Remember the Forensic Audit Panel? It’s that supposedly neutral body meant to check the previous administration’s finances - which contains two Tory council leaders. And, it emerges, another Tory:

Patience Wheatcroft

1(a)(ii)(cc) – I am a member of or hold a position of general control or management of the following body/bodies whose principle purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy:

Member of the Conservative Party

I wonder what they’ll conclude, hmm? That BoJo wants to pick a panel that agrees with him is unsurprising; he wants to spend public money his way. But he really ought to drop all pretence of political neutrality while doing so…

Hat-tip: Dave Hill.

More news on the Ray Lewis front: the inquiry looks to be dropped. Osborne claimed otherwise on Andrew Marr this morning, but this comes (apparently) from somewhere in the GLA:

But last night City Hall sources said the inquiry would be dropped. A source said: “He wants to clear his name and we would like that to happen, but now he has resigned it is not appropriate to spend taxpayers’ money on an inquiry.”

Even the Express seems unlikely to have made it all up. So, mixed messages at best? Perhaps BoJo hoped nobody would notice if the idea sank into the cess-pool that is the Express - and CCHQ disagreed. Whichever, there’d be reasons why Boris might want the whole farrago to disappear now. Namely:

The mayor’s office repeatedly insisted that Lewis was not aware of allegations of financial and sexual misconduct made against him by parishioners and had not even been told by the Church of England that he was disbarred from holding office in 1999. That appeared to explain why Lewis had not declared damaging facts during vetting for his post.

But that defence was dramatically undermined last night when church sources said Lewis actually appealed against the revoking of his licence in 2000, when he returned to Britain after working overseas.

The Rev Chris Newlands, chaplain to the Bishop of Chelmsford, who was responsible for overseeing Lewis’s parish, said: ‘When Mr Lewis came back from Guyana to England, he knew his licence had been revoked. The licence had been revoked because he was doing things he shouldn’t have been doing. He asked for permission to preach again in 2000, but it wasn’t granted.’

Fairly damning stuff. Fresh guesses, as Friday’s rapidly drop out of use; Lewis is very definitely guilty, as BoJo now knows, so there won’t be an inquiry, and he’ll never work for City Hall again. More Tories will distance themselves like so:

But other senior Tories were distancing themselves. A spokesman for Francis Maude, who sits on the board of trustees of Lewis’s Eastside Young Leaders Academy - an after-school facility for disafffected teenagers - said he had not known about the allegations in Lewis’s past and that Maude’s involvement with the academy had been ‘decreasing’ lately.

The line will become, “Lewis lied to us; we couldn’t help it.” How a liar took them in won’t be mentioned - just that he lied, and it’s not their fault. Assuming, of course, that CCHQ and Boris actually start working together…

And no, it’s not Ray Lewis. It’s our old hate object, Andrew Gilligan:

“The reason I fell out with Ken Livingstone wasn’t his cronyism, waste, or arrogance. The reason I, and I think many other Londoners, parted company with Ken was that he got rid of the Routemaster.”

He hasn’t at all referred to Routemasters as a “wedge issue” with which to batter Ken. No, it’s genuine now, apparently. And always was, oh yes…

BoJo no longer needs to worry if Ray Lewis lied yesterday - as he did. He’s not a JP, and he overhyped his CV during recruitment. The result; his resignation, and embarrassment for Boris, and the wider Cameron Project which trusted him.

A couple of predictions, though: should the enquiry exonerate Lewis, he’ll be back. The Tories have invested far too much in his ideas, and his methods, to let such a prime exponent go to waste. And if it finds him guilty and it goes to the police? BoJo can now come out and say that this can’t be his fault, as Lewis admits he lied on his CV - so he couldn’t have known. That’s the tone set by his new statement:

When pressed with a string of unsubstantiated allegations my instinct was to fight and fight hard for Ray. I still hope that he can clear his name. I cannot deny however that my confidence in Ray was shaken by the discovery today that he is not a fully fledged Justice of the Peace and I cannot deny that to be misled on this issue made it harder for me to give Ray the backing necessary to continue in his role as Deputy Mayor.

