Adam Bienkov

Boris Johnson's campaign wastes a month on a fantasy

2012-01-27T09:16:00.000Z

I wrote two weeks ago about Boris Johnson's fake campaign for an inevitable council tax freeze.

Day after day, thousands of Boris's supporters have been encouraged to spam London Assembly Members for no discernable purpose:

Emails have been sent, tweets composed, and leaflets prepared in favour of something that will happen anyway. No matter what anyone does.

The freeze, which is being implemented by almost every other local authority in the country, is supported by both Labour and the Lib Dems (who actually want to cut council tax).

Nobody wants to stop it, and even if they did, it would be impossible unless Boris Johnson's own Assembly Members voted against it.

That isn't going to happen. The freeze will take place, and Londoners will storm City Hall in gratitude at the literally handful of pounds it will save them this year.

Not content with campaigning for the inevitable, Boris's campaign have also tried to claim that Ken Livingstone's running mate is "leading the charge" against it.

Their source for this claim is an out of context footnote from a press release for the Labour proposals, which actually backs the freeze.

What's surprising about this is not the dishonesty. It's the incompetence of it.

After wasting six months talking about national rather than London issues, Boris has now wasted the best part of a month on a fantasy.

And what has he got for it? One article in the Croydon advertiser, and a handful of other articles explaining what a waste of time it is.

In case Boris hasn't noticed, the election is only a few months away now.

In order to win he needs to do more than manufacture inevitable victories. He needs to persuade Londoners that he's in touch with their concerns.

Will he manage it? So far the signs don't look good.

At this week's budget debate, Tory AM Steve O'Connell asked Boris about a claim "from a very good source" that Ken wants to reverse his booze ban on the tube.

Needless to say Livingstone has no such plans.

O'Connell's fantasy claim, was followed up by a reply from Boris that Ken would probably make drinking on the tube "compulsory." An obvious smear.

And so after two polls putting Boris behind Ken, it's clear that the only lesson they have learnt is to go even more negative against Ken.

Will it work? Possibly. They had plenty of practice in 2008 and Boris has no shortage of former colleagues and toadies in the press to do his dirty work for him.

But in order to win Boris also needs to face up to reality. At Wednesday's meeting Boris boasted that he was "leading the city to a strong economic recovery."

This was on the same morning that we learnt that we are heading back into recession.

This does not suggest that he is in touch with the concerns of ordinary Londoners.

Unfortunately for his supporters, it also suggests he's not even in touch with his own campaign.

Do Labour actually want to win the Mayoral election?

2012-01-25T08:28:00.000Z

We know that Ken Livingstone does. He's wanted it ever since May 3rd 2008 and has spent every day since then trying to win it.

But what about the rest of his party? Take this tale from Amol Rajan at the Independent:

"In November I sat next to one of the failed candidates for Labour's leadership at dinner. He was so utterly hateful of Ken and dismissive of his chances that I presumed he was exceptional in the party. But in fact senior Labour figures have been briefing against Ken for weeks. If they want control of London again, that should stop."

That is of course, assuming that they do want to win back control of London. And so far I'm far from convinced.

Ken and his team have been in opposition now for four years and are beginning to show that they want and know how to get back into power.

Nationally however, the party seem locked in a permanent state of opposition. Opposition that is, to themselves.

Hardly an hour goes by online without some new squabble, defection, or flame war between one or other of the barely distinguishable, but for some reason bitterly opposed, wings of the party.

And so pleased are they with this game of battleships that they have forgotten that there is a major and very much winnable election taking place right under their noses.

Their strategy is to play down the importance of the Mayoral elections so that if (and many of them assume when) Ken loses, they won't be tarnished too much by association.

This is the strategy of the loser.

Asked by LBC this week whether a Ken Livingstone win mattered to Ed Miliband, former minister Tessa Jowell replied that he was far more concerned with the general election in a few years time.

Jowell and her colleagues appear to have bought into the conventional wisdom that Boris is a dead cert to win.

He isn't. His achievements have been minimal and he is nowhere near as popular amongst Londoners as he is amongst lobby journalists in Westminster.

Luckily for Labour, Boris also appears to have bought into the conventional wisdom about himself and has spent the past six months obsessing about national rather than London issues.

And whilst Boris's head is stuck in the Thames Estuary sand, there is a real opportunity for Labour to move in and occupy the city he's deserted.

As the polls this week have shown, it is more than possible for Labour to do this. The only question is, do they really want it?

Ken Livingstone ahead in two latest polls

2012-01-23T07:57:00.001Z

I was on LBC this morning with Nick Ferrari talking about a new Comres poll which puts him two points (51% to 49%) ahead of Boris Johnson.

