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)

Some weeks ago, Ken Livingstone (and a range of associates) launched Progressive London. In its own words, it:

…campaigns to maintain and develop the progressive policies which London pursued at the beginning of the 21st century prior to the election of the present Tory London administration.

The campaign was inaugurated by Ken Livingstone, and aims to bring together a broad coalition of campaigns, communities, artists, trade unions, environmentalists, politicians from different political parties, community groups and individuals, who believe in social justice, excellent public services, environmental protection, good community relations, cultural innovation, a decent future for our young people and the many other areas in which London makes a progressive contribution recognised throughout the world.

In short, an attempt to create a broad-based, non-partisan coalition to forward progressive policies. Or, at least, present a united front against Boris. Neat idea, no?

If it were that simple. The project looks flawed even at this stage; a vehicle built by Ken to promote policies devised by Ken in Ken’s mayorality looks suspiciously like one to spearhead his re-election campaign in 2012. That might put off anyone who suppports the policies but worries a further Ken campaign will just split the left vote.

The impression isn’t helped by the organisation’s apparently top-down structure. Outside participation looks limited at present. You can subscribe to a newsletter, and you can come to the conference and listen to all of PL’s wonderful speakers. And you can sign their petition; apparently a “step-up” in activity. The approach seems to be that of a party organising activists, rather than organising a mass base.

That’s a shame, as the concept could have promise, both in and out of City Hall. Bringing groups on the GLA together to form a coherent opposition should help; Boris is barely accountable as it is. And likewise in general. Grouping together around shared ideals should advance those ideals, by removing unecessary competition from the field. If two or three groups agree on, say, 70% of policy, and disagree with one group on the same, doesn’t it make sense for those three to work against that one group?

Some suggestions, then. Any individual not immediately affiliated to Ken (maybe)-2012 would be rightly suspicious that the project is more about electing the man rather than the policies. And these are the people PL needs, as those already with Ken presumably might stick with him now. So, they need to be given a stake in the campaign.

The most convincing way to do that is to give them a say in the group’s direction. That, presumably already happens to a degree with that wide group of individuals from outside Ken’s team already involved. But they only give the group a narrow base, again at the top; who, without a wider support base, won’t turn out people to campaign and so only have limited influence themselves. It’s impossible to use the heights of local government to advance progressive policies when you don’t command those heights as no-one felt like going and and persuade people to give them to you.

Progressive London thus needs to build an enthusiastic, interested range of activists. It’ll only do that if they do feel they have a stake in the campaign; which means somehow opening it to grassroots participation. Here, the internet looks to be a smart option. Activists can make their voices heard through blogs and forums, individuals can make donations of whatever size they need. It presents a quick and cheap way to allow people to feel interested and engaged. And that, of course, doesn’t take into account the organisational power of tools like Facebook. If the new media can work for a President and House in the USA, why not for a Mayor and GLA in London?

New media already plays some role in London politics. This year’s election saw what must be the greatest engagement so far in British politics between an election and localised blogging. Sites like Stop Boris grew from a few posts to thousands of readers. Some videos went vaguely viral. Even outside the election, blogs and forums play a greater role than ever. Local blogs about; just look at the blogroll here. The central media opposition to Boris in office hasn’t come from the papers, but BorisWatch and Tory Troll. The closest this mayoralty has come to mass political activity, the Great Tube Piss-up of June, was organised through Facebook. Politics in London is moving onto the internet, and Progressive London would do well to exploit that.

Oh, and tone down the reference to Ken in the “About” section? I know the name has power, but it didn’t work when splattered all over the propaganda in May, and it doesn’t look like it’ll draw much more favour now.

It’s an interesting question that’s been kicking around for some years now: ID Cards. Why?

It’s become increasingly, achingly clear that they’ll be useful for anything. The only determined advocate is someone who stands to make massive amounts of cash out of their introduction. The implementation would cost an immense amount of money that we couldn’t really spare before this recession reduced the amount of money available for the state. And any idea so terrible it’s drawn together Tony Benn and UKIP is clealy not too wise to implement.

