What's Eating Me Today?

A London mayoral election special – twenty-one reasons why the Inebriated Newt, Ken Livingstone, should be cast out from his autocratic running of London .

1. He is a green hypocrite: whilst claiming to be environmentally aware, Ken thinks nothing of taking himself and his hangers-on for expenses-paid trips to Cuba, the US, China, India and anywhere else that will get them the most air-miles. When did he last visit Wandsworth, Ealing or any other London borough outside Zone 1? Maybe his Oyster card hasn’t got enough money on it?

2. He wastes tax payers’ money: two of his most infamous junkets were to Cuba and Venezuela . One would have thought that when travelling over 5,000 miles to meet someone, you would check with their “people” that the person is available. He is also “investing” our council tax in sending a satellite into orbit, a first for a British city. Unless he is onboard, it will be a pointless exercise. To coincide with the Beijing Olympics, nearly half a million pounds are being spent on driving two London buses to China . The last time I checked, not even the G1 went that far. He is also able to overlook his socialist, Marxist principles and employ over 100 staff at the GLA on salaries of more than £100,000.

3. He has set up offices all over the world to promote London as a base for big business: Ken, big business knows how to get in touch and does not need prompting from you. Cuba and Venezuela are not exactly big importers of British goods. You have no control over interest rates and constrained tax powers, so stop trying to be Chancellor.

4. Climate change will not be solved by London having a Low Emissions Zone, or charging Band G vehicles an additional £17 to drive in the congestion charging area: TfL’s own reports show that traffic levels have increased and vehicles are travelling more slowly than before the congestion charge was introduced. Equally, TfL have reported that charging Band G vehicles will increase pollution across London . Stop punishing others through your class envy.

5. He associates with dodgy world leaders and surrounds himself with crooked officials: Chavez and Castro are dictators (much like him). Some of us still remember Ken entertaining the IRA, at a time when they were busy killing British soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland and London . “I would trust Lee Jasper with my life”, says Ken. I wouldn’t trust Lee Jasper with £1 to go and buy sweets for my kids. And his transport commissioner, fellow bottle lover, Bob Kiley, achieved the admirable feat of doing nothing whilst being paid £25,000 per month in salary.

6. He’s a liar: OK, nothing new for a politician. Whilst rubbishing Boris Johnson’s idea to re-instate the Routemaster bus as dangerous and expensive, he has glossed over the fact that his solution to bus transport is to fuel them by hydrogen, an energy source that requires huge quantities of electricity – and we all know what that entails (more CO2 emissions, in case you are green and poorly informed). He is also the person that got the Routemaster banished from the streets of London in the first place, when he had already pledged to keep them running. All in the name of ecology, apparently. Ken has also convinced his non-English speaking voters in the East End of London that Boris Johnson is a fascist who will ban the Koran. In addition, he said that the office of Mayor should be for a single term, lest it corrupt the incumbent – if only…

7. An open air cinema? That is really taking the pulse of Londoners. How about a tube system that works? Or a road system that is free to all, not just those that can afford to pay for it?

8. The Olympics: £2bn. Then £9.4bn. More likely this sporting white elephant will cost nearer £20bn. London. Does. Not. Need. The Olympics. Athletes running about and throwing things is best done in a city with a bit of warmth (climate-wise and people-wise) and run by an organisation that is good at large infrastructure projects. London does not qualify on either account. The man on the street does not want London to host this event.

9. London is a world-class city because Ken became Mayor: Livingstone makes great play of all that he has done for the capital, but what are those things exactly? The Oyster card – hardly the splitting of the atom. The Congestion Charge – universally hated and unfit for purpose. More people on buses – yes, for 1 hour in the morning and evening, but during the day they trundle around London empty, spewing out more CO2 than 4 times as many cars. Affordable Homes – where, exactly? Not anywhere with an 0207 or 0208 telephone code. More funding for the police – so that they can fill in more forms and stare at CCTV all day.

10. How can you trust someone that needs whisky to kick-start his day? He seems to have misunderstood the phrase “drunk with power”.

11. He says he supports a multi-cultural, integrated city but he offends as many minorities as he courts: remember him being censured and almost removed from office for calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi? According to him, the Japanese are war criminals, an outburst prompted because of the refusal of the Japanese embassy to pay for the Congestion Charge. The Americans were branded crooks for the same misdeed.

12. Everything is always someone else’s fault: when a YouGov survey put him significantly behind Boris in a poll, the polling organisation was to blame for not being inclusive enough. Youth crime is either Margaret Thatcher’s legacy for not instilling a moral code in the parents of today’s trouble makers, or else a result of local councils’ ineptitude for not spending money that they don’t have, due to him taking 50% of it. The rise in traffic congestion in London since 2003 is down to Thames Water, for having the audacity to invest in London’s 150-year old sewer system. If he loses the mayoral election, it will be the Tories’ fault for running a better campaign rather than having a better candidate than him. The Evening Standard is culpable for everything else.

