Monday, 30 June 2008

Team Boris take the Rise Festival for another spin

Two weeks after it was revealed that the anti-racist message would be removed from the Rise Festival and that Boris Johnson did not even know about it, City Hall now insist that the event 'is still an anti-racist event' after all.

There will be no anti-racist message in the promotional material of course and most people attending the event will be completely unaware of the change. But as far as Boris and his team are concerned, they will now be 'doing anti-racism for real.'

In a written statement Boris is quoted as saying:

'Rise is still an anti-racist event. But I see Rise as a celebration of what unites the diverse communities of London, not a negative event highlighting differences and focusing on grievances.'

Yes, there will be no highlighting of grievances this year. If you're a racist or a xenophobe then you can attend Rise without fear. Because this year, everyone is welcome. This year, the theme is 'bringing people together.' 

The fact that all unions have pulled their sponsorship from the event, and that anti-fascist groups have condemned the move, is neither here nor there. Because as long as you're not a left-wing campaigner or a union activist, then this year's Rise is the place for you.

The BNP's Richard Barnbrook for one, has said he will be attending, and Boris Johnson will presumably turn up when he's told to. And with Munira Mirza on hand to calculate the percentage of white people, it should all be a rather jolly event...

Join Boris and Munira in celebrating their diversity, without highlighting their differences, at the freshly re-spun Rise festival on 13 July. Go along. Come together. Be diverse.

Boris Johnson prepares his outfit for Pride 2008


Images by Beau Bo D'or

Boris Johnson's deputy slammed for £7000 junket

The man charged with extracting 'maximum value' from City Hall's relationship with local boroughs was slammed this week after charging taxpayers £7000 to pay for his leadership course in America.

Boris Johnson's Deputy Mayor Government Relations Ian Clement was allowed to attend the course free of charge, but decided to put all the costs of his flights and hotel expenses onto the public purse.

Clement recently stood down as the head of Bexley Council in order to work for the Mayor. Labour candidate Ursula Ayliffe, who is standing in Clement's now vacant ward told the Bexley Times:

"Ian Clement argued that his cuts to Meals on Wheels, community safety budgets and the enormous increases in car parking charges were made to deliver value for money to residents. However at the same time, he spent thousands of pounds on trips to America.

"Now as a result of his decision to leave Bexley to take a post with Boris Johnson at £124,000 per annum, Bexley residents will also have to pay for the cost of this by-election."

Ian Clement's reputation at Bexley was largely built on his ability to prevent big council tax rises.

However, in order to achieve this, fees and charges were raised across the board and some of the most vulnerable people in the borough had their services severely cut.

So while for Clement's employment prospects, the £7000 junket to America may have proved good value, for the people of Bexley this will have been one added expense they could have easily have done without.

Thanks to Mr S.B and Doug for the extra research.

Saturday, 28 June 2008

Boris Johnson's Axing of Half-Price Fares Mapped

Boris Johnson's advisor exempted from ethics code

Boris Johnson's senior planning advisor, is not obliged to declare any gifts, or private interests that conflict with his role, it was revealed today.

In response to a written question from Darren Johnson, Boris admitted that the head of the Local Government Association and former head of Westminster Council, Sir Simon Milton will not be bound by the code of ethics that apply to all other City Hall staff.

London Assembly and Green Party Member Darren Johnson said:
"It is without precedence for anyone working for the Mayor, especially in such a senior position, to be beyond all rules governing how they go about their work. 
"To follow Sir Simon Milton's advice on some of the most valuable real estate in the world, without any formal checks on what may have influenced his view, shows a worrying disregard for the principles of good governance by London's Mayor."

Sir Simon was initially intended to be a 'Director' of planning at City Hall, but after it was revealed that his roles at the LGA and Westminster legally precluded him from the job, his title was changed to 'Advisor' and he lost any salary that he had expected to receive.

However, despite this maneuvering, Milton is still thought to retain an identical role, but without having to follow the code of ethics established to prevent corruption.

Pillow Talk

In a sign of the problems he may face, Milton hit controversy last month when his partner, the head of planning at Westminster Council, joked about having 'pillow talk' and a 'word in the ear' with Milton on planning issues in the borough. 

It was pointed out that this was far from funny considering that most major development plans arise in the Westminster borough. 

There have also been concerns raised over the serious conflicts of interest with Milton's role as the head of the Local Government Association. 

The LGA is the chief lobbying group of local authorities in the country. As part of this role, Milton will have hundreds of interactions and relations with politicians and business people. But because of the maneuvering by Boris and his team, Milton will not have to declare any of these before giving the Mayor advice.

Bedding Down

When Boris came to power he did so with the promise of 'cleaning up cronyism' and rooting out 'corruption' at City Hall. 

But as the weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that many of the procedures and rules established precisely to prevent that type of corruption, have been sneaked around and eluded by Boris and his team.

In his latest rant, Andrew Gilligan warns the capital about the dark 'anti-Boris forces' following his pal's every move. 

But unlike Gilligan, the journalists and bloggers following Boris now, are doing to this administration what Gilligan and his pals failed to do to the last administration, until it was too late.

Because it is precisely at this point when Boris and is new administration is bedding itself down, that we should all be watching closest who they are climbing into bed with. 

Friday, 27 June 2008

Boris Johnson's advisor says privatise our schools

Boris Johnson's senior planning advisor and head of the Local Government Association has called for the full-scale privatisation of Britain's schools.

The former cohort of Shirley Porter, now hugely influential Tory, said that state schools should be sold to private companies, who would then run them for profit. Speaking to the Times he said that:

“I have no difficulty with that idea. My view, and the LGA’s view, is that councils are not meant to run schools any more.”

Of course private and voluntary organisations already run state schools under the academies programme. But while currently all income from hiring out their services goes back into the schools, under Milton's plans companies would cream off all profits into their coffers.
 
Teacher's trade union NASUWT general secretary Chris Keates said yesterday:

"Sir Simon’s comments suggested that the sector would face massive upheaval under a Tory government. State education is about social justice and protecting the weak, vulnerable and disadvantaged. If you make all that subject to profits, you will be throwing the public service ethos out of the window."

There is concern that schools would lose all of the 'added value' that the public sector currently offers. As public servants, teachers work very long hours and at weekends for no extra pay. If those same schools were run for profit, then there would be no motivation to work beyond their pay. 

In fact, use of all school facilities outside of school hours would be rigorously judged on a for profit basis, meaning the needs of the children would inevitably lose out to the needs of the shareholders. 

Of course, we do not yet know exactly what a Tory government would do and Shadow education spokesman Michael Gove has so far denied having plans to run schools for profit. 

But if these astonishing comments from the Tories most senior spokesman for local authorities, manage to slip out without a protest, then surely a resurgent Tory party will believe that anything is possible.

-UPDATE- Surprise, surprise readers. The goons over at ConHome just LOVE the idea. Sell them, sell them!

Thursday, 26 June 2008

What kind of value will Boris and the Tories give?

"I deprecate the idea," Boris Johnson told journalists at this month's press conference, of "London being some kind of test bed, laboratory, petri dish for Conservatism." 

But with all eyes on London in the run up to the general election, the result of this particular experiment will inevitably be held up for examination. 

And with no real direction being given to his mish-mash of cuts, bans and shuffling of titles, I'm beginning to doubt whether there is any real ideological drive behind the new Conservatism at all.

There have been signs of course. The removal of the anti-racist message from the Rise festival spoke clearly of the Nu-Con politics of Policy Exchange, and the scrapping of half-price fares for people on income support, spoke clearly of a return to the days of Thatcher. 

But simply reversing the decisions of others is not in itself a positive direction, just as poring over the days of the last Mayor does not tell us much about the days of the new one. 

The value of words

Of course with such little palpable delivery so far, we can only examine the words. And for Boris the most buzzing of all buzzwords is 'value'. Hardly a single phrase drops from his lips without a reference to 'tax-payer value', 'value for money' or 'bang for your buck.'

But as with the value for money sausages you pick up from your local supermarket it is always advisable to read the small print on the back of the packet. And before you start counting how many extra bangers you are getting for your buck, it is wise to consider how much is pork and how much is simply porkies.

On the Rise festival for instance, little 'value' has been added now that all of the sponsoring unions have pulled out of the event. Nor will much value be added now that the artists have no political motivation to perform at reduced fees. In response to a question by Mike Tuffrey Boris wrote at the weekend:

The expanded production element for Rise, and associated expanded budget, is determined by the sponsorship commitment to the event, and therefore supplementary funding is not required. However, in the eventuality of committed sponsorship not being honoured/received, budgets across the department would need to be reviewed to ensure there were no wider implications to GLA resources. 


But since that was written, several more unions have pulled their sponsorship from the event. So does this mean that budgets elsewhere will now face cuts to make up the difference? Or does the value here come from the extra dash of Policy Exchange now liberally sprinkled on the event?

For Team Boris, there was apparently little value in holding an anti-racist festival. But rather than scrap it and add value there, all political purpose was removed, and London is left with a more expensive and ultimately politically pointless event.

Because ultimately the value of any policy is felt differently for different people. Half-price fares for people on income support were scrapped because they were, we were told, inefficient. 

But for those people struggling to spend twice as much on their journeys, it will not seem like they are getting much value for their money at all.

So if value is really going to be the theme of this Mayoralty and by extension the next Tory government, then they will need to make it clear exactly what their kind of value means. 

And whatever packaging they finally decide to wrap it up in, just be certain that you read the small print before you buy.

Tory Troll at the Liberal Conspiracy/CIF Conference

Blogging will take a little longer today as I'm nursing a monster hangover from last night's Liberal Conspiracy/Comment is Free hosted conference/rantaphon/piss-up.

Notable attendees included Mr Stop Boris and the Boris Watchers, the boys from Scribo Ergo Sum, Sadie Smith, Dave Cole, Alex Hilton, Sunny Hundal and of course your humble narrator.

Much will be written I'm sure, about what the event heralded for the future of the liberal-left and the continuing patriarchal dominance of the blogosphere, but personally I just thought it was a great chance to chat politics with like-minded bloggers.

