Thursday, August 31, 2006

Anyone But Ken Talks to Lee Rotherham


In the fourth of our series of interviews with prospective Conservative Party mayoral candidates we've spoken to Lee Rotherham. As with all our interviewees, we'd like to thank Lee for taking the time out to answer our questions.

As you’d probably agree, whoever is the Mayor of London should have affinity with the city. So what do you most like about living in London?

I suppose it’s the weight of history. The British Empire gave a unique dimension to this city of Marlowe and Shakespeare. The grandeur of our Victoriana and the whole bustling vastness of the Docklands; the legacy of the many galleries, museums and theatres that are of world class standing: they give the city a unique place on the planet. Of course, with the Empire came different cultures that have added vibrancy, variety and (at times literally) spice. It’s a beautiful, ancient city that’s alive.

What is your earliest memory of living in London?

My very first memory of London is from a school trip. We came down for a day from primary school. I was astounded by all the tower blocks and snapped away with my camera at one after another - an early interest in social housing, perhaps!

Which part of London is your favourite?

That’s not an easy choice to make, because part of the city’s attraction lies in its variety. I suppose it would be the Covent Garden-Leicester Square-Chinatown triangle. But my favourite single spot would have to be the view from the south bank of the river at Blackfriars.

What do you consider to be the worst thing done to London and Londoners during Livingstone Administration?

The problem is that there are so many examples from which to choose. Perhaps that’s the issue – that as part of the process of squandering both local democracy and all our tax money, Mayor Livingstone has also brought his position and our city into disrepute. I was particularly shamed by his Tiananmen gaffe.

As has been commented on ConservativeHome. Should the Mayor be spending large sums of taxpayers’ money promoting himself? What would you do instead?

It’s a disgrace that we have this huge propaganda budget, endorsing a shaky system of government and by extension the incumbent. Can someone possibly tell me who in the Mayor’s Office has run a cost-benefit analysis of his cinema adverts? How much has been frittered away on the We Are Londoners ads? It’s a classic case of stable doors being closed after horses bolting.

Is it fitting for the representative of London’s electorate to spend time on South American politics?

At least Sting campaigns to save the rainforests.

Ken Livingstone is not the Foreign Secretary. But that’s a symptom of the problem, and one reason why I want to ditch the whole mayoral level of government. The job encourages grandstanding.

If Mr Livingstone wants to retire tomorrow and run for Mayor of Caracas instead, I’d be delighted to sign his nomination form.
London is one of the world’s most cosmopolitan cities. As such, should the Mayor be seen on the same platform as extremists?

Patently not; the veneer has slipped to show a flash of the old GLC Livingstone.

Should the Mayor be extending the Congestion Charge zone?

I think we should be honest and call it what it is – the Congestion Tax. No, it shouldn’t be extended. It should be scrapped.

It’s been reported that London has the most expensive public transport system in the world. Is that something to be proud of?

Given Mr Kiley’s recent comments, absolutely not.

Perhaps while we’re on the subject, some of your readers could help answer one or two questions. Firstly, on the Oyster card; given that there are now millions of them out there, who holds the three pounds’ deposit on each card? In what bank account is it held, and who benefits from the interest? Secondly, regarding the ridiculous disparity between the charge by card and the charge by underground machine, is this legal under EU trading regulations, as it discriminates against non-residents? Either way, the rack up is disgraceful.

Should there be greater balance struck between contemporary high rise architecture and the iconic views of the London skyline?

I believe that’s an issue that should be decided by local councillors. I’m mindful of the critical debates that took place forty years ago, when the new GLC tried to override local concerns and turn Central London into a Soviet-style skyline. On a personal level, I obviously would prefer to retain such views of St Paul’s as remain.

Is Neighbourhood Policing and the greater use of uniformed civilians the solution to London’s crime and anti-social behaviour problems?

I wrote a piece for ConservativeHome on this.

Again, let me reiterate that I believe it’s not the Mayor’s part to sort these issues out. Police line managers should be left to get on with their job, and it’s down to the Home Secretary and Parliament to remove the burdens that they’re facing at so many different levels. Nobody else can do it.

Should the Mayor have veto powers over local authority planning decisions?

No. We ought to let local councillors decide.

The Mayor has recently rejected the construction of the desalination plant that formed part of the 2012 Olympic bid he supported. How do think London should deal with the problem of clean water shortages?

This is a very pertinent question. It’s too easy to attack the water company. It’s also daft to tell people not to flush so often. Nor do I understand the Mayor’s apparent position that he prefers water shortages over greenhouse emissions. If we need that plant, then clearly we should be building it.