This follows a YouGov poll last week with almost identical results, suggesting that Boris is managing to lose what many had assumed would be a straightforward election.

I've written more about why this is over at The Scoop:

"In 2008, Ken lost because he appeared complacent and out of touch, whilst Boris campaigned on the issues that Londoners cared about.

So whilst Ken banged on about climate change, Boris banged on about knife crime. Four years later and the opposite is now true.

Whilst Ken talks about fares, Boris talks about the 50p tax rate. Whilst Boris talks about helping bankers, Ken talks about helping commuters."

The big problem for Boris is that he has spent the past six months talking about issues (the European referendum, 50p tax rate, airports in Kent) which most Londoners simply don't care about.

Ken meanwhile has been banging on about the three issues (cost of living, transport and crime) which Londoners do care about when choosing their next Mayor.

At times Boris has seemed more concerned with the next election to be leader of the Conservative Party, than the current election, to be Mayor of London.

This has all been reflected in today's poll the details of which state that:

"Since our last poll in November 2011 Ken has overtaken Boris not only after reallocating second preferences (as the headline figure shows) but also on first preference votes (now leads 46% to 44% - in Nov Boris had an 8% point lead)

Boris’s loss of support is well demonstrated in the inner/outer split: in inner London Boris has 32% support - lower than Ken enjoys in outer London (43%). Similarly Boris has 57% support in his own stronghold of outer London but this is again lower than Ken has in inner London (68%)."

The difficulty for Ken is that he has to persuade Londoners that after five years as GLC leader and two terms as Mayor, he still has something to offer.

He also has to realise that fares was always going to be his ace card. The other issues are much harder for him to win on and the election is still a long way away.

The good news for Boris is that he still leads amongst outer Londoners and older Londoners, two groups most likely to vote.

And after two polls putting him behind, he may finally realise that being the Mayor of London is not his by right.

-UPDATE- The full numbers are now up: Boris leads Ken on the economy and crime, but Ken leads Boris on fares and "Knows most about the concerns of ordinary Londoners." There's still everything to play for.

Why would anyone trust Boris Johnson to build a river crossing?

2012-01-13T09:19:00.000Z

After four years of doing nothing, aside from cancel existing plans for a river crossing, Boris is now trying to convince us that he's the man to build another one:

"within ten years."

Except he's already told us that *at most* he will only be in the job for another four years.

And even if he sticks around, why would you trust his pre-election promise on Silvertown Crossing this time, when he so blatantly broke his pre-election promises on Blackwall Tunnel last time?

And why would you trust such a huge project to a man who can't even set up a bike hire scheme or cable car without busting the budget?

And even if by some fluke the thing does get built on time and on budget, would it even be worth doing?

Because the Silvertown Crossing isn't a new river crossing in the same way that the Thames Gateway Bridge would have been.

It's essentially just a widening of the existing crossing at Blackwall, which would pump more traffic onto the same already massively congested approach roads.

But this is all by the by. The Silvertown Crossing isn't meant to be built. It's meant to make the Mayor appear like he's doing something for motorists and for SE London.

And in that at least, the project has already been a resounding success.

Boris Johnson launches campaign for something that will happen anyway

2012-01-12T15:02:00.001Z

Boris Johnson has called on his supporters to launch a letter-writing campaign for something that will happen anyway.

In an email to supporters, Boris's campaign chief Lynton Crosby claims that "he needs your help" in order to freeze the Mayor's share of the council tax precept.

"he wants to freeze your council tax - for the fourth year in a row. But he needs your help. His budget needs to be approved in a vote by London Assembly members... Boris will work hard to persuade them that your council tax should be frozen. But in 11 years, Labour have never once voted in favour of freezing your council tax...

You can help by writing to your Assembly member and urging them to vote for the Mayor’s budget, so send an email to your Assembly member now: www.borisbudget.com"

Except Boris doesn't need his supporters' help to freeze the council tax. In fact he doesn't even need the Labour, Lib Dem, or Green Party's help.

Under the GLA act all he needs is more than one third of the London Assembly to support his budget and it passes.

And as Conservative London Assembly members make up more than one third of the Assembly, his budget will pass regardless of whether the other parties support it.

As it has done for the past the past three years!

So unless the Tory AMs are planning to oppose their own Mayor's precept freeze then Boris Johnson's supporters can save themselves a lot of pen, ink and tweets:

How Boris Johnson also uses "Tourette's" slur

2012-01-08T11:04:00.000Z

David Cameron is in trouble this morning for comparing Ed Balls to a Tourette's sufferer.

However in this matter he is one step behind his rival Boris Johnson.

