Showing posts with label London Mayoral elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London Mayoral elections. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 May 2024

How Susan Hall could have beaten Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Election

 I had some lively debates over the weekend. Because I write this blog and a few people read it, some people seem to think I know what I am talking about. Back on the 23rd October, when Susan Hall was first selected to fight Sadiq Khan, I wrote this.

My advice to the Tories would be to get Hall to stand down as a matter of urgency and get a big hitter in to do the job. If they had someone who at least appeared competent and didn't play dog whistle politics, they'd have a chance. If they don't, they deserve to lose. As for Labour, Khan is the incumbent. If the Tories stick with Hall, we've got another four years of him. 

From the moment I wrote that, nothing changed my mind as to the absolute inevitability of a Sadiq Khan win. Whilst it was spot on in it's prediction, I don't think you had to be a genius to get this particular shout right. 

A lot of people in the Borough of Barnet have expressed their absolute shock that Hall lost, on Facebook, Twitter etc. Some suggested that there was electoral fraud or other shenanigans. It was clear to me that this is the danger of living in an echo chamber, only talking to like minded people. I do my best to talk to people across the spectrum and I realised that there was a very distinctive type of person who loved Susan Hall. Generally, they are in many ways like me. They are white, over 55, own a car that is not particularly green, don't pay for public transport and they own a house. Where maybe they differ, is that they don't sit all day in the reception of a music studio, talking to people who none of those things apply to. I can't say I met anyone, apart from Labour activists, who were particularly excited by four more years of Mayor Khan, but just about everyone who the above didn't apply to seemed horrified by the prospect of Susan Hall winning.

Shortly after I wrote those words, I was chatting to one of our more sensible local Tories. I will spare his blushes and not name him, but he had drawn the same conclusion as I had. We had a fascinating conversation about Ms Hall's prospects. He posed me a question "Do you think it would be possible to make Susan electable?". That was actually an excellent question as a palour game. My initial response was "No, she's useless". When I got home, I thought about it and realised that I was wrong. I started to write a blog. I began with the premise that she'd offer me a million quid a year to do it, I could come up with a strategy if she gave me total control of her campaign. As it would never happen, it was a good starting place for what initially started as a humourous look at what she was doing wrong and what I'd tell her. As I thought about it, I decided that it was actually very easy money and was amazed that a party like the Tories hadn't twigged themselves. Had her advisers all had lobotomies?

So what policies may have changed Susan Hall's fate. Lets pretend that what we really care about is attractive policies. Where could Hall have found the quarter of a million votes that she was short? That's where I'd start.

1. The housing crisis. The Tories are facing an existensial crisis. Almost no one over 40 has any faith in them. Whereas aspirational young adults used to see the Tories as the gateway to a more prosperous future, buy your own house etc, they've had fourteen years of being dumped on. In London, you can have a decent job, but housing will still be completely unaffordable. Whilst there are people in terrible dire straights in terms of housing, they will never vote Tory, so you can rule them out. What we do have a lot of are well educated, working people, who are forced out of London by the price of housing. If I was advising Susan Hall, I'd have told her to set up a London housing board, to address the affordability of homes in London for working people, especially those in the key roles that keep our city working. NHS, Teachers, Transport workers, etc. If all developments of over 6 units had to give 25% of the space to the Mayors advisory board on long term low cost leases, which could then be relet to such key workers, giving them cheap, good quality, secure accomodation, this would make Hall's bid far more attractive to under 40's. The scheme would address a real need, without any cost. Planning rules should allow no space for bargaining and the cheaper social housing elements should be the first to be delivered. There are a vast number of working people in key jobs who this would benefit.

2. Policing. Lets be quite clear about this. Neither Sadiq Khan or Susan Hall came up with any credible proposals to end the awful plague of knife crime in London. I'd have advised Susan Hall to bring in someone such as campaigner Mark Prince as a knife crime Tsar. Someone who can bridge the divide and who knows the subject and is respected in the communities that are most affected. I genuinely think that if Hall had come up with a credible strategy, she'd have brought a lot of people to her campaign. I also think if she'd gotten serious about anti social behaviour, she'd have been on a winner. 

3. ULEZ. This was her big policy. The trouble was, everyone knew she was closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. It's been in a year and nearly everyone with a polluting car has got rid of it. She'd have been far better advised to come up with some credible policies to ensure that Transport worked better in London. I heard nothing from Hall about dealing with real transport problems.

4. Overdevelopment. The problem here was that the Tories were facing in different directions at the same time. They were talking about building more homes, but at the same time opposing all of Sadiq Khans plans for big developments. If you play fast and loose with voters, they simply don't trust you. The Tories in Barnet passed a huge scheme in Edgware. When they lost control of the Council in 2022, they immediately started opposing it and blaming the Mayor. Any local who knew the history saw through this and had no trust at all in Susan Hall. Sending mixed messages never works.

5. TFL ticketing costs. Again Hall sent mixed messages. She railed against Sadiq Khan's fares freeze. This convinced a lot of people who rely on the Tube and buses for work, that they would be hiked if she won. It may have played well with wealthy retired people, but for ordinary working Londoners, it was a most unwelcome stealth tax. You will never win any votes by hiking up fares. The car mob were already in her pocket. I am no expert, but if Sadiq Khan really is as bad at running TFL as she claimed, surely she could have sorted this out and given us even cheaper fares?

6. London's night time economy. I was convinced that this was a massive open goal for Hall, especially with young London. Sadiq Khan has done nothing to help musicians, theatres, concert venues etc. Hall's natural instinct was to react negatively to anything that young people might enjoy. I found it unfathomable, given how much of London's economy relies on tourism, that neither candidate had anything positive to say about concrete support for the sector. I genuinely believe that if Hall had come out strongly with support for venues etc, she would have garnered support in areas normally allergic to Tories.