The root of the problem is a macro one. The simple fact is that the population is expanding due to a variety of factors, especially due to migration. That can only be solved over the long term by the Home Office getting a grip.

Should threats to withdraw funding for local council be used as a means to an end by the Mayor’s office?

Do I support the use of political blackmail? No, that’s unacceptable.

Finally, what would you aim to do in the first 90 days of gaining office that would make an immediate improvement in the quality of life for Londoners?

As an abolitionist, I’d improve people’s lot by lightening the load of government.

My very first act would be to cut the Mayor’s salary from a very un-Marxist £136,677 to be on par with a backbench Member of Parliament’s. That means by over half.

Following that, I’d make telephone calls to the heads of all the Borough Councils to map out a round table forum. I want the Boroughs to be at the forefront of the democratic process of London Government while I remain Mayor. In those areas where there remains a legal strategic requirement for the Mayor to act, I want the decision-making to be done by Borough representatives, with myself simply playing the part of chair.

Those calls made, I’d slash back on the hangers-on at the GLA building. I would only need a single press officer, for instance, and the place seems chocker with ideology wonks that don’t need to be there.

Which takes us on to the finances. From the start, I would apply Zero Base Budgeting to all the expenditure. There must be a clear cost value with every item. I rather suspect this is at best questionable in a majority of cases. Where the auditing fails to identify such a benefit, then the tax money would be stopped. Local councillors would be encouraged to feed into this process directly.

Those first three months would be vital. They would be the spur to demonstrate in practise how Borough-driven London government should run - freed of the bureaucracy and duplication, and pared of wasteful expenditure. I would then take the example set to David Cameron in Downing Street, and establish a working group to repeal the parliamentary legislation and give power back to local communities.

Monday, August 28, 2006

The Mark of a Dictator

One of the things that mark true democracies apart from tyrannies is that those in power are not allowed to indulge in abuse of power. Property rights cannot be overturned by whim. Unfortunately, The People's Republic of London is different.
THE mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has put a question mark over the £600m-plus sale of London City airport by suggesting its future could be up for reconsideration.
So our democratic right to vote once every few years for a Mayor, is in exchange for his right to absolute rule in between. And Why?
The mayor said the proposals “will need to weigh the economic benefits of growth in London City airport capacity to London’s economy — and that of the Thames Gateway in particular — against the disbenefits of amenity loss or diminution, environmental harm, and loss of development capacity in the London Thames Gateway area”
On the subject of environmental harm, the esteemed Mayor is obviously of the opinion that he can stop air travel by closing an airport. On the subject of development, does he really believe that an airport is a barrier to development? Would he suggest destroying Heathrow so as to make the land available for development?

Ken Livingstone show the capriciousness and self centred ignorance of a Hollywood starlet. His understanding of how the world works is not much more developed. Voters should not let his chummy man of the people image stop them from seeing the truth.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

1 in 8 bus passengers are fare dodgers

Ken's bendy buses have increased fare evasion on one London route (Ilford to Oxford Circus) to the point that 1 in 8 passengers has an invalid ticket. Most people have been aware for some time of the problem of people just getting on the back of bendy buses and then jumping off again without swiping their card. However, since Ken got rid of the Routemasters which had conductors without increasing the level of ticket inspection it's hardly a surprise that far dodging is so rife.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Anyone But Ken talks to Richard Barnes

In the third of our series of interviews with prospective Conservative Party mayoral candidates we've spoken to London Assembly Member, Richard Barnes. As with all our interviewees, we'd like to thank Richard for taking the time out to answer our questions.

As you’d probably agree, whoever is the Mayor of London should have affinity with the city. So what do you most like about living in London?

The people. They have an amazing vibrancy and creativity. Coupled with the sense of history makes London the best capital city in the world.

What is your earliest memory of living in London?

I moved to London in my late twenties from Oslo and the first striking memory is of the one bedroom flat we rented with a landlady who could strip wallpaper with her acid tongue!

Which part of London is your favourite?

St James’ Park is my personal favourite. The beautiful wide-open space within the heart of the City is simply a stunning place to go and reflect.

What do you consider to be the worst thing done to London and Londoners during Livingstone Administration?

