Afternoon:
15°c
FORGET the night of the living dead: it's now clear that we're in for the next three-and-a-half years of it. On Tuesday, appropriately enough a day commemorating the deceased, Ken Livingstone launched his new "Progressive London coalition" to challenge the key fount of all injustice in our land. Racism? Inequality? The "war on terror" and the security state? No, Boris Johnson - and specifically his decision to raise bus fares by 10p.
"Progressive London's" official purpose is to "promote progressive policies in the city", for which I think we can safely read: promote the 2012 election bid of one particular person with a strong south London accent, time on his hands, and a burning desire to correct the grave error made by the voters in May.
Even its logo, the old Ken GLA's "LondON" with the last two letters in red, speaks of its true longing - not to progress forward but to turn the clock back to that all-too-recent golden age, cruelly terminated by those rank traitors to progressiveness, the public.
The Tories are thrilled by the launch of "Obsessive London"; they believe Ken's dogged presence looks silly, reminds everyone what they voted against, and denies more credible opponents the oxygen they need to grow.
But this week's own goal by the Left does not alter the fact that everyone in power needs an effective opposition, and the Mayor of London needs one more than most. Livingstone's own City Hall career proves it. Ken didn't start out as a bad Mayor: his early years were rather successful, including real accomplishments, the congestion charge and more buses.
It was only later that he overreached himself - extending the C-charge zone against massive opposition and vandalising his bus achievements by scrapping the Routemaster, again hugely unpopular. It was only later that his rule curdled into the sleazy arrogance we saw over Lee Jasper.
Ken came to take power for granted because his power was too little checked. He could behave in ways which offended Londoners - and thus eventually destroyed him - because he never had to worry about being seriously questioned.
Boris, to be fair, is far more pluralistic than his predecessor. He also seems somewhat more committed to openness - publishing his advisers' interests, for instance. There is still, though, a risk that after years inside the mayoralty's "personal fiefdom" he could go the same way as Livingstone. Effective opposition is therefore important not just for us but also for Boris. But if "Obsessive London" is not the answer to the accountability gap, what is?
The media is one obvious answer. Since the election, the Standard, once largely alone with BBC London in scrutinising the mayoralty, has been joined by others. Channel 4 News and the Guardian disclosed the chequered past of one of Johnson's appointees, Ray Lewis - and the Standard then administered the coup de grâce by revealing he had lied about being a magistrate.
The new media could be another answer, but isn't yet. Several anti-Boris blogs now purport to "enhance the accountability of the mayoralty". Alas, most read more like Private Eye parodies, daily finding new evidence of sinister neo-con evil in Johnson's choice of breakfast cereal. Even the more measured ones simply copy stories from other media outlets (they all have a particular, and flattering, obsession with the Standard). Boris's enemies in Nerdistan won't do much damage until they learn the difference between investigative journalism and a Google search.
No, the main game in town is, as it always was, the London Assembly. Only it can demand the presence of people, papers and (theoretically) answers. There are good people on all sides of the Assembly, but it could do so much more to hold the Mayor to account.
The Assembly does much of its work through committees which hold inquiries, called "scrutinies" but I am often surprised how little actual scrutiny these involve. A parliamentary select committee always meets multiple witnesses from across the issue they're examining. The Assembly often holds as little as one session, with the representatives of the relevant mayoral agency - whose claims are too often taken at face value.
A parliamentary select committee employs its own specialist experts and researchers; the Assembly seems to have little or no research capacity, relying instead on data - or more likely also claims - from the likes of the LDA and TfL.
The committees meet rather seldom. Last week, the budget-monitoring committee - quite an important one, you'd think - convened for the first time since April. All the committees are having a week off at the end of this month, followed by nearly two weeks off in mid-December, three weeks off at Christmas and squeezing in another much-needed fortnight's break for February half-term.
Transcripts of even the most important sessions, such as Mayor's questions, take weeks to appear; Mayor's questions itself, three hours once a month, rambles interminably. These sessions with the Mayor should be shorter and more frequent. Most importantly of all, the Assembly has no real power. City Hall may look modern, but it is in fact medieval; King Ken, or Baron Boris, is all-powerful.
Immediately after the election, given the scandals immediately before it, the Assembly should have used a mayoralty in flux to push for more power - its own independent audit arm, like the Commons' National Audit Office, perhaps. It might even try focusing its attentions on issues with real political saliency (potential cuts in police numbers, perhaps?)
Instead it is busying itself with such key questions as the cross-river tram and the Venezuela oil deal: dead relics, beyond revival. It has been left to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, this week, to raise its gaze to the fundamental question of whether scrutiny of the Mayor and his agencies is working properly.
In the absence of effective official opposition to Boris, it is currently, as we reported yesterday, the unofficial opposition - inside the City Hall bureaucracy - which is making the running. But that could scarcely be less accountable, transparent or democratic.
Reader views (14)
Boris Johnsons challenge seems to be keeping advisers for more than 5 minutes!!
Another month and now his 2012 adviser says goodbye.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Isn't it time to stop wingeing about Ken?
After all, you've got the Mayor you want - and deserve.
It's just a shame the rest of us are stuck with him too.