7. Small business. Susan Hall, like me, comes from a family steeped in small business and the motor trade. There are over a million small businesses operating in London. It should be sobering for Susan Hall and the Tories to realise that this total would have won her the election. The fact that she made no pitch at all for the small business vote was truly bizarre, this should be viewed as fertile ground for Tory policies. The sad thing is that I saw nothing from either candidate that would help my business. I know plenty of other businesses who said the same thing. What practical changes can a Mayor make? It's not fashionable, but workable high street parking policies is a good place to start. Rates relief helps the bottom line. Listening to hyper local concerns and fixing problems would also help. An example? In Mill Hill, we have many shops, former banks, etc lying derelic and creating an air of neglect on the High Street. This puts off prospective businesses from coming to Mill Hill. I've long believed that the Mayor should have a scheme to encourage Landlords to let the properties on short term deals to young people starting businesses. If they were given a break from business rates for a year, this would give them a chance to find their feet. By the same token, Landlords that simply sit on rotting, empty shops, should face quadruple business rates as an incentive to let the property.  

As I do, when I write blogs, I tend to get quite excited. I realised that there was a huge opportunity. If politicians put ideology to one side and try and make a practical difference, where they can, there are huge opportunities. Had Susan Hall campaigned on these issues, I defy anyone to tell me she wouldn't have done far better. I thought the better of publishing the blog. I doubted that Susan Hall and the Tories would take it up, but I did worry that people would mistake my proposals for what she actually was doing and I couldn't possibly bear the thought of people mistaking my ideas for real policies. 

There was an excellent article in the Times on Saturday by Matthew Parris. To paraphrase him, the gist of his article was that the Tories are currently full of swivel eyed looneys with no experience of life, obsessed with right wing policies, rather than good governence and effective running of the country. I couldn't disagree. I have to wonder if Susan Hall ever sat down and said "Right team, how are we going to make the numbers up to beat Khan?" or whether they just sat around thinking of ways to appeal to the other right wing looneys sitting around the table?

Saturday, 4 May 2024

Sadiq Khan wins a third term as London Mayor - Barneteye Analysis

 So Sadiq Khan has won a third term as London Mayor. Anyone who reads this blog will not be to surprised with that result. Given that we are a Barnet blog, of course we are interested in the Barnet aspect. Many local Tories will be surprised to learn that Sadiq Khan won comfortably in the Barnet and Camden area, far better than at the last election. Despite a lot of guff from local Tories, Sadiq Khan has clearly persuaded a lot of people in Barnet that he was the best man for the job. 

Here are the London Totals 


Here is the Barnet and Camden Vote


Here is the Barnet and Camden GLA vote, with Labours Anne Clarke winning.

The first thing to note is that turnout was 40.5%. Less than half of Londoners who could vote, did vote. When Sadiq Khan was first elected, turnout was 45%. This was the lowest of the three elections Sadiq Khan has faced. To me, this apathy was unsurprising. I don't know too many people who felt inspired by Sadiq Khan or Susan Hall. The major reason for voting for them was that they weren't the other one. 

It was clear to me from the moment Susan Hall was selected by the Tories that they'd picked a totally unelectable candidate. It seemed that every time she went on the radio, she put her foot in the mouth and made gaffs.  Her keynote policy was the abolition of the ULEZ extension. Given that the zone has been in place for a year, hardly anyone in London has a non compliant car anymore. As such, all Hall was promising was dirty air for all. It was never going to win anywhere enough votes to change her fortunes. Her only other USP was that she was not Sadiq Khan and stood for the party with the best chance of usurping him. You simply don't win elections with no popular policies and no personality. 

It is interesting to note that I didn't even see an election leaflet from Sadiq Khan in Mill Hill. I don't know if he'd given up on us or if the dog ate them. What I do know is that the leafly parts of Barnet are of no interest to him. Despite this, Susan Hall still was too unnactractive a bet to win. As for the GLA, it was no surprise that Anne Clarke won again. She shed around 5,000 votes from last time, luckily for her, the Tories shed 11,000. In fact the only party that increased it's vote was Reform UK, up from around 4000 to around 7000. Clearly quite a few disgruntled Tories have jumped ship. It is also worth noting that even with the reform vote, the Tories would still have lost heavily. 

I saw a swivel eyed young man, from a hard right 'think tank' (is that rhyming slang) stating that the Tories need to move to the right to shore up their vote. His premise is that this will bring those 7,000 voters back onside. It is interesting to note that in 2008, the last time the Tories won in Barnet, Brian Coleman (remember him) won with 72,000 votes. At the time, the Tories were lead by David Cameron, who was doing his best to appeal to the centre as well as the right. 

What Cameron knew and it seems the Tories have forgotten, is that to win elections, you can't just appeal to a narrow group at the extremities of your party. After fourteen years in the wilderness, Labur seem to have taken that lesson on board. The Tories seem to be determined to try and defy the laws of electoral physics. I suspect that there will be a long period of rearranging deck chairs on the the decks of the Titanic, until they lose a few elections and the penny drops.

I do hope the London Tories realise that their obsession with NIMBY's and noise one trick pony groups, such as the anti ULEZ brigade will win you nothing. My advice, get yourself some policies and some vision. 

I've voted in every election since I was able to vote in 1982. This has been the one which energised me least. I get the apathy of voters. There are over six million voters in London and Sadiq Khan got around a fifth of them with 44% of voters. That is a sad indictment on all of our parties. Whilst I am sure Sadiq Khan is celebrating tonight, the fact that four out of five Londoners couldn't be bothered to vote for him, one way or another says it all. Could it be that people are not as convinced that elected Mayors are the answer?



.

Wednesday, 1 May 2024

If you don't vote for the best candidate in the London Mayor election, then you are the problem

 A very short blog concerning tomorrows Election for the London Mayor. If you vote for a candidate, not because they are the best, in your opinion, but because they might stop the other one, then you are undermining democracy and in my opinion, you are the problem. You are the person who lets the parties pick substandard candidates. It is just my opinion but I think neither Susan Hall or Sadiq Khan are fit for the job. I will be voting for the Lib Dem candidate Rob Blackie. He has persuaded me that he has the best plan and the best character. You may not agree with my view of him, that is your perogative, but if you vote for someone, or a party that you think aren't up to the job, you are failing London.