Dissect that sentence by sentence. You should get;

1. He’s on my side, it’s not my fault I defended him.
2. I still hope he can clear his name, because I want to employ him - and will do if he does.
3. But if he doesn’t, well, I’m shocked, just shocked. Meaning it’s not my fault and please don’t report this too badly.

Notice the, “it’s not my fault,” theme. Or, rather, the damage limitation theme; Boris talked Lewis up to the point that this now becomes embarrassing, so is talking him down just as fast in the hope it all stops. A tactic to expect in the future with other heavily-hyped but unfeasible projects?

After all, there’s the statue of Keith Park, and a no-strike deal with the RMT, and neo-routemasters before 2012…

I’m not one for crowing, and regular readers will know that I have been ready to defend Boris Johnson at times.  But today, it is clear that Johnson’s political nous is vacant.

He talked up Lewis - a “deputy mayor”, no less, despite the agreed definition of the title.  He leaped to his defence at the first sight of trouble.  Now the headlines read “Deputy Mayor resigns” and “Right-Hand man lied”.  Johnson’s judgement was flawed.

For the first time, Johnson can justly be criticised by his many opponants for active stupidity.  Ignorance has been the order of the day so far: now Johnson has bound himself strongly to a marked man.  Lewis’ resignation ruins his own reputation beyond repair, but also leaves Johnson somewhat tarnished.

On this issue, Johnson deserves all the criticism he gets.

- - -
Should it be significant, although I strongly hope it will not, it is worth noting Alan Sugar’s position.  If he does dare to stand in 2012, he cannot use Lewis against Johnson - he hired his apprentice knowing that he had lied on his CV!  The difference, of course, is that Lee McQueen had not been punished by the Church and questioned by police on several occasions for separate incidents.  And he lied about a degree, not, ironically, about being a Magistrate.

My predictions appear to have been proven true - before I made them. (Note to self: Read more than the BBC report…). Quoth the Mayor:

These allegations did not stop him from becoming a JP. They did not stop him from becoming an outstanding and respected prison governor. They did not stop him founding a school that has done untold good for East London children and they should not stop him from serving as my deputy Mayor.

In short: “Ray Lewis is a wonderful person who couldn’t have done this because he’s wonderful, and even if he did somehow manage it then, look at everything he’s done since.” And so pinning himself firmly to the, “Ray Lewis is innocent,” crowd. He really needs Lewis to be innocent, now…

Note another interesting parallel with the Lee Jasper case. Quoth the Mayor:

I believe that my deputy Mayor Ray Lewis is being made to suffer now because he has had the guts to serve in this administration and because he has had the courage to speak out against a stifling orthodoxy that has failed too many of our children.

Notice what that is? A diversion, designed to shift attention from the accused to the accuser by smearing their motives. Why the charges have been made has nothing to do with the charges themselves - but it serves as a useful means of ducking them. For Ken and Lee Jasper, it was because Jasper was black. For Boris and Lewis, it’s because Lewis is Boris’.

Noting these diversion tactics, I begin to wonder how honest the enquiry will be. Now he’s so firmly tied to Lewis’ protestations of innocence, it must be tempting for BoJo to make sure the panel is, “sound.” And pack it with primed and paid-up supporters. It wouldn’t be the first time, even in this administration; Forensic Audit Panel, anyone?

But we’ll see. Bet Boris regrets appointing so many important sounding, “Deputy-Mayors,” (with all the closeness the term implies) now…

(Hat-tip to Tory Troll for the quotes)

BoJo really needs to pick his people better. First, Munira Mirza acts without letting him know. Then, James McGrath shoots his mouth off in an entirely unwise fashion. And now - this. A Lee Jasper moments, perhaps?

That’s the parallel that springs most to mind. Allegations of financial and sexual impropriety, as yet unproved, against a senior figure in the Mayor’s administration. And damaging ones at that; to take money from a disabled parishioner and then withold it hardly says good things about the man’s character.

But there comes the major difference - this was more than ten years ago. If Lewis admitted to the charges - if, of course, they’re true - it could be explained away. A lot changes in ten years, and Lewis could point to his record in the community since as evidence of that. It’d stain, but it might not sink him.