So a big big thanks should go out to Sunny for running the show, and to Georgina Henry and the Guardian for putting on such a tasty and thirst-quenching spread. 

Much more vital and serious discussion will take place about it all over there I'm sure, but for now the Troll must seek out some non-alcoholic fluids and/or pork-based snacks. Back soon.
Thanks to Sunny for the pictures.

Wednesday, 25 June 2008

The Prince of Darkness opens his heart at City Hall

There were no avenging angels waiting at the doors and no dark clouds gathered ahead, but as the business world's own 'Prince of Darkness' settled into his chair, it was clear that the Gods would not let him pass without a struggle.

"There's a big distance between you and me isn't there?" he said warily eyeing his court. "But maybe we should be keeping a distance I don't know."

The assembly were officially here to confirm ex-private equity chief, union breaker, and notorious asset-stripper Tim Parker into the position of Chairman of Transport for London. But what they had really come for, was to get in close quarters with the man who could soon be sinking his teeth into the desks of City Hall.

"The impression that I get" said Labour Member Len Duvall, as an opening sally, "is that you are probably more New Labour than the last Mayor."

"I'm not sure what being New Labour is" replied the Prince with measurable disdain, before saying:

"The difference between me and people further to the left is that I am interested wholly in delivering for the customers. When the interests of the producers take priority over those of the customers then you get waste and the inability to deliver."

The language of the boardroom hung heavy at the scene of so many political battles. 

"You're answers are a bit technocratic" said Labour Member John Biggs. "What I would like to know is how the Mayor offered you the job. Did he ask you if you wanted to come and play with his train set."

No lightning came down to strike him and no dogs were let loose in the chamber. But in their own way the politicians and the technocrat had begun their battle.

"I wouldn't want you to come to grief of course" said Biggs "as a fellow quasi-Londoner."

From the Labour group's own attack dog, this seemed more of a threat than an insult. 

"I take you at your word," replied the Prince, visibly measuring his foe.

Next up came the 'hundred pound gorilla' question from Valerie Shawcross. How did Parker think he was going to secure a no-strike deal with the very unions that were his greatest foes.

The Prince's reaction was swift. He didn't want to go through the 'litany' of charges against him. He had done only what other businesses had done and he had left the companies more profitable and more efficient than before.

"I am only asking you to comment on what is already in the public arena." replied Shawcross who had already declared that she was a member of one of those unions.
"It seems to me that you are trying to put a certain slant on things" he said before changing tack and adding that "I am generally here because I want to make a difference."

But as he 'opened his coat' and offered his good will to the chamber, a loud caustic buzz rang out from the speakers.

"Is that the lie detector?" joked the Prince.
"I think it might be your conscience" replied attack dog Biggs.

Tim Parker is due to become first Deputy Mayor in July and will take over the chairmanship of Transport for London in September. You can watch this hearing plus the full archive of all City Hall meetings here.

Tuesday, 24 June 2008

Boris Johnson scraps cheap fares for London's poor

Boris Johnson has decided not to continue funding half-price bus and tram fares for people on income support, it was revealed today.

In response to a written question from Assembly Member Darren Johnson,  Boris wrote that:

'Many Londoners face growing economic difficulties at the moment but I believe this can best be addressed by keeping the overall level of bus fares as low as possible.'

The Mayor argued that the current scheme was inefficient as only 20% of people on income support claim for the discount. 

But rather than attempt to increase the take-up he has instead decided to scrap the scheme altogether. This means by the mayor's own figures, that around 75,000 of the poorest Londoners will now have to pay double for their bus and tram fares.

Last month Boris wrote in response to a question by Dave Hill that officials from Transport for London were considering 'alternative ways of providing this support.' 

However, today he made it clear that there would be no alternative funding for the original scheme. He instead suggested that 'more suitable' forms of concessions may be found by TfL in the future. 

Nevertheless the emphasis on overall fare levels suggests that any future discount, if it comes, will not amount to the half-price fares that are currently available.

So whatever alternative support may or may not be given in the future, it is now clear that the scheme to give half price fares for people on income support will be coming to an end this year. 

Where will Boris Johnson spread London's jam?

Boris Johnson's new chief of the LDA said today that he would try to 'do less and do it better' but would resist 'spreading the jam too thinly.' But as inner London boroughs remain the most deprived, but also the least likely to vote Tory, will more jam now inevitably go to the edge of the doughnut?

Speaking at the first meeting of the new Economic Development committee, Peter Rogers said that they would now shift the focus onto 'outcomes rather than outputs' but admitted that this could lead to less groups being financed by the organisation.

In a clear sign that this would mean less spending, Rogers admitted that funds would now be 'rationed' and said that he wanted to 'get it out of people's minds that we are a giver of grants.' 

He instead insisted that the LDA should now concentrate on being 'an investor of skills' and emphasised that 'an investment requires a return.' 

When it was suggested to him that this would mean that groups with a political and social rather than just economic purpose would miss out, Rogers said only that he would take a 'holistic approach' to spending. He did not make it clear what this meant.

Tory members of the committee also repeatedly tried to get Rogers to condemn how the LDA had been run in the past. However, Rogers resisted obliging them and instead insisted that good work had already been done to improve it's management.

Asked by Tory AM Tony Arbour if he accepted the claims from the Evening Standard that the LDA had become 'a sinking ship' he replied that while he didn't want to comment on the political motivation of these claims, he did not believe them to be an accurate portrayal. 

Speaking to the committee he said that: "The LDA is certainly not a sinking ship, but I would not describe it as a speedboat either."

Which way will the knife go?

So for businesses and groups across the capital waiting to see whether the new mayor will herald a change in their fortunes, Peter Rogers' words will have done little to give either solace or hope. 

However, his stated  desire to move the LDA away from the pages of the scandal sheets to the serious business of redeveloping London was welcome, and his performance certainly gave me confidence in the man charged to do it.

However, with such little clarity from the Mayor's office about where these new spending priorities will be, businesses and groups within the Labour power base will continue to worry about losing more of the much-needed jam. 

But with increasing demands that the outer boroughs should be repaid for their strong support of him, Boris will inevitably need to do something to keep Greater London sweet.
Thanks to Steve Platt for the images

Monday, 23 June 2008

Labour 'tout' Alan Sugar as next Mayoral Candidate

Please, somebody tell me that this is a joke...

Boris Johnson's deputy quits post over racism row

Boris Johnson's Deputy Chief of Staff was forced to resign last night after a recording emerged of him saying that immigrants should return to their homeland if unhappy with the new Mayor.

Australian immigrant and Lynton Crosby trained strategist James Mcgrath made the comments in an interview last month with campaigner and journalist Marc Wadsworth. 

Asked what he thought of Darcus Howe's view that the Boris's election could trigger a 'mass exodus' of Carribbean immigrants, he replied "well, let them go if they don’t like it here."

The Mayor and his team initially vigorously defended James McGrath and even threatened the Guardian with legal action if they misreported the story. But after Boris and his team 'consulted' with David Cameron, it was decided that the Australian immigrant should be allowed to head home.

In a statement released last night Boris Johnson said that he didn't believe McGrath to be a racist but did believe that 'crystal clarity' was needed on the issue.

Spineless

The decision to let McGrath go was immediately attacked by top Tory blogger Iain Dale. In a post entitled 'Boris and his Absent Backbone' Dale wrote that:

'I'm told that McGrath honourably fell on his sword. But I am not sure he was given any choice in the matter. All Boris has done is attempt to appease people who are quite frankly not capable of being appeased. What he should have done is stand by the man who has stood by him through thick and thin over the last eight months. Instead, Boris has hung James McGrath out to dry - apparently either with the connivance of or at the behest of the Party leadership - in the most despicable and and cowardly manner possible.'

Dale also wondered 'why we all bothered' to defend Boris for his 'piccaninny' and 'watermelon smile' comments when nowhere near as much understanding had been shown to his deputy. In an uncharacteristically angry attack on the man he championed for Mayor, Dale wrote:

'get a backbone, Boris. During the campaign, in an interview with me you said you "reserve the right to continue to make gaffes". What's good for the goose, is clearly not good enough for the gander, eh?'

Given Boris and his team's reluctance to let McGrath go, and given the similarly quick decision last year to sack Patrick Mercer for race-related comments, the move appears to have been one sanctioned by David Cameron and the Tory head office. 

Happening as it did after the Rise Festival controversy, Cameron will have wanted to appear decisive and to prevent any momentum gaining behind the perception that Boris and his team are racist.

However, if commentators and Tory activists continue to attack Boris and Dave for this moment of 'political correctness' and outright hypocrisy, it may well turn out to have been one strong-arm tactic too far.


-UPDATES- 

Saturday, 21 June 2008

Evening Standard David Gest story was 'a dead dog'

"In articles published every day we gave the impression that the Evening Standard was a quality newspaper which carefully checks its facts and considers its opinions.

This was wrong. We have never been a quality newspaper and do not carefully check our facts.

We apologise to our readers for any embarrassment caused by reading our newspaper."

Have you spotted another Evening Standard Tipp-Ex moment? Have you noticed another prime Evening Standard blooper? Have you been keeping a close eye on the workings of the Associated Mess? If so, then we here at the Tory Troll would really like to hear from you ;)


Friday, 20 June 2008

Unison vote to withdraw funding from Rise Festival

A major trade union today voted to withdraw their funding from this year's Rise festival after the Mayor's team removed the anti-racist theme.

Delegates at the Unison National conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of removing their yearly contribution of £25,000 after being told about the change last week.

UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said:

“As long as the anti-racist message is removed from the Rise festival, Unison will have no part in funding it. London is a city of 270 nationalities. It is a city where different cultures should flourish, and racism should have no place. Sadly, on the streets of our capital many people face inequality, abuse and even violence on account of their race. The Rise festival was a chance to bring the community together in the fight against the far right."