As for the GLA, I'll be voting for the Lib Dems there as well. I am sick of voting for people who simply take my vote for granted. Both major parties need a rocket up their backside for their total contempt for ordinary people. If you vote for them, they will never change. 

That is all I can really say about the matter. I couldn't be more fed up with the major parties if I tried. 

Monday, 26 October 2020

My manifesto to stand as Mayor of London

 No, I'm not standing for Mayor. Much as I think I could do a far better job than this Mayor or the previous one (That wouldn't be hard would it), I am not insane enough to spend a year of my life campaigning. But I've lived in London almost all of my life, apart from six months in Stockholm in 1981. I spent decades commuting into town, have played at most of the best small music venues in London and have run a small business since 1979. I'm the chair of a charity that funds a local school and I spent many years volunteering for The Passage, a charity for the homeless, giving the homeless of London a cooked breakfast, clothing and showers. I think I understand the problems of London as well as anyone. 

I am putting this out there to start a discussion. These are my own personal views and represent no other parties or manifesto.

Transport.

1. Work to secure a commitment from the government to electrify all railways in London to reduce harmful diesel emmisions, starting with the Chiltern Line from Marylebone.

2. Start a London wide consultation on cycling, to provide safe corridors for cycling in all London Boroughs, with a budget for small scale local schemes for dedicated cycleways. A local example of one such scheme would be to install a dedicated cycleway on the old disused Rail tracks from Mill Hill Broadway to Edgware and from Mill Hill East to Alliance Park. 

3. Provide exemptions for Congestion Charge and Low Emission Zone for musicians, artists and performers who require vans etc to work in London for five years. Whilst the zones are vital, many musiciansand artists cannot afford new transport in the current climate.

4. Bring forward the West London Orbital Railway scheme as a priority. The business case for this is strong and it would allow for significant regeneration.

5. Recognise the licenced cab trade and work to restore the financial viability of the business. 

6. Work with central government to ensure that congestion charging is working to do what it is supposed to do, rather than be a tax on motorists on empty roads.

7. Establish a long term funding solution for TFL, removoving the punitive charges that the Govt have imposed.

8. Put all London Suburban rail services under TFL. 

9. Ensure that parking is based on the real life, on the ground requirments of areas.

Housing.

1. Establish a housing policy that puts Londoners first. Too many luxury flat properties are being buit to be sold to offshore investors, whilst London has a housing crisis. Insist that in all housing schemes, the social housing element is the first phase to be built and ensure that it is a minimum of 50% of any scheme for more than 10 dwellings.

2. Work with central government to increase community charge to six times the standard level for all properties standing empty for more than six months, unless the property is part of a probate, in which case allow 18 months.

3. Offer grants to bring properties back into use or to convert large houses to flats. This could be finances by extra charges for empty properties.

4. Ensure that people not profits are at the heart of any large scale schemes. Set up a London Housing commission with representatives from charities, local councils and other important stakeholders, with final say on major schemes. Have full transparancy for all decisions. 

5. Work with govenrment to free up all suitable state owned land for development where applicable.

6. Ensure that green technology is a part of all new developments (solar panels, wind turbines, battery power).

7. Pass legislation that ensures that 10% of any development of over 10 dwellings is made available at low rent for key workers. 

8. Ensure that green technology is a part of all new developments (solar panels, wind turbines, battery power).

Night Time Economy.

1. Strengthen 'Agent of Change' legislation to prevent conversion of important night time venues to flats. 

2. Establish a London recovery fund, to promote post covid recovery.

3. Work with the banks and Central Government to provide 'recovery loans' at competetive rates for viable businesses who have suffered due to covid. 

4. Establish a "London Festival" (along the lines of The Edinburgh Festival) to help rebuild London's night time economy following the Covid crisis.

5. Provide assistance for small, independent micro breweries, that are part of Londons rich night time heritage.

Local High Streets.

1. Establish a High Street Task force to promote High St regeneration and promote independent retailers. 

2. Set up a fund for seeding grants and loans to help under 25's start thier own businesses.

Fireworks.

1. Put a ban on Fireworks across London after 10pm, apart from New Years Eve.

Education and young people.

1. Fully fund holiday meal vouchers for young people from less well off households

2. Work with local schools to achieve a  funding settlement from Central Government that recognises the higher costs of London schools.

Waste and recycling.

1. Ensure that recycling is a central part of the way Londoners live their lives. Lobby for the power to fine local authorities that miss targets for waste recycyling and waste reduction.

2. Ensure that all TFL sites and shop franchises rented out use recycleable materials wherever possible as conditions of letting.

 The Environment.

1. Strengthen Green Belt legislation in London.

2. Ban all harmful weed killers and pesticides from use where the Mayor of London's juresdiction allows.

3. Create a London Wildlife commission, to preserve and protect London's wildlife and ensure that habitats are preserved. Have a full cross London audit of wildlife, and ask schools to participate to raise awareness of the local flora and fauna.

Funding.

1. London generates huge amounts of wealth. Much of this is controlled by a small section of society. Lobby central government for powers to ensure that all new schemes are part of a solution to make London a more equal society. These would include

   * Ensure that all major schemes include a proportion of the profits are invested back into the community

   * Ensure that punitive taxes are lobbied on unoccupied homes.

   * Lobby Central Government for additional bands of community charge for the most expensive homes.

   * Seek to cut bureacracy from London and a cut to the number of GLA members

   * Support for businesses that reinvest in the community

Policing

1. The Met has been run into the ground. We would offer the public the chance to  vote on a small surcharge on the Mayors levy to support dedicated, ring fenced officers for local areas. We would also employ back room support staff, to allow highly trained officers to be released from the chains of their desks. Admin staff are cheaper and would free up thousands of officers from menial tasks.

