Author: Phil

I got an e-mail from the Mayor’s office this afternoon. It must be a quiet afternoon if they are browsing blogs. Sam Strudwick writes to say:

Dear Phil,

The Sun’s story on Friday was actually inaccurate. The car was in fact hired by LBC radio to take the Mayor to their studios. The Sun printed an apology in Saturday’s newspaper. You can read their apology here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article365952.ece

Yours sincerely,

Sam.

I replied straight away to say that I would put things right. Hasn’t he (she?) got anything better to do?

Anyway the Sun story is wrong and they have apologised. Shame they couldn’t have chosen a more flattering picture of the Mayor with which to illustrate their apology.

I am very keen to keep this blog accurate so I too in turn apologise for re-printing the Sun’s inaccurate story.

The other stories here are all too accurate!

The Mayor used this graphic on 29th August to mark the unveiling of the Mandela statue in Parliament Square. I figured that I would write and find out how much it all cost. The Mayor’s reply (click to enlarge image below) arrived this morning dated 19th October. A seven week turn-around is a little poor but I am grateful anyway for the information.

It looks like Londoners paid £464,000 towards Nelson’s big day. The contrast with the Victorian generals Napier and Havelock whose statues in Trafalgar Square were raised by public subscription (see previous posting) does not look good. Livingstone easily has the charisma and authority to lead a campaign to raise the money for a statue to Nelson Mandela. It is a shame he thinks it is OK just to raid the public purse for every little boondongle he thinks is right. Why not ask the people?

Rather cheekily the Mayor asks Ealing for a donation. I will send the Mandela Statue Fund fifty quid. I am not sure many others will and I think the London precept payer can assume that the £219,000 ain’t coming back.

I bought the Sun today, purely to read their withering “Betrayal will haunt Gordon” leader on Brown’s Euro sellout you understand. In passing I saw this photo spread (click image to enlarge) featuring a minicab waiting in a disabled parking bay to pick up Livingstone to take him to work. Although he is in charge of TfL, chairman of the board no less, it still doesn’t suit him to use public transport – unless there is a photocall involved.

Update: Apparently this story is inaccurate – see here.

I reported on this bogus consultation exercise in early September, see previous posting. It closed today.

Yesterday the Evening Standard was reporting that a study, funded by Land Rover, from the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that the scheme will push 10,000 new cars onto roads in the zone.

Today the Standard says London Councils and London First are pretty down too.

London Councils says:

As the emission related proposals relate only to the central area – the impact on CO2 emissions across London will be marginal.

The lack of a residents discount for vehicles liable for the higher charge will cause many residents to sell their vehicles and purchase different vehicles. Therefore the emission benefits of the higher charge are only realised when Band G vehicles are scrapped altogether as a Band G vehicle used outside the congestion charging zone will still contribute towards CO2 emissions.

Tackling the emissions from Taxis would be a more cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions than the current proposals.

London First’s Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of London First, said:

The Mayor’s proposals are unlikely to work. Politely, it’s a dog’s breakfast. By letting Fiestas, Puntos and Polos back into Central London for free, the Mayor will encourage more cars back onto our clogged up roads.

We must reduce emissions but a costly scheme that will have, at best, a minimal effect is not the right solution. By all means, reduce the charge to encourage cleaner cars. But the Mayor must not use taxpayers’ money to increase congestion in the name of climate change.

Business backed the original charge because it promised to reduce congestion. We aren’t prepared to endorse a naive, green-washed proposal that represents a backwards step.