13. His views on transport in London are totally polarised: it’s either public transport or nothing. Since neither he nor his transport advisor drive, he does not recognise that people may actually need to travel to destinations not covered by buses, trains or tubes, or may have small armies of children to carry, or bulky loads to deliver. Londoners need a choice and should not be punished because their decision is not palatable to the mayor.

14. He is two-faced: OK, again, nothing new for a politician. He left the Labour party in 2000 to run for mayor as an independent. Once elected, and seemingly popular, he was invited back to the Labour fold. He has since stated that he sees himself more as an independent politician than as a Labour candidate. Not that it stops him using Golden Gordon or Tessa Jowell to give him free publicity. And not that it stops that gormless pair from endorsing him.

15. He hides secret donations received from developers and unions: OK, still not headline news for a politician, especially as Boris appears to be still keeping back information about his funding. But Livingstone accepts money from builders to bolster campaign funds in return for handing out building contracts. If Boris buys a few shares in an unheard of TV company, so be it. Ken is taking back-handers so that developers can be awarded work. That is acceptance of bribes, and is criminal. He also bribes unions and their members to prevent them from holding embarrassing strikes during elections.

16. Ken Knows Best: He is a great believer in consulting the people over his wacky schemes. For instance, the western extension to the Congestion Charging zone into the borough of Kensington and Chelsea. He consulted London via online and paper forms. The majority of businesses affected, and over 70% of Londoners who responded, were against the proposal. However, Ken was not “minded” to listen to this majority, as the “positive” environmental impacts of the scheme would outweigh the economic hardship imposed upon drivers. He consulted on the congestion aspects of the extension, but determined the result single-handedly on the basis of having been got at by the Greens.

17. His supporters claim he has a “track record” and “experience”: the latter is not in doubt, if experience is a measure of how long you have been a pain in the backside of Londoners since the late 70s. But his track record is not exactly that of an undefeated boxer, gold medal winning sprinter, or World Cup winning captain. He might done a few good things for a minority, but the majority, who have to pay for, and suffer by his ideas, have a less rosy view of his achievements.

18. Council tax bills have increased by 50% since he became Mayor: this is to finance his fiefdom, its thousands of employees (and their pensions) and his foreign excesses.

19. Ken is not accountable to government: the pound stops with the Mayor. Ultimately, we the people will have a say on whether he stays or goes. In the meantime, during the 4 year term that is served, no-one can veto his actions. London already has a Minister. Why not transfer the GLA’s budget to this official, shift some of the staff (i.e. not the 100+ “advisers” a.k.a. “hangers on” or "wastes of space"), close the overseas offices (the UK already has embassies) and make the running of London a task that is ultimately responsible to the Prime Minister or other senior MP?

20. He wants to introduce a 20mph speed limit across London: Ken’s argument is that if we drive more slowly, we will spew out less CO2 and be involved in fewer accidents. The green argument is completely wrong, as a car driving at 20mph will either be over-revving in 1^st or 2^nd gear, or labouring in 3^rd or 4^th – it is a very inefficient speed. And driving slowly will not cause a reduction in the number of accidents. There will be just as many accidents, but maybe less damage and loss of life.

21. Ken is usually blunt and honest as to why he does things. For example, he has admitted that if a rival proposes a decent policy, he will steal it and implement it. What he is not honest about is why he introduced the Congestion Charge and the subsequent Western extension. This initiative is purely about charging the wealthy to drive, especially with the push to the west. Note that he has not yet published any proposals to extend the zone North or East. When asked why he would not pursue this logical expansion (at an early election rally in 2008), he slurred that there were no obvious routes to act as boundaries for an extension in those directions (he would say that, not having the first idea what a road is). He also garbled that extending the CC would decrease the benefits of having the zone. Absolute nonsense: the zone should be extended east along the Highway to Poplar, then North to Stratford, West to Kentish Town, where it can turn south to join the current zone - pretty clear-cut boundaries, in my opinion. And if he is so determined to cut emissions, why not reduce congestion over a greater area? The answer is obvious, but will never be uttered by Ken. Extending the zone North and East will impact his core voters, the misguided minorities who believe that he is doing so much for them. They would not appreciate, or pay for, an £8 or £25 daily tax to go about their business.

If you still think he is the answer to London’s problems after this small sample of his indiscretions, good luck to you. Would the last person to leave the capital please remember to recycle the mayor’s empty bottles of Johnnie Walker?

Final chance to save London.
 