2. Improve accountability and require local police chiefs to engage with local communities with regular open format meetings in all areas.

 Local Democracy

1. Most local people do not know who their GLA reps are or what they do. We would work to require them to engage properly with local people and spend less time in their offices. We would place caps on expenses to prevent flagrant extravance.

2. We would ensure that GLA members use public transport in all cases, except where physically impossible. If members choose to use cabs or their own car, they should pay for it themselves (including parking charges).

Equality and diversity

1. We passionately beleive all Londoners are equal and all should be treated with dignity and respect. London has a rich heritage and that is something we believe all should be proud of . There are also less savoury aspects of our past.  We need to address these in a grown up and sensitive manner that recognises the wider issues involved. We would set up a proper mechanism for review of any contentious statues, street names, etc.

2. There will be a zero tolerance for hate crimes and discrimination.

Safety of Children

1. We passionately believe that London should be a safe space for children and young people. We believe that the current DBS system does not provide sufficient protection for young people. We believe that its should be easier for parents and carers to identify whether people offering services for children have criminal convictions.Whilst we understand that there are privacy and safety issues, we do not believe that people on the sex offenders register should ever be involved with the teaching, training or provision of activities for young people. We would make it far easier for Londoners to ensure that this cannot happen.

******* 

Whilst I will not be standing, I'd urge you to ask those who seek your votes what they intend to do about the issues I've raised

Monday, 2 May 2016

Mayoral Election commentary - Hobsons choice - Khan or Goldsmith?

The fight of the Century - Not!
On Thursday residents of Barnet vote in the Mayoral and GLA elections. It is fair to say that this is the dullest and most uninspiring Mayoral election since Tony Blair created the role.

Lets start by a little recap on the story of the London Mayor so far.

The history of the Mayoralty is quite interesting. For the 2000 election, Ken Livingstone stood as an independent and swept the board.

The Labour party had  performed a good old fashioned stitch up to exclude him from winning. He responded by standing as an independent. He was kicked out of the Labour party, but Londoners saw through the stitch up and reacted with fury. Labours Frank Dobson was thrashed. Livinstones first term was stunningly successful as an independent. He stuck out to be inclusive and appointed both Lib Dems and Greens as deputies. He brought in some innovative and very successful ideas, such as the congenstion charge and the Oyster card. He also managed to avoid upsetting people. Being an independent with no party base, clearly he had to manage his affairs in a sensible manner. Before the 2004 election, Tony Blair, keen not to be embarrassed by another loss, bent the rules and had Livingstone readmitted. Livingstone swept the board again, with the power of the abour machine behind him. It is fair to say that his second term wasn't the success of the first term. With the party in line and behind him, he seemed to feel he was invincible. A series of truly awful blunders followed, but the perceived wisdom was that Livingstone was untouchable. Despite some notable success, such as securing the Olympics, against all the odds and a truly dignified response in the light of 2005 7/7 atrocity, by the end of his second term Livingstone had lost some of his lustre.

In 2008, Boris Johnson threw his hat into the ring. At first this was perceived as almost a comedy challenge. Boris had been a dismal failure as an MP and the only thing he seemed to be good at was playingthe self depreciating Tory fool on Have I Got News For You. What Boris had spotted, that no one else had noticed, least of all most of his Tory colleagues, was that Livingstone was percieved as unpleasant and autocratic and that he was there for the taking with the right sort of campaign. Boris seized on the fact that Livingstone had several highly unpopular schemes in various stages of planning. Many of these had been rejected in consulations by the residents they were meant to serve. The western congestion charge zone was one. The West London Tram scheme was another. Livingstone also had been caught on microphone making remarks which were percieved as highly offensive by the Jewish community.

Boris also recognised that Londoners were unhappy with some of Kens innovations. He railed against bendy buses, promising a new routemaster. He made hay with the fact he was a cyclist and promised a revolution in cycling in London. Londoners liked the fact Boris had a sense of humour. In contrast, Ken seemed austere and past his sell by date. Boris won. Many on the Labour benches buried their heads in the sand and simply decided that Londons electorate had got it wrong. In 2012, they ran exactly the same campaign as in 2008 and got the same result. Many Labour activists sat scratching their heads afterwards, complaining that the electorate had got it wrong. What was incredible about the 2012 election was that Team Boris made gaffe after gaffe, but the Labour simply couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and shout about them. One such example was when Team Boris PR chief Lynton Crosby said he was going to "blitz Barnet". Can you imagine the field day Zac Goldsmiths team would have if Sadiq Khan said that?

 Zac Goldsmith

So here we are in 2016. We have no Boris and no Ken. Instead we are left to choose between Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith. I was having a chat with a friend in the Mill Hill Tandoori last night and he joked that it was a choice between anti semitism or islamaphobia. It is quite hilarious that both campaigns have played these cards. Is  Zac Goldsmith Islamaphobic? I for one strongly doubt it given that his sisters former husband and still great friend is Imran Khan, who is now a Pakistani politician with radical islamic connections. Imran is always welcome in Zacs gaffe. I for one think that this is a very good thing, should Zac end up Mayor. As for Khan, everyone in the Tory party knows he's about as far from a radical islamist as you can get. The Daily Mirror reported
"Life-long Tory and Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne told the BBC's Sunday Politics programme: " Sadiq Khan is as mainstream as they come. He fights anti-Semitism. He backs same-sex marriage. He's against extremism, and he's being portrayed as some radical in the literature of Zac Goldsmith He added: "It's very important that Londoners vote out Zac Goldsmith and his disgusting campaign."."
Wheras both Ken and Boris had a vision for London and a set of easily identifable plans, (Oyster cards, congestion charges, Boris bikes, Boris buses, etc), Goldsmith and Khan seem to be policy free zones.  I had a look at both candidates plans. Lets discuss Zac's first

