BoJo keeps promise…
…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.
I was uneasy about the deal with Venezuela. But, as you say, there is grounds to see the benefit retained with London money.
And Livingstone ought to shut up for a while. Nobody likes a sore loser.
I do hope that this cynicism is a faux form adopted in an attempt to annoy us or make yourself look impressive, Ali.
Because if you have rejected completely the possibility of Ken actually caring about the city then you seem to be thoroughly in it’s thrall.