Two years ago during Mayor's Questions he said of London Assembly Member John Biggs:

"He keeps up a constant babble like he is a Tourettes syndrome fellow. He is like an old chap on a park bench rambling. I do not mind. We have to put up with it. It is care in the community!"

His comments were greeted with loud guffaws from Tory London Assembly Members, as they were when he repeated them almost word for word several months later:

"In spite of old care in the community here [gestures to John Biggs AM] with Tourettes and his constant barracking, I think we run a very harmonious operation."

David Cameron has swiftly apologised for his offensive comments. Two years on, there's little sign that Boris Johnson will ever do the same.

Boris Johnson on using City Hall for party political purposes

2012-01-05T09:35:00.002Z

A spokesperson for Boris Johnson on a cheeky attempt by Ken Livingstone to rent the top floor of City Hall for a campaign event:

“The Mayor has no intention of using City Hall for pre-election party political purposes, so does not expect others to do so.”

Of course Boris would never consider using City Hall for party political purposes.

Well apart from when he used it repeatedly to hold secret meetings with his party political campaign manager of course.

And when that same campaign manager had un-minuted meetings with non-political City Hall staff.

Oh and when he gave that same campaign manager an access all areas pass reserved solely for City Hall employees.

But apart from all that Boris would never ever consider using City Hall for pre-election party political purposes. Oh no. Perish the thought!

The myth of the "Ken deficit" and "Ken bonus"

2011-12-08T19:06:00.004Z

Lord Ashcroft of Belize has a new poll out suggesting that Labour are set for a stonking win in the Feltham and Heston byelection but that Boris and Ken are merely neck and neck in the constituency.

This, we are told, is yet further sign of the "Ken deficit" whereby Ken is running 'behind' his party's vote nationally.

This is opposed to the "Ken bonus" that he held in previous elections where he ran 'ahead' of his party's vote nationally.

Still with me?

Well there's two problems with this. First of all, Mayoral politics in London has almost nothing to do with party affiliation, as Frank Dobson found out when he came in third place at the height of Labour's popularity.

Mayoral politics is about individuals not parties. Ken didn't win in 2000 and 2004 because he was more popular than Labour. He won because he was more popular than Steve Norris and Frank Dobson.

Second of all, far from suggesting a significant drop in his support, Ashcroft's poll shows that Ken Livingstone's vote in Feltham and Heston has actually gone up since 2008.

In Feltham and Heston last time around Boris got 41% of the votes as opposed to Ken's 37% (Source: London Elects)

Today's figures put them neck and neck at 45% to 44% (weighted) or 37% to 37% (unweighted) so a modest swing towards Ken Livingstone.

However, the swing is only modest. If matched across London, Boris would still be on course to win next year, albeit by a smaller margin than last time.

So what does this tell us?

Well not very much. A poll taken at a similar stage in 2007 gave the incumbent a clear lead. A lead which he was to completely lose just a few months later.

And the few Mayoral polls we've seen this time around have suggested that Ken and Boris are either neck and neck or that Boris has a clear lead.

My own hunch is that we won't really get a clear picture of the state of the race until Londoners start to think properly about the campaign next year.

And when they do, the last thing they'll be considering is any mythical "bonus" or "deficit" held by Boris and Ken.

Why Boris Johnson isn't trusted on transport

2011-12-06T12:20:00.005Z

The latest Mayoral poll while generally good news for Boris Johnson shows that when it comes to transport, most Londoners simply don't trust him.

The reason for this should be obvious. Just take a look at his manifesto from 2008:

"after eight years of a Labour Mayor, we too often spend our mornings and evenings in cramped, overcrowded carriages or sitting for hours in traffic, and we pay the highest fares in Europe."

And after almost four years of a Tory Mayor we still spend our mornings and evenings in cramped and overcrowded carriages, and now pay even higher fares than before.

"We have had to watch as vital reports and fresh ideas have been suppressed, while this Labour Mayor has pursued far-flung projects, completely out of touch with Londoners’ concerns."

Unlike Boris's totally in-touch airport in Kent and totally down-to-earth cable car over the Thames.

"I will also re-instate tidal flow in the Blackwall tunnel at the earliest opportunity."

He won't.

"I will commission a trial of orbital express bus routes for outer London."

Trial commissioned. No new buses.

"I will vigorously oppose the Government’s plans to increase the Dartford crossing toll, and campaign for residents in neighbouring London boroughs to be given a discount"

No discount given.

"I want the Tube to open for one hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, so Londoners can get home safely late at night."

Promise dropped.

"I will also fight for the long-term investment that London needs, for projects such as a tram for Oxford Street"

Scrapped as soon as he got the job.

"I will look to reduce the disruption caused by strikes on the Tube by negotiating a no- strike deal, in good faith, with the Tube unions."

