Is there anything Brown can do to save himself now?

David Blunkett's assertion today that Labour "has lost its political antennae" marks a significant juncture in the life of Gordon Brown's government. Even Peter Mandelson commented that "it never rains but it pours." Blunkett suggested that at present Labour is heading for the worst case scenario, a comprehensive defeat. I hope, like Blunkett, that we can plan for the best case and fight all the way to the election.

This has been a woeful week for Brown's government. In losing in the Commons over the right to let Gurkhas live in the UK and having to retreat over MP expenses, the government has shown that it is has lost the strength to stand by its convictions and also has lost touch with public opinion.

It is vital to the success of any leader that they pick their fights and battles wisely. Pick fights they can win and fights that are crucial. This week it would have been sensible to back public opinion over the Gurkhas and to seek a consensus over MP expenses.

I spoke on Victoria Derbyshire's Five Live discussion this morning with Michael White, Bob Roberts and Lance Price about this. I said that Brown needs to use his team more effectively. He takes too much on himself. It is rare to see other cabinet ministers given high profile media coverage (outside of their strict policy remits). Whatever good Brown might do, he has a poor reputation. He has handled the economic crisis well but his poll ratings remain the same.

I'd like to see others given a higher profile. Alan Johnson, James Purnell and Jack Straw have all been very quiet.

Brown has much to offer, shown by his handling of the banking crisis and the G20. Yet any good work by the government is never associated with him and has no effect on opinion polls. The handling of MP expensive is symptomatic of a government machine that is unable to communicate a good idea effectively. Much has been made of the unreasonable claims made by MPs and of Brown appearing on YouTube to announce his plans for reforming the system. This has meant there has been no mention of the fact that it was Labour's policy to open up MP expenses to public scrutiny in the first place.

I'm a strong supporter of Labour in government. The country and public services are in better shape than they would have been if the Tories had been in power - I firmly believe that we'd be in an even bigger financial mess had they been. I had to agree with White though that I don't see any way back for Brown and Labour at the next election. I agreed with Price, that the next 12 months shouldn't be abandoned. We have a year to show that we have a positive agenda and that if Labour does lose, for it not to be catastrophic.

Many of us have been waiting a long time for Brown to take the initiative. I'm preparing for the worst case scenario and hoping for the best.

Dispatches on Boris

Tonight's Channel 4 Dispatches study of BJ's first year in charge of London passed a judgement of a mayor without a plan. I'm still unsure exactly what Boris Johnson is trying to achieve for London. I have not yet been able to establish what he wants to do, much like Simon Jenkins, quoted in tonight's programme.

BJ claims that he wants to make London greener, cleaner and safer.

How is he making London greener? Encouraging public transport use is one obvious means of doing so. Bendy buses were meant to have killed cyclists. This has been shown to be false, something the mayor has had to admit. Most people wanted to keep the bendy buses according to the public consultation. However, the mayor is getting rid of them anyway. Journeys will take longer and taxpayers money will be wasted on needlessly replacing them. As I blogged before the election, the replacement Routemasters will not hit the roads for several years in any case. Further, the much vaunted bicycle hire scheme was actually started by the previous mayor.

How is BJ making London cleaner? Scrapping the extension of the low emission zone and the extra congestion charges for gas guzzlers won't make London cleaner.

BJ promised to give Londoners more bang for their buck. While the (small) mayoral portion of council tax has not increased, keeping my bill down, my transport fares have increased by far more than he could ever save me on council tax. That doesn't feel like value for money.

Is the mayor making London safer? Causing Sir Ian Blair to quit as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, then being referred to the Standards Board over allegedly compromising confidential information about Damien Green's arrest was unfortunate. Creating turmoil in the Met should be avoided, not unnecessarily created.

BJ's London is not getting greener or cleaner. He is giving "pocket money" to improve local parks and is cancelling the improvements to Parliament Square and Highbury Corner. Further evidence that the rhetoric fails to match the reality. Evidence of muddled thinking.