He’s denied everything, though. Which is fine, if he’s telling the truth - but simply deadly if it’s not. He’ll be damned as a liar and a cheat, and simply disappear from the face of politics. And it’ll stain the regime, too. Who wants a Mayor who employs a social parasite?

And who wants a Mayor who employs a potential social parasite? Even the allegations smears an unpleasant air of corruption over the administration; one which BoJo needs to eliminate. To cast aside the whole matter, and any parallels with Lee Jasper, he can only follow one course - an immediate, thorough enquiry. Otherwise, it’ll all begin to look even more suspicious…

Need more be said?

(Hat-tip: Steve Platt via Tory Troll via Boris Watch)

Darren Johnson asked:

In the light of growing economic difficulties for many Londoners, will you consider indefinitely continuing the provision of half-price bus travel for those on income support?

Boris Johnson replied:

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. I do not believe that an extension of the Venezuela funded scheme can be justified. As I have already said, I think many Londoners felt uncomfortable about the bus operation of one of the world’s financial powerhouses being funded by the people of a country where many people live 10 in extreme poverty. I simply think there are better ways of benefiting Londoners and better ways of benefiting Venezuelans.

So, Boris will cut the Venezuala oil deal - and isn’t looking for an an alternative source of funding for subsidies. And this in a time of “economic difficulties” for Londoners. Need I say more?

EDIT: Yes, apparently. Dave Hill points out that Boris says in a subsequent answer “I have therefore asked TfL to investigate more suitable forms of fares concession for low income Londoners for consideration at the next fares revision.” So he’s scrapping the concessions, but only until the next fares revision?

That’s in January. I’d welcome a return of the subsidy - but what about the people who have to cope in the 5 month gap between their subsidies ending and (possibly) reappearing? It’s not as if they’ve copious (any) saving to cover the increased costs.

And I do worry - what does BoJo consider “suitable?”

This shouldn’t be a story. The reporter asked a provocative question, McGrath replied - and the reporter quoted him out of context. All that McGrath needed to do was explain and apologise. And the story would’ve died.

Instead, BoJo and co. decided he must go. And so made the story. McGrath’s comments were made to seem serious, and so the story shot to the front pages. The issue went from being a barely reported misdemeanour, confined to the inside of the Guardian, to an issue so serious that a Mayoral aide had to resign. Tactical mistake: I think so.

But it’s more than that: Boris now appears a complete hypocrite, especially to his own side. Quoth an unusually critical Iain Dale:

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.

And this the man whose blog practically reads as a series of watered-down CCHQ press releases. He must be furious to break through the programming. Other Tories certainly are:

Public figures can get away with misusing expenses and terrible policy failures but an unfortunate phrase on racial issues causes something to go wrong in the wiring of politicians and the media. ConservativeHome celebrates multiracial Britain but we also worry about what should be called an industry that is determined to see racism when there is nothing but an unfortunate remark. Is there a gutsy politician willing to face up to the hysteria that this industry generates? Without such guts there’ll only be more false charges of racism.

Boris was himself accused of racism at the start of his Mayoral campaign. Out of context his remarks appeared unfortunate. In the context of his full career they rightly didn’t worry fair-minded Londoners. Boris should have had the backbone to stand by such a loyal aide. There should have been no pressure to resign and no acceptance of a resignation.

So, he’s angered his own supporters by crumbling to the political correctness they so despise. Clever. Maybe for his next trick, he’ll decide to keep bendy-buses, see how that goes down with the voters.

(Oh. Wait…)

And there’s still more! BoJo has set a dangerous precedent for himself here. He defended McGrath from charges of racism, arguing that he was misquoted; as in, “James’s remark was taken out of context and distorted.” An explicit defence based in the same rhetoric he used to defend himself from charges of racism in the campaign. And yet McGrath’s gone. Inconsistency much?

The precedent is clear here. (gah, horrible sentence.) You misspeak, you go - whether that’s actually justified by the comments or not. Given Boris’ record for gaffes, that’s a very risky direction to head in.

BoJo shot himself in the foot by letting McGrath go in the first place. He’s since inserted the gory stump in his mouth and began gnawing when he released a statement defending then dumping McGrath. Perhaps he likes the taste of his own political blood?