But even politically it is difficult to see any advantage. When it was matched by the Tories it was conceivable to see this as a piece of clothes stealing but now they are opposing the policy we are left with the preposterous notion of Labour winning over social rightists. Quite simply this isn’t going to happen. It seemed possible after that “Hug-a-hoody” stuff but since that phrase was quickly traded in for “Broken Britain” they were tucked back into the fold nicely. What Labour is left with is a policy that causes them to lose out massively amongst civil liberties voters. There are two other major parties offerinng to scrap the proposals and for those who this is a primary concern its fairly hard to justify not voting for either in the case of being situation in a marginal.

So either in terms of doing any good or in strategy the policy is dead weight. So why keep it?

Three words: the Lib Dems.

Prior to this identity idiocy there was one major offer Labour could put on the table for this lot if it came to a hung parliament. If they submitted to reform of the one area Liberal Democrats really care about, voting systems, and implemented Proportional Representation they could be assured a coalition. They could also be assured that that coalition was one they would have to get used to, as for the forseeable future a Lib-Lab union would be the only imaginable set-up British politics could handle.

Now this was something which Labour was never really going to stomach, but if you want to know why they are still keen on this daft idea consider this: at the moment the Labour Party partisans have united in a fashion which would have seemed implausible only a year or so ago. Blairite, Brownite, these terms have rapidly become meaningless as factionalism is overlooked. Backed against the wall they stand as one.

Now do you really imagine that after all that pride swallowing they are going to smile and accept that a Third Party will prop them up forever?

It was unlikely that the same people who had enjoyed an overwhelming landslide were ever going to let that happen, but after the amount of disregarding of grudges they’ve had to perform already there is simply no way that they are going to let the Liberal Democrats seize the position of kingmakers. No, the upper echelons of the Labour Party hierarchy wants to maintain the present electoral system: if for no other reason that in some ways the constant threat of the Tories was what this pack of right wingers keep the substantial left at bay so effectively.

So how do ID Cards fit into this intrigue? Simple: they’re both negligible and disposal to Labour, crucial and central to the Liberal Democrats.

To the LDs the proposed database and card system is the epitome of New Labour dependence upon regressive statism. This is the issue which enthuses just about all of them and is one of the very few that is able to unite this inherently bi-sected coalition of social democrats (wondering just when the hell that started being the extreme left) and liberals (wondering why we can’t get back to the 18th century already, as they rather enjoyed that one). For this reason ID Cards make life a lot easier for Nick Clegg.

‘New Politics’ Established Via Sustaining The Status Quo

Clegg hasn’t clearly stated that he’d push for PR in the advent of being a coalition maker. In fact he seems to have waffled about something called ‘New Politics’ when asked about the issue. What this mist of vagueness actually means is anyone’s guess, but hopefully its something other than what it sounds like: the ominously complimentary harmonising with Cameron’s constant calls for a “Change” that we’ve been hearing ever since he stole that line off of someone who actually meant it. Or else letting whichever party’s bigger form a highly vulnerable an ineffective minority government (see ref: Canada). There’s a chance that Clegg does want the policy that lets the LibDems claim the number of seats they’re pretty much indisputably entitled to, but there’s also a (far greater) chance that he’s an ineffectual faffer who won’t push as far and as hard as he can.

In which case…

Brown declares “LibDems! Join ranks with us and I’ll get rid of those nasty ID Cards, since that’s how consensus politics works”. Clegg is able to push for this and maybe another few tokens in some behind-closed-doors mutterings and then can return to his party with a substantial scalp: the ID database has been tossed in the skip. The second most important issue the LibDems all care about has been sorted and hey, who cares about the most since they will be in government (Vince Cable replacing Darling? Perhaps, perhaps…) and thus it seems like FPTP has delivered the goods anyway.

Will they be happy with ti? No. But will that be far more tolerable than if he’d showed up saying “No PR, I’m afraid…But we have got a few cabinet spots and some changes to EU relations legislation which I…” If he did that he’d probably get fucking deposed. Which would rather complicate and extend the formation of any coalition, of course.

So: under this anaylsis Brown maintains a policy he doesn’t really care about since others do and the seats that it’ll lose him are of less importance than the leverage it will grant him if it comes to forging a coalition. And thus the presence of the LibDems endangers our nation’s civil liberties. Without them Labour would have dropped this policy like a stone. With it, they’ll lose some seats to the LDs and Tories but have a last line of defence against PR.

