labour get a boost in the opinion polls? Crucially, will they be able to hold it after next week's Tory conference?

Gordon Brown and Andrew Marr

Gordon Brown today looked astonished as Andrew Marr asked him twice if he was using "prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through." Was this a valid question? Brown certainly thought not.

Marr's raising of this unsubstantiated rumour gives it, perhaps incorrectly, credibility. True or not, asking something like this invades the personal privacy that even the prime minister has a right to.

It will fuel reporting in Monday's press about whether Brown is losing control of his health together with the country. I'm sure may will speculate about whether there really is credence in the rumours by analysing every Brown mannerism for signs of weakness. Judging by the serious comments at The Times most agree that with this line of questioning Marr was overstepping the mark.

I also blog elsewhere...

I also contribute to my company's blog, Measurement Matters. My latest blog post suggests that Google are attempting to take ownership of more web content to take even more revenue from advertising with the launch of the Sidewiki...

Nick Clegg for PM?

Nick Clegg this week declared his ambition to be prime minister. Every year Lib Dem leaders make their claim to become number one and every year (after the annual leadership change) the idea becomes more fanciful.

As our third party there is no chance of Clegg leading the country. Even with electoral reform Clegg would stand no chance of leading the country. Why Kennedy, Campbell and Clegg feel the need to pretend nobody will notice their fantasy and claim that they will become PM seems preposterous. The Lib Dem members in the conference hall this week applauded Clegg's delusional claims. Surely they cannot all be that stupid?

After discussing the 'point' of the Lib Dems on Five Live on Monday, it became clear that the Lib Dems felt they were not taken seriously enough. If their leaders make such preposterous claims is it any wonder?

Lib Dems identity crisis

The row following Vince Cable's proposed property tax for homes valued over £1m has shown the confused identity of the Lib Dems. Cable looks left, Clegg looks right and everybody else gets dizzy.

Last night's Five Live debate didn't throw up any answers for the Lib Dems. Only questions. Voters don't seem to really understand what the party stands for. This is no surprise when the public face of the party nationally is multi-faceted and when many peoples' local experience of them varies so greatly. Social democrats in South West London where they profit from the anti-Tory vote and soft conservatives in the South West of England where they fight the Tories on their own platform.

There is a role for a third party in British politics, though Clegg's Lib Dems are yet to fill that and don't look likely to.

What is the point of the Lib Dems

This week's Lib Dem conference really kicks off the run in to next Spring's general election. Lib Dems will be hoping that this week can be the spur to a resurgence for our third party against an untrusted Tory party and tired Labour government. For a third party to survive in a two party electoral system requires them to have clear goals and radical ideas.

The Lib Dems have always struggled to define a single, clear purpose. Are they the party of opposition - to both left and right? Are they the party of radical ideas? Are they the party of social democracy or the libertarianism?

Today's policy announcement that Lib Dems would tax properties valued over £1m, to take the poor out of income tax, is both radical and socialist. Nick Clegg's constant assertions that "savage" cuts are needed to the public sector is lthat expected of a traditional liberal - today mostly found in the Tory party.

Within the last 24 hours these two events have shown that the Lib Dems are still facing in two directions. Which one the public gets to hear from depends on which Lib Dem voice is speaking. Former Labour Party adviser Vince Cable or the remarkably Tory sounding Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems are still in the shadow of their late 1980s formation from two very different political parites - the SDP and the Liberal Party. Cable and Clegg are each from these different arms.

Until the Lib Dems work out who they are and what they stand for they will struggle to define clear ground for themselves. Without this and a clear identity it will be difficult for them to attract votes on a national basis. Without that, they will always struggle to compete effectively with Labour and the Tories.

Clegg's savage calls strike of a desperate swipte at headlines without really thinking about the effects on economic confidence. Creating a vision of an aggressive and painful future isn't attractive. One criticism that certainly can't be levelled at Gordon Brown is rash decision making. His often well deliberated solutions to problems often get lost in the mire of news headlines, while sometimes managing a little praise for quantitative easing and stabilising the banking system.

More discussion follows tonight on Five Live's Richard Bacon show. Me, Bacon and Mark Oaten...at 11.