Much criticism was levelled at the former mayor for running a programme of vanity projects. If BJ's ludicrous "idea" to build an airport in the Thames estuary is the very embodiment of a vanity project. To commit the billions it would cost to build would be total lunacy in the current climate. The environmental cost would be huge.

I'm continually drawn to a mayor with no coherent plan. Tonight's Dispatches presented the argument from one side. This evidence was compelling, that the mayor's programme doesn't match the rhetoric, is often contradictory and is failing London.

Are the Tories ready for government?

They would certainly say so. The polls suggests that they are likely to win the next election whether they are ready or not. The volume of seats Labour has to defend with minimal majorities suggests that they might. Andrew Rawnsley and Max Hastings both implied that the Tories are not ready, but are likely to be in power regardless. Will the Tories win? Are they ready?

The Tories are now in position to win. The Tories lead in the polls has remained, despite Labour action and Tory inaction on the economy. An election is little over a year away. The economy is likely to get worse rather than better in that time. As incumbents this will disadvantage Labour. To run an effective election machine costs money. Labour's finances are in a parlous state, the Tories are awash with Ashcrofts cash and paid staff in key seats. The election is the Tories to win.

Are they ready? The Tories might win the election but will find government very tough. Inexperience won't make it tough itself, Labour managed ably enough in 1997 without government experience. Government will be tough for the Tories because they haven't prepared for it. What do the Tories plan for the NHS? What do they plan to actually do to better the environment when in London Boris Johnson is cutting back on schemes to cut pollution?

The Tory plan for government isn't clear. If it exists it must be well hidden. Over the next 15 months the country has to make a serious choice. It isn't a fair choice when the choice is made without full knowledge of the consequences.

I fear the electorate won't be interested and that the Tories will be elected anyway. With parlous results for the country. Labour has to show why the Tories don't deserve to win. Labour has to pull the gaping holes in Tory policy open to the country. Labour needs to attack the Tories and ensure the election is the challenge the country deserves it to be when so much is at stake.

The Tories might win. They are not ready. Labour has to make sure this becomes an issue.

In the Loop trailer

Emire magazine have linked to the trailer for Armando Ianucci's upcoming political classic: In the Loop. I can't fucking wait.

National Health Service survey

Please complete this survey to show your support (or otherwise) for the NHS. This is for a friend who is looking to understand people's experience of healthcare in the UK. It only takes a minute and your support is greatly appreciated.

Lazy Islington LibDem blogs: follow my leader

I was recently quoted in an article in the Islington Tribune highlighting how Islington Council Leader (Lib Dem) James Kempton had abandoned his blog because nobody was reading it. After narrowly keeping their grip on power after the 2006 local elections, Islington's Lib Dems claimed they had learnt their lesson, that they needed to listen to the people of Islington more.

Starting a blog was one of Kempton's means of listening. A blog can be a powerful tool for leaders if used properly. Putting yourself into the social media sphere means you are prepared to take part in a conversation, not just to talk at people. A blog lets people make their point and to engage their leaders in a debate.

Kempton gave up too easily, had he tried harder he might have found that it was worth listening to his electorate. They might have given him some ideas. However, he chose to give up, perhaps because listening is not that important to him, rather, he would prefer to say he is listening and hope people think that is enough.

Kempton stated in the article that if people wanted to keep in touch with him online, they could check his Facebook page. FYI, Kempton's page shows he has 126 "friends". Not many have taken him up then. Further analysis of his friends list shows that virtually all of them are fellow Lib Dem members (Bridget Fox, Meral Ece, Nick Clegg...). Not really a cross section of the public.

One of Kempton's IslingtonLib Dem colleagues, Meral Ece, has been succesful at blogging, despite not having a whole "executive support" office to support her, unlike her boss. Kempton didnt even have to write or promote his blog, that is the job of his support team.

