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

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.

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."

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

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?

Ken's view of the GLA Members

If you've ever wondered what the Mayor's real opinion is of Greater London Assembly members then a quote from him in yesterday's Evening Standard is certainly revealing.

When he was asked about the prospect of facing Lord Stevens at the ballot box he said that he wasn't sure Lord Steven could stand "two and a half hours each month, [of] tedious questions by members of the London Assembly".

Should someone that holds the GLA in such contempt really be in it's top job?

Cyclists will be next to be hounded.

Not content with making every motorists life a misery, Ken is now turning his attentions on to one of his "success" stories, the cyclist.

In Ken's latest brainwave, he wants all cyclists in London to fit number plates to their bikes. All bikes then would be registered so that riders, caught on traffic and CCTV cameras breaking the law, can be punished and fined.

Speaking on LBC yesterday He said "I think i'm now persuaded, we should actually say that bikes and their owners should be registered." He added "You have got to have legislation, but I think, most likely we'll be putting up a private Bill and I think can get the London Boroughs - all of them, irrespective of parties - to most likely go along with that and have a proper vehicle/bicycle registration scheme."

Or course Ken can get the boroughs to go along with it, he'll just threaten to cut their funding like he did with Ealing over their bus lanes.

As predicted in May, the congestion charge will cover Greater London

Back in May I posted about Ken Livingstone's plans to start congestion charging for the entire Greater london area - that is to say within the M25. Today this plan became official policy when Livingstone announced that his "Low Emmission Zone" plan would begin in 2008, when he would start charging lorries, buses and coaches that fail to meet a minimum pollution standard if they drive within Greater London.

As I also mentioned, such a scheme is going to have a significant impact on public services such a private school bus companies as they will need to spend thousands on their vehicle fleets. Additionally many haulage companies may have to stop operating in the capital completely as it will no longer be commercially viable to do so.

Propaganda on the Rates

A good post on Conservative Home, highlighting what we have mentioned here before.

You can hardly go to the cinema in London without one of the Mayor's propaganda ads appearing. The Londoner newspaper contains pro-Ken publicity alongside practical information about life in the capital. The Conservative Party should be exposing this political use of council taxpayers' money and investigating who is benefiting from the contracts for these ads.

Commenter Phil Taylor adds an extra dimension:

The Mayor's freesheet The Londoner will cost £2,857,488 in the current financial year (see post). This is not the whole story though as this budget is net cost not gross cost. Every issue carries 4 pages of full page display ads from bodies in the GLA family. They have no choice about these ads and in effect it means that the Londoner costs more like £4-5 million.

No wonder Ken likes dictators and Caudillos so much. He has so much in common with them.

"Green" Olympic plan will result in increased pollution

Ken promised, in a letter to The Times last week, that the 2012 Olympics would be the "greenest" ever. Which is all part of his plan to make the capital a lower emission zone.

However, as previously reported on this blog, Ken's plans are, as usual, well off the mark.

This is most obvious in the way he is currently dealing with one of the companies trading within the boundaries of the planned Olympic site. Concrete crushing company, Bedrock, are due to be evicted relocated as a result of the Olympic developement.

Bedrock currently makes 400 lorry movements a day, resulting in the recycling of one million tons of demolished concrete, and preventing it from packing the landfill sites, each year. Concrete crushing itself, although a dirty job, plays a very important role in the recycling industry.

The LDA has, however, offered Bedrock an alterative location, in Dagenham, seven miles futher east. This move would result in Bedrock having to purchase a further 25 extra lorries, which do eight miles to the gallon, and would have to be on the road for an extra 2800 miles a day.

But that would work out quite nicely for Ken, after all he's planning to charge "dirty" vehicles that produce high levels of C02 emmissions for driving in Greater London.

How thoughtful of him. Evict a recycling company, to a site that means they have to purchase more C02 producing vehicles, so that they can be charged extra for the use of.

Whatever happened to "Cooling the Tube"?

Anyone who gets the tube iat the moment knows only too well how bloody hot it is downt here. The tube network, whilst probably the most complex in the world, also happens to be the oldest. The result is no air-conditioning on trains whatsoever, and temperatures which can soar past 50 degrees celsius.

Three years ago, our illustrious Mayor Ken decided that he would have an open competition to engineers called "Cooling the Tube". The competition received a lot of press coverage and the prize was to be £100,000.

Here we are three years on, and nothing has happened. Another example of Ken saying, rather than doing.

Tractor Production Rises

Check this Blog for details of that obnoxious little liar's problems with the truth.

1,100 habitable rooms per Hectare

The Borough of Haringey has voted to approve a new planning system.

The UDP will shape planning decisions made in Haringey until 2016 and, in its present state, could see new homes packed in to the borough at two to three times the current density.

The people of the borough are up in arms and the councillors are none to happy either. So why did they vote for it?

Haringey Council had to approve the UDP on Monday, or risk being led by Ken Livingstone's London Plan, which is much more general and could invite even higher rates of development in Haringey.

Because to do otherwise would have invited London's own Caudillo to force his plans on them. Democracy, don't you just love it.

Conservative Alternatives To Ken

The details of the selection process are still a little hazy, but we have already had two hats thrown into the ring:

First off the mark was Warwick Lightfoot, former Mayor of Kensington and Chelsea.