- Britswedeguy, London, UK
At least Ken set up his campaign with his name attached to it. He could have roamed around the internet leaving anonymous and sock-puppeted comments on a bunch of Nerdistanian blogs that read like the Private Eye.
- James, Chis, London
Unbelievable. The co-called gas-guzzler tax would not have raised £50m per year. It was designed to stop large-engined cars driving in the zone. Virtually nobody was going to pay £25 per day, so virtually money would have been raised.
That is how a Green Tax works....
- J H Holloway, London
King Ken? You missed out the first three letters, the first of which is "F"...
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
Judging by your numerous posts, your parents named you well. Nobby – how apt. And by the way, do you not have any issues closer to home to get very very angry about? I mean, Perth is a long long way from London, isn't it?
- Bj, London
An additional problem you have not mentioned is something I brought up publicly with Ruth Kelly and Jim Fitzpatrick at the press conference when they were steering the amendments to the bill which would change the Greater London Authority Act. As a London Assembly Member at the time, I challenged them about the situation whereby the London Assembly is barred from access to all meaningful documents and may not have these either under Freedon of Information, or outside of it. What sort of a scrutiny body is it which is not even allowed to know about the TfL commissioner's terms of contract, or refer to them, and is by law only allowed to comment once the information has appeared in the Evening Standard? When the changes to the Act were proposed, my team (who had considerable parliamentary experience) made a number of suggestions and comments - the fascinating thing was that we quickly learned that the aim was to reduce the already limited effectiveness of the Assembly, not increase it. But few outside wanted to listen.
- Damian Hockney, London, uk
Another classy article from Mr. Gilligan there. Since he's using his privileged position to attack me again (but without the good manners to name me or the site he refers to) may I be permitted a reply? Good.
1) Mr. Gilligan's famed investigative powers extended, on the 27th October, to a brief reading of the bus tender documents on the TfL website, which amazingly he actually managed to misread in order to bolster his weak case. A more rigorous analysis by me found that they demonstrated the opposite of his case - in particular by his logic, 2-crew Routemasters cost more than bendy buses for the same route.
2) In the same article he merged a quote from *someone else* with a comment from me and ran them together as if I'd said them as part of a continuous statement.
3) We've still had no explanation of the origin of various pseudonymous or anonymous comments, left on various websites, that closely match Mr. Gilligan's public journalism in content, style and obsession.
4) 'media' is a plural.
With quality like that, no wonder some of us aren't particularly willing to be lectured to by the Great Man, who on current form has a great deal to learn about the 'new media' he disparages. I'd rather buy a car from Arthur Daley.
- Tom, London
but Mr Gilligan, there is a not a chance of the assembly getting more power. They recently gave away what little they had and seem impotent beyond belief. If they are not an effective counterbalance to the mayor - why on earth do I have to pay for them......
- Jc, se1
I agree with most of this, Boris does need opposition to bring the best out of him. Not sure some tired old has-been like Livingstone has anything to offer though.
- St, London
We have just had the US Presidential elections and even when he leaves office President Bush will be referred to as "president" just like all his predecessors. I think this system should be adopted for ANYONE who suceeds in becoming Mayor of London,
This would mean we would refer to Ken as Mayor Ken Livingstone and in due course Mayor Boris Johnson.
Being reminded of the times when Boris was Mayor of London might come in useful when he wants to be Prime Minister!!
As for Ken carrying on well it goes to show how he cares about the well being of London's long-term future instead of the present occupant of City Hall who just destroys the future of projects designed to give east london a future.
Well given there was no need to increase bus fares given the alternative of taxing highly polluting vehicles was available it just proves how his promise to hold his mayoral precept will mean even greater fare rises in future years. We all know how tories fiddle taxes so VAT becomes 15% while inheritence tax is reduced.
As for Mayor of LondON well publicity from Boris is produced with BLUE replacing RED for ON its a house style for the Mayor of London. Had Paddick become mayor a yellow version would have appeared.
As usual Gilligan goes on about scrapping Routemaster buses well they were about 50 years old and how many people use cars or delivery vehicles that are 50 years old. Nothing lasts for ever and the fact is they had reached the end of their life for front line.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Andrew, as always, you are right about everything. Since you and Boris started setting the agenda, everything is so much better in London.
- Kennite, London
'Even the more measured ones simply copy stories from other media outlets"
Well as I'm not 'anti-Boris' I flatter myself that I'm included in the 'more measured' column so should like to point out that I don't copy stories from the Standard or anywhere else.
Like all outlets I sometimes mention what's being reported elsewhere and provide a clear link back but the overwhelming majority of content on MayorWatch is original and derives from a knowledge of, and interest in, how City Hall operates.
I didn't see AG at Mayor's Questions yesterday or at London Underground last week and I don't recall the Standard making much of the current Mayor's press operation dishonestly claiming that by holding a legally required People's Question Time he'd somehow "fulfilled a manifesto pledge to make London Government accountable and transparent".
and would like to think my ability to be objective and fair is why people, including the Evening Standard's letter editor, ask for my comments on the issues facing London.
Andrew is right, some people are anti-Boris but there are sites out there which aren't and to skip over these is a little off.
- Martin Hoscik, London
What would Kennite have to say about the denizens of Nerdistan, Andrew?
- B J, London, UK
King Ken? You missed out the first three letters, the first of which is "F"...
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