In the interview for the article I mentioned that another of Kempton's colleagues, Islington South Parliamentary candidate Bridget Fox, had started blogging for The Guardian as a result of her personal blog. I checked her Guardian blog today and noted that...it has died too, just like Kempton's. Fox's Guardian blog hasn't been updated for four months. Whoops. I shouldn't have mentioned that. Her personal blog does get updated though. You can find that for yourself.

Johnson blows off at Vaz

Yesterday's news that Boris Johnson had irked Commons Home Affairs Committee Chair Keith Vaz over his knowledge of the Damien Green affair and that he then followed this with a tirade of the f-word should suprise nobody. It disappoints me. Our Mayor should be able to get his facts right. First he should not mislead Vaz in the first place over when he did or didn't call David Cameron on the day Green was arrested. If you don't know the facts, don't pretend (Some people call pretending lying). That aside, swearing in parliament shows a poor understanding of the standards required of those in public office.

Even the Evening Standard has covered this. As usual, Tory Troll has shamed my attempt to cover this story.

Council tax under BJ

Boris Johnson has taken time out from re-announcing things that were already happening bfore he was elected (cycle hire scheme, London Recycling network, public open space to be the legacy of the Olympic park) to finally announce that he is sticking to one of his election pledges. The mayor's portion of council tax will be frozen. Hurrah! This will have little effect on frontline services. Hurrah! Oh, but this will only mean that I will "save" about 11p a week against what loser Ken had proposed. Oh. Not that special really.

If Londoners are to get 'more bang for their buck' as promised by BJ we need to actually see more evidence than this. If the Mayor's budget has been 'cut' by 15% then why haven't my bills?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7884000/7884131.stm?

Norfolk nonsense

I logged onto the site where Norfolk really matters, the Eastern Daily Press, and found a laughable account of a place called London. In this city they speak of, the highlights include the London Dungeon, Madame Tussards and "Romanian gypsies brandishing sedated infants." The buses are beset with an "appalling tide of violence" caused by having to sit in traffic. If everyone is being forced to go to Madame Tussards then perhaps that is why the bus travelling public are revolting? Does anyone from London even go to look at wax models? Or perhaps they are just angry that they aren't going to the Mustard Shop in Norwich?

South West Trains to accept Oyster pay as you go after all

After much wrangling and feet dragging, I note with pleasure that South West Trains has finally agreed to accept Oyster pay-as-you-go. As someone who frequently travels from North East London to South West I've often been delayed by having to break my journey at Vauxhall or Waterloo to buy another ticket. Long queues and additional costs add to the inconvenience. This has taken far too long and clearly wasn't something that Stagecoach SWT were keen to adopt, even though Transport for London has picked up the £40m bill.

Cross River Tram

Boris Johnson doesn't think the Cross River Tram is worth investing in. Funding for any infrastructure projects won't be easy in the current financial climate. However, investing in the future will help London become more prosperous in the long term. London did this in the 1930s and for those of us who agree with Gordon Brown that doing so again, missing out on a project that had already been heavily invested in seems at best a waste and worst a missed opportunity.

Southwark Council has been vocal in opposition to Johnson's decision to scrap the project. Johnson come into office claiming to be a mayor who would listen to the boroughs rather than dictate to them as he claimed Ken Livingstone did. Southwark's Lib Dem leader Nick Stanton claims that Johnson failed to consult with his council when he planned to scrap it.

Stanton is seeking support from other affected councils. I don't expect the Department for Transport to provide capital funding without the crucial TfL contribution from the mayor, or private funding. I expect Stanton's worthy fight to fail because the mayor isn't interested.

Perhaps spending valuable funds on the unnecessary Boris Bus might have allowed the mayor to contribute to the Cross River Tram. However, he has shown little appetite for funding projects that benefit those who voted for Livingstone, as Southwark, Lambeth and Camden (the areas to benefit most from the scheme) all did.

Read more:

• Southwark News
• London Reconnections
  

WASP councillors?

The Local Government Chronicle reports today that the average age of councillors in England is now 59.