A ludicrous promise which he hasn't even tried to implement.

"I will stop the planned ticket office closures"

He won't.

"We will broker a deal with a private company to bring thousands of bikes to the capital at no cost to the taxpayer."

Total cost to taxpayer so far: £140 million and counting.

Is it any wonder that Boris isn't trusted on transport?

Boris Johnson refuses to reveal City Hall meetings with Lynton Crosby

2011-11-30T09:07:00.006Z

Boris Johnson has refused to reveal how many meetings he has held with his campaign manager in City Hall, despite a Freedom of Information request from this blog.

Asked to list meetings between Boris, his staff and Lynton Crosby since May 2008 his office replied that:

I refer you to the Mayor's recent answer to a Mayor's Question from John Biggs:
http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5707&T=9 (MQ 3466)

Which states simply that Boris has met him "on a very few occasions."

However, while unwilling to reveal the details of Boris's meetings with Mr Crosby they did reveal that:

"In terms of the Mayor's staff, the Mayor's Private Secretary met Lynton Crosby once to cover diary requests for the use of his time on 26 September 2011 at City Hall. Sir Edward Lister also attended this meeting, which lasted under 30 minutes. The Mayor's Private Secretary and Chief of Staff were both conducting this meeting in support of the office of Mayor. "

So why can they list meetings that the Mayor's staff have had with Mr Crosby but not meetings the Mayor himself has had with him?

And why is the Mayor's Chief of Staff, a politically restricted post, holding meetings with Boris's election campaign manager anyway?

Well unfortunately I can't tell you. According to their response:

"These meetings were not documented."

So that's a meeting inside City Hall between a senior non-political officer and the chief of Boris's political campaign, and nobody thought to take minutes?

The more they try to avoid answering these questions, the more it looks like they've got something to hide.

Boris welcomes George Osborne's "cynical" pre-election fares cap

2011-11-29T14:43:00.006Z

Boris Johnson speaking about politicians "cynically" holding down fare increases before an election:

"What I will not do is play politics with fares. I will not go into an election promising to hold them down and then cynically whack them up, which is what you would expect from my predecessor"

and:

"What we will not do is go for crazy artificial freezes in fares in the run-up to an election and then whack them up cynically thereafter"

Which is presumably why Boris today welcomed George Osborne's decision to er, cynically and artificially hold down his fare increases before the election.

And no doubt if fare rises go back to RPI + 2% post the election as planned, Boris will be the first to condemn himself for such a cynical move?

Boris Johnson's false crime claims exposed

2011-11-17T09:15:00.004Z

Boris Johnson's claims to have drastically cut crime since becoming Mayor are based on figures from three years before he was elected, this blog can reveal.

The Mayor's campaign website and Twitter feed have repeatedly claimed that Boris has cut crime by a whopping 9% across London.

However, analysis of the Metropolitan Police figures shows that there has been a much more modest fall of around 5% since 2007-8 (or just 3% since 2008-09)

Under the heading "Since I became Mayor in 2008" they claim that:

"Robberies are down 18.5%."

However, the most recent figures show that robbery has actually risen by 4.6% across London since the end of Ken Livingstone's term in 2007-8.

The campaign's borough level stats are also incorrect. On a recent visit to Tower Hamlets, Boris's campaign claimed that there had been a 14.2% fall in crime in the borough.

However, analysis of the figures shows that crime has fallen by just 5% since 2007 and has actually risen by 6% since 2008-09

A spokesperson for Boris's campaign said the borough figures were based on comparing crime levels in May 2010 with crime levels in May 2006, two years before Boris became Mayor.

Their claim that crime has fallen by 9% under Boris was based on an even more historical figure, comparing crime levels in May 2011, with crime levels in May 2005.

In other words Boris is taking credit for falls in crime that took place three whole years before he walked through the door at City Hall.

Yesterday Boris hit out at the chair of the UK Statistics Authority who had criticised his previous misleading use of statistics.

Rather than admit his errors (deliberate or otherwise) Boris accused the Chair of the UKSA of being a "Labour stooge." This was also not true.

A spokesperson for Boris's campaign said yesterday that they had used crime figures from three years before Boris became mayor in order to get as accurate a picture as possible.

They also said that they were in the process of updating their figures.

-Update- Boris's team have been in touch to make it clear that they were comparing crime between 2005-2008 with crime between 2008-2011, rather than comparing crime between 2005 with 2011 as I was told yesterday. So they were using a different set of wrong figures to the ones they told me originally.

