Boris claims his freeze on council tax precepts will save Londoners valuable money. Quite. In fact, had it been bought in this year, it could’ve saved the average household a very useful 11p a week. That adds up to a staggering £5.72 for the year. Just enough to pay off daily Boris’ bus fare rises next year; and not nearly enough to pay for one daily travelcard from the edge of London. Any Londoner reliant on public transport for work or otherwise faces a large fare hike for a small tax cut.

Perhaps his “Economic Recovery Action Plan” should be renamed the “Boris Johnson Recovery fund”…

(Hat-tip for the sums: Tory Troll)

Tom suggests a very plausible strategy for Boris’ spinning strategy:

Hmm, Boris can always say he’s looking forward to working closely with the next appointment on KNIFE CRIME and YOUNG HOODIE MUGGERS etc. The spin is obvious and easy, show Boris as the Voice of the People, we need change, fresh start, new broom, Blair unfortunately tained by the failed policies of the Labour past, yada ya. Job’s a good ‘un. I should do this for a living.

That assumes he gets his way; as well he might, given the subservience of the London papers and Blair’s numerous enemies on either side of the spectrum. But it could go wrong.

Blair’s statement made it clear from the start that Boris forced him out. That makes the move look political, and that could play badly. The police exist to enforce the legislation of democratically elected bodies. The need for that legislation to be applied universally and without prejudice means that the police force must exist without political influence. Democratic bodies should exist to ensure the force remains accountable and enforces the laws properly - but it must itself remain free from interference from partisan individuals.

Democracy comes in the formulation of the law, not its application, which should remain the same no matter who does the application. So when a politician clearly edges a public servant out of their job, we should worry. Blair is abused as a political appointment, but his political resignation matters just as much - it’s exactly the same principle, after all.

And, if Boris did force Blair out, that raises a perhaps more damaging charge; that of political immaturity. Blair gives the impression that Boris wanted him gone largely out of dislike and disagreement. And yet that’s what you’ll encounter every day in public, and indeed general, life. You won’t like everyone you meet, and you won’t agree with everyone you work with; but you need to accept that and move on if you want to ever get something done.

That Boris apparently couldn’t do that here could be made to work against him. The opposition could easily use this, and the rash of resignations from his office over the Summer, to form a narrative of incompetence; with such trouble, they’d say, it’s clear the man can’t operate in public life. That could hurt, if it last long enough.

Currently watching Ian Blair’s resignation live. Boris clearly being made the bogey-man. Fully expect the Home Sec to push that line harder.

I don’t care for unnecessary Boris-bashing - my interest here is this: can Boris spin this to his advantage? I doubt he can.

I bet Cameron will be livid at the “Nasty Party” jibes that will doubtless flood back.

I note also that the Tories rejected a Third Runway at Heathrow, yesterday. Do they really expect the announcement to have any impact when their most prominent elected figure believes we need another airport entirely, and that one would fit rather nicely in the middle of the Thames Estuary? Replacing one runway with two doesn’t make for a sound environmental plan. Or sound mathematics, for that matter.

I didn’t watch Boris’ Conference speech yesterday. I’d spent the previous evening drunk and crying on a friend’s shoulder, so didn’t really feel up to the inescapable horror of a Tory Conference.

I did, though, read the papers this morning. They told me much what I’d expected; our Mayor made a speech heavy on witticism and low on content. What content there was didn’t impress. Quoth BoJo:

“I say to the Labour government – you will not make this country or its capital more competitive by driving away talent. You cannot regulate your way out of a recession. You can certainly regulate your way into one,”

“No matter how much you may dislike the Masters of the Universe, my friends, there are plenty of other parts of the universe that would welcome them.”

Note the obvious flaws in his statement. Individuals who permit their institutions to lend money to people who can’t afford to pay it back, buy up similar debts, borrow on the anticipation of receipt of those initial debts to pay off these debts and so drive those institutions to the wall when credit or repayment runs out can hardly be described as “talent.” Nor can their creation of jobs be much applauded when they take those jobs back with the same ease.

The assault on regulation, meanwhile, lacks impact. Doesn’t he consider that it’s possible to institute some, limited regulation and so solve a problem without regulating businesses into the ground? Regulation occurs by degree, not by monolithic bloc. You can provide some regulation to protect both customers and institutions from certain irresponsible employees (to prevent the sheer amount of fiscal incestuousness inherent in this degree of entanglement, for example) without regulating everything. And that’s what is necessary.

Not, of course, that Boris provides any working alternative or hint of what he feels might be necessary. The policy he did provide proved predictable:

“I am pleased to announce that for the first time since the GLA was created, for the first time since London has had a mayor. I will not be coming back to the people and asking them for more money in tax. There will be no increase in our share of the council tax next year,” he said.

