Boris' war on roadworks

Yesterday's Evening Standard carried my comments on Monday's article about Boris Johnson's failed 'war on roadworks.' I said: 

Before he was elected Boris Johnson made much of blaming previous mayor Ken Livingstone for congestion and scoffed at his rival's claims that Thames Water were largely responsible for the huge increase in London roadworks. He now cites this as an excuse for the increase of roadworks under his own watch.

 

It was politically naive of Johnson to try to fight and win an a war on roadworks when if it was that easy Livingstone would have done it first. The affect of the additional congestion hits hard the poorest who rely on buses and those doing shift work, and Johnson's lack of action, combined with the huge increases in bus fares he has imposed, show that his priorities do not lie with them.

A summer of Boris

I'm back from a rainy South of France and pleased that I've found the sun in London. Spending my Sunday morning at London Fields Lido was very pleasant, my weekend only ruined by the England football team. Back onto politics...

I note that the Evening Standard audited Boris Johnson's two years as London mayor. I feel that the marks they awarded him are generous in the extreme:

• Crime - causing turmoil by sacking Ian Blair, chairing the Met Police Authority then quitting shows Boris want to talk the talk but not walk the walk on crime
• Environment - cutting bus funding, failing to extend the low emission zone and worsening air quality show a lack of concern for London's biggest issue
• Transport - wasting money scrapping bendy buses while increasing fares by 50% show a lack of concern for the public transport using public, especially the poor who rely on buses
• Housing - scrapping the requirement for developments to have a minimum percentage of affordable homes shows he doesn't care about London being affordable
• Accountability - constant shirking of questions at Mayor's Question Time in the assembly and ducking difficult questions from journalists show that Boris is not prepared to stand up for his own administration
• Value for money - Boris promised to give Londoners more bang for their buck - the millions wasted on his new bus for London shows he hasn't got a grip on the purse strings in the way he promised

All of the above are Boris' responses to the policy positions he inherited from Ken Livingstone. Johnson has no clear strategy and sought the mayoralty for the sake of power, not because he wanted to change London. The lack of clarity and lack of a theme running through his administration demonstrates this.

We are now past the half way mark in Boris' administration and I am yet to establish the point of it all.

This blog is on holiday

This blogger is presently on holiday in Languedoc,France. So far I've spent a few days in Montpellier,travelled on their pretty trams and eaten some lovely food. I bought myself a copy of France Football magazine's world cup special and note that it makes not a single mention of Thierry Henry's handball. I'll be back in the UK in a week.

Ministers take the train while their papers take the car

David Cameron's edict that ministers should travel on public transport might be a well intentioned move to save public money but it won't do that. It won't save any money.

Just as he used to cycle to work from Notting Hill while a car followed with his papers, ministers will be expected to take the train, without their confidential papers, which will be taken by car to their homes. So the car travels anyway. Worse still, ministers won't be able to do any work while travelling as their papers will be elsewhere and ministers are not allowed to accompany them. You couldn't make it up!

I know that ministers have found the time spent in their ministerial cars travelling between meetings as valuable time in which to get through their red boxes. Now this time has been taken away to provide cheap publicity will Cameron expect his ministers to stop sleeping every night or will they just do less work?

This will cost more money, lead to less effective government and will not do what is purports to. Just bonkers.

Labour for London Mayor, but who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oona King for Mayor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Comments podcast

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson versus Johnson for Mayor?

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

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

I think Johnson versus Johnson would be a great fight.

The two-headed beast

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the campaign trail

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

Clean politics: state funding of political parties

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

Whatever happened to Boris' 'war on roadworks'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cashcroft debate on BBC News Channel

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

Cashcroft and Hague's pals

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

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

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

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

William Hague's pals: Ashcroft and Black

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

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


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

Cashcroft?

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


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


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


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

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

"A different type of people"

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


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