Boris Johnson denies being "The Mayor" in security pass row

2011-10-31T09:35:00.016Z

Lynton Crosby ID photo

Boris Johnson has denied requesting a City Hall security pass for his campaign manager Lynton Crosby despite an email from his aide, explicitly revealing his request.

The message from Boris's executive assistant Ann Sindall, released to this blog under Freedom of Information, states that:

"The Mayor would like Lynton Crosby to be issued with a security pass for 6 months, renewable. Do you need me to bring down the form too?"

However, the Mayor now claims that "The Mayor" referred to in this email was not himself, The Mayor, but his deceased former chief of staff Sir Simon Milton.

According to a statement by City Hall's monitoring officer:

"upon receiving a request from Sir Simon Milton, who, as the Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning, was, quite properly, deemed to be acting and speaking on behalf of the Mayor, the Executive Assistant to the Mayor then presented, in good faith, the request for the pass as being on behalf of the Mayor... I have been assured that the Mayor himself was never involved in discussions on this matter."

When first asked how Lynton Crosby was given an access all areas City Hall pass, a spokesperson claimed that it had been "mistakenly" approved by an "admin officer" and was "swiftly" removed when senior officials were made aware of it.

However, FOI requests by this blog have revealed that the pass was actually personally requested by "the Mayor" and signed off by his chief of staff.

Faced with these facts, the Mayor is now denying that he is "The Mayor" and has instead sought to blame a man who can no longer answer these questions himself.

Simon Milton was a close and respected aide to Boris Johnson, known for his competency and professionalism.

Ann Sindall meanwhile has been Boris Johnson's personal assistant and gatekeeper since his time at The Spectator and is so valued by Boris that he has apparently nicknamed her his "be-all and Sindall".

The idea that both Sindall or Milton would have gained a staff pass for Lynton Crosby without any discussion with, or request from, their boss does not stand up to scrutiny.

See also: How Boris Johnson covered up City Hall meetings with campaign chief

-Update- The Independent today carries the following:

Will Boris Johnson break his ticket offices promise?

2011-10-24T20:26:00.002+01:00

Asked last year about his plans to close a number of ticket offices across London, Boris Johnson's spokesperson told me that:

"This Mayor takes his promises to Londoners extremely seriously. Every station that has a ticket office will continue to have one.”

The Mayor himself went even further telling the London Assembly that:

"The first and most important point to make is that no ticket offices will be closed, alright? They're not going to be closed...

Pushed on this point he went on to say that:

"The answer to the number of ticket office closures is: nil."

However it turns out that the real answer to the number of ticket office closures could be: all of them.

According to detailed London Underground plans seen by this blog, all ticket offices could be closed by 2016 with "up to 30" of them being being converted to "Travel Information Centres."

1500 members of staff will also be let go with all tube trains being made driverless by the 2020s.

Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary, said today:

“This document tells us everything we need to know about the operational strategy of London Underground - massive increase in fares alongside an unprecedented attack on jobs and safety. Every single ticket office would be closed, stations left unstaffed and drivers would be thrown out of their cabs without a single thought for passenger safety."

In Boris Johnson's 2008 transport manifesto he pledged to: "defend local ticket offices" and "stop the planned ticket office closures" adding that "there is little financial, strategic or common sense in these closures."

Today TfL insisted that the document had merely been prepared to "stimulate fresh thinking" and that nothing had yet been agreed by the Mayor.

However, the lack of any denials from City Hall, and the sheer detail of the plans, suggests that Boris's "extremely serious" promises to Londoners, may not have been quite so serious after all.

How Boris Johnson covered up City Hall meetings with campaign chief

2011-10-13T00:59:00.004+01:00

Lynton Crosby ID photo

Boris Johnson has been accused of a cover up after it emerged that he obtained an access all areas City Hall pass for his re-election campaign manager.

Freedom of Information requests by this blog reveal that the Mayor personally requested a security pass for Lynton Crosby in February that gave him unfettered access to the building.

Under GLA rules, staff passes should only be given to City Hall employees and tenants.

Local government rules also forbid the use of public resources for party political activity.

Asked about the existence of the pass earlier this year a spokesperson for the Mayor claimed that:

"An admin officer mistakenly approved a security pass, which was swiftly withdrawn when senior officials were alerted."

However my Freedom of Information requests reveal that the pass was requested by none other than Boris himself for a six month period, renewable.

And rather than being mistakingly authorised by an "admin officer," the pass was personally authorised by his then chief of staff, the late Sir Simon Milton.

And rather than being "swiftly withdrawn" Mr. Crosby retained the pass for almost five months.

London Assembly Labour group leader, Len Duvall, said today:

"We were given completely misleading information about how and why this pass was issued. It says a lot about the mayor and his senior staff that they don't think they need to play by the same rules as everyone else and are happy to give out totally false information to cover things up when they've been found out. It's astounding they thought it was ok to give this Tory campaign organiser full access to the seat of London government."

