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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Hall = circus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from The Onion

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

Is the mayoral system accountable enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Hall a waste of money?

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

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

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

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

Conrad Black just can't help himself (enough)

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

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

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

Crime really does come free.

TfL take over Metronet

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

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

Bendy buses and London

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

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

Boris bus bunkem part 2

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

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

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

Lib Dems = Tories

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

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

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

Ken and me on LBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook censors Boris Watch

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

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

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

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

Trots on the election

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

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

What Brown should do next: me on Five Live

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

Bold Labour

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

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

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

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

Election post mortem on BBC Radio Five Live

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People don't get it

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

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

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

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

Boris bus bunkem

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

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

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

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

Integrity

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

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

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

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

Will the green agenda win?

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

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

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

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

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