There are so many policies and initiatives to choose from, actually selecting just one is difficult. A number of items immediately spring to mind:
  • Congestion Charging: increased costs and the unwanted Western extension to the zone.
  • West London Tram Project: £27 million pounds spent without a track being laid in anger.
  • 2012 Memorandum of Understanding: This potentially leaves Londoners with an unlimited liability to pay for any overspend on delivering the Olympics in 2012.
  • Increased public transport fares.
  • Proposals to register pedal cycles.
If pushed for an answer I would have to say the year on year inflation busting increases to the GLA precept. Increases over and above inflation are severely affecting those on low and fixed incomes the worst.

In June 2000, the GLA precept for a Band D property was £122.98 yet by April 2006 this has increased a staggering 134.6% to £288.61 with little to no visible increase in the level of service provided to Londoners from Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire Brigade. One must ask why Transport for London in 2005/06 spent £78 million of Londoners money on advertising what is effectively a public transport monopoly. The mind boggles at the number of additional police officers or firemen this could fund, actually making a visible and perceptible difference to Londoners quality of life.

First and foremost the future increases to the GLA precept needs to be brought under control and the tiers of management, bureaucracy and waste at each functional body needs to be identified and removed to ensure that the Mayor can confidently sit back and say that Londoners are receiving value for money.

As has been commented on ConservativeHome. Should the Mayor be spending large sums of taxpayers money promoting himself? What would you do instead?

The simple answer is no, the Mayor should not use his office or indeed taxpayers money promoting himself, unless something exceptional has been achieved by implementing a policy that has benefited London.

A good Mayor should be judged on the benefits they bring, not on the calibre of their press team and as such I would look at why the current Mayor requires 16 full time press officers.

Is it fitting for the representative of London’s electorate to spend time on South American politics?

The only foreign policy the Mayor of London should have is promoting London. As Mayor of London, a City with such a diverse nature forging good relationships with different countries from all around the world is an essential part of the job, however when this takes up large amounts of officer time or indeed taxpayers money a balance should be struck between what is relationship building and shameless self promotion.

The recent visit of Hugo Chavez to City Hall was nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt and claims that the Government of Venezuela would provide oil at a discounted rate was an empty promise that will raise expectation, grab a few headlines and fail to materialise.

London is one of the world’s most cosmopolitan cities. As such, should the Mayor be seen on the same platform as extremists?

The current Mayor is an extremist and is not one to shy away from controversy once sharing a platform with members of the IRA during his time at the GLC and moved onto Sheikh Al-Qaradawi during a meeting at City Hall during 2005. Personally I would never share a platform with anyone who condoned suicide bombings, the beating of females and execution of homosexuals.

Engaging in dialogue with people of differing views is paramount to building bridges between different groups but not when their views are clearly abhorrent to Londoners.

Should the Mayor be extending the Congestion Charge zone?

No. I do not support the Western extension of the Congestion Charge zone, any further expansions across London or a new scheme around Heathrow Airport. I can see the theoretical benefits of reducing congestion within the capital to reduce emissions and dangerous levels of air pollution but since the introduction of the current central zone independent reports have shown that traffic speeds in London have reduced, air quality is poorer and many small businesses have been forced to relocate or close due to a decrease in trade.

Any new Mayor must tackle the problem of congestion as a priority but by using a balanced view. Cars are part and parcel of our way of life and to most people their only way of travelling. Sensible options should be investigated such as re-phasing traffic lights controlled by Transport for London, removing inappropriate bus lanes to enable better flow of traffic, altering the charge times and ensuring that any potential road pricing system does not “tax” those on lower incomes off the roads would be better placed to improve congestion and air quality.

Any potential road pricing schemes must stand up to scrutiny. They must be there to solve the problem of congestion and air quality and should not be what the current Congestion Charge is: a further stealth tax imposed by the current anti-car Mayor.

It’s been reported that London has the most expensive public transport system in the world. Is that something to be proud of?

No, it is not something to be proud of, and needs to be tackled if we are to encourage a greater use of buses, trains and the underground network. Public transport has to be a viable and safe alternative to car usage and this can be achieved without spending £78 million of taxpayer money on advertising the Transport for London “brand” as is the current policy of the Mayor and his Transport for London cronies.

Current Mayoral policy of free travel to children under 16 (extending to under 18 in education from 1st September 2006) costing an estimated £75 million in lost revenue is simply an unaffordable luxury which if scrapped would allow fares to be frozen or reduced. Gimmicks such as this hit taxpayers hard in the pocket.

Should there be greater balance struck between contemporary high rise architecture and the iconic views of the London skyline?

Yes, there is the need for greater balance. The Mayor is in thrall to developers. “Human” cities need to retain a perspective – glass canyons destroy it.