A spokesperson for the Mayor denied a cover up, saying that:

"We stand by the original statement because the security pass was requested by an admin officer. We sought very hard to find out who had given authorisation for the pass and checked with every director and mayoral advisor but none were aware it, Following a more detailed trawl, prompted by your FOI, it was discovered that the late Sir Simon Milton has authorised the pass. The current Chief of Staff withdrew the pass when he was informed of its existence."

Boris has repeatedly refused to reveal exactly how many meetings he has had with Crosby in City Hall during what should be strictly work hours.

In response to my Freedom of Information request, the Mayor's office claimed that the log detailing exactly when and how often Crosby used his pass was deleted "automatically" after he returned it.

More on this from Hugh Muir in the Guardian

"Money is no object" for Boris's vanity projects say aides

2011-10-07T18:19:00.006+01:00

Bank Note image by Beau Bo D'or

Boris Johnson is willing to spend hundreds of millions of public money in order to secure a personal legacy his senior aides have claimed.

According to the fascinating new biography Just Boris:

As he entered the fourth year of his mayoralty, City Hall staff noticed he was devoting a 'huge' proportion of his time trying to extract funds from private donors, often bankers and, yes, sometimes his friends at News International, but also little-known overseas companies for a range of increasingly bizarre even panicky 'legacy' projects. 'Subjects such as crime and transport are now much further down the agenda,' says one despairing aide... 'Money is no object when it comes to making these prestige projects happen,' observes one senior City Hall official. Despite the excitable puffs from City Hall, these are not free gifts to the metropolis as many assume. In fact, the total bill for all the Mayor's 'vanity projects' (as they are nicknamed privately, even by his staff) could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.

Boris's "increasingly bizarre" vanity projects have included a 'living bridge' (now forgotten) a Thames walkway (now in doubt) an Olympic erection (going up) and of course the cable car.

Sponsorship for what we must now call the "Emirates Air Line" was announced today.

At £36 million the sponsorship will still leave Londoners with a bill of around £24 million. That's £24 million for a project that Boris promised would come "at no cost to taxpayers."

Now that's small change compared to the £140 million Boris has thrown at his cycle hire scheme (also promised at "no cost to taxpayers") or the as yet unknown cost of his new fleet of vanity 'Routemasters.'

But at least we can be grateful that the estimated £40 billion Boris wanted to spend on a new island airport will now definitely not be spent.

-Update- It looks like the Evening Standard got it wrong. Boris Johnson still wants his £40 billion airport.

Boris Johnson on giving money to charity: "I've been raped!"

2011-09-30T10:30:00.002+01:00

He told bankers to "palliate their guilt" by donating to his Mayor's Fund, but it turns out that Boris Johnson is far less keen on giving to charity himself.

"Strongarmed" by his then aide Nick Boles to give up a fifth of his £250,000 Daily Telegraph earnings to charity Boris is said to have exclaimed:

"It's outrageous! I've been raped! I've been raped!"

Boris apparently bitterly resents what he calls this "Boles Tax" and has so far only donated a fraction of the sums he publicly committed to.

According to a new biography written by his former Telegraph colleague Sonia Purnell, Boris has:

"donated only a total of £20,000 over three years (compared to the £75,000 pledged) to fund six bursaries for a sports journalism course at the College of Communications, with another final sum of £10,000 expected. He has also not given 'nearly as much' as £75,000 to a new charity set up by Friends of Classics to support Latin and Greek teaching in state schools"

Boris has also apparently made no commitment to continue these donations if re-elected.

You can read more about this and other embarrassing claims in Just Boris: The Irresistible Rise of a Political Celebrity which can be ordered from Amazon over here.

Boris Johnson has his "cones hotline" moment

2011-09-21T14:04:00.004+01:00

Boris Johnson has pledged to renew his "war on roadworks" by er, setting up a new version of the cones hotline.

According to the Evening Standard:

"Under the Reportit scheme, signs are being put on roads encouraging people to identify utility companies they think are defying a new code of practice... A City Hall source added: "It's the ultimate in guerrilla tactics."

Yep it's the ultimate in guerilla tactics as practiced by that well known guerilla fighter John Major.

Major's Cones Hotline was labeled "the most ridiculed policy ever" after it emerged that just five of 17,000 calls made to it resulted in any cones being removed.

Boris's latest website will be hoping for a slightly better hit rate than that.

But if his other website-based schemes are anything to go by then Boris's new "war on roadworks" is likely to go the same way as John Major's.