Yesterday it emerged that Boris Johnson did not even know that the anti-racist message had been removed until the BBC told him about it on Tuesday. However, while Boris had been kept completely in the dark, unions were informed of the change as early as last week.

Unison claim that they were sent a statement by the mayor's team last week saying that it 'would no longer be appropriate to have overtly political campaigning groups involved' in the festival. 

Who pays and What for?

The news that Unison have decided to withdraw their funding, will cast further doubts over how this festival will be paid for. With no union funding, and with no political motivation for artists to perform for reduced fees, this year's festival will inevitably be much more expensive to put on. 

And with no political funding or purpose, many Londoners will question just why they should be funding this festival at all.

Boris Johnson fails again under BBC questioning



Boris on BBC: "are you sure?" (Inspired by FAIL Blog.)

Will the real Mayor of London please stand up?

The fact that Boris Johnson isn't the real Mayor of London has been clear to me for some time now. A month of Boris watching has made it pretty obvious that whoever is running London, it isn't him. However, I didn't expect to see that fact so painfully demonstrated on the evening news.

Because to call last night's BBC London report a car crash would be to wildly underestimate the extent of damage done to the Mayoral freeway infrastructure. This was a pile-up of almost Hollywood proportions. 

For whatever reason, Boris had decided to park his behind on the middle lane of the M25, and was just waiting for the inevitable destruction. And as painful evasion piled upon catastrophic ignorance I almost began to feel sorry for the man. 

But as it became clear that Boris really has zero clue about what is being done in his and our name, my sympathy turned into anger. 

Because all of this time that we have been talking about 'Boris doing this and Boris doing that' we have been spouting nothing but hot air. 

Because despite what we may have said, Boris is not the evil Svengali directing his right-wing minions or the Manchurian Candidate waiting to be activated by the higher command. He is not even the light-touch delegator that at best his team have tried to portray him. 

He is none of these things, because he is doing none of these things. And not only is he doing none of these things, but he doesn't even know that he is not doing any of these things. So how do we know this?

Well at the weekend we discovered that Boris had 'decided' to scrap Europe's biggest anti-racism festival and replace it with an apolitical event. This was big news and many column inches were used up pondering on what this meant about the direction Boris wanted to take London and what it said about Boris as Mayor.

But what last night's BBC London report showed in painful detail, was that we had been completely wasting our time. Because not only did Boris not decide to scrap the event, but he didn't even know that that was what had been decided, or even appear to know why it would have been. 

So when his cultural advisor Munira Mirza pontificated in the Guardian about why her boss had made this important cultural decision, it was actually the case that not only had he not made that decision, but that he didn't even know that that decision had been made until informed about it by the BBC.

Now when Boris came into power we were all treated to photos of Boris at his desk, Boris on the phone and Boris directing colleagues. At the time these seemed incredibly staged but looking back at them now, they seem almost theatrical in their posing. 

Because like those pictures we have of ourselves as kids when we dress up as doctors or policemen or teachers, these pictures were of Boris playing as London Mayor. And as last night's report showed, he is now seriously in danger of losing the game.

Thursday, 19 June 2008

Boris Johnson paddles away from Olympics gaffe

Boris Johnson's spin operation went into overdrive today after he admitted on the Today Programme to having no knowledge of a key agreement limiting London's contribution to the Olympics.

Asked about the Memorandum of Understanding which prevents Londoners from having to pay any more for Olympic overspends, Boris replied that he had not seen the document and then completely denied its existence.

After admitting not to have seen the memorandum he was then asked:
Interviewer: "When you do see this memorandum...are you going to try to see this Memorandum of Understanding? Will you publish it when you see it?"

Boris: "I rather doubt that it exists."


The extraordinary claim that this vital and publicly available document had been invented was then immediately taken apart by the Today Programme's own sports editor, a spokesperson for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and Ken Livingstone who had secured the agreement himself.

That Boris hadn't even bothered to read such an important part of the Olympic deal before appearing on the BBC to talk about it is of course not hugely surprising. That, we keep on being told, is Boris. Isn't he lovable?

Up the Creek

However, what was more surprising was the Olympic spin operation, stroke Soviet style rewriting of history, that immediately went into operation. Almost before a single journalist could turn on his laptop, this statement was being prepared:


Oh so now I undestand. When Boris said that the document didn't exist, what he really meant was that it did exist, it had always existed and that it was central to his plans. Phew. I'm glad that one's cleared up.

The Evening Standard smell Ken blood at City Hall

The Evening Standard yesterday reported that five women had 'lost their jobs' before the decision had even been confirmed at City Hall.

A copy of the article Ken's partner axed as Boris Johnson purges City Hall 'wimmin' was brought into the chamber by a reporter at yesterday's Mayor's Question Time, several hours before the relevant committee was due to discuss the matter.

The Business Management Administration Committee (or Business Management and Appointments Committee as the Standard chose to call it) did in fact confirm the job losses, but spoke of their disappointment that the redundancies had been reported in this way.

Regular Troll readers will have realised that this 'news' was reported on these pages a whole week ago. Information about the possible redundancies were contained within a report to the BMAC committee rifled through by one of my regular readers.

However, although I chose to run with the story, I did not make the mistake of saying that the members of staff had already lost their job, nor did I publish any of the individual names prior to the official confirmation.

But like their infamous 'Suicide Bomb Backers Runs Ken's Campaign' story, published during the campaign, these considerations of mere fact are as nothing, when there is the opportunity of drawing some Livingstone blood.

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Boris, Barnbrook and the Prosopography of bananas

Boris Johnson was accused of turning the Mayoralty into an 'empty vessel' today, after delegating most of his powers to unelected advisors and deputies.

At an ill-tempered and repetitive session of Question Time, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green members of the Assembly all questioned an increasingly frustrated Boris as he repeated his time-worn response that Londoners would care more about results than procedures

But as his questioners refused to be fobbed off, he lost all patience and accused them of being 'pompous' and obsessed with the 'prosopography' of his administration. 

And as if that language wasn't 'clear and unambiguous' enough, he went on to deny any comparison between himself and a 'potemkin figure' pitched to conceal the real source of power. No such comparison had been made.

However, with no translator or historian to hand, Assembly members were forced to ask their questions all over again. 

And frustrated as he was with the assembly's apparent ignorance of medieval and Crimean military history and their relevance to London government, Boris switched instead to his ever-trusty stock of Latin proverbs, none of which seemed to do the trick.

Eric Wimp or Bananaman

But as both the assembly and the audience started to drift off, the BNP's Richard Barnbrook pulled out a banana and began to chomp away. But unlike Eric Wimp, this act of defiance did not appear to have any visible transformative effect. 

In fact when a City Hall official politely asked him to put the fruit away, he rose not like Bananaman to battle, but sank Wimp-like into a pliant concession.

But when his turn finally came to ask his questions, London's favourite fascist didn't disappoint. Due to ask a question on 'black cab drivers' (he wants more white ones) Barnbrook instead decided to thank Boris for having 'taken race out of the Rise festival'. 

The Chair Jeanette Arnold, who has become a figure of hatred on far right bulletin boards since Barnbrook's election, ruled the point out of order and the assembly moved on. But when Barnbrook got his second chance to speak, he completely lost his rag.

His question on crime rates and Afro-Caribbeans was initially more third rate than Third Reich as he attempted to frame it as being asked out of concern for his 'black constituents'. 

But when Boris replied that 'Londoners will be thoroughly dismayed by this racist breakdown' Barnbrook suddenly turned red and began to shout and thump the table.

And as he continued to rage and ignore the ruling of the Chair, all pretence of him being a serious politician peeled away. And as the session slipped by, the audience were left with little more than the off-colour sight of the BNP's very own Mr. Bananaman.

Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Richard Barnbrook claims victory over Rise Festival

The British National Party's representative on the London Assembly, Richard Barnbrook, has claimed a personal victory after Boris Johnson scrapped Europe's largest anti-racism festival.

Writing on his own website, Barnbrook claims that:

"Last week I asked Boris Johnson to confirm how much money from the London Assembly was used to finance last year’s RISE festival. You will remember that last year’s event was nothing more than an orgy of anti-BNP rhetoric heightened by a desperation to prevent me from becoming elected onto the London Assembly."

Barnbrook then claims that Boris replied with the information that the event would cost the GLA £300,000. 'Impressed' that Boris had responded so quickly, Barnbrook then claims to have replied with the following:

"The net cost to the GLA of this event will be £300,000. With this in mind can you confirm if this festival will once again be a political ground with active campaigning against the British National Party as in previous years? Obviously this event is being funded with public money and as it is being arranged by the GLA it would be totally unreasonable to campaign against a member."

Boris's decision to remove the anti-racist message from the Rise Festival will therefore predictably be portrayed by the BNP as their first significant victory on the Assembly. 

And whether Team Boris were actually influenced by Barnbrook's correspondence or not, the decision to remove the anti-racist message will undoubtedly allow Barnbrook and his friends to label Rise 2008 as one big 'slap down' to the anti-fascist cause.

Boris Johnson team reveal Tim Parker's private info

Boris Johnson's team have published Tim Parker's home address and mobile phone number on the London Assembly website.

The details are included within his curriculum vitae, which has been published in advance of his confirmation hearing for the post of Chairman of Transport for London.

Tim Parker's appointment was a highly controversial one as the ex-private equity chief and notorious asset stripper is still held in great contempt by some of those who have dealt with him. 

His record for slashing hundreds of jobs and pocketing millions for himself in the process, earned him the title of 'the Prince of Darkness' amongst unions, and that cold relationship shows little sign of thawing now. 

The release of his private details on the Mayor's public website is therefore an incredibly stupid thing for the Mayor's team to do. Let's hope for Mr. Parker's sake that they take it down soon.



UPDATE: Tim Parker's private details have now been quietly Tipp-exed from the GLA website. Some helpful soul must have pointed out that Tim might not be too pleased about having his private info broadcast across the globe. I wonder if anyone has told him about it yet. Maybe I should give him a call...

David Davis for Freedom and Victory!