Is Neighbourhood Policing and the greater use of uniformed civilians the solution to London’s crime and anti-social behaviour problems?

The Safer Neighbourhood initiative is a groundbreaking policy that has yet to show any visible results. Personally I see no problem with the use of Police Community Support Officers by the Metropolitan Police Service as long as their recruitment is not at the expense of warranted police officers. In an ideal world with unlimited resources I am sure everyone would like to see just warranted police officers in their neighbourhood but the reality is that with clear direction and targets Safer Neighbourhood Teams can compliment the work of officers already based within the Boroughs.

The idea of having dedicated police teams within every ward I am sure over time will deliver results. Whether these results will be cost effective remains to be seen and I believe that the teams should be target driven, providing a visible police presence whilst at the same time addressing issues brought to their attention. There is little point to visible patrols if they do not tackle crime and anti-social behaviour within their areas and I would like to see the Police Community Support Officers designated with additional powers by the Commissioner to allow them to be more effective in their roles.

I have undertaken research into the teams and have received feedback, both positive and negative from residents of several Boroughs of London and the responses vary dramatically. Many people do not know who their teams are, how they can contact them and what their role within the community is when it comes to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.

Greater engagement with residents outside normal working hours, late night patrols and local crime indicator targets must be introduced to allow residents to gauge the success of their teams.

Should the Mayor have veto powers over local authority planning decisions?

No – The Mayor must work in partnership with the Boroughs to arrive at a fair and balanced solution to any potential planning issues.

The Mayor has recently rejected the construction of the desalination plant that formed part of the 2012 Olympic bid he supported. How do think London should deal with the problem of clean water shortages?

Thames Water needs to invest more towards fixing leakage from their pipes. I would also grant permission for a desalination plant to provide reserve capacity.

Should threats to withdraw funding for local council be used as a means to an end by the Mayor’s office?

No, it should not be used as a means to an end. The current Mayor has in the past withheld funding from the London Borough of Barnet as a way of voicing his opposition to their decision to remove road humps following consultation with local residents and has recently threatened to withhold funding from the newly elected Conservative controlled London Borough of Ealing following their announcement to suspend two bus lanes following a campaign by residents concerned by the congestion and associated pollution.

Both of these councils have shown that they listen to the residents they consult but this holds no weight with the Mayor who only wishes to pursue his own agenda regardless of local feeling.

Following a lengthy standoff the Mayor did provide funding to Barnet leaving him with egg on his face. To be Mayor of a great city means that there is no place for a personal agenda’s and feeble attempts to influence local authority decisions that fall outside the remit of the Mayor’s Office.

Finally, what would you aim to do in the first 90 days of gaining office that would make an immediate improvement in the quality of life for Londoners?

In the first 90 days I would of course move into my office and remove from post all of the GLC hangers on that follow the Mayor at every turn and then review every spending contract entered into by the current Mayor.
  • Review funding of the Metropolitan Police to recognise that the key priority of the Metropolitan Police Service is to arrest criminals and protect the public. Making actual police officers more visible and available to the public is a key factor in improving satisfaction with the service. A single instance of what is deemed poor interaction with the police should be seen as a failure.
  • Stop the self-promotion of Transport for London and utilise funding towards fare reductions/discounts or improvements in security. I would also seek to immediately appoint an independent Chairman of the Transport for London Board.
  • Review the work of the London Development Agency. What contracts they have entered into, ongoing projects and grant giving since June 2000. I would also produce a set of key strategic priorities for the Agency to ensure that all of London benefits from the money made available.
  • Revise the Core GLA budget with the objective of a “lean, mean effective organisation” run on similar lines to a private sector organisation.
  • Re-examine the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government and endeavour to put a cap on London’s share of the cost of the Olympics in the event of cost overruns.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Ken Livingstone accepts Aid from Third World

Most of us worry about those unfortunates that live in less developed countries. Governments of rich countries like the UK send billions each year to help those worse off. Now it seems that Red Ken is to reverse the process.
Last winter Chavez delivered cut-rate oil to low-income Americans through Citgo, the Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. He offered to do the same during his visit in May and it now looks as though he's delivering on the promise. Surely Livingstone's London isn't so destitute that it needs overseas aid from a self-styled latter day Che Guevera?
In the interests of Communist solidarity, or Livingstone populism, the self styled man of the people is to accept the charity of a nation whose people are far poorer than us. Wonderful isn't it.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

They Notice in Tehran

When we have finally got rid of Ken, maybe they would like him in Tehran. They certainly take close notice of what he says.