Start fixing London’s housing crisis by:

Doubling home building to 50,000 a year by 2020 and ensuring development is in keeping with the local area.
Giving Londoners the first chance to buy new homes built in London
Ensuring a significant proportion of all new homes are only for rent and not for sale

Improve the capacity and reliability of London’s transport system by:


Ensuring the Night Tube goes ahead, starting Crossrail 2, and growing the rail network
Bringing suburban rail services under the Mayor’s control to increase and improve the service
Protecting the Freedom Pass

Improve London’s living environment by:

Protecting the green belt from developmentTackling air pollution with tougher rules on HGVs, and encouraging greener vehicles and safer cycling
Creating more green spaces and cleaning up local parks so they are safe to visit and enjoy

Make London’s streets safer by:

Protecting neighbourhood police teams and keeping them on the street
Tackling the root causes of crime in local communities
Putting more police on public transport at night

All paid for without increasing Mayoral council tax.


This is perhaps the most stale, lacklustre and dull plan imaginable. It is quite clear that it is all waffle and guff. Lets have a look at the plan in detail

Start fixing London’s housing crisis by:
It is quite clear that Zac Goldsmith isn't going to build council houses. The 50,000 "homes" wll doubtless be luxury flats for rich foregners, like most of the developments in Mill Hill and the rest of Barnet. This is obvious as Goldsmith makes no commitment to affordability. He states that Londoners will get the first chance to buy property, but if they can't afford them this is meaningless. He claims that "a significant proportion will be for rent not sale". It is telling that he doesn't assign a number. As these won't be built by Councils, what he means is he's going to line the pockets of landlords, developers and buy to let speculators.


Improve the capacity and reliability of London’s transport system by:

 Goldsmith here simply reiterates plans already in progress, such as Crossrail2 and the plans for TFL to take over suburban services. He talks about growing the rail network. What new lines? This is simply waffle unless he states what he's going to do. As for protecting the Freedom Pass, this is arch hypocricy, given that his man in Barnet, Dan Thomas, has presided over a regime which has removed it without notice from many local disabled people.



Improve London’s living environment by:

Again this is all guff. Ken was putting strict levels for pollution in place. Boris suspended and abolished them. As for creating new green spaces, does anyone seriously believe that you Zac will knoc down flats and houses to create new spaces? Especially with his commitment to build 50,000 homes a year. These can only be built if greenspaces in London are destroyed. It is highly dishonest to claim other wise.


Make London’s streets safer by:

Every mayoral candidate always claims they'll cut crime and tackle the causes. They always claim they'll put more bobbies on the beat. Then they get elected and nothing happens. Under Boris, we've seen a massive scaling back of community engagement. If Zac thinks Boris is wrong to do this, say so and explain how to reverse his policies.

All paid for without increasing Mayoral council tax.

This is the one commitment I 100% expect Goldsmith to keep. London can burn so long as the rich pay no more tax. That is why he wants to become Mayor. But I do expect all sorts of other, indirect taxes to go up. Tube fairs, congestion charge, parking costs. Zac like every other politician has to balance the books. Like every other politician, he is dishonest in how he'll do it.

And so we move on to Sadiq Khan. He has put a fair bit more detail into what he plans. Like Goldsmith, much of it is deeply unexciting. I suspect that both think "London is tired of big characters". I suspect both are wrong in this view. London is the Capital of the world and needs a larger than life Mayor. So what does Sadiq say?

Here are his themes.

Too many people in our city don’t have a job, or get paid less than they need to survive. With my programme for business and the economy I will change that.

  • Create a Business Advisory Board – made up of experts, not of political allies – to provide me with guidance and insight to find the solutions to London’s growth challenges and to feedback on my policy.
  • Involve business in decision making on key issues of policy and planning, from skills and housing costs, to transport infrastructure and business space.
  • Establish Skills for Londoners, working with business to ensure Londoners have the skills they need to grow.

Too many Londoners can’t afford to buy their own home or are trapped paying extortionate rents to sub-standard landlords. My plan for housing will change that.

  • Homes for first-time buyers to ‘part-buy part-rent’, where on mayoral and other public land my aim is to cut their cost and give first dibs to Londoners who have been stuck renting for over five years – especially in outer London where the biggest falls in homeownership have been seen.
  • Homes to buy where we can give Londoners first dibs – building on brownfield public land and using the Mayor’s planning powers to their fullest extent.
Too many people are the victims of crime and don’t feel safe in their communities. My policies for crime and policing, and my six point plan to tackle knife crime will change that.

  • Ensure that the restoration of real neighbourhood policing is the top priority for the Met, maintaining the role of officers as a visible local presence, helping to prevent and detect crime, and as the local eyes and ears our security services need to identify the spread of extremism at its roots.
  • Commit to tackling violence against women and girls, including prioritising a greater police presence on public transport at key times to clamp down on sexual assault,  zero tolerance of domestic and sexual violence and work closely with public sector and voluntary organisations on developing better support for victims of sexual and domestic violence.
  • Develop a cyber security strategy, led by the Chief Digital Officer I will appoint, working with the police and security services to ensure Londoners and businesses have the information and resources they need to stay safe online.
  • Undertake a full review of the resources required by the London Fire Brigade, with the aim of ensuring the service is fully equipped for the challenges ahead, not only for dealing with and preventing fires but also coping with major civil contingencies such as a terrorist attack or a flood. We need to look at both frontline and control room functions, and consider the impact and effectiveness of outsourcing.
  • Support the police to do their job efficiently and effectively, and make best use of officers’ time so that they can spend more time on the front line. I will invest in new technology that enables officers to access the information and data they need at their fingertips, and to record reports and witness statements speedily without officers having to return to a police station.

Too many workers in London have to go to work on overcrowded, delayed, dirty transport. My plans for transport will change that.