David Davis is not just 'for' freedom, but 'is' freedom and 'of' freedom. When Davis gets out of bed he does so free from the burden of those freedom haters, the free press. 

He is the man who is free, and we are all just resentful for being free from the kind of freedom-loving values that only he (Davis) can set free. Free yourself!

You can sign up to David Davis's Free the Magna Carta Fund here

Has Boris Johnson been 'clear and unambiguous'?

Boris Johnson has promised to increase the number of People's Question Times and to always speak in 'a clear and unambiguous manner'. But as both Mayoral press conferences and the State of London debate are heavily cut, how seriously can we take his promise to make City Hall more accountable?

In his list of Mayoral Priorities, Boris Johnson signs up to the following commitments:

Use Plain English
  • The Mayor was elected on a platform of accountability and transparency, and part of that is communicating in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Listen to the results of consultations
  • The Mayor is committed to listening to consultations to restore trust in City Hall.
Hold more People's Question Times
  • The Mayor believes Londoners should have more opportunities to question their Mayor, and has committed to increasing the number of People's Question Times"

The news that Boris is 'committed to listening to consultations' is certainly encouraging, although I'm not quite clear how we can ensure this, save from clamping him to the seat Clockwork Orange style. 

However, the fact that there will be more People's Question Times where members of the public can quiz the Mayor, is certainly encouraging. As it is, there are only two a year and I am hoping that Boris will at least double that. We will see. 

Lost ground

But however much he improves the situation there, what this document fails to mention is the ways in which accountability has been decreased elsewhere. 

His switch from weekly open-ended press conferences to strictly timed monthly ones will not do anything to make City Hall more open, and the cutting of next week's State of London debate from an all day event covering a wide range of topics to three hours covering just one, is not a good sign.

Also, his commitment to 'speak in a clear and unambiguous manner' and to 'use plain English' has not been evident so far, with repeatedly vague answers being given on the subject of his advisors and with his speech increasingly lapsing into some kind of English-Latin hybrid.

However, with the publication of this document, Londoners now have a set of standards by which they can judge their new Mayor. It is now up to Boris to live up to those promises.

Monday, 16 June 2008

Boris Johnson scraps free anti-racism Festival

Boris Johnson has decided to scrap Europe's biggest anti racism festival and replace it with an entirely non-political event, it was revealed today.

Suspicions that 'Rise: London United Against Racism' would be re-branded as an apolitical festival were raised, when initial publicity material bore no mention to anti-racism.

But a coalition of anti-racist groups has now confirmed that the anti-racist message has been dropped and the festival will be called simply 'Rise' from now on. A spokesperson for the National Assembly Against Racism said today:

"We were contacted by the Greater London Authority last week and told anti-racism will no longer be the central message of the Rise festival. This is confirmed by initial publicity which drops the message "London united against racism" and all reference to opposing racism. Support for the festival from performers and communities has always been based on this anti-racist message so the change is sure to be highly controversial."

However, one person for whom the announcement will not be controversial is BNP assembly member Richard Barnbrook. 

In a written question to the mayor last week, Barnbrook criticised London's support for the 'Love Music, Hate Racism' and asked for assurance that London would not be paying for policing and clearing up the event. 

The announcement that the GLA will no longer be financing it's own anti-racism event will therefore be warmly welcomed by London's favourite fascist.

No more bang for our bucks

The reasoning behind Boris's move is not yet clear. However, whatever it may be, it is not based on getting more bang for Londoner's buck. 

Because re-branding the festival will almost certainly increase the costs of putting on the event as acts will not want to perform at the reduced rate of previous years, when there is no political motive for them to do so.

But like Boris Johnson's decision to scrap half-price fares for London's poor, this decision will have had more to do with meeting political dogma than with any sensible management of the capital. 

Taking a zero tolerance approach to David Davis

The subject of David Davis has now officially reached medio-blogosphere saturation point. Any further discussion of this hero stroke clown and his important public debate, stroke vainglorious media circus, will risk complete flooding of the politico-commentariat floodplain. 

To save us all from this total Davis-mania throttling the nation I propose the following emergency measures to be implemented with immediate and dramatic effect:

  1. Any further public discussion of David Davis and his Magna Carta defence fund should be immediately banned. Any journalist/blogger/politician/pleb wishing to discuss our nation's saviour, stroke pompous Tory, should do so within their their own space and time and beyond all access to a rapid broadband connection stroke vox-pop television link-up.
  2. David Davis should be summarily arrested under existing legislation and detained for a period not exceeding 28 days in anticipation of a longer detention period to be secured imminently.
  3. All Labour MPs stroke left-wing bloggers looking to join David Davis's campaign should be placed on a strict control order, stroke issued with a Conservative Party application form to be filled in immediately with regulation blue ink.
  4. If all else fails, David Davis's plans to bring back the death penalty should be quickly brought before the house to be rushed through with full use of the Parliament Act if necessary and with the public support of Kelvin MacKenzie if appropriate. 

Now the Troll understands that the kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux and soon they will settle again. But in the meantime, a zero tolerance approach must be taken to any further fanning of the Davis media firestorm. 

Because these are dangerous times for British politics and these dangerous times require dangerous measures. Let us take those measures.

Saturday, 14 June 2008

Brian Coleman protests over Hip-Hop dance group

A top Tory Assembly Member has protested against the inclusion of an acrobatic hip-hop dance group in the Olympic handover ceremony.

Ex Mayoral hopeful, now chair of the LFEPA Brian Coleman described the award-winning dance troupe Zoonation as being 'not the image we want to send around the world' and claimed that 'there are much more positive images of London' that could be displayed in Beijing.

Coleman, who was labeled a 'hero' by Richard Littlejohn and described to me recently as being 'to the right of Genghis Khan' by one ex-assembly member, has had a history of being outspoken to the point of being offensive.

Motormouth

In 2007 he hit controversy by claiming that Ted heath was a 'cottager', and in 2004 offended the entire population  of Middlesex University by saying that it was a 'crap university' with too many foreigners.

He also got into trouble when as Deputy Chair of the assembly, it was revealed that, contrary to the Tories' self-proclaimed 'value for money' image, he had racked up tax-payer funded cab fares of £10,000.

It is still not clear quite what Coleman's objections to Zoonation really are. However, despite his protests, the troupe will still be performing at the handover ceremonies in Beijing this year. 

You can watch one of their supposedly 'negative' routines on that notoriously dissident television show Blue Peter, here. Trust me readers, it's shocking stuff.

Friday, 13 June 2008

Boris Johnson clamps down on Celebrity Chefs

Boris Johnson on Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall (2005)

"As for Hugh Fearnley-bloody-Whittingstall, he's got a lot to answer for. That man has persuaded thousands of innocent people to pick nettles and boil them up in the delusion that they are making something fit for consumption."


Boris Johnson on Jamie Oliver (2006)

"If I was in charge I would get rid of Jamie Oliver and tell people to eat what they like." 





Boris sacks Gordon Ramsay's Chefs (2008)

Boris Johnson has sacked 18 of Gordon Ramsay's chefs who had been hired to cook at the Beijing olympics. Boris said that employing the chefs trained by TV celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay was "an unnecessary extravagance." 


I knew that Boris would come up with something that I would approve of. And here it is. Long live the great struggle agianst the egg-whisk wielding thugs of tellyland. Forward Mayor Boris to soggy vegetables, burnt toast and victory. Hurrah! (Image by Von Pip)

Thursday, 12 June 2008

Richard Barnbrook: Loves Racism, Hates Music

From Richard Barnbrook's written questions for Boris Johnson:

Can the Mayor give his assurance that no public money is being utilised to support the “Love Music Hate Racism” march in London on June 21st and also give us an assurance that the organisers of the march will be required to pay for the full policing costs and clean up costs of this event so that the bill is not borne by London tax payers? 

No he can't. Now get on your horse, pick up your Kaliber, and go back where you came from.

Will Boris Johnson bring back "The Londoner'?

The Mayor's newsletter 'The Londoner,' famously described by Boris Johnson as 'that 'Pyongyang style freesheet' may now return in another form.

Despite promising to save £3 million a year by axing the publication, a report on expected redundancies at City Hall admits that while:

The Mayor made a policy decision (to axe the Londoner) it is not known if there will be a journal online or in another format at present. There may, in the future, be proposals to create a new structure but this is not clear at present and therefore posts are not formally at risk.

Whether or not the Londoner returns may largely depend on the success of Boris's upcoming role as a columnist in London's local newspapers. Boris gained the job as official mouthpiece for the league of City Hall tractor producers, after wining and dining the capital's newspaper editors during the campaign. 

So while the fruits of this particular labour have not been harvested for now, we should be expecting tales from Boris's glorious revolution, one way or another, any time soon.

Boris Johnson axes planning and women's roles

Boris Johnson has quietly 'deleted' five high paid positions at City Hall. The redundancies slipped out in a report to the Business Management and Administration Committee amount to a saving of £210,000 to the budget for 2008/9.

However, with Boris's employment of fourteen even higher paid PR executives, and policy wonks, costing between £425,000 and £465,000, we will not feel any real saving until at least halfway through his four-year term.

The positions 'deleted' this year will be as follows:
  • Senior Policy Advisor – Planning and Development (Grade 13)  
  • Senior Policy Advisor – Olympics Events & Tourism (Grade 13) 
  • Senior Policy Advisor – Culture (Grade 13) 
  • Policy Advisor – Women’s Issues (Grade 10)
  • Administration Manager – Mayor’s Office (Grade 11) 
The role of cultural advisor has already been filled of course under a different title by Munira Mirza, but the other roles will be spread around, reduced, or completely removed from the work of City Hall. 

Some of these redundancies are to be expected of course. Boris had promised to remove 'political correctness' from London government, and so the scrapping of the women's issues role will not surprise many. 

However, the replacement of a full-time planning and development advisor with the part-time and unpaid Simon Milton is much more significant.

Loosening his grip

Because of all the roles the Mayor has, planning and development is perhaps the biggest, and certainly the one that will be felt most by Londoner's in the long term. 

