What is David Miliband doing? He lets close contacts tell the press he want the leadership. And then he denies it in public. Very perverse indeed.

Several explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps…

- Miliband is trying to undermine Brown with a whispering campaign before standing.
- Miliband lacks the courage to stand, as he did last year, and is letting others do the dirty work for him.
- Miliband has little or no control over his close contacts.

Or, alternatively, it’s all happening in private and I’m grabbing at straws. This seems most likely.

Whatever the case - he needs to issue a clear statement on his position soon, and end all speculation. The alternative is to appear a hopeless ditherer.

And that’s done Brown’s image so much good…

Dave Hill points out that:

I’m interested to know how this policy change relates to what Johnson said in his late-night victory speech at City Hall:

“I do hope it does show that the Conservatives have changed into a party that can again be trusted after 30 years with the greatest, most cosmopolitan, multi-racial, generous hearted city on earth in which there are huge and growing divisions between rich and poor.”

Does Johnson consider scrapping concessionary fares for some of London’s worst-off people to be consistent with the character of the “generous hearted city” he now leads and what appeared to be his implied recognition that the huge and growing gap between the capital’s rich and poor is undesirable?

I knew the hypocrisy would be blatant somewhere…

…for once.

Unfortunately, it’s one I’d prefer he’d broken. On half-price fares for Londoners on income support, Boris 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 in extreme poverty.”

Perhaps he’s right over that. Perhaps Londoners would prefer it if we supported our own poor. Presumably Boris thinks they care about poverty - that’s rather the point of the move, isn’t it?

Then why this:

“We will continue to offer the half-priced travel concession to Londoners on income support for the duration for which the deal was originally planned, and will continue to improve the capital’s transport system and ensure that it is accessible and able to meet the needs of all those who rely on it.”

The contract ends on 20 August. Then Boris will cut fare support for those on low-incomes. The, “financial powerhouse,” will stop funding those in poverty.

London is rich enough to maintain at least part of the subsidy on fares even when the oil deal ends. Yet Boris won’t do that.

Because he really cares about poverty, whether it be in Venezuala or London, yah?

Ken puts it rather well:

“It shows that he is more interested in pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda than improving the living standards of the most deprived people in the capital.

“The fact that the first significant action by Johnson’s Tory regime is against the poorest people in the capital is highly significant as is the cowardly way he has made the announcement on bank holiday Sunday without any consultation with the organisations representing the thousands of carers, single parents and others affected.”

Mr Livingstone added: “The suggestion that Johnson is motivated by any concern about the people of Venezuela is just a lie shown by the fact that he is withdrawing all technical support and advice provided by London under this agreement.”

Boris has attacked the poor and provided no alternative support for them - before having the bare faced cheek to claim this is because he cares about the poor.

Welcome to the 1980s, London.

One slither in particular of Douglas’ earlier post stuck out to me:

who Parker calls “shareholders”.

This is the neo-liberal tendency at its most obvious. This ideology’s adherents are seemingly incapable of considering anything to be other than a market. This sort of reductionism is surely not what even Adam Smith would have wanted. The consequence of this nonsense perspective being applied to anything is invariably carnage so I imagine London will suffer immensely, but that’s what I anticipated from the outset so this is hardly news to my ears.

It still smarts that a 1980s throw-back has such a vital role, especially in a City Hall once dominated by the far superior 1960s throwbacks.

Oh yes, and happy towel day.