Well done, Boris. You cut taxes, and phrased it in the language of concern for individuals. You also failed to mention that this cut in tax would be funded by comes alongside a sizable rise in public transport fares; 11% in fact. A move which shifts the burden of payment from those who can afford it - that is, those with higher bills vaguely detirmined by your wealth - to those who can’t.

Odd that you can apply the logic that the credit crunch will make life difficult to some Londoners, but not others. Many who use public transport use it because they can’t afford a car; and so they need it, and they need it to remain affordable. The same cannot usually be said of those who pay higher rates of council tax, and who’ll benefit now.

Johnson claimed the content of his speech illustrated just what a Conservative would do in government. I worry intensely for 2010; that speech equated to a declaration of pride in the belief that the rich should pay less and the poor more, and that government just shouldn’t try to redress that balance. Just like Thatcher, then.

EDIT: I mistook which money came from which pot. See comments.

From the Guardian:

“Inflation-busting rises in bus and tube fares will be announced today by the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in a move he will blame on the ‘reckless’ spending policies of his predecessor. The cost of travelling on London transport for adults will rise by more than inflation next year as a fares freeze imposed by Ken Livingstone is scrapped.”

Let’s be clear, Boris; this isn’t your predecessor’s fault. You cannot scrap a deal bringing cheap oil for public transport to London organised by that predecessor, and claim you can’t help fare-rises. Stop fighting the previous campaign and accept responsibility for your own mistakes.

And this is a mistake. Public transport exists for the benefit of the entire public; when a section of that public can’t afford to use that transport, it ceases to be public. These fare rises will make it increasingly difficult for the less well-off - those who need public transport most, as they can’t afford private. And this during the approach to a recession, when we’re all finding it hard.

But this is all part of the Gilligan revolution, isn’t it? I wait for the article letting us know we should all stop whining about the destruction of public transport, which is, after all, just a socialist “vanity project“…

“I watched Mr Johnson’s speech on television and I was appalled. It looked like he had carried out some research but not quite enough.

“It’s criminal really and you would have thought he would be better-informed. What he said is like saying the English invented the Hoover but at the time it was called a Dyson. Mr Hoover would be furious, just as my family is about this mistake.”

As usual, for comment on matters Boris, see the Tory Troll.

I usually refrain from a running commentary on Boris Johnson’s acts as mayor.  Some people have taken to follow his every move, and while it is a very valid exploit, I cannot hope to carry it out effectively*.

Today, though, I feel I must comment on the resignation of Johnson’s First Deputy Mayor.  Let’s not forget, this was a position that he created despite reasonable warnings at the time that such a position was against GLA rules (with good reason).  Tim Parker now, apparently, sees that the position was not a sensible one to inhabit, or indeed to exist to begin with.  This effectively sees the end of Johnson’s Deputy Mayor scheme.

Such an error in judgement in creating posts only to realise that there was a perfectly good reason why they did not exist to begin with is forgiveable.  To lose so many high-ranking members of your administration in a matter of months is shocking.

I hope for London’s sake that this is a repeat of the Winter, as Johnson’s campaign got a complete overhaul and turned from a joke to a highly successful operation.  If not, London will be mismanaged for the next 42 months.  With the Olympics approaching, the last thing we need is a lack of decent thinking at the top of London government.

As always, though, the Tory Troll has the most insightful comment on the subject:

But with ‘King Stooge’ out of the building, and with planning powers now passed back into the Mayor’s hands, we are now faced with the very real prospect of Boris Johnson actually doing his own job. These are scary times people.

- - -
*To see it done properly, see Tory Troll and Boris Watch.

Concepts and artwork for the new Routemaster.

Via the indefatigable Tory Troll.

Via Pickled Politics:

Here are a list of popular festivals in London that currently receive financial support from the Mayor’s office or the London Development Agency.: Chinese New Year; St Patricks Day; St George’s Day; Vaisakhi; Africa Day; Baishakhi Mela; Pride and Soho Pride; Rise; Carnival del Pueblo; London Mela; Notting Hill Carnival; Liberty - disability arts festival; Thames Festival; Trafalgar Square summer festival; the Jewish Simcha on the Square; Chanukkah; Black History Month events; Diwali; Eid; Celebrating Sanctuary (refugee festival); Capital Age; Festival of Youth Arts.

Unsurprisingly, now Boris wants to cut funding from them all so they can rely on the businesses to support them. The guy is adamant on making London lifeless again. Meanwhile his office will spend over a quarter of a million on head-hunting alone.
This is just a start.

When Munira Mirza removed Rise’s anti-racist theme for Boris, she claimed Londoners, “deserve a great, free music festival.” The logic behind such a claim is fair; many Londoners don’t have the means or ability to organise street carnivals alone, so providing some support to ensure some can - and to make those festivals open to all - allows everyone to let off some steam. And, of course, the cultural elements allow Londoners to learn a little about each other and so reduce conflict within communities.

But, apparently, Londoners only deserve the one party now. What fun, eh?