That Boris should decide to get rid of that role and yet still find the funds to employ a 3-strong team of public relations executives, clearly sets out what the priorities of this administration will be.

And the fact that Boris has made it clear that he will also remove himself from key strategic and major planning decisions is even more worrying and suggests that Boris wants to greatly reduce the role of City Hall in planning and development in London.

So although Boris made the much lauded promise to restrict the construction of tall buildings at key sites, his broader policies appear to be loosening the control of City Hall over planning in the capital. 

In this respect, it was his promise to scrap the requirement for 50% of new homes to be affordable, that may prove to have been the more significant pledge.

Because when Boris came to power, Michael Slade of major property development firm Helical Bar told Property Week that the new Mayor and his administration would be good for his business

Slade, who along with his colleague Nigel McNair Scott donated £30,000 to Boris's election campaign, told Property Week that he welcomed the election of Boris Johnson, because he would be much less 'rigid' in planning matters than his predecessor.

So as the new Mayor gradually loosens his grip on planning and development in London, we must next look at which organisations and individuals will be getting themselves a firmer grip in turn.

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Man to invoke ancient bat curse on Boris Johnson

Now I know I'm not especially well known for my charitable feelings towards Boris Johnson, but even I think that this is going too far:

In an extra ordinary event angry Londoner Mark McGowan is to invoke an ancient curse on the new mayor of London Boris Johnson.The curse will be delivered from the south side of Tower Bridge facing the GLA building on Friday 13th June 2008 at 12 noon.

The curse will take up to 4 hours to be sure of total effect, as it is extremely complicated and includes bats blood, herbs, ameryst, the legs of a spider and the burning of an effigy of Boris.

Bloody hell. Do you think that City Hall's own Prince of Darkness will be in attendance?

Boris Johnson gives away huge planning powers

Boris Johnson has given away all of his powers on major planning decisions, to one of his unelected advisors, it was revealed today.

Boris had previously denied delegating these powers to Ian Clement but in a report to the Assembly, he admits that:

I have also agreed to delegate my functions under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Orders 2000 and 2008 in relation to all planning applications referred to the Mayor of London, including those already received by the Greater London Authority.

Under questioning from assembly members last month, Boris admitted that Clement was 'advising' him on planning matters but insisted that full powers had not been delegated. In response to a question from John Biggs, he said:

I am taking a keen interest in planning applications in London but you will understand that I have been in this job for about two and a half weeks and I have not had time to get my head round every single planning application that has come on to my desk; I think you will understand there has been a lot going on and a lot to do but I will make sure that, as we go forward, I take a very lively interest in planning applications. Insofar as I have delegated my powers over planning or asked others to get on with the vital business of planning approvals, that does not mean for one moment that I have ceded authority or interest in these matters.

However, despite taking a 'keen interest' Boris has in fact ceded authority on over 30 major individual planning decisions so far. He has also crucially ceded authority over the overarching strategy for planning decisions made within the local development plans.

The news that Boris has given up these huge powers over planning, comes after the full job description for the 'First Deputy Mayor' Tim Parker showed Boris to have given up other major parts of his role to the ex-private equity boss.

So as the weeks go by, it is becoming clear that Londoners have not voted in a strong champion to lead their city, but a frontman for what is looking more and more like government by unelected quango.

Tuesday, 10 June 2008

Boris Johnson and the long journey to revelation

Information about the cost of Boris Johnson's 'transition team' has been dripping out all day from City Hall. These details have been ably collected by Dave Hill who has rushed all over the place with pots, pans and buckets, so as not to miss a splash.

But with all leaks patched up for now at least, I think it is important to look at where we are and how we got here.

This story began during the campaign for Mayor, when Boris promised London that he would make City Hall more accountable and restore confidence that money was being carefully spent. Central to this was the pledge that all details of GLA spending would be made available to the public 'from day one'. 

This was an admirable pledge, especially from a man who has been less than transparent with the public in the past. But it was also a pledge that had it's pitfalls. To put it simply, when you have set yourself up as Mr. Accountable, then you better act as Mr. Accountable and not as Mr. Equivocation.

So when Boris failed to put all GLA spending on the Mayor's website from day one, he was always going to be open to criticism. And so criticise him we did.

But when Boris then categorically refused to say how much he would be spending on his 14 strong group of temporary advisors, spinners and fixers, then the whole Mr. Accountability act began to look like a sham.

His refusal, slipped out in a written answer to a question by Darren Johnson, was noticed and blogged about by myself a couple of weeks ago and then subsequently followed up by Dave Hill. 

The release in a report to the Business Management and Administration Committee of the total expected spend of £425,000 for his 'transition team' was then noticed by Pippa Crerar at the Evening Standard and then revised up to £465,000 by his team. The story was then picked up by everyone from the Guardian to the Andrew Marr Show.

As attention on the subject grew, it became clear that the original line that details would not be released, could not hold and so we now have the concessions released today.

Unanswered Questions

I'm not quite sure why there has been such reluctance to disclose these details to the public or why crucial details are still now being held from us, but a number of other questions are bothering me:
  1. Why were details of their salaries intended to be kept private at first?
  2. Why are we now only being given a running total? 
  3. Why has it not been confirmed how long these people will be working for and what they will be doing? 
  4. Why is there such an open-ended cost and what circumstances would lead to either their salaries rising or their length of employment extending? 
  5. Why are some members given such vague job descriptions? I know for instance that James Horrax worked on the Back Boris internet campaign and will presumably have a similar role now. So why isn't that made clear?
  6. Why are we paying for this 'transition team' of PR professionals and campaign members when City Hall already has an in-house press team?
When Boris Johnson ran for Mayor he set himself a high standard of transparency and accountability to live up to.  

However, the secrecy over these expenses and his reluctance to be scrutinised by the press means that he has absolutely failed to live up to that standard. It is time for him to turn that trend around.
The drip drip of information is continuing almost as fast as the money falling into the transition team's wallets. A new table puts the total cost to us all at £77,433 so far.

Boris Johnson's advisor axed hot meals on wheels

Boris Johnson's local government advisor implemented a series of cuts in his borough, culminating in the axing of hot meals on wheels for old and vulnerable people.

Before he stepped down as the head of Bexley Council, Ian Clement told pensioners that they would no longer receive their meals on wheels service but should instead order frozen food from 'approved suppliers' on the internet.

Meals on wheels, which were pioneered in London during the Blitz, and have since spread across the world, were axed according to Clement, as a means to "provide users with greater choice and offer an enhanced service." 

But unfortunately for Clement, angry pensioners failed to see how removing the option to have a hot meal delivered to their door was increasing their choice, or how forcing them to cook a meal that they were incapable of, was improving their service.

And as the protests grew, Clement was forced to make it clear that pensioners would be assessed for need and could claim an 'attendance allowance' to pay for the meals to be heated if necessary. 

But with many pensioners unable to access the internet, let alone submit themselves to the application process, Bexley council were accused of implementing cuts for cuts sakes.

Thirty council workers were also due to lose their jobs, and Bexley Council had shed themselves of a huge subsidy, but for the vulnerable pensioners whose daily visits from the meals on wheels van were often the only ones they had, Clement's decision was to have an even bigger impact.

Fantasy Land

Because when Boris Johnson came to power, he promised to give greater power and influence to individual boroughs, but the problem with giving that extra power away is that individual boroughs already make very self-interested and damaging decisions as it is. 

And without that central control over key social and housing policies, that Livingstone was so criticised for, people in one part of London will often suffer in ways that those in other parts avoid.

In his latest rallying cry against waste and 'politically correct London,' Andrew Gilligan wrote yesterday that when :

'the GLA's new cost-cutting chief executive, Tim Parker, starts work, we will see that second essential revolutionary moment: the part when selected victims are led out to the firing squad.'
 
He then goes on to say that under Boris money will be redirected away from 'cycling for the blind initiatives' and 'gay Bengali workplace sustainability forums' and will instead go towards helping the most deprived people in London. 

But beyond Andrew Gilligan's fantasy land where Notting Hill liberal Tories toss help to London's poor, lies the realities of a political party dedicated to cutting taxes and the services that go with them. 

And while Gilligan's eyes are turned, it is not gay Bengali cyclists, but the ordinary pensioners and vulnerable people of London who are often the first to be 'led out to the firing squad.'

Monday, 9 June 2008

Which top award-winning columnist wrote this?

      Richard Littlejohn            Andrew Gilligan                               

"We will see that second essential revolutionary moment: the part when selected victims are led out to the firing squad. It will be politically correct London's equivalent of the credit crunch and, with any luck, it will be goodbye to the groundbreaking cycling-for-the-blind initiatives, farewell to the gay Bengali workplace sustainability forums."
Answers on the back of a handcart

The Tory Troll at Liberal Conspiracy

The Troll has another post up on the excellent Liberal Conspiracy website. So head over there to read an extended round-up on the first month of Mayor Boris Johnson and his new band of cronies in City Hall.

Independent Chair replaces Cooke at TravelWatch

Outgoing Travelwatch chief Brian Cooke, who was sacked last week after endorsing Boris Johnson, has been replaced by a temporary chair with no party political affiliation.

Tory Assembly members James Cleverly and Roger Evans had suggested that the decision to oust Cooke was done in a moment of 'red-mist' and was an attempt to make the watchdog a 'front' for Labour. However, despite their suspicions, the board decided to appoint David Liebling, who has no connections to any political party.

Cooke was removed from the Travelwatch board after breaking a number of regulations set up to ensure that the watchdog remained independent from political influence. 

The committee ruled that he had gone well beyond his remit and brought his office into disrepute by issuing a press release attacking Ken Livingtone and endorsing Boris Johnson for Mayor.

However, the Chair of the City Hall Transport committee, and Labour Assembly Member Valerie Shawcross was singled out by some including Tory blogger and now Policy Exchange wonk Phil Taylor as being 'nakedly political and  vindictive' in her decision to recommend the termination of Cooke's contract.