  • Get Crossrail 2 off the ground, using my experience as a Minister responsible for the original Crossrail to secure the funding package, and ensure the route enables the building of thousands of new homes.
  • Plan the next major infrastructure projects for the long term – such as a potential Crossrail 3, new orbital links for outer London, DLR and tram extensions, and new river crossings for East London - while exploring additional sources of funding for major projects.
  • Work to secure the proposed Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and beyond.
  • Freeze all TfL fares and charges for the Mayor’s cycle hire scheme for four years.
  • Introduce 'The Hopper’ – a new one hour bus ticket allowing unlimited changes within an hour, so that a £1.50 single ticket pays for a full journey.
  • Continue to support both Oyster and contactless payment card methods and ensure fare structures remain equal so that nobody is disadvantaged by choosing either payment method.
  • Guarantee the Freedom Pass and the over-60s Oyster card, along with all other existing concessionary fares schemes.
For too long Londoners have had a Tory Mayor who has been little more than a figurehead, or chief ribbon-cutter. Some of it has been fun – but it is not good enough for our city.

Our analysis.


Jobs & Business

 I'm not really sure that a "business advisory board" is the way to go. It seems that politicians who have never run a business always believe that the way to resolve the problems of business is to set up a quango. I've run a small business for 37 years and like to think I'm fairy good at it. We employ people and generate prosperity. There are plenty of simple measures that qould stimulate business. Making councils have a business friendly parking policies, compelling councils to give business a say on how business rates are spent. I'd like to see businesses given tax breaks for employing young people in sustainable jobs. The "Skills for London" idea sounds interesting, but it is vital that this includes input from small business. I'd like to see support for young entrepreneurs. TV shows such as dragons den have spurred interest in launching your own ideas, but it is noticable just how little most of the people with great ideas know about business. I hope this is an element of Sadiqs plans.

Housing

Again I am not overly impressed by the schemes. Part buy/ part rent schemes are all very well, but they simply ignore the problem that we don't have enough housing stock for ordinary people. We are obsessed with letting people buy houses. We should be obsessed with making sure people have decent places to live that are affordable. This means council housing at cheap rents for people on low income. It should also mean decent homes. I am truly astonished that Sadiq has failed to mention this. At least the Goldsmith plan recognises that renting is a big part of the solution. A Labour Mayor should be unafraid to speak up for council housing. This is Khan's biggest fail.

Policing and public safety

Unlike Goldsmiths schemes, there are well thought out and targettted. I'd give Khan 10/10 for this section. The section on sexual crime is long overdue and Khan is 100% right to make this a manifesto pledge. Two years ago I was speaking with Tory Battersea MP Jane Ellison and she told me that this was one area that has been sadly neglected and needed serious work. I expected to see Zac Goldsmith say something about it. I am surprised he's missed it. I hope Jane will support Sadiq in this if he wins.

Transport

Khan seems to have a more coherent long term view than Goldsmith. I do agree with Goldsmith that it is stupid to commit to a fares freeze. I reconise that fares have got hellishly expensive under Boris, but this could tie his hands and scupper his plans.

Conclusion

In summary I will be supporting Sadiq Khan. I am not a Labour activist and I am not a party member. I just happen to think that his plans are more coherent. I also think that Goldsmith has done himself no credit at all with his highly personal attacks on Khan. This is a trademark of the Lynton Crosby style of electioneering. Sadiq Khan is not a Muslim extremist and does not support Islamic extremists. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and unfair. There are many things which I would wish to see as qualities as the new Mayor, but ultimately I really don't want a man who tells lies and promotes outrageous smears about his opponent. London is a city with all manner of creeds and colours. Sadiq Khan strikes me as a man who can worl with all of them. Zac Goldsmith strikes me as a man who simply follows what his campaign manager tells him. He is a lightweight  with a lightweight plan. His campaign seems to be banking on scaring people into thinking Khan is in some way dodgy. For that reason alone, I hope London soundly rejects him. 

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Oh Dear Boris, this is a bit embarrassing, isn't it?

As I returned from my morning shift at the Passage, a day centre for the homeless this morning, I was greeted with the sight of hundreds of discarded Back Boris leaflets at Mill Hill Broadway Station. The local Conservatives had clearly been out leafletting. Out of curiosity I picked one up. Those of us who remember the last mayoral election in 2008, recall Boris promisiing to be a Mayor for all London and not neglect the outer Boroughs such as London. So how did this work out? What has Boris done for Barnet? I expected a leaflet packed to the hilt with details of goodies that good old Boris has showered on us. So what great things has Boris done for Barnet? How has he been a Mayor for the outer boroughs?

Sadly it seems that Boris has actually done B*gger all for Barnet. If the examples on the leaflet are anything to go by, he's completely forgotten us. Here are a list of the the things he says he's delivered "for Barnet"

Scrapped £25 tax on large vehicles - This is a London wide policy
Extended Freedom pass to 24 Hours - This is a London wide policy
Cut Mayors Share of the Council Tax -  - This is a London wide policy
Scrapped the Western Congestion Zone - This affects central London and is nowhere near Barnet
Scrapped Bendy Buses - None ran in Barnet
Delivered a 14.8% cut in Bus Crime - No mention of the 10% rise in street robbery and mobile phone theft (a direct result of Brian Colemans parking policies and a far greater figure than the tiny number of bus crimes)
Taken 11,000 knives off the streets of London - - This is a London wide policy
Added 1 new bus route - Well that is something, I suppose
Planted 88 new trees -  Less than 1 a year per Council ward not very impressive
Frozen the Mayors Council tax -  - This is a London wide policy

It is interesting to see that Brian Coleman was boasting about cutting crime when an FOI request by this blog revealed that he'd not even had one meeting with the local Police to discuss reducing crime. 

Those are the only things Boris and Brian Coleman can find to boast about. Is he a Mayor for the Outer Boroughs? Has he delivered anything there that has significantly changed your life for the better?

If that is the sum of his efforts and the sum of how effective Brian Coleman has been as GLA rep, it is all a bit embarrassing, isn't it?