Quick to follow, we have Cllr Mrs Victoria Borwick.

I know nothing about either of them, but I am sure they would both be better than Ken.

I have added links to their websites in the Blogroll

Official: Ken has become a dictator

Yesterday, the Government gave Ken further powers over London that effectively make his office a dictatorship over the notional state of Greater London. He now has executive control over planning, skills, public health, environment and housing. As a result power is being dragged up from borough into an all powerful single figurehead office.

Sir Simon Milton, the leader of Westminister city council, quite rightly condemned the moves and said that this extension of "his remit is going against the trend of local government, where decisions and accountability are moving to the neighbourhood level, not to a remote regional centre. If the mayor is to have more powers, it is essential that the assembly should be given greater powers to hold him to account and to force him to moderate his plans."

This now a nightmare scenario in planning terms as Ken Livingstone, a politician, is a one man planning auhtority. He has been given ddirect power to conest and refuse planning applications arbitrarily on the very vague grounds of his "strategic" requirements. Soon we'll have pictures of Ken on the side of buildings as well.

Nick Ferrari to run against Ken?

There's a rumour going around that Nick Ferrari (the LBC 97.3 Breakfast show presenter) has decided to enter the planned Open primary to find a Conservative Party to run against against Ken Livingstone at the next mayoral election in 2008. Nick has been mulling it over on his blog and his show over the past week (even inviting people to call in and ask him questions).

Nick Ferrari would, I'm sure, make an excellent mayor and be a breath of fresh air to London after being under the control of Red Ken for so long. The biggest challenge we face as a party against Ken is his high profile. Nick Ferrari, has a high eneough profile to match Ken.

All Nick has to do is get through the primary, which, if the rumours are true, could include Sir John Stevens.

Congestion charge to increase to £25 for families

Yesterday, Red Ken announced his plans for greater revenue to his quango TfL under the guise of environmentalism. Livingstone said that he's going to make Central London a low-emmission zone and to do this he's going to start charging the owners of so-called "chelsea tractors", £25 per day to drive in the CC zone.

"'Chelsea tractors', many of which are responsible for some of the highest CO2 emissions of any cars on our roads, have to be dealt with.... I want TfL to look at lower congestion charges for cars responsible for lower than average CO2 emissions, broadly the retention of the current rate of £8 for most cars, and much steeper charges of perhaps £25 for the really environmentally damaging cars such as the so-called 'Chelsea tractors'."

There are a number of serious, and very fundamental problems with this plan. First up there's the issue of using generalised language to stigmatise a particular group. The so-called "chelsea tractor" is a catch-all phrase for anything remotely 4x4. The fact that so many of these vehicles don't actually fall into the range of emmissions that would result in a higher charge is ignored. Ordinary families who just happen to have a big, 4x4 looking car are thus being viewed as some sort of environmental pariah, when they're not.

The second problem is the claim that these car are the highest polluters. They're no more polluting however than many stupidly fast sports cars which also drive around places like Chelsea and the rest of the CC zone every day. However, apparently you're not an evil environment killer if you drive one of them because it doesn't look big and the chattering classes don't talk about you at the dinner parties they drove to in their hiugh emmission TVRs, Boxtsers, Subaru Imprezas, etc etc.

The third problem is more about where this is heading. Ken Livingstone claims that his target is to make central London (ergo the CC zone) a low emmission zone. This may sound laudable, however what happens to the congestion charge then? If everyone is driving low emmission exempted cars then CC revenue will plummet. He'll have two choices, either, make all those cars that were exempt, not exempt (likely, he's threatening it with LPG cars already). Or, move the charge further out and start charging families £25 a day to drive around the suburbs of greater London. Even if those people used their cars only two days a week, that would amount to an extra £2600 a year in Livingstone's coffers at City Hall.

There is also one final fourth problem. When the charge was brought it was apparently about cutting congestion. However, putting aside the independent research by the RAC that shows congestion levels in the zone have now reached the same as they were prior to the charge's introduction. It's now being argued the charge is tool in the fight to cut CO2 emmissions.

The number of times that Ken Livingstone has now lied about the Congestion Charge is, quite frankly, becoming a joke. He promised not to put it up before his election, then put it up straight after. He said he wouldn't do it again till 2010, it's just gone up again. He's trying to make out he's saving you money if you pay on the day rather than the next when in fact you're not, and now he's planning further increases on the grounds of a cars "look". More worryingly is that that the logical ends of his policy of low emmission zones is that the charge will have to move outward further and further as revenue dries up in the centre.

We have to get this man out of city hall.

Mayor of Caracus?

Ken is a man with very strange priorities. You would think that being Mayor of one of the worlds Great Cities would be enough responsibility for one person. Not for Ken apparently:

Mayor Ken Livingstone is to become the president of the Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) campaign after recently hosting a visit to London by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Somehow I can't see how this job is relevant to the people who elected him. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

Mayor Livingstone, says: "Venezuela is pursuing a course that is giving hope not only to the people of that country, but also to millions around the world ... and the Venezuela Information Centre is playing a vital role in combating the daily diet of propaganda and misinformation that is being circulated by opponents of President Chavez’ government."

Nice to know that London is his priority.