A quote from an earlier blog:

"Darling also tinkered with the goalposts that dictate which cars will be caught in these traps: Golden Gordon originally proposed a Band G “super tax”, but only for cars registered after March 2006. That’s (un)fair enough; it gave people a choice. But now Darling has said that this tax will apply to all cars registered after March 2001, catching an extra 1-1.5 million vehicles. A cunning plan, Darling, very cunning."

And what do we see on the front page of The Times this morning: Secret tax adds £200 to cost of running family cars.

It now seems that Darling's hidden tax is out in the open. Glad it’s only taken 6 weeks for the hacks to work this one out, unlike the 52 weeks it took MPs to cogitate over the fact that removing the 10p tax band would not be a good thing. It would be refreshing to see a U-turn over the introduction of the new vehicle bands. However, unlike the 10p tax fiasco, it seems that punishing drivers in the name of the environment is far more acceptable than taxing the poor, despite the fact that it is the same poor who will be most affected. 
 

Westminster has two “houses” that allow the 733 Lords, 746 “Lifers” and 646 MPs to engage in debate, which ultimately shapes our lives in Britain . The houses are not actually houses, of course. They are in fact debating chambers, designed to permit MPs and Lords to argue, discuss and deliberate over the matters that affect us.

The Houses are staffed by an additional 1,700 employees supporting the Members and committees. Each member also has their own staff – paid for out of the generous allowances that the taxpayers provide and which is so freely abused by the likes of Derek Conway.

This infrastructure is then repeated for each council, mayoralty, European, Welsh or Scottish constituent. Plenty of room and opportunity for chat for our elected representatives of various flavours.

Why therefore does the letters page of The Times invariably contain a letter or two from an MP, councillor or mayor, typically addressed to a different MP, councillor or mayor? Last week there was a letter in The Times from Charles Clarke (Frank Dobson in a Shrek costume), complaining about the backstabbing attitudes of fellow MPs towards their beleaguered leader. Couldn’t he have taken the matter up in the House of Commons?

London’s mayor is a regular contributor to the letters page, obviously feeling that he doesn’t have enough airtime or column inches already. He wrote to The Times, complaining that there aren’t enough black, Jewish or Muslim cab drivers. If he is so concerned, doesn’t he have a staff of 105,000 or so that could debate the issue, consult on it and then let him unilaterally decide what to do? What is getting his name in print going to achieve?

Two days to save London.
 

According to a study to be aired on ITV tonight, Bad Manners are the biggest problem facing our society.

I think that's nonsense: it's Madness. Every time I see Ken or Gordon on the box, I go mad.
 

Last year, the good burghers of Edinburgh managed to get the DVLA to withdraw vehicle registration plates prefixed SN07, on the basis that a squinting, myopic person might misinterpret the characters as SNOT, and presumably be offended.

The same Taliban mentality is still prevalent in Swansea, as this government run cash cow has now removed from sale number plates that begin with KN08 or BO08.

I never forget seeing a number plate in 1979, which was FAR xxxT. Hilarious, especially to someone brought up on a diet of Carry On films.

I was looking forward to spotting KN08XXL or KN08OUT. Maybe BO08SXL or BO08SUP.

It’s a shame Ken Livingstone doesn’t drive. I would have gladly bought him KN08HED.

3 days to save London .
 

Whereas Easter arrived just after New Year, it seems that April Fools' Day was 23 days late in 2008. The proof came with the news that Kirstie Allsopp has been voted into the Top 100 sexiest women by FHM magazine. She's the dumpy one who makes programmes about people moving house.
 
I'll let that sink in. Kirstie Allsopp. One of the sexiest women. In the world. There are some real pockets of humanity out there...

Further evidence of the lateness of the hoaxer's favourite half-day is that Bruce Willis is to play Murray Walker in a film about Michael Schumacher. That's Bruce Willis from the Die Hard films, whose preferred dress is a vest, playing Murray Walker, a hysterical sports commentator who is famous for putting a curse on every driver he refers to as "doing well". No word on who is playing Schuey. Rowan Atkinson, maybe?

But the final confirmation that April 1st is being celebrated late this year is that the actor Wesley Snipes is being locked up for 3 years for failing to pay tax. Oh. Seems that one is true.
 

...or so claimed the other one who is running for London Mayor. You know, thingy, boring name, Colin isn't it, represents the party fronted by that other bloke you can't remember, Mick somebody, I think.

Anyway, George says he will give London a free wireless network. Let's just break that statement down.

London. Which part? Inside the M25? Anywhere with an 020 number? Inside Zone 1? The city? The West End?

And "free". Nothing in this world is free. The cost of providing everyone with free wifi will have to be borne somewhere. BT or their equivalent will not just donate free equipment and bandwidth for the good of the city. The cost will come from a cut in public services, or more likely, an increase in council tax.