Livingstone throwing his weight around


Most of us would think that his current responsibilities are quite enough to fill his working day, but apparently not. The Sun notes his intervention to assist that renowned London band, the Scissor Sisters (they come from a borough called New York) to play a gig in Trafalgar Square.

It notes "The former Labour MP — known as Red Ken because of his Left-wing rants — put pressure on the capital’s Westminster Council to allow the New York band to put on a show in the shadow of Nelson’s Column....They made moves to get Trafalgar Square for a big free concert but Westminster Council — who have the final say — weren’t too keen. “Ken intervened because he thought it was a great event and his help appears to be making a difference.” The firebrand politician has no direct authority over Westminster Council, but as the elected representative of all of Greater London he can use his influence over local matters".

Can't say I have any great knowledge of the band in question, but doesn't Livingstone have more important things to do than serve the PR machines of bands on the make, especially when the decision was one for Westminster council? I wonder what chance the average Londoner would have of getting him to react so quickly to a request to intervene in a borough issue?

Monday, August 07, 2006

James Cleverly withdraws from race

Sadly, James Cleverly has withdrawn from the race for the Tory mayoral candidate spot. A real shame, but we wish James the best of luck.

Do we Trust Ken with our Data?

I came across an interesting post that mentioned Mr Livingstone's favourite play thing.
The government is systematically trying to monitor our every movement. 'Red Ken' is currently using his Oyster Card scheme to register every person who uses public transport, not just in London but in the entire in the South East of England (I should imagine most of them) where half the population lives.
Is this really what Oyster is about? Should we trust even the best intentioned politician, (let alone Red Ken) with this kind of data?

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Anyone But Ken talks to James Cleverly

Following on from our recent interview with hopeful Mayoral candidate Victoria Borwick, today we have another. This time it's fellow blogger, James Cleverly. We'd like to thank James for taking the time to talk to us.

As you’d probably agree, whoever is the Mayor of London should have affinity with the city. So what do you most like about living in London?

On Wednesday I bought a Bento box from a six foot Nigerian who spoke perfect Japanese. I love that. I can buy a proper curry or walk a few minutes along the Mile End Road and get pie and mash with liquor. I love the fact that some of the most innovative architectural executions in the world (the Swiss Re building and the Lloyds building) sit alongside mediaeval churches. That the most famous tennis tournament in the world is played in a quite suburb and that the oldest sporting contest in the world is rowed on the Thames. Mostly I love the people.

What is your earliest memory of living in London?

I remember playing football in the street in Hither Green (part of Lewisham) and sneaking through a fence into the River Quaggy. The boys that I was playing with and I followed the river for what felt like miles, it was probably a couple of hundred yards. My mother was beside herself with fear and cried for hours when I got back.

Which part of London is your favourite?

Anywhere that gives me a view over the city.

What do you consider to be the worst thing done to London and Londoners during Livingstone Administration?

Clearly the 7/7 attacks were the worst, they were a wake-up-call and every lesson possible should be drawn out of them. Livingstone’s refusal to heed the findings of the London Assembly committee which looked into these attacks is therefore unforgivable.

As has been commented on ConservativeHome. Should the Mayor be spending large sums of taxpayers money promoting himself? Would you do things differently?

I remember seeing poster after poster with Livingstone’s smug grin beaming down on me, all paid for out of my, and other people’s, taxes. He has at least moved on from blatantly promoting just himself to promoting his pet policies, it’s an improvement, but not much. If his policies were effective he wouldn’t need to spend millions telling us how good they were. I would spend tax payer’s money on governing and delivering, not spinning.

Is it fitting for the representative of London's electorate to spend time on South American politics?

Once the Mayor of London has sorted out all of London’s problems he can spend time on whatever pet project he likes. Until then he should concentrate on the job in hand.

London is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities. As such, should the Mayor be seen on the same platform as extremists?

The Mayor should be a figurehead as well as an administrator. As such he should be very careful about alienating sections of London’s population, women, the Jewish community, the gay community etc by “endorsing” visitors who vilify them.

Should the Mayor be extending the Congestion Charge zone?

No, no,no,no,no. The expansion of the congestion charge zone is a blatant attempt to make the scheme more profitable, it will not reduce traffic merely displace it. The zone, its costs and its effect on London commerce must be looked at, honestly, dispassionately and apolitically. Only when this is done can London have a proper debate about the continuation or abolition of the scheme.

