The £550 Million Buses

Subsidies that would make a French farmer blush are being shovelled into the London bus service.

In 2004/05 - the most recent year for which fully validated data is available - the bus network required a subsidy of £550 million.

Streamlined and efficient government I am sure.

London boroughs to come out fighting against Livingstone?

Apparently the results of a survey by the Association of London Government into the new powers that have been bestowed on Livingstone will be released tomorrow. Word is they're not exactly positive towards the idea of dictator Livingstone.

There are already cross-party supported mutterings against Livingstone's powers in Camden, and these survey results will show a similar backlash across the London boroughs to the concentration of power in the Mayor office.

'State of the art' solar panels for the Great Glass Eyeball.

City Hall's media centre has a puff piece on how the building has "has been given the go ahead for state-of-the-art photovoltaic solar panels to generate non-polluting energy". The breathless prose does not, however, give any indication as to what percentage of the building's electricity will come from these panels, nor, of course, quite how much these 'state of the art' panels actually cost.

Livingstone commented "I hope that other agencies and firms will now start to copy our lead and install solar panels on their own buildings."

Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but one thing is certain: companies will be answerable for the cost of any action of this sort, whereas we Londoners have the pleasure of paying for this exercise in fashionable tokenism. What chance of flushing out the information via a Freedom of Information request?

Slick Ken's oil deal

In the latest show of anti-Americanism from Ken Livingstone, the news of his deal with ardent George Bush critic, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, is completely wrong in so many ways.

Firstly, the deal itself. Ken has brokered the deal to allow him to get subsidised oil from Venezuela, in return for consultancy advice on transport, CCTV, and finger printing. Sounds like an opportunity for another TfL style quango .

In his speech to the London Assembly on Wednesday he said: "I suspect we are two or three months away from finalising this deal, but it was certainly the case that President Chavez wanted to target the benefit to the very poorest, the unemployed." However, if that was the case wouldn't Chavez want to get full price for his oil to help the poor in his own country first.

In addition, when you considering the fact that Mr Livingstone has criticised the war in Iraq as being an oil grab by the US, isn't he just doing the same?

Also, as has reported in the past, this is the lastest in a string of policies by Ken that destroys his "green" agenda. Instead of looking at alternative fuelled vehicles for use on London's roads, he is simply going to keep the fleet of carbon producing diesel buses.

The deal for more oil, doesn't exactly make much sense, especially when you are supposedly trying to turn London into a low-emissions zone. Or, is this simply a show of solidarity for his socialist, anti-Bush, friend?

Cash fares to increase by 33% on the Tube

Ken Livingstone yesterday announced his latest move for forcing people on to the Oyster card, and penalise those who still pay for their fares by cash.

In the January fares revision, a zone 1 tube fare is will rise by a staggering 33% from £3 to £4 for a single journey. Cash fares for bus journeys in zone one will also rise from £1.50 to £2 as part of the fares package.

In his speech Livingstone stated: "the big differential between cash and Oyster card fares is designed to speed up the system by getting people to switch from cash to Oyster. I want to see every Londoner paying the lowest possible fares by switching to Oyster".

The move has sparked anger amongst the majority of tube users, as it means the cost of travelling one stop on the Tube will have quadrupled in two years.

Brian Cooke, Chairman of London TravelWatch said: "we are extremely concerned about the rise in cash fares on buses and on the tube if the journey includes Zone 1. Cash fares on buses are rising 33% to two pounds, and cash fares on the tube in zone 1 will also rise 33% to an astronomical four pounds. There are still not adequate facilities for visitors and tourists to buy Oyster cards easily, so this will really hit hard. London is already an expensive city - it has now become even more expensive for visitors to the city.

The fares increase is not what London needs, as it's just Ken's way of taxing the use of public transport even further.

After all he wants to further tax cars in London to force us on to public transport , and then further penalise us until we switch to his oyster card dream by increasing fares by a ludicrous amount to reap the profits.

Ken Doesn't Tell the Truth

I know that readers will be unwilling to believe such slander against the great leader, but I have it on good authority.

Ken claims that better management of the London Transport system has enabled a less than previously expected increase in ticket prices. Unfortunately it seems that most of the money actually came from central government and that cash fairs are going up by a whopping third.

You know what else is whopping? Ken's lies of course.

Livingstone's bid for a brass neck award

The London.gov.uk site contains KL's message of 'good will' for Rosh Hashanah. In the light of his less than sensitive interventions on matters Jewish, it is perhaps not surprising that he is not attending the Simcha to be held in Trafalagar Square on the 17th, but instead sending Nicky Gavron....

Oyster Cards to be sold to tourists before they come to Britain?

A few days ago, Ken Livingstone's monopoly transport provider, TfL, made a press announcement which was heavily picked up around the world saying that Oyster Card are to go on sale in India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, Portugal and the US via VisitBritain online shops.

Can anyone smell a junket coming on? What exactly is wrong with selling Oyster Cards at the airports and train stations? Why such far flung reaches as well? According to the Office of National Statistics the USA is the only nation in the top five for inbound tourism that is also on TfL's list.

You have to then ask yourself why start issuing Oyster Cards out in places like India, Hong Kong and Singapore? I expect that in the next few months there will be a few "fact-finding missions" to these far flung reaches by TfL staffers at the London taxpayers expense.

However, something else that the reports say is that these pre-pay Oyster cards will be based upon the local currency for where they are purchased. So a card bought in India will have Ruppees put on it and people will not have to worry about "Exchange Rates". What does that imply for pricing?

Ever feel like you've been cheated?

£24.5m spent on tram that may never run

From This is London

TRANSPORT for London has spent £24.5 million on the controversial West London Tram scheme, despite the possibility that it may not go ahead.

Funding depends on the central government providing the money, the residents along the route largely oppose the project and yet they forge ahead.

Mere democracy cannot be allowed to get in the way of Ken's grand vision, nor stop the nice little earner for all those consultants.

Ken attacks Britain's Race Equality Chief

In a live radio interview yesterday, Mayor Ken showed us all why he should not be re-elected in 2008.

During the interview he accused Britain's Racial equality chief, Trevor Phillips, of being so right wing that he could join the BNP.

The mayor, who fell out with Mr Phillips in the fight to lead London, told BBC London radio: “I don’t know where Trevor Phillips is going. I mean I remember when we had the first mayor election . . . he denounced me as racist because I said to him, ‘Would you like to be my deputy?’.”

Ken then went on to say: “Ever since then he’s gone so far over the other side that I expect soon he’ll be joining the BNP. I think exactly what Trevor is doing is trying to move the race agenda away from a celebration of multiculturalism and pandering to the Right, and I have to say it’s absolutely disgraceful.”

It is plain to see that Ken cannot conduct himself professionally in public office. He is simply unable to hold a sensible discussion without degenerating into personal and childish slurs at anyone who disagrees with him.

His list of shame also includes calling a jewish news reporter a "nazi war criminal", and the US ambassador in London a "thieving little crook".

And people wonder why this site was set up.

Pot, Kettle, Black

Ken Livingstone has called Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality, a self publicist, who is only interested in getting into the papers.

Note to Ken, take a look in the mirror. He should also take into consideration the fact that Mr Phillips doesn't have a £100 Million self publicity budget.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?