In their 2008 annual National Census of Local Authority Councillors the Local Government Association asked our locally elected representatives a range of profiling questions. The results reveal a clearly defined image of England's councillors:

• 97% are white
• 87% are over 45
  
• 68% are male

It is not surprising that our town halls are run by older, white men. That doesn't make it right. Turnout for local elections is typically very low, at around 35%. Engagement in local politics isn't exciting for many busy people. However Local politics can never enthuse voters if it doesn't both change it's image and start to look more like the communities it represents.

I like to think that my pitch that as a young man I could offer representation of young people in the place of experience, at the 2006 local elections, helped me to significantly increase the Labour vote.

All of the major parties need to ensure their candidates look like the people they will represent. We need more young people, more women, more different people. I hope that I won't look at the same survey in ten years and see the same results.

Paris, 1970s

How do you spell Isllygnton?

As one who is frequently irritated with the poor use of grammar and punctuation on pubilc signage, this news from Islington amused me. Hazellville Road in the borough appears with different spellings on street signs, bus stops and council improvement notices. If only the sign writers could have added extra apostrophes it would have been complete...

• Islington Gazette
• Evening Standard
  

Bendy buses

Having used a 149 bus last night from Seven Sisters to get to White Hart Lane and suffered the crowds I was reminded of the reason they were introduced int he first place. Bendys have the largest capacity of any passenger bus on the market. They were introduced on the routes with the highest demand, like the 29, 38, 73 and 129.

Boris Johnson was elected stating he wanted to rid London's streets of bendys. He was also elected stating he wanted to give Londoner's "more bang for (their) buck." Scrapping the bendys was meant to make London's streets safer for cyclists, however, when pressed by the London Assembly, Johnson was forced to admit that bendys had killed no cyclists on London's streets. It now transpires that not only will scrapping the bendys not make London's streets noticably safer, the replacements will also cost Londoners more (thanks Boris Watch).

The new buses will be smaller, there will be more of them on the roads causing more congestions and they will cost more, with no discernable safety benefit. Is this the "common sense" politics we were promised by the mayor?

Further reading recommended at the Tory Troll.

Can a recession ever be a good thing? Part 2

Boris Johnson and the Evening Standard have now got in on the act of trying to cheer us all up about the recession. In an article headlined "Mayor: London can benefit from recession"Johnson outlines what he perceives to be the benefits of a recession:

●The fall in house prices would mean London's £5billion housing budget, which will help homeowners avoid recession by taking temporary equity stakes in their property, would go further.

●Tourism and exports would be boosted by the fall of the pound with London representing greater value for money for foreign visitors and investors.

●The brightest graduates, especially scientists, who might otherwise have gone to work in the City, could look for work in the public sector, particularly teaching.

●Workers with more time on their hands because of the downturn could help tackle knife and gun crime among young people by volunteering.

I spoke on this subject in December for BBC Radio Five Live's Richard Bacon show. My premise then and now is that whatever "benefit" side-effects of a recession may bring, it is inherantly a bad thing.

Our market economy is based on work. Work pays for food and shelter and to keep the rest of the economy going by allowing people to buy goods and services. Without work this collapses.

I'd prefer my mayor to be talking about what he plans to do to help Londoners through tough economic times, rather than telling them not to worry. Can't afford to go on holiday any more? Don't worry, you can look at all the tourists in London instead, taking advantage of the cheap pound. Great.

Johnson must be wrapping himself in a coocoon if he believes a recession will help tackle crim by providing more volunteers. Basic sociological theory suggests that unemployment leads to poverty and poverty is a drving force behind increasing crime.

If johnson is to really show that he intends to govern for all Londoners then he needs to start showing that he understands the stresses and pressures most of us are under. He isn't doing that. I don't expect him to do that. He doesn't know how.