It's been reported that London has the most expensive public transport system in the world. Is that something to be proud of?

It is a farce. Transport subsidies have increased dramatically under Livingstone and yet fairs still rise. There is an argument for high subsidies and low fares; there is also a valid argument for no subsidies. But to have high subsidies and high fairs shows a level of financial and political incompetence which alone should disqualify Livingstone from holding office.

Should there be greater balance struck between contemporary high rise architecture and the iconic views of the London skyline?

London is a living city not a giant museum. Modern architecture has its place and will become iconic with time, the Swiss Re building and the London Eye are already established parts of London’s cityscape. Quality must be the deciding factor, London deserves no less.

Is Neighbourhood Policing and the greater use of uniformed civilians the solution to London's crime and anti-social behaviour problems?

It is part of the solution but not the whole solution. A much more visible police presence and a force which is closer to the community will help to reduce street crime and antisocial behaviour but much of the serious, habitual crime is linked to drugs, poverty and social exclusion. This side of the equation has been overlooked for too long. I intend to create a Social Enterprise Unit from existing mayoral staff with task of finding groups who are tackling these problems and supporting them.

Should the Mayor have veto powers over local authority planning decisions?

No, planning should be done at the most local level possible. The Mayor should be involved with significant projects but the ultimate decision should remain with the local authority.

The Mayor has recently rejected the construction of the desalination plant that formed part of the 2012 Olympic bid he supported. How do think London should deal with it's clean water shortage problem?

The first thing to do is ensure that the problem gets no worse. Livingstone’s plans to push London’s population densities even higher will put increasing strain on our infrastructure. Water provision, waste removal and treatment, education and health provision are already close to breaking point so shoehorning more and more people into ugly, high density housing is environmentally short-sighted.

I don’t know enough about desalination in general or the Olympic site scheme in particular to comment on that decision but London’s water needs are not going to get smaller so we should be open to new and innovative ideas.

Should threats to withdraw funding for local council be used as a means to an end by the Mayor's office?

I am completely against this as a tactic. Councillors are locally elected representatives and as such are more in touch with the needs of their specific areas than a London wide mayor. I intend to give a lot more power back to the boroughs and take power from central government in return. I don’t believe that this repatriation of power should come with strings attached.

Finally, what would you aim to do in the first 90 days of gaining office that would make an immediate improvement in the quality of life for Londoners?

I would set up the Social Enterprise Unit, it will seek out charities, community groups, faith groups etc. who are fighting poverty, social exclusion and drug addiction and help them succeed. This would form part of my two prong attack on crime and the causes of crime the other being a dramatic increase in visible community policing.

I would set up an apolitical review of the congestion charge, the findings will be put into the public domain so that Londoners can make an informed decision on its continuation, amendment or abolition.

James' campaign website can be visisted by clicking here

Friday, August 04, 2006

Tory Primary Process delayed

ConservativeHome is reporting the following statement from Francis Maude:
Eight weeks ago we set out plans to give every Londoner the chance to become the Conservative Partys candidate for Mayor of London, and to give all Londoners the chance to play a part in the selection process.

Since then we have received a number of excellent applications. This has been extremely encouraging. We have also received expressions of interest from a number of very serious potential candidates for whom the timescale we originally set is too restrictive.

Given that the mayoral elections are still nearly two years away, we are therefore extending the deadline to give these and others the chance to come forward.

We want as wide a range of people as possible to take part in this exciting and innovative process with a view to selecting a candidate next spring.
Nick Ferrari come in?

No Bigger Task

Hobnobbing with important people for a change (and not terrorists or dictators) Mr Livingstone had the following piece of wisdom to share with us:
"There is no bigger task for humanity than to avert catastrophic climate change.
Some of us would beg to differ. Here are some statistics on a few bigger tasks that face us:
  1. Measles, malaria and diarrhea are three of the biggest killers of children — yet all are preventable or treatable
  2. Six million children under five die every year as a result of hunger
  3. 134 million children between the ages of 7 to 18 have never been to school
  4. More than 300,000 child soldiers are exploited in armed conflicts in over 30 countries around the world
  5. 171 million children work in hazardous conditions
Just a small selection of the things that are really important. Climate change ranks pretty low down the list when you consider what is really wrong with the world.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Eric Ollerenshaw for London?

The Telegraph's Spy diary column says Eric Ollerenshaw, the non-A listed Hackney councillor who was somehow considered "local" in the Eltham selection process, is planning to run for the Tory candidacy for Mayor.