However, the appointment of David Liebling as the new temporary chief of Travelwatch appears to have vindicated her decision.

Speaking today Shawcross said that:

"I would like to thank David for taking on this role until a permanent Chair can be recruited. He has the unanimous support of the TravelWatch Board, and the fact that he has no particular affiliations will help restore the objectivity that is essential to an independent watchdog organisation like TravelWatch."

Perhaps Cleverly, Evans and Taylor would like to add their congratulations to David Liebling as well?

Boris Johnson's team spin out latest Gilligan attack

Members of Boris Johnson's 'transition team' have been involved in the promotion of a new report, which is heavily critical of both Ken Livingstone's character and his legacy.

With their City Hall job descriptions and salaries as yet undisclosed to the public, at least two members of the team sent out and promoted a new Policy Exchange report entitled 'The Million Vote Mandate.' 

The report, released today, includes a highly personal attack on the last Mayor from journalist Andrew Gilligan.

In his introduction to the report, Dylan Sharpe a member of the 'transition team' until last week, says that:

'The opening chapter of the report, written by award winning Evening Standard journalist Andrew Gilligan, analyses the positives and negatives of the Livingstone era'

Which all sounds fine and sensible until you read what is actually an incredibly vitriolic and personal attack on a man who Gilligan clearly still holds a grudge with. 

In his chapter called 'a question of style,' Gilligan uses his own questionable style to compare Livingstone to a Tourettes sufferer who is both 'astonishingly and casually unpleasant' and 'a rather nasty person'. 

For Gilligan, the last Mayor was a 'bully' and a 'divider,' who drew on 'narrow but deep pools' of support. That these were pools made up of blood is not made explicitly clear but by then the monstrous image is complete. 

But when it comes to Gillagan's chum 'Bozza' on the other hand, his analysis loses its punch. There is some rather sparse advice on not trying to please 'special interest groups' but for the main part Gilligan just wants Boris to 'simply to be nicer to people.' Which as long as he doesn't call on Gilligan to be sacked, shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. 

The whole report has been marketed and signed off by inHouse PR, who were the company originally charged with promoting Boris's election campaign. 

Several members of that company and attached campaign team have since been given as yet undisclosed roles and salaries in Boris Johnson's administration. Some of these are now thought already to have left City Hall, although quite who and at what cost is not clear.

But when it comes to 'special interest groups' there is no group more especially interested in Boris's tenure than this narrow band of policy wonks, campaign team members, spinners, fixers and personal enemies of the last Mayor. 

And with their role and salaries as yet undisclosed, we cannot be clear exactly what their real special interests are in the governance of London.

The Sun comes out for the Poles from the Brit Stuff

After months of denial, evasion and embarrassment, The Sun have finally released their Polish edition to the kabanos-chomping, Zwiec-swilling masses of Great Britain.

Published over the weekend to coincide with the beginning of Euro 2008, the first edition features translations of articles by Polish favourite Jeremy Clarkson, the latest news from the Polish motherland and its very own Polish page three.

The existence of this version of the Sun was long rumoured but roundly denied by the paper. However, when I discovered proof of its existence in a hidden part of the Sun website last year, I passed on the evidence to the Press Gazette who then approached Team Murdoch for a response. 

Their denial was swiftly converted to a statement that the edition had only been knocked up as part of a 'staff competition'. However, when the online Polish edition was removed from the website I began to suspect that there may be more to it. The sudden appearance of the fully fledged print version over the weekend was therefore something of a pleasant surprise.

So while the likes of the Daily Mail will continue to profit from slurring Poles in this country, Rupert Murdoch at least has realised where the real money is to be made.

Sunday, 8 June 2008

More confusion over Boris Johnson advisor salaries

Boris Johnson today denied having spent half a million pounds on his advisors. In a response to a question by Andrew Marr about the large salaries of his 'transition team,' the Mayor said: 

"I don't think we have spent half a million pounds so far. I think that may be the total of their annual salaries or something like that. I'm not sure we have spent half a million pounds so far. I would have to go and check that. Doubtless your researchers have..."

This less than categorical response came after Boris Johnson appeared to suggest at his first press conference, that full salaries and job descriptions of his advisors had already been made available to the public. In response to a question by the Guardian's Matthew Taylor, Boris said:

"On the cost of the transition team, all the details will be fully available to you now and you would be trying my memory to recite them all now, but they are cheap at the price and will be readily discerned for you whenever you want them."

Whether half a million pounds is 'cheap at the price' is open to question but a quick look at the Mayor's website shows that the salaries and job descriptions of Boris's 'transition team' of advisors are definitely not 'available to you now' nor 'readily discerned' on the website (see picture above).

Transparency

Because despite his claims that all details of City Hall spending would be ready 'from day one' we are still none the wiser on these key details over a month after he was elected into the position. 

And whether or not these are 'teething problems' is yet to be seen, but getting a straight answer to these questions so far has, as the Marr interview showed, been a bit like pulling teeth.

Boris Johnson libel claim over 'wine cellar' story

Boris Johnson was accused of libel yesterday after he claimed 100 bottles of fine wine had been found in his predecessors office.

The story was published in the Telegraph under the headline 'Boris Johnson uncovers 'secret wine cellar' in City Hall' and claimed that Johnson had discovered a horde of 100 bottles. 

Ken Livingstone was given no right of reply in the article but has since called the claims a 'libel' and said that he has 'never bought a bottle of fine wine in my life.''

The Daily Mail who also published the story, have since removed it from their website and a later article by the Times only claims that there were 39 bottles of wine. But crucially, the original quote by Boris Johnson states that:

"They were very fine bottles left behind by Mayor Livingstone. Whether they are GLA bottles of wine or his own we have yet to discover."

Now surely whether they are GLA bottles or not is central to whether they were 'left behind by Mayor Livingstone' or not, and surely the new Mayor of London should have checked that little fact out before punting the 'secret wine cellar' story to the Sunday papers.

But just as you don't employ an ex-Sunday newspaper editor, if you want some news, so you don't employ a discredited journalist if you want the facts.

Friday, 6 June 2008

Boris Johnson to open up City Hall accounts

Image by Von Pip ;)

Boris Johnson breaks promise in Kent airport row

A Conservative council leader called Boris Johnson an idiot this week after he appeared to back down on a pledge not to build an airport in his area.

The comments from Dartford Council leader Jeremy Kite came after Boris Johnson refused to rule out building an airport in the Thames Gateway. Mr Kite, who says Boris had previously made a personal promise that there would be no such airport, told the News Shopper:

"I love Boris Johnson to bits but we are not part of London. If Boris thinks an airport in the area would work then he is an idiot. When I spoke to him during his campaign he assured me north Kent was not an option. Environmentally it doesn't make sense and there is not the infrastructure to support it."

As an ex-resident of Dartford myself, I know that it has some of the worst air quality in the whole of the country. Surrounded as it is by the M25, the A2 and a coal power station, a huge new airport is the last thing that the town needs.

Promises, promises

The airport row comes after Boris made a similar election promise to the Keith Park Campaign to put a statue of the war hero on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. Once Boris was elected, he admitted that it would not actually be possible to do and instead said that the rotating series of statues would continue. 

After an angry reaction from many of his supporters, he has since said that the Park statue may be placed on the fourth plinth on a temporary basis only. 

Whether or not this will quell some of the anger is not yet clear, but it is certainly not the sort of compromise that will be available to him when it comes to building airports.

Boris Johnson: Cronies to the rescue of Cronyism

Last week Boris Johnson called for a two-term limit as part of his fight to 'protect Londoner's from cronyism.' But as Boris's own band of 'forensic' cronies release their interim report on waste at City Hall, it is worth remembering that it is not just time itself that leads to these problems, but the people who are chosen to set the clocks.

Because when Boris ran for Mayor, he did so off the back of a series of claims from the Evening Standard which centred around Ken Livingstone and his supposedly socialist cabal in City Hall. Boris deliberately never got himself involved with the detail of these claims, but instead positioned himself as the new broom that would sweep the old dirt clean. 

He was not going to tell us exactly how he was going to do that of course, or who he was going to do it with, but needless to say, a new era of accountability and transparency was going to be ushered in with the minimum of difficulty and with the maximum number of bangs for your buck.

But as the days and weeks have clicked by, it has become increasingly clear that the changes swept into City Hall have had less to do with increasing accountability and value-for money, than they have had to do with swinging the old strings of power into a new set of hands.

First of all we had the announcement of a new 'forensic audit team,' to investigate waste and possible corruption at City Hall. This panel of Tory axe-men was headed by the ex-editor of the Sunday Telegraph, a woman most well known for censoring criticism of David Cameron in her paper. 

Their assignment, we were told by Boris's spinners, was a clear sign that the Tories meant business about cutting waste and cronyism in politics. So why then, if they were so serious, did they not choose anyone with 'forensic audit' experience to be a part of that team, or if they were so concerned with establishing independence and accountability, did they not employ anyone with a political allegiance that was even slightly off-blue? 

Or to put it as the BBC's Tim Donovan did to panel chief Patience Wheatcroft yesterday, why was it necessary to employ a panel of Tories to tell the city that Tories would have spent their money differently from Ken?

The way that their findings were then fed to the Sunday papers before any evidence had even been presented to the public has also reinforced suspicions about the political motivation of the investigation. These motivations are all but conceded by 'Bozza's' chum Andrew Gilligan in a report by the Policy Exchange think tank released today. Writing about the direction of Boris's first few months, Gilligan advises that:

'As in all revolutions, the new regime needs a phase of revolution, when the files of the old government are opened, the official chateaux are shown on TV and the full horror of what wet on is displayed to the public. The Borisians can use this period to set a baseline.'

As far as I can see, the setting of these political 'baselines' has been a far bigger priority for the new Tory administration than increasing their accountability to the public. On the route to power, Boris promised full transparency from 'day one,' but although the interim report of this investigation has been rushed out within a month of coming to power, details of the salaries and even job descriptions of his many deputies, advisors and consultants, have still not been released to date.