Things are getting interesting in local government (yes, you read that correctly).  It seems as if upwards of 20 councils have money stashed away in Icelandic banks, and are going to have some difficulty accessing their deposits following the nationwide banking collapse.

I am amazed that councils deposit money in foreign banks.  There is clearly benefit in not putting all of your eggs in one basket, but a decent spread around the British banks would surely be as safe?  More safe, even, I would argue, than investing abroad.  There is little that the government can do about deposits in Iceland, whereas should the British banks suffer in the same way the government could quickly step in and bail out council deposits if nothing else.

It will be very interesting to see how the councils resolve this severe problem, but retrospective thought should at least consider keeping money in the UK.

The Scribo team (or, rather, I on behalf of the Scribo team) apologise for the lack of posting recently.  Doug and James headed to University on Saturday, and I went up on Sunday.  Freshers’ week and general business have pushed blogging slightly off the agenda, but not off the radar.  Once the lectures and work begin, diversions will doubtless become highly desirable and blogging will return.  Until such a time, allow me to spend a brief moment considering the quandary George Osborne finds himself in.

George Osborne is a conservative and he believes in small government and low spending and economic freedom.  But he is a politician and he wants to win an election in just over a year’s time.  To attempt to seek a public mandate on the back of tax cuts is always a brave move, especially when the electorate is as skeptical as we are today, but to attempt to cut tax while the economy is tanking is folly.

Like it or not, when the economy begins to crumble the electorate wants to see leadership and good government.  This, in the eyes of skeptical voters, is not adequately achieved by tax cuts and slashes to regulation of any and every sort.  Like it or not, the Tories have been forced into a corner of accepting an escape-route to the crisis that fully contradicts their fundamental beliefs.  But there is nothing else for it.  Should they oppose the government line, they would be vilified by every other party in the Commons.  And they would also be contradicting the public perception of leadership in a crisis, looking instead like they would allow the economic situation to deteriorate.  Osborne may be a conservative, but he wants to win an election.  This aim trumps all else in such a fractured time.  He is on uncomfortable ground but his position is fully understandable.

The Met are in open revolt.  Does this mean that they see Boris Johnson as an opportunity for change?

Brown looks intent on respawning New Labour. Or rather, New Labour’s propaganda apparatus; Derek Draper returned recently, Mandelson comes back today. Unity suspects Campbell might return in a consulting role to fully pull together the team that tripped the landslide in 1997. Add to that the apparent retention and promotion of Blairites, and the neglect of the left - and it becomes clear Brown feels the 1997 formula might just work.

If so, he fails to note the rather obvious flaw in his plan; it’s not 1997, and we no longer have a Tory government in power. We have a Labour government, who’ve been in power since 1997, and so have presided over the current decline into gloom. For which they might well be blamed. Figures such as Mandelson thus become the problem, not the solution. They’re associated with all the worst aspects of New Labour - the lies, the hated spin - and their appointment simply reminds the public that they exist. So to expect their return to lead to a change in fortune is simply bizarre; they helped construct the current mess, and will be blamed for that. It’s a sign that Labour just isn’t listening, and wants to carry on as before - when, clearly, the polls show the public no longer want that. Mandelson might be a worryingly skilled political operator, but he’s also so loathed that he could well make the situation worse. So, on ideological and tactical grounds; a very bad decision.

The reshuffle is more horrible than I could ever have imagined. Yes, it’s the return of Peter Mandelson, he who starves the poor and says that Brown should hold New Labour to the “Centre” rather than swinging left (when in fact the former would require the latter). John Hutton is moving to a role which will let him arrange killing people and Geoff Hoon, the man who previously did that job so poorly that British troops were fighting without basic body armour, is now in charge of transport. Doubtless a bus sighting will soon become a rarity.

In other words, the ascendency of the Blairites has become total. In this time of economic collapse Brown has found no place for the left. Perhaps he wishes to play the reliable New Labour acolytes off against the more radical Millibandians or perhaps, as usual, he’s just being a damn fool.

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.