The closing date for applications is tomorrow, and Celia Walden says that her source told her, "Eric's a straight-talking former deputy head who represents a gritty patch of inner London... He's not a Cameron clone or part of the Chelsea set. What's more, after years of taking on Ken in the assembly, he understands his opponent."

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Major for Mayor!

Interesting piece on Comment is Free by Julian Glover suggesting the only person suitable to be the Tory candidate for London Mayor is John Major because of his profile. Sounds great but I imagine China becoming a democracy tomorrow is more likely.

Hat tip: Iain Dale

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Anyone But Ken talks to Victoria Borwick

A few week's ago, serf posted about two of the prospective Conservative alternatives to Ken. During the last week we managed to arrange an interview with one of those potential candidates, Victoria Borwick. We would like to thank her for taking the time out of her schedule to answer our questions.

As you’d probably agree, whoever is the Mayor of London should have affinity with the city. So what do you most like about living in London?

The fact that it is a world city – constantly changing and evolving, but still with hidden corners and communities that remain constant. The old historical London what embodies so many years of tradition and has endured the plague, the fire, the wars, and now London today, bringing together vibrant international cultures – taking advantage of technology to be the world’s most competitive centre for global financial services. London is more than just our capital city, London’s importance as a trading centre makes us one of the world’s leading nations.

What is your earliest memory of living in London?

Having been born in London and brought up here – I remember the parks, walking to school and, like all small children, jumping up to balance on low walls, and running sticks along the railings. Walking home from school in the thick smog, or mist - delighted we don’t have those any more. However London felt safer and the traffic was easy.

At Christmas time the treat of going to the underground passageway between Barkers and Derry and Tom’s when it became a Christmas grotto and “sleigh-ride”. I also remember the arrival of Biba and psychedelic fashions in Carnaby Street.

Which part of London is your favourite?

I love the local street markets, which are individual to each community around London, the vibrancy of Covent Garden. I love standing on Westminster Bridge and watching the Thames flow, and the London skyline; the new architecture in Docklands contrasting with our wonderful parks and open spaces.

What do you consider to be the worst thing done to London and Londoners during Livingstone Administration?

That in spite of all his promises he has not managed to reduce crime – particularly street crime – The most important role for the Mayor is to keep Londoners safe. This is our city, we live here, work here and we want to be able to go out safely and feel pride in our capital city.

As has been commented on ConservativeHome. Should the Mayor be spending large sums of taxpayers money promoting himself? What would you do instead?

No of course he should not, it is part of Livingstone’s desire for self promotion. I see the role of the Mayor as more of a Chief Executive working with the Boroughs, the Strategic Authorities, the Police, Transport for London, all the Transport authorities to work in partnership for the benefit of all Londoners. The job of a CEO is to promote the company not themselves, and though it is tempting for Livingstone to be attracted by power and publicity, he should have resisted this.

Livingstone appears to enjoy being controversial and to draw attention to himself rather than getting on with the job of leading London.

Is it fitting for the representative of London’s electorate to spend time on South American politics?

No. We should work to encourage community cohesion in London, the Mayor is here to represent London, not to go back to the bad old days of the GLC promoting dictatorships and the IRA.

The Mayor should not waste money on his own foreign policy – that is a job for Whitehall. When Ken has run out of ideas to improve London, he cheers himself up at our cost with this sort of stunt.

London is one of the world’s most cosmopolitan cities. As such, should the Mayor be seen on the same platform as extremists?

Absolutely not. The role of the Mayor is to promote cohesion and inclusiveness. Backing extremists to get attention conflicts with the Mayor’s duty to Londoners.

Should the Mayor be extending the Congestion Charge zone?

No – the recent consultation showed that Londoners did not want the extension – Livingstone was quoted as saying the consultation was a charade. Businesses, and particularly small shops will suffer; those who need to travel in and out of the zone will suffer, it is not necessary. The recent TfL survey showed that traffic speeds in the congestion zone were no faster than before, with a larger congestion zone and more vehicles receiving a discount this can only get worse.

It’s been reported that London has the most expensive public transport system in the world. Is that something to be proud of?

Livingstone likes the oyster card and to make transport users buy the card he has forced up the single trip fares which is damaging to our tourist industry.

Our visitors to London suffer, but those who are regular travellers and have travel cards, oyster cards pay a reduced rate. Over 60 have free travel as do young people, but this is paid for by the Boroughs. Central London is reasonably well served, but we need to improve the transport in outer London and the ticketing arrangements. The first tubes were around in 1863, so we have a very antiquated system that costs a lot to maintain. Other countries have cheaper systems, generally because they are more modern and receive subsidies.