And where the GLA act only allowed for Boris to have one deputy, Boris has decided to employ five of them. And of these deputies and attached advisors, it was thought that two may not even have been legal at all. 

The employment of Simon Milton for one is especially contentious. Milton, of Dame Shirley Porter fame, was given the role of Director of Planning, a title and salary that he was soon to lose after it was pointed out that his continuing roles as head of Westminster Council and Chairman of the Local Government Association precluded him from the job. 

This law of politically restricted posts, established by Margaret Thatcher as an attempt to prevent conflicts of interest and corruption was dismissed as a minor edict by our new broom Boris Johnson under questioning from the assembly.

However, despite losing his salary and title, Simon Milton still retains his same position in City Hall. A position which remains in conflict with his continuing chairmanship of the local authorities' chief lobbying group and his ongoing 'pillow talk' with the planning supremo at Westminster Council.

Of the other claims laid at Livingstone's feet, one of the key charges was that unelected advisors were given powers that they shouldn't hold. But within weeks of being elected, it was revealed that Boris had handed full delegated powers over major planning decisions to an unelected advisor from Bexley Council. 

Ian Clement was we were told, Boris's deputy for government relations, intergovernmental relations and local government relations as well. These powers, along with his complete control over major planning decisions, are rather extensive for a man who, until now, is most famous for slashing pensioner's meals on wheels.

Of the remainder of his advisors, difficulties remain over the separation of powers in the case of assembly member Kit Malthouse, the unknown powers of his previous campaign team, now highly paid transition team and the over-abundance of powers in the case of the ex-asset stripper and some say true boss of City Hall,  Tim Parker. 

And while Boris promised to immediately show details of all City Hall spending, we still crucially do not know how much each of his 'transition team' of PR executives, Policy Exchange wonks, and ex-campaign team members are being paid out of the almost half a million pounds set aside for their brief stay.

All of which prompted the half-damning, half-despairing judgement from the London Assembly Business Management and Administration Committee that Boris should immediately 'lift the fog of confusion' that had settled over his new team at City Hall.

So as Boris continues to sweep up the mistakes of the past administration into the light of day, it is important to remember what few steps are being taken to prevent the same kinds of problems from settling back down over London again.

This post also appears over at Liberal Conspiracy

Thursday, 5 June 2008

Boris Team Spin vs Assembly Team Scrutiny


"Boris Johnson acted on his promise to deliver open government for London when he published full details of his advisers and their salaries. A complete list of “team Boris” - including brief biographies and interests was released on the Mayor’s website in the interests of transparency. The move aimed to draw a line under the secrecy of the Ken Livingstone era, when information about the Mayor’s inner circle was kept away from the press and public. By contrast and in a possible hostage to fortune, Mr Johnson is determined to show in his first weeks in office that he will hide nothing." 


"The Business Management and Administration Committee (BMAC) has demanded answers to a series of questions about the role, responsibilities and rewards of mayoral staff, including:
  • The cost and length of appointment of each of the 15 ‘transition team consultants’ contracted to support the Mayor.
  • The legality of the procedures used to appoint permanent mayoral advisers
  • The decision making responsibilities of the mayor’s permanently appointed advisers
  • The role of mayoral advisers in directly managing non-political staff
  • How mayoral advisers will operate within the structure of the Greater London Authority
  • The precise nature and responsibilities, including any staff management role, of the GLA Group Chief Executive

Chair of the Business Management and Administration Committee AC Darren Johnson AM said:
“The Mayor’s manifesto promised to ‘end the culture of cronyism at City Hall’ by introducing more professional, transparent government. But one month into his administration, both clarity and transparency are sadly lacking when it comes to information about the appointment of people the Mayor is entrusting with significant responsibility for running London. We are determined to lift the fog of confusion surrounding the appointment of the Mayor’s closest advisers.”
Are you feeling all spun out? Have Team Boris spun you just one dud too many? If so, The Tory Troll would really like to hear from you.

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

Liberal Democrats join the Cupboard Coalition.

I had been wondering why the Lib Dems had gone back into coalition with Labour and the Greens on the London Assembly after spending so long apart. Why had it taken so long? Was it a disagreement over green taxes? A rift over the future of the progressive cause in London? No. It was over a load of old cupboards.

A senior source from the Green Party revealed to me that the true cause of the extended fracture between the Lib Dems and the other left-wing parties in London, was their inequitable share of City Hall storerooms:

"I couldn't believe how petty the Lib Dems were about it," he said. "In the end it came down to the fact that the LDs were jealous that the greens had a small storeroom more than they had. The whole deal hinged on that!"

In fact after weeks of left-wing division, the Lib Dems even went over to the Tories to see if increased storage could be secured from the Right. But in the end, the cause of left-wing politics was restored and the Lib Dems got the space they required.

"It was absolutely unbelievable," said my source. "But in the end we just gave them what they asked for." 

And so after a dangerous breach in the progressive cause, unity is once again restored and the future of left-wing London politics is safe, for now at least.

Boris Johnson and the Bluewash of London

Like many, I lost count of the amount of times I heard Boris talk about the old Mayor's 'publicity budget' as if it was some never-ending golden reserve from which all our ills could be cured. 

But despite these good intentions, it was announced today that all 'Mayor of London' and GLA material will be completely re-branded in Tory blue at an unspecified cost.

In a memo seen by Pippa Crerar of the Evening Standard, the Mayor's spokesman states that:

“In order to differentiate the work of the new administration, the GLA’s marketing team has adapted the Mayor of London and GLA logos to a single colour format. The new logos will be slowly rolled out over the next couple of months, and the marketing team will start the process of reviewing and refreshing GLA marketing materials.”

Quite how big a slice this 'reviewing and refreshing' will take out of the Mayor's publicity pie we don't yet know, but it presumably won't help much with that 'bang for our buck' we heard so much about. 

But like the cancellation of the Venezuelan oil-deal, their latest blue-rinse shows the Tories more concerned about positioning themselves politically, than managing the place effectively.

Boris Johnson's happy discussion is miserably short

"I hope" said Boris Johnson, "that this will be the first of many happy discussions." But as Guto Harri watched his boss's time tick by, it soon became clear that any happiness would be brief and any discussion briefer still.

The best and worst of Britain's press had gathered on the ninth floor of City Hall for their first real opportunity to quiz the new Mayor of London. But with a half hour limit on 'discussion' and with few reporters getting more than one question in, the whole event was as disappointing as I had feared it would be.

Boris himself was looking pale, and without Ken Livingstone by his side, he lacked the competitive drive that had marked his appearances during the campaign. 

I had at least expected some new jokes, but without the opportunity to send Ken into the European space programme or on a bus with his freedom pass, or on a bike with his cycling lessons, there was no longer a target for his fire.

Gone too we were told, were the weekly press conferences that were held by the last Mayor, and gone too were the open-ended sessions that had gone with them. And with Guto by the side, there was to be a strict thirty minute rule.

He would, he promised be "as open as possible" but did not want, he said to "impose on our time." Any dangers of him outstaying his welcome seemed increasingly slim though, and as the clock hit the half hour point, he was quickly swept out of the room.

In front of me was Dave Hill from the Guardian. But as we packed up to leave, it became obvious that his 'ten questions for Boris' set yesterday had been perhaps a little ambitious. Of course in the old days of the notoriously translucent and unaccountable Ken Livingstone administration, Dave's questions would have been fobbed off with that well known tactic of answering every single one of them. 

But in the new and happily transparent Boris regime there are clearly 'better ways' for us all to discuss these things together. I just guess we will have to wait until next month to find out exactly what they are.

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Boris Johnson's investigation into lap-dancing

The secret cost of Boris Johnson's transition team

Boris Johnson's 'transition team' of spinners and fixers are being paid an astonishing £465,000 to settle him into the job.

In a written response to a question by Darren Johnson, Boris last week refused to reveal how much the public are paying for his team of PR professionals, ex campaign team members and ex Consevative HQ officials.

But in a statement sneaked out in a report to the Business Management and Administration Committee, Team Boris admit that costs for transiton are 'not expected to exceed £425,000'.

However when contacted by the Evening Standard, the Mayor's office then said that the costs would actually more likely be in the range of £465,000. A discrepancy of some £40,000. There has been no indication where this extra money has gone. 

This cost, is also roughly 70% as large as the yearly cost of Boris's permanent deputies and advisors. Unlike these advisors however, some of the transition team are only expected to be in the job for just one month. Putting the cost of Boris's temporary spinners and fixers at a proportionately much higher rate.

There is also still no indication of precisely what role each transition member currently has in City Hall. But whatever it is, it is certainly paying them well.

-AFTERNOON UPDATE- Labour Assembly Member John Biggs said in response to this story: 

"The Mayor made a great play of being and open and transparent from day one but this is the latest incident to cast real doubt on this promise... All the Mayor has revealed so far is that his Tory consultants are costing Londoners half a million pounds and some are being paid an equivalent of over £300k a year. I'm not sure how this represents tax payer value for money." 

The Troll's not too sure either. Over to you then Boris.

Cleverly attacks sacking of Travelwatch Chairman

The Conservative Member of the Assembly and the Transport Committee, James Cleverly warned against Travelwatch becoming a 'front' for Labour, after its openly Boris Johnson-supporting Chairman was sacked from the board.

The comments came after Cleverly (above) labeled the decision to oust Brian Cooke as a political 'witch hunt,' that would be badly received by the public. Writing on his personal blog after yesterday's meeting Cleverly said that:

"The Conservatives voted against this action but were outnumbered, the whole thing had the stench of a witch hunt about it. Brian was got rid off for being political and as a punishment for supporting Boris."

Fellow Conservative blogger and councillor Phil Taylor went further and suggested that the committee's Chair Valerie Shawcross had been 'nakedly political and vindictive' in recommending that Cooke should lose his job. He then said that the whole episode was nothing but 'sour grapes' from the Labour party.