Boost your worker productivity

New Portable Sewing Machine Lets Sweatshop Employees Work On The Go

Blog returns no thanks to BT

After having moved house meaning no broadband there followed a five week palaver with BT. I was then away for Christmas so I've had very few opportunities to write recently. I apologise, but I'm back on the game now.

The only reason I wanted a BT line was because it is a pre-requisite for a new Sky installation. Sky Sports is a pre-requisite for me, I need my cricket and football. I also need my broadband to work and write this.

I live on a small side street of three houses that shares the post code with the side of a main residential street. When I set up my BT account I was presented with the common question "what is your post code and house number sir?". To which I replied "that won't work as there are two number Xs on the same post-code." "That is fine, what is your address" replied the BT telephone executive. I gave the proper address and set the account up. The bills and paperwork arrived correctly. I had no reason to worry.

BT told me the line would be active by a certain date. When I tried the phone line after that date it was dead. Sky came and the installation failed because the BT line didn't work. I managed to circumnavigate the lack of a BT line to get Sky working. I called BT who promised to send an engineer the next day to fix the line. Sure enough, that Saturday morning in November BT texted me to assure me the problem was being investigated.

That afternoon the line didn't work. I called BT again and they promised to investigate further and send another engineer if needed. I hadn't been told that access to my property was needed, so I was surprised to find that engineer number two had left a "sorry you were out" card. Apparently the problem was deemed to lie in our property. When I pressed BT for information on the fault though, BT had no idea.

Another engineer was booked. My housemate came home early from work and waited. BT man didnt knock on the door. I called BT again. They "looked into the problem." They booked engineer number four. I asked why number three hadn't arrived. BT had no idea.

BT engineer number four was booked with explicit instructions to call my mobile when he arrived on another Saturday staying in. Four was only booked after four phone calls. I waited and waited. I even chased BT to remind them they had promised me an engineer. They confirmed. Four failed to show up. I hollered. I called BT and told them to tell me what was going on. BT had no idea.

Engineer five was booked for another weekday afternoon slot and housemate number two stayed in from work. Five called me in the morning to tell me he was outside. I asked if he was at a restaurant. He said nobody was in. I told him he was at the wrong address. BT had no idea but I had an idea. The engineers were failing to go to the correct address. Five investigated and said a hoist was needed for further innestigation. We couldn't take any more time off work and hoists were not available at weekends. When could this be fixed? BT had no idea.

Engineer six was booked after a number of robust conversations with my personal claim handler. I was now getting special attention, but I still didn't have a phone line or broadband. I was told my my special advisor that I had a white front door. The restaurant over the road, the other number X with the same post code has a white front door. Mine is grey, almost black. The BT engineers had either been lying, bluffing of been going to the wrong address.

I had also spent a total of four days waiting for phantom engineers and now had a fifth to look foward to. Six turned up on time and called me from the restaurant over the road. I told him to check my address more carefully and to cross the road to where I actually lived. I told him the history and that the line wasn't active. He checked. I told him to try to turn on my line and not that of the restaurant. He did. It worked. BT had turned on the wrong line and it took:

• A month to fix
• Six engineers + an unused hoist
• Four working days off work
• Over three hours of phone calls

BT has given me the most appalling customer service I have ever experienced. Incompetant. They had no idea what was going on. Each part of the business had no idea what the other was up to or had done. This is the first time I've been a BT customer. I will cancel my account at the first opportunty and will never return. First I will be calling them to remind them that I won't be paying their first bill. I bet BT have no idea.

I'm glad to be back blogging.

David Cameron calls for broken Britain

I always said the Tories wanted to break Britain's social fabric. Now we have the evidence from the independent BBC.

With Ken Livingstone on LBC

On Saturday I appeared on Ken Livingstone's LBC show to talk about the week's news and that day's newspapers. It was good to see him much more relaxed than he'd appeared in the mayoral elections a few months ago.