In many cases we seem to have paid for over-runs in the maintenance budget by delaying or cancelling refurbishments that will reduce our long term costs. This is merely a case of getting a manager to manage London, not someone whose whole life has been dedicated to politics.

Should there be greater balance struck between contemporary high rise architecture and the iconic views of the London skyline?

London’s skyline has constantly changed over the years, we enjoy confident architecture and have many landmark buildings. I do not want to destroy the past, but as London continues to expand we have the space for some new landmarks. However we do need to protect the strategic London vistas.

Is Neighbourhood Policing and the greater use of uniformed civilians the solution to London’s crime and anti-social behaviour problems?

Having recently spent some time with the Police – both the Police Community Support Officers and the Met police, I am still firmly of the view that more uniformed officers on the streets reduces crime. The police obviously have to use intelligence wisely – as we all know the majority of crime is committed by a small number of people, who are known to the police. In order to continually reduce crime we should all be vigilant and not make life easy for the criminals. The main role of the police is to catch the criminals and get them off the streets, but to achieve this we must have an effective criminal justice system and a probation system that does not release known criminals with a known high risk of re-offending back onto our streets.

A wise policeman once said “we don’t solve crimes in the majority of cases, people tell us who did it”. But to achieve this policemen have to know their communities, be known in the local shops, local streets, local estates. As Londoners we have to feel confident that by helping the police, we will actually see safer streets. In parts of London, we are not helping the police because of fear of reprisals - the gang culture is stronger than the forces of law and order.

Should the Mayor have veto powers over local authority planning decisions?

I believe this is extremely dangerous. It concentrates the power to override local views and knowledge into the hands of one man who has already made clear that he will use his powers to force through unpopular decisions.

The Mayor has recently rejected the construction of the desalination plant that formed part of the 2012 Olympic bid he supported. How do think London should deal with the problem of clean water shortages?

Reduce the leaks – this would almost double the amount of water that would get through to our taps, and educate consumers to be more aware of the amount of water they are using.

Should threats to withdraw funding for local council be used as a means to an end by the Mayor’s office?

No. The locally elected councillors and Boroughs should have power over their area, but I would hope that by working in partnership with the boroughs and by encouraging neighbouring boroughs to share resources and services that Londoners would receive better value for money.

Finally, what would you aim to do in the first 90 days of gaining office that would make an immediate improvement in the quality of life for Londoners?

Quick improvements would be:

Publish the list of crime hot spots and work with the police to resolve these – what resources does it need, is it bad design/ lighting/ environment that is facilitating these crimes? In London we have a perception and fear of crime and we need to restore confidence both in the police and the public. Many officers in the Met have a zero tolerance approach and we need to support that.

British Transport Police – the Conservative Group proposal was to increase these by over 600. I support the Evening Standard campaign against unmanned stations. The technology is now there to improve the safety on the tube and increase communication – learning the lessons from both the Kings Cross fire and last year’s terrorist attacks – I would re-open this whole agenda to improve safety for Londoners.

Phasing of the traffic lights to get Londoners moving. Stop making more traffic constrictions and start the removal process of some of the bottlenecks.

More “smart” bus stops, so that you know when the next bus is coming and ensure there are not queues of buses in Oxford Street and no buses in outer London. Look at routes and timetabling to improve orbital journeys.

Waste at City Hall – every year the Conservative Group have proposed lower budgets to remove excess costs, whilst maintaining services. Reduce the waste in self promotion and study the budgets in detail to reduce the cost of the Mayor – London households paid £1,000 for the Mayor for the first four years of office, and now the figure continues to rise. The final budgets for the Olympics have not been set and judging from previous experience will not be cheap for Londoners.

Housing - everyone needs somewhere to live and in my view one of the crisis points here is the lack of affordable housing in London. London attracts people from all over the country as well as those from overseas and we benefit from their industry. We must look at the provision being made for key worker housing, affordable housing, intermediate housing projects and have the political will to provide these throughout London. London needs to be an integrated cohesive city not a city divided into areas of wealth and areas of poverty.

What's it Got to do With London?

Once more Ken is more interested in world affairs than the problems of London.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone yesterday called for the "largest possible" turnout at a national demonstration demanding an immediate ceasefire between Israel and the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon.
Why does this meglomaniac think it is his job to support particular demonstrations? Could it be because he thinks the everyday problems and issues of Londoners is below him?