However, despite their own sour grapes about the decision, neither Cleverly or Taylor appear to suggest that Cooke had not actually breached the rules. So to avoid any doubt, here are the relevant guidelines that Brian Cooke signed up to when he took the job:

(a) Members should abstain from controversial party political activity;

(b) Subject to (a) above, members should be free to engage in any political activities, provided that they are conscious of their general public responsibility and exercise a proper discretion, particularly in regard to the work of London TravelWatch. On matters affecting that work, they should not normally make political speeches or engage in other political activities;

(g) Any member of London TravelWatch who is doubtful about the application of the rules in this section, or about the propriety of any political activity, should seek guidance from London TravelWatch’s Chief Executive, who will, if necessary seek further guidance from the Greater London Authority; and 

(h) The foregoing rules apply equally to political activity on behalf of any political party or organisation. 

He would also have had to bear in mind the job description, the relevant parts of which are as follows:

- The experience of dealing with both print and broadcast media on high profile and potentially contentious issues.

- The ability to work within a complex political environment with the necessary political sensitivity to lead a consumer watchdog organisation.

- Experience of organisational stewardship through effective leadership, the exercise of good judgement and responsible decision-making.

Once Brian Cooke had so publicly and nakedly broken these rules and remits, he no longer had the necessary independence to head and speak for what should be an independent consumer champion. 

Brian Cooke had held two private meetings with Boris Johnson, one of which was before he even became the official Tory candidate, and had no such similar meetings with other parties. 

In his press release sent out days before the election he then made personal attacks on the then Mayor and stated his 'belief' in the Conservative candidate. And all the while he was using his office of the Chairman of the independent watchdog TravelWatch to validate his views. 

Double Standards

If Cooke had instead written a similar statement attacking Boris and praising Ken Livingstone, we would have seen no end of condemnation from the Taylors, Cleverlys and Andrew Gilligans of this world. 

In fact the vitriol in Gilligan's story about Peter Hendy's defense of bendy buses would have paled in comparison to the double-spread cronyism claims that would have poured out of the Standard's pages.

As it is, a capable and successful public servant has lost his job because he made what he admitted to be a 'serious error of judgement,' in foregoing his reputation as an independent consumer champion. 

Whoever now replaces him may or may not be a supporter of Boris Johnson, but they will have to observe the guidelines and job description that they sign up to. Brian Cooke, whatever his other merits, did not do that and so has now lost his job. 

So if the Conservatives really want to earn themselves their own reputation as accountable public servants, then they could do well to acknowledge that fact.

Monday, 2 June 2008

Watchdog Chief Sacked for Backing Boris Johnson

TravelWatch chief Brian Cooke was sacked with immediate effect today after it was ruled that he had made serious breaches of official guidelines in backing Boris Johnson for Mayor.

Speaking at an 'extaordinary meeting' of the London Assembly Transport Committee, the Chairman of the independent transport watchdog admitted that he had made a 'serious error of judgement' in publicly backing Boris and attacking Ken Livingstone,  but denied any secret deal had been made.

The urgent meeting was called after Brian Cooke sent an extraordinary press release out to journalists in the days running up to the Mayoral elections. In his statement, the supposedly independent chairman of Travelwatch wrote that:
  • He had already given his postal vote to Boris Johnson
  • That Ken Livingstone was arrogant
  • That he believed Boris Johnson was 'much more likely to appoint a strong board for TfL'
  • That Boris Johnson would not be 'a zone one Mayor'
  • That the 24hr Freedom Pass was 'mad'
  • Wondered whether 'the truth and Mr Livingstone sit together at all.'
  • That he believed Boris would make 'an ideal Mayor'

Brian Cooke admitted that in hindsight he should not have sent out this press release but said that he had only wanted to 'join the bandwagon' of similar endorsements from other public figures.

When questioned by the committee, he also admitted that he had had private meetings with Boris Johnson both before and during his candidacy. However, he denied all reports that a secret deal had been made for him to take over the Chair of Transport for London. However, he then went on to say that he may still apply for the job.

Tory members warned against the committee taking part in a 'witch hunt' of Cooke and of making a 'storm in a teacup', but significantly abstained on whether a breach of the guidelines had been made. Other members spoke of their disappointment in such an obviously effective public servant jettisoning their career in such a way.

However, Cooke's apologies to the committee and his good record were not in the end enough to save him. Once it was decided that a breach of guidelines had been made, the committee quickly moved on to decide what sanctions should be taken against him. The final vote was very close but members voted with a majority of one for an immediate termination.

Significantly there was one abstention from Green Member Jennie Jones and one absent member in Conservative AM Victoria Borwick. If either of those factors had been different then he may still have been in a job today.

Brian Cooke sacked with immediate effect

The TravelWatch chief had his contract terminated with immediate effect today. He apologised to the Transport Committee for his 'serious error of judgement' in publicly backing Boris Johnson, but denied all reports of a secret deal. Full report now here

Brian Cooke and an 'Urgent Meeting' at City Hall

An 'extraordinary meeting' will be held at City Hall this morning to decide whether Travelwatch Chairman Brian Cooke's endorsement of Boris Johnson, breached his contract. A quick look at the rules suggest that it may well have done -UPDATE- Brian Cooke had his contract terminated with immediate effect. Full report here.

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Richards Barnbrook, Littlejohn and the Daily Heil

Richard Barnbrook's surprising description of some BNP members as "knuckle dragging junk" is very similar to Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn's description of them as "knuckle scraping scum." However, a recent post on his Telegraph hosted blog shows that the Mail-Heil imitation doesn't stop there.

Because when Richard Barnbrook wrote that we should 'blame the immigrants' there was some suggestion that he had broken the law on inciting racial hatred.

However, as 5CC points out, what he should really get done for is plagiarism. Take a look at these two passages. The first is by Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips and is a reaction to comments made by the Children's Tsar Sir Al Aynsley Green:

'According to this ridiculous figure, the stop-and-search powers being belatedly used by the police to curb such attacks might further antagonise young people. Said Sir Al: ‘Anything that perpetuates the view that children are the troublemakers is a dangerous development.’

Now take a look at this excerpt from Richard Barnbrook's latest blog post published on the same day as the Phillips article: 

'According to this ridiculous lunatic, the stop-and-search powers being belatedly used by the police to curb such attacks might further antagonise young people. Said Sir Al: 'Anything that perpetuates the view that children are the troublemakers is a dangerous development.'

Now it may be that Richard Barnbrook breathes in the Daily Mail's bile to such an extent that it just involuntarily seeps out of his skin, or it could be that he just blatantly lifted the passage. However, whatever the reason for it was, it is clear that this is his paper of choice. 

And yet despite this, the Daily Mail are taking increasing steps to disassociate themselves from their number one fan. In recent weeks they have published a number of articles attacking Britain's premier fascist party and its members, including this uncharacteristic article on the events surrounding the manslaughter of Keith Brown by his neighbour Habib Khan. 

In a piece entitled 'How the BNP shamefully tried to create a 'white martyr' for their own grubby ends' the Mail attack Nick Griffin and his party for 'cynically turning the event into a party political broadcast.'

However, for many years the Daily Mail have walked a fine line between not wanting to be seen supporting the BNP and their policies, and not wanting to alienate BNP supporters either. 

Richard Littlejohn for one has tried to balance condemnation of the party as 'knuckle scraping scum' with false statistics on asylum seekers and a general view of Britain as a nation going to hell in a handcart. A view shared by BNP supporters across the land.

This dilemma came to a head with this clarion call from the BNP earlier in the year. In a post entitled 'The Littlejohn Syndrome' the BNP ask right-wing journalists to come forward and show the country their true colours. On Littlejohn and his fellow travellers in the Tory press, they write:

"The problem with assaults on political correctness is that they attract the wrong kind of people, the ‘unmentionables’. Members of the BNP, its supporters and others... are more likely to read the ‘acceptable extremists’ than they are to read anyone else in the establishment media. Their writing comes closest to articulating a lot of what the BNP believes in. And this is a pretty uncomfortable position for members of the establishment to be in. So every now and again the ‘acceptable extremists’ make a token effort to distance themselves from the conclusion that their writing points to. In the case of Richard Littlejohn a good half a dozen times a year he launches into an absurd tirade against the ‘knuckle-dragging BNP’, presumably in the hope that somehow it will erase the fact that much of what he says is compatible with much of what the BNP says."

So if the Daily Mail continue to espouse a world view not a million miles away from that of the average British National Party voter, then their fascist supporting readers will continue to overlook the occasional anti-BNP article slipped out on the side. 

But if the Daily Mail genuinely want to shake off their long-held image as the nation's Daily Heil, then it will take more than the few 'token efforts' that we have seen so far.

This post also appears over at Liberal Conspiracy

Seventeen arrested as Boris Johnson brings in ban

Richard Barnbrook: We are 'knuckle dragging junk'

Richard Barnbrook admitted that some members of his party are 'knuckle dragging junk,' on a day in which Huddersfield police began an investigation into a savage assault on an anti-BNP campaigner.

In an very revealing and wide-ranging interview with the Independent on Sunday, the British National Party's most powerful elected politician said that:

"Every party has nutters. Some of ours are knuckle-dragging junk from the past."
But although every party does of course have its fair share of nutters, most of those nutters aren't under investigation for aggravated assault. But on Friday morning, a student activist and Unison member was dragged to the ground and assaulted by three men suspected of being members of the BNP.

The woman who has campaigned against the rise of the far right in Huddersfield, claims that she was called a "dirty red" before being dragged to the ground and then repeatedly kicked. She is believed to have suffered severe bruising and a fractured rib.

Race War and Rommel

As the investigation was launched, Richard Barnbrook told the Independent that his party are not the Nazi thugs they have been made out to be. However, this claim was then somewhat offset by his stated admiration for Erwin Rommel and his belief in the coming of a race war. 

In response to a question from the Independent's Cole Moreton, the newly elected BNP politician, warned that there would be "strife" and "riots" on the streets "if the democratic process does not work out within the next five to six years." 

But with Richard Barnbrook very much part of that process for the next four years at least, he did not say at whose hands that strife would come.