Sunday, 19 February 2012

Mayoral Election gets nasty - Who do you trust Crosby or Ken?

Last night I received this email from the Ken Livingstone campaign :-

-------------------------------------------


I’m sorry for emailing you on a Saturday night. Earlier today Boris Johnson’s Campaign Director sent out an email smearing me and I wanted to make sure you saw it. They are determined to raise Londoners fares and will do absolutely anything to stop my plan to cut fares.

In the email, Tory Campaign Director Lynton Crosby said:

“Labour's chief Transport spokesperson [Maria Eagle] has let the cat out of the bag on Ken Livingstone's election promise to cut fares. She has confirmed what everybody else knows: there is no money for fare cuts without cutting £1bn worth of investment in services.”
And he writes:

“It is becoming clearer by the day that either Ken Livingstone has no intention of ever cutting fares, or he is working on a behind the scenes plan to cut £1bn of investment.”
Lynton Crosby needs to wake up and smell the coffee. If elected, I will cut fares on or by October 7th. I will resign if I have not done so by that date, and precipitate a by-election. I have never been more committed to anything in my life.

Boris Johnson’s Campaign Director has invented a plan to cut investment to scare people. It is the worst kind of politics. Tory lies.

Our fares plan is paid for out of the annual surpluses caused in no small part because the fares are so high they are bringing in more revenue than planned. It will protect investment and existing services.

The Tory-led government imposed a £2.17bn 4-year grant cut on Transport for London in the 2010 Spending Review. I have based all of my calculations for funding my Fare Deal fares cut on TfL's revised budget which takes this reduced grant into account.

My fares cut is affordable under either the existing TfL budget, or Maria Eagle's alternative.

It seems the Tories don’t understand the transport budget. It looks like they haven’t even read it.

And they don’t care about Londoners being squeezed through high fares. They want to do everything they can to keep on whacking the fares up.

I want change. If you want to join me in making real change happen, show Lynton Crosby what you think of Tory lies. Donate to our campaign here, today, and give our Fare Deal campaign a boost right now
Thank you

Ken

Ken Livingstone

-----------------------------------
And here is the email from Lynton Crosby which prompted Kens Ire.
-----------------------------------
Labour's chief Transport spokesperson has let the cat out of the bag on Ken Livingstone's election promise to cut fares.
She has confirmed what everybody else knows: there is no money for fare cuts without cutting £1bn worth of investment in services.
In a candid interview with the Guardian today, Maria Eagle said: "Reducing the deficit requires us to support cuts in spending that we might not have in the past. Some of this is painful."
This follows independent assessments of Ken Livingstone's election promise that confirm he could not cut fares without cutting investment.
The Channel Four Fact Check blog recently concluded that; 'If he cuts fares, TfL would expect to lose £1.12bn in income from fares – and that’s a hole he wouldn’t be able to plug without hitting the day-to-day funding for London’s transport or taking money from investment projects.'
It is becoming clearer by the day that either Ken Livingstone has no intention of ever cutting fares, or he is working on a behind the scenes plan to cut £1bn of investment. 
This would mean axing local bus routes in the suburbs, cutting bus police, stopping tube station refurbishments and delaying programmes to make the tube more frequent and less overcrowded. 
He must come clean with Londoners now. Which is it to be?

Thanks for your support,
Lynton Crosby

Campaign Director
----------------------------------------------------------
So who do you believe? The simple test I apply whenever I assess such claims is to look at peoples track record. Ken Livingstone, for all his faults has got a long history of commitment to affordable public transport. Those of us old enough to remember the Fairs Fare program, recall how the popularity of the scheme prompted the abolition of the GLC. As to Lynton Crosby? Well he's got a fantastic, a fantastic record of saying what is required to get the person who's campaign he's running elected.

But then who really knows

Friday, 3 February 2012

Thanks to Brian Coleman Mill Hill NW7 is in the top 20 UK Burglary hotspots

As this blog reported last week, our local GLA member (and the man responsible for the parking mayhem in Barnet) Brian Coleman stated that crime was down in Barnet and it's all down to his hard work (full story here - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2012/01/porkie-pies-of-brian-coleman-gla-member.html ). Imagine how surprised I was to read in the Sun that Mill Hill, where I live is in the top 20 burglary Hotspots.

Here is the image from the Sun's website
(full story here - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4105484/They-dont-live-appily-in-crime-hit-Apperley.html )

Not only is Mill Hill number 20, Barnet is actually no 14. You can read the whole sorry tale here. What Coleman has to face up to is that if he wants to claim the success for good crime figures, he has to take the rap for the bad ones. As the freedom of information request published by this website in the story listed above shows Coleman has had no meetings with the Met police in Barnet to discuss these appalling figures, it is quite clear he must shoulder some of the blame for being so lazy. It really couldn't be more simple.

If I were Boris Johnson, I'd get shot of Coleman before his ineptitude completely derails his Mayoral bid in May.

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Westminster has listened, why can't Barnet? Updated

Boris listens to Barnet residents deride Brian Colemans parking scheme
The news on BBC London this morning is that Westmintser Council has "listened to the views of residents and business" and scrapped its outrageous plans for punitive parking charges at Evenings and Weekends, designed solely to fleece people and fill the councils coffers. The local businesses of Westminster knew this would be bell of doom for them. Local Churches also complained, asking why parishioners should be penalised. Residents were livid. Crafty old Boris, the Mayor of London, spotted the opportunity to garner a few votes and brush up his image and pressurised the  Council to listen. Not only did they listen, they crumbled.

In Barnet we have a slightly different situation. The man who introduced the charges is Boris's trusted wing man, Brian Coleman. Whilst the Westminster Tories who snuck in the charges were at arms length, Coleman is a key member of the Boris Team. Sadly for Boris, everyone in Barnet knows that Brian isn't a team player. At Tuesdays BorisBash, Brian Coleman did everything in his power to prevent local residents raising the issue of parking. It appears from conversations that this policy came unstuck. At the end of the meeting, Boris had a chat with the "Save Barnets High Streets" protestors.They gave him a t-shirt. Boris isn't stupid, so he will have realised that the protestors were largely core Conservatives. These are the people who fill the party coffers, do the donkey work campaigning and turn up without fail to vote. If there is anyone Boris should represent it is them.