Boris Johnson's "electric revolution" has more charge points than members

2011-09-20T12:27:00.005+01:00

Boris Johnson's plan to "rapidly accelerate" the use of electric vehicles in London appears to have ground to a halt, after figures revealed the scheme has more charge points than members.

Launched by the Mayor last year, "Source London" now has 207 electric charging points but just 205 registered members.

The tiny level of interest in the scheme was revealed by the London Assembly following a question by Liberal Democrat AM Caroline Pidgeon.

Under the scheme, members pay an annual fee of £100 to use the Mayor's network of charge points.

However, today's figures suggest that less than 1% of electric or hybrid owners in London have signed up so far.

Boris had originally intended to oversee the installation of 7500 new charging points in London but scaled back his ambitions to just 1300 new points following local opposition and cuts to the budget.

However, the public indifference to the scheme revealed today, suggests that even this modest aim may have been reaching too far.

Boris Johnson comes out against his own police cuts

2011-08-10T10:43:00.005+01:00

Boris Johnson is hitting the headlines this morning for attacking the govenment's planned police cuts.

He told The Today Programme:

“If you ask me whether I think there is a case for cutting police budgets in the light of these event, then my answer to that would be no. I think that case was always pretty frail, and it has been substantially weakened… This is not a time to think about making substantial cuts in police numbers."

Except it isn't the government that sets the police budget in London. It's Boris. And Boris isn't increasing the number of police officers in London. He's cutting them:

That's a 4% reduction in police officers and PCSOs in the past year alone.

He's also implementing cuts to safer neighbourhood teams and police station front desks.

If Boris wants to stop these things then he doesn't need to lobby David Cameron on the Today Programme.

He just needs to stop the very cuts that he himself is implementing.

Why we shouldn't dismiss Anders Breivik as a "lone wolf"

2011-07-25T13:13:00.007+01:00

Right-wing pundits are now very keen to tell us that the Norwegian terror attacks were not caused by right-wing anti-multicultural ideology.

The fact that Anders Breivik quoted Daily Mail articles in his manifesto and forged links with the same anti-immigration groups lauded by our tabloid press is apparently neither here nor there.

He was just a lone nutter okay? And besides, if it wasn't for multiculturalism, then there wouldn't have been a problem there in the first place.

Boris Johnson takes a similar tack today, telling his Telegraph readers that:

"It wasn’t about immigration, or Eurabia, or the hadith, or the Eurocrats’ plot against the people. It wasn’t really about ideology or religion. It was all about him... There is an important lesson in the case of Anders Breivik. He killed in the name of Christianity – and yet of course we don’t blame Christians or “Christendom”. Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males."

We shouldn't blame right-wing politics for right-wing terrorism, says Boris, just as we shouldn't blame Islam for Islamic terrorism.

Right-wing politics isn't the problem. Islam isn't the problem.

Except that Boris used to say that Islam very much *was* the problem.

Here he is in The Spectator shortly after the 7/7 bombings:

"That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem. To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers... What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?"

Back then Islam definitely was the problem for Boris, just as he thinks that the right-wing fear-mongering pushed by the likes of his colleagues and friends definitely isn't the problem now.

The difference between the two cases is not one of principle but of politics.

Boris did not feel implicated by those who blamed Islam for the 7/7 attacks but he does feel implicated by those blaming right-wing politics for the Breivik attacks.

When Islam was in the dock, Boris wanted it detained without charge, but now that right-wing ideology is in the dock, he wants it released, no questions asked.

It's a sly trick, but it's one that he shouldn't be allowed to get away with.

Islamic ideology had questions to answer after 7/7 and the hard-right ideology pushed by certain pundits in the press has questions to answer now.

The Anders Breivik of this world do not emerge from nowhere, just as the English Defence Leagues of this world do not emerge from nowhere.

They are fostered by an ideology legitimised by screaming tabloid headlines and the fear-mongering of politicians who really should know better.

And unfortunately whilst Breivik's actions were the actions of a nutter, he is not the only nutter out there.

Three years ago 54 explosive devices and 12 firearms were found at the home of BNP member Terence Gavan.

Like Breivik, Gavan saw himself as defending his country from Muslim immigration, and like Breivik he was dismissed as a "lone wolf" whose ideology we didn't need to worry about.

And yet from lone wolves, larger packs are formed.

So whilst we shouldn't entirely blame right-wing ideologues for helping form those packs, we shouldn't entirely absolve them from their responsibilities either.

Conservative London Assembly Members storm out of meeting

2011-07-14T11:52:00.007+01:00

The London Assembly descended into almost Ukranian style disorder yesterday when three senior Conservatives stormed out, slamming desks and hurling abuse as they went.