We discussed the arrest of Damien Green. Ken was interested to know why Boris Johnson had been informed when he didn't see it as a matter for the mayor. Clearly this depends on the role of the mayor in the Metroplitan Police Authority. This has become rather ambiguous and disputed. It looked like Johnspn had abused his power over the resignation of Sir Ian Blair, while he now has a job on his hands to keep the Met onside. The Deputy Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has been heavily involved in Green's arrest and now it looks like Johnson won't want to work with him either.

There is a simple solution. That is for politicians not to get involved in day to day policing. They must remain independent to protect them from political interference and protect us all from any sort of mob rule.

Read further on Tory Troll.

I also discussed with Ken the future of New Labour. It has been widely reported that he sees New Labour as dead as a result of banking crisis. He likened me to Peter Mandelson. I laughed. Thing is, I agree with Mandelson that New Labour is still alive. People often forget that Gordon Brown was central to the whole New Labour project. Without him it wouldn't have been possible at all.

I hope to pick this up with Livingstone again soon. LBC, 97.3, London's conversation, Saturdays, 10:00.

Can a recession ever be a good thing? Richard Bacon show discussion

Yesterday Andrew Lansley, Tory Health Spokesman, was forced to withdraw a blog entry stating that "Interestingly on many counts, recession can be good for us. People tend to smoke less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend time at home with their families." Last night I spoke from the panel on Richard Bacon's BBC Radio Five Live show about this. Saying recession is a bad thing. David Kuo said it can be.

Lansley was both misguided and insensitive. It shows that many of the Tories haven't changed. At the 1997 election the Tories said of the harsh economic climate a few years earlier "yes it hurt, yes it worked." Their premise is that job losses are a price worth paying for a stronger economy. Kou agreed, saying that many jobs are worthless. I disagree.

Our economy is based on work providing enough to pay for our living costs. Without that most people's lifestyles will fall apart. We saw in the 1980s that many families and whole parts of Britain never recovered from the closure of industry.

I accept that many people naively thought the economy, house prices and the stock market would grow continuously. This is clearly not the case. However, a recession will be bad for families, under financial pressure and facing the threat of losing their homes and jobs.

The side effect of recession is poverty, often higher crime, family breakdown, higher alcoholism and drug taking.

Of course there will be some positive side effects of recession. People will become more frugal, use less energy and waste less. This is a good thing. However, this is a nasty lesson to learn and one most people would rather avoid. I'd like to have the same discussion in a year's time and see whether the callers to the show still agreed that recession would be OK, once they'd had to suffer the effects.

You can listen again to the show here and clicking on Wednesday.

Pre-budget report

My first thoughts on Alistair Darling's Pre Budget Report are that it clearly presents the country with clear water between Labour and Tory.

Labour has put together a package that at the very least seeks to stimulate the ailing economy. This is set against a Tory Party that cynically states the solutions won't work. The Tory solution is minimal action because they don't believe in government as the answer to problems. The Tories have retreated to their ideological home ground of minimal government and laissez-faire economics.

It is simply not acceptable to allow banks to go to the wall or to leave the poor and low earners without any help when help is available. Labour is certainly trying. Peeling back the surface and starting to look at the details and the picture becomes a little murky. Clearly high levels of public borrowing will have to be paid for over many years. Borrowing increases to levels higher than in previous recessions. However after previous recessions, such as in the 1990s, the government of the day didn't seek to stimulate the economy like this. The economic threat globally was not as great. Darling has sought to make higher earners pay for the borrowing, in future years. This could work and is certainly fair, however is dependent on Labour winning the next election.

Brown and Darling have taken a huge political gamble. It was one worth taking because it offers a glimmer of hope at a time when the Tories have offered nothing.

Time for a change in Islington?

With change on the world political agenda, closer to home, in Islington, it looks distinctly possible. Islington Council has been run by the Lib Dems for the last seven years. After being decimated in 2002, an amazing fightback saw Labour within one councillor of regaining the council. The Lib Dems have since run the council on the casting vote of the mayor. Last week's resignation of cabinet member for finance Andrew Cornwall threatens to tip the balance inthe town hall.