Now he has a dilemma. Does he turn his ire on Barnet and risk undermining Brian Colemans GLA campaign, or does he back his wingman and say "Barnet is a special case, they need the cash, Westminster doesn't". I suspect that Boris is shrewd enough to know that whatever he does, he haas to do it now. If the parking mess can be sorted out now, then Coleman has three months to rebuild his reputation and re-engage with local business.

What Boris (and Brian) must realise is that however much the local business owners may be natural Conservatives, if local business decide that local Conservatives don't support them, they will vote with their feet. Westminster Conservatives have woken up to this fact, the only question in Barnet is whether the local Conservatives will wake up now, or will it be when Brian Coleman loses in the GLA elections in May? One way or another, they will.

Update : 15/11/2012 -
It seems that the W. anchor effect of Brian Coleman is starting to weigh down on the Boris Campaign. Time to dump him - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-24029304-ken-takes-lead-over-boris-in-race-for-mayor.do - Ken Livingstone has unexpectedly overtaken Boris in the polls

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

Welcome back to work - Deus Irae? or the woe of Thameslink

For many of us, today is the first day back at work after the Xmas and new year break. After the festivities, the alarm clock here went off at 6.30 to get the children up for school. What a day to come back to. On one such day, my old latin teacher at FCHS exclaimed as the wind howled and the rain poured down "Deus Irae". Today's weather is appropriate for the post holiday hangover we all have. For me, the first day back after the seasonal holidays is my least favourite day of the year. We find ourselves skint, facing the two harshest months of the year. We are welcomed back today to a huge hike in the cost of commuting into London. The reason for this is to "pay for investments" apparently. I have no issue with investments being paid for, but I seriously question the logic of paying for it by front loading it on to hard pressed commuters. Let me give you an example. Take my local service, the Thameslink line into London. Fares have been hiked, year after year to "pay for improvements". What has been the effect on the commuters of these improvements. Let me list a few :-

1. No direct service to Moorgate Station
2. The through service suspended for six months to construct the New St Pancras Station
3. Blackfriars tube Station shut for two years.
4. Massive overcrowding.
5. Removal of cross London Services for Sutton Loop.
6. No cross London services at weekends for years on end.

With all this disruption, you would think that rather than fare hikes, they should give passengers a discount whilst there journeys are constantly disrupted. For many people they pay the rises, but by 2016 when the program is finished, they will have retired. Years of disruption at extortionate prices, with what in return? Nothing. We are told that when the program is finished, there will be less overcrowding. I don't believe a word of it. If the service improves, more people will use it. I remember when the M25 was proposed, the argument was that it would "reduce overcrowding". What happened was the opposite. So you may say, how should the Thameslink program be paid for? It is clear to me that it should be paid from general taxation and borrowing. Capital programs produce a return on investments. Presumably there is a good business case for Thameslink and the benefits of the work will be felt for decades, if not centuries. Not only that, but people who never set foot on a Thameslink train will reap huge benefits from it. How you may ask? Because improved infrastructure opens up job opportunities, meaning that people can travel further to work, more quickly and more conveniently. This reduces unemployment and stimulates the economy. It removes cars from the roads, as people switch to rail, making other motorists journeys quicker and more pleasant. Who pays for major road projects? We all do. I rarely use the M1, but the roadworks North of Luton are paid for by me. Road commuters from Bedfordshire into London are subsidised by me, but as a regular rail user, they get a free ride from subsidising me. 

The UK has some of the highest fares in Europe and some of the lowest subsidies for travel. Who benefits from all this? The Thameslink service is operated by First Group under the First Capital Connect banner. Has First Group and it's shareholders suffered for this? Of course not. They have hidden behind the program as an excuse for a shoddy service. Regular users have suffered all manner of misfortune under this inept company. We had a period of months where the network virtually ground to a halt due to lack of trained drivers. We have had noticeboards which didn't work, resulting in many people boarding trains to completely the wrong destination. I had a conversation with a First representative about this. This is how the conversation went

Me: What are you doing about the fact your electronic destination boards are consistently not working
FCC: We are talking to our suppliers
Me: That is no use for me, why can't you have a system to tell passengers on the platform?
FCC: We do, we make announcements
Me: That is no use to me, I'm registered deaf (NB> I have a 44db hearing loss) and cannot usually hear them
FCC: Well that's your problem then, isn't it. You should check the front of the train or ask a member of staff.

The bottom line is that this company makes huge profits, is subsidised by the taxpayer and the passengers are lumbered with an uncaring monopoly. If and when they lose the franchise, no one will mourn their demise.

At the Mayoral election in May we have a clear choice and we have two people who have vastly different views on transport. We have Boris Johnson who stands for high fares and cares only for motorists in the posher London Boroughs and we have Ken Livingstone who has a consistant track record of standing up for lower fares and better all round transport infrastructure.

I asked a local Tory what Boris had done for Transport in Barnet. His answer "He got rid of the Bendy buses and he's developed the new Boris bus. He also got the cycle scheme going". An odd response really. There were no bendy buses in Barnet, we've seen one prototype bus delivered, which I've yet to see in Barnet and the cycle scheme hasn't come within miles of the Borough.

I doubt Ken Livingstone will do well in Barnet.I doubt that this fact is anything to do with his record on transport. In fact I doubt that it is based on anything more than a dislike generated by some comments to an Evening Standard reporter who was hassling him. I do understand this and I have some sympathy with the view, I just think it is crying shame that everyone in Barnet who commutes has to pay for these comments on a daily basis.

If like me you've been none too impressed with the performance of First Group, you may wish to sign this petition.