Of course, this news was reported by the British press, which means that none of Eric's statements were challenged, and Londoners are left thinking that they are going to be able to update WasteofSpaceBook from every coffee shop and bar in town.
 

At any moment, the BBC is broadcasting up to 11 radio stations simultaneously to the United Kingdom. They also have between 3 and 5 television channels communicating to the nation. This does not count the 40 English, 7 Scottish, 5 Welsh and single Northern Irish radio stations and 22 regional TV stations.

On the hour, all of the radio stations broadcast a news bulletin. Apart from Radio 1 of course, which does news for the mentally challenged on the half hour. That is 10 UK-wide news reports, containing the same information, being disseminated in chorus. Which requires at least 10 presenters, although probably more like 20 or 30, as each will also have a sports and weather feature, and 10 sets of production teams. Why can’t they share news programmes to reduce costs?

The same applies to BBC TV programmes. BBC Breakfast is broadcast simultaneously on BBC News 24, but News 24 then goes independent while BBC1 has its lunchtime, teatime and night-time news programmes. There is also a little known channel, BBC World, which does its own thing news-wise every hour. Why not use News 24’s output? The Beeb will argue that BBC World has localised news, specific to the time zone in which it is broadcast. I would counter that BBC World should be aimed at the Brit abroad, who is far more interested in following the latest travails at home than knowing that an elephant has run amok in Sri Lanka .

BBC World should be more – and I shudder to write it – like CNN. If you are ever unlucky enough to stay in a hotel that broadcasts CNN, don’t watch it. It is made by Americans, for Americans. During a US election year (such as this one, in case you hadn’t noticed), the “news” consists of the caucuses, primaries, super delegates and associated banality that accompanies the appointment of the ruler of the free world. For 11 months. Starting in the first week of January, when Iowa gets it four-yearly 15 minutes in the spotlight and ending sometime in November, when the least qualified candidate wins.

Outside of an election year, CNN shows 99% US content, the only exceptions being a weekly round-up of world sport in which Americans take part. There is CNN Europe, which has the same US content, but presented by Europeans. Seems like they have the BBC’s problem.

This brings me back to the BBC’s biggest waste of news: BBC Parliament. Whilst channel-surfing during an ad break on another channel, I happened across BBC Parliament. Fuelled by apathy and lethargy about bothering to find another channel, I actually watched it for a few minutes. I have one question: Why?

It was being broadcast “live” and this was just after 10pm. There were 12 people in the House of Commons, one being the bloke with the wig and the other 11 being MPs who had missed closing time at John Lewis and were still working. Or maybe they had already done their late night shopping, felt guilty and came in to do a bit of overtime. Then again, probably not.

When I joined the party, one of the eleven (a Labour MP) was wobbling on about childcare to three of her colleagues and a mixture of opposition members, none of which was from the benches of Her Majesty’s opposition. After the riveting discourse, a DUP representative rose to oppose the closure of so many post offices, which was very noble of him. But surely it would be better to discuss this very important subject with all 645 of his cohorts in the house, rather than at the witching hour?

When Mr DUP had had his say, he and 9 others got up and left, leaving UKIP’s sole MP as the lone voice in SW1 to orate about…I don’t know what, I channel surfed. What a waste of time, money and resources. There were probably more people in the House than watching at home. The BBC cannot afford to televise live sport, but it can televise live politics. I wonder which one the licence payers would rather pay for and watch?
  

Yes, more railing against useless statistics. Today's Times reports that the iconic London cab is to get an electric engine from 2009.

In the article they state that the average spend on diesel is between £70 to £80 per week. The same article reports that cabs typically do 120 to 150 miles per day. In which case, assuming a 5-day week, a cabbie will spend more like £120 on fuel, given that a taxi has a meagre 52-litre tank and diesel fuel, as blogged yesterday, is at an all time high.

But that is just mathematical pedantry on my part. The most irritating aspect of the article is the complete absence of the cost to generate the electricity and supply the batteries to power the vehicle. Electricity bills are also on a constant upward spiral at present; a battery powered taxi will need more than one fuel cell (battery) to store enough of a charge to keep the thing going for a working day - in fact, according to the Times article, the battery-powered taxi will run for only 100 miles on a charge, which is less than is required for a working day. That'll give the cabbies something else to whinge about.

The other missing statistic from the piece is the amount of CO2 generated by the power station that provides the electricity. Since most are coal or gas fuelled, this is a lot of carbons. Also, there is an environmental cost for producing and disposing of all these extra batteries - the core can be recycled and some of the metal, but most of it ends up in land fill (bad) or incinerators (generating more carbons - also bad).

The moral of the story: the next time you read an article about how good a green initiative is, check the (missing) facts.