The statutory Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes, Deputy Mayor for Policing Kit Malthouse and the Chair of the London Fire Authority Brian Coleman all clashed with the two elected Chairs of the Assembly.

Brian Coleman's microphone was cut as he began one tirade and the camera quickly panned away as the leader of the Conservative group James Cleverly unsuccessfully tried to calm him down.

He was later seen jabbing his finger and remonstrating with City Hall lawyers off screen about the dispute.

After a second clash between Barnes and Jennette Arnold, all three men left the chamber with Coleman turning to accuse Deputy Chair Dee Doocey of "never being in this building" since accepting a peerage.

Doocey described this as a "complete and absolute lie" and is believed to be considering a complaint against him.

This is the second time that the un-ennobled Coleman has clashed with the newly ennobled Baroness Doocey. He has also regularly clashed with other members during meetings.

Last year a complaint was submitted against Coleman after he was accused of reducing a member of the canteen staff at Fire Brigade headquarters to tears.

The woman concerned later decided not to pursue the issue.

What Boris Johnson really thinks about phone hacking

2011-07-06T18:58:00.012+01:00

Boris Johnson is terribly concerned about wrongdoing at News of the World and takes the whole scandal "extremely seriously."

This evening he described the allegations as "blatant intrusion," "callousness," "corruption" and said that:

"Even if only a small number of people were implicated, these allegations have to be taken extremely seriously and investigated ruthlessly and openly."

Yes Boris takes it all extremely seriously. In fact so seriously that just three months ago he joked that celebrities actually wanted their phones hacked.

And so seriously that last year he told the London Assembly the phone hacking saga was...

"a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party" which was
"patently politically motivated" and
"a politically motivated put up job" and
"completely spurious and political" and
"a song and dance about nothing" which had been
"whipped up by the Guardian and the Labour Party."

No doubt he'll instruct the Metropolitan Police to take their investigations extremely seriously indeed.

-Update 08 July- BBC London report on this from last night:

Why Obama will not be paying Boris's congestion charge bill

2011-05-20T12:04:00.004+01:00

Boris Johnson will confront Barack Obama about unpaid congestion charges when he arrives in London, reports the BBC.

Now this is very strange considering that Boris has repeatedly surrendered London's only argument for making the US embassy pay the charge, ie that it is a *charge* and not a tax.

If it is a charge then embassies have to pay it under international law. If it is a tax then they do not.

So here's Boris describing it as a tax back in 2008:

I have asked Transport for London to begin the legal process to remove [the Western Congestion Charge] with all convenient speed...

we can lift this tax within fourteen months at the absolute outside and hopefully earlier than that.

and then again on camera in 2009:

Now I'm all in favour of a genuine attempt to get the Americans to pay the charge, but all the evidence so far suggests that he has no real interest in doing so.

What he does have an interest in doing is stoking a controversy in order to grab some headlines, whilst doing nothing to actually solve the problem.

As he conceded in his interview this morning:

"The only way we could do this is if the foreign office gets a grip on the situation and actually takes the American government to court and gets this adjudicated in the international court."

Except the very first piece of evidence the Americans would use, would be the words of Boris Johnson himself.

-Update- I was on LBC earlier today debating this with Julia Hartley-Brewer and Charlie Wolf. You can listen to the show here.

Boris Johnson: Why Bin Laden shouldn't have been assassinated

2011-05-09T09:08:00.001+01:00

The big problem for Boris Johnson and his surrogates is that almost all of their criticisms of Ken Livingstone could just as easily be directed at Boris as well.

Take their outrage over Ken's "extreme" comments on Bin Laden in which he accused Barack Obama of acting like a mobster:

"Today, Ken Livingstone joined a very select company – the Taliban and the leader of Hamas – in condemning the killing of Osama bin Laden." - Andrew Gilligan

"Calling President Obama a mobster is yet another example of Ken Livingstone’s extreme views which threaten to damage London. What American business will want to invest in our city if it is run by a man who repeatedly attacks their leader?" - Tory MP Greg Hands

"This is the latest in a string of highly controversial accusations aimed at America." - Boris's campaign website

Now this would all be well and good if Boris hadn't himself made a "string of controversial comments" about former US president George Bush.

Or indeed if Boris hadn't made almost exactly the same points as Ken about killing Bin Laden ten years ago:

"Bin Laden should be put on trial... in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York. He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could. We want justice." - Boris Johnson

Read the whole thing for an excellent argument against state-sanctioned assassinations and for Boris's description of a possible Bin Laden assassination as him being "whacked" (you know, almost as if by a mobster).

Oh, and then read Boris backpedal during an election campaign and make the exact opposite argument almost ten years later.

What an extremist eh? What will American businesses in London think?