My Labour Party colleagues, notably Cllrs Catherine West, Richard Watts and Paul Smith have been persistently aiming charges of wastefulness at the Lib Dem leadership. It is good to see one of them agree.

Do the Lib Dems allow Cornwall to stay in the group? They are not known for their forgiveness, however at the same time I can't imagine them pressing the nuclear button: kicking Cornwall out and losing control over what they dubbed the flagship Lib Dem council.

Cornwall won't join Labour. He has just been responsible for selling off scores of council property and was heavily criticised by Labour for doing so. Whether he might vote with Labour remains possible. It all depends on how deep his rift with the rest of the Lib Dems is. I'll be at the council meeting on December 4 to find out.


Further reading:

• Conservative Home
• Islington Tribune
  
• Suz Lamido

Ken launches Progressive London

Ken Livingstone was never going to go quietly. Not content with a regular slot on LBC radio and newspaper columns, Livingstone has now formally set up Progressive London.

The stated aim of Progressive London is to keep together the coalition of anti-Tory votes that Livingstone sought to keep him in office. Uniting politicians and activists across party lines is ambitious. There will be some who see this as Ken's declaration of candidacy for the 2012 elections. Mobilising a campaign for 2012 it might be, mobilising a campaign for Ken, I'm not sure. Ken might want that, I don't think it is that feasible. Labour will need to make a new choice and do so in two ore three years time.

For any alliance to work will require a common enemy. Boris Johnson will therefore need to keep antagonising those who didn't vote for him. Increasing transport fares in January will help, as will the bungled handling of Sir Ian Blair's stepping down as head of the Metropolitan Police. If BJ hadn't exercised powers he didn't hold in making Blair's position untenable, there would be no row over how much he is being paid to quit. I'm confident that the common enemy will remain, however an alliance also needs common solutions.

Common solutions stem from a shared vision. So far Ken's alliance looks like one that can run. It should do because so far the backers are predominantly Labour, with a smattering of Lib Dems and Greens. I'll be interested to see if the alliance can really take on a cross party feel. If it does, it will stand a chance of being listened to as something more powerful than simply Ken Livingstone's mouthpiece.


Further reading:
Pippa Crerar's Evening Standard blog
Tory Troll: one of the speakers at the Progressive London conference in January
Dave Hill
Liberal Conspiracy
Mayorwatch

Is Andrew Gilligan sockpuppeting?

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.

Obama: change

I love this:

Wassup 2008
Uploaded by 60Frames

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.

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.

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.

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:

"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."

Ruth Kelly's resignation from cabinet shows there are still murmurs of discontent within and was either timed for maximum damage - diverting attention from Brown's speech - or totally misguided. Brown's forthcoming reshuffle is now the next most important challenge. He needs a cabinet to both support him and to promote his agenda - a cabinet with positive policies to improve Britain, not a sniping, critical opposition. Voters don't want to listen to a party tearing itself apart in public, they want a government to govern.

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:

• 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.

Labour = mess

Labour has a few problems at the moment:

• 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

Under Blair Brown was happy to use junior ministers to stir up trouble and had them writing to the press or resigning to call for Blair to quit. He is now suffering the same treatment from his opponents. While it is easy to say Brown has laid the ground for an ill disciplined party, the party should know better. Further, all these people calling for a "debate" or leadership election were very quiet a little over a year ago when Brown received his coronation. Very few outside the left called for a leadership contest.

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?

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:

• Dave Hill (Guardian blog)
  
• Mayorwatch
• Investor.co.uk

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.

A new bus for London? Why bother?

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

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

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

Ken Livingstone put it succinctly:

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

Mayor = big picture; London Mayor = no plan

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

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

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

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

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

Lammy on the money

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

No such thing as a broken society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another of Boris Johnson's deputy mayors quits

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

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

Do we need a new captain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Hall = circus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from The Onion

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

Is the mayoral system accountable enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Hall a waste of money?

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

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

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

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