.jpg)
.jpg)
The Evening Standard tonight is reporting that LBC radio DJ Nick Ferrari has been given the green light by Ofcom to take part in the race to be the Tory candidate for London mayor. They also report apparent unrest among Tory MPs about the process and the lack of high calibre candidates. The article looks more like speculation than fact.
The Standard is a bit all over the shop in its editorial. They fail to mention Richard Barnes who is the leading candidate so far. Doubly strange as they reported the endorsement of his candidacy by Lord Stevens only last night. They also fail to mention James Cleverly who, whilst not of the same stature as Barnes, at least was worth a mention. Perhaps the Standard is not the first place you should look for quality journalism. Better off going to conservativehome.com where they are covering the race in much more detail, and more accuratley to boot.
In tonight’s Evening Standard Richard Barnes’ candidacy for London mayor is confirmed.
Apparently Lord Stevens, former Met commissioner and widely touted possible candidate himself, has endorsed Barnes.
Conservative blogger and failed candidate for Lewisham mayor James Cleverly announced today that he is standing as a Conservative candidate for the London mayor. This brings to a total of four those standing. Two obscure Kensington councillors, a think tank wonk who failed to win Hove and another failed parliamentary candidate. See the London Mayor debate blog at conservativehome.com.
I understand that local GLA member, Richard Barnes, will also be handing in his application today. At last a heavyweight candidate with experience of office as leader of Hillingdon council and GLA member.
The Evening Standard has tonight taken up this story which I highlighted here earlier in July (see previous post). The numbers in the story come straight from two letters I got out of TfL.
I originally e-mailed this stuff to the Standard but they did not take it up. I got in contact with the Taxpayers’ Alliance who were more successful than me in getting the Standard’s attention. Well done to James Frayne at the TPA.
I must admit I have got it all wrong about the Londoner, the Mayor’s £3 million self-publicity exercise. I received a letter from him this morning detailing how the Londoner is funded. Apparently the letter was prepared on 11th July but not sent out until today due to an administrative error.
See letter: London Mayor 11-7-2006.doc
According to the Mayor spending on the Londoner was contained within its 2005/6 budget of £2,882,800. I had previously imagined that income from advertising charges for the 3/4 pages of display advertising from GLA bodies in each issue was in addition to this budget and that the budget was a GLA budget. I was wrong. Apparently the GLA only contributed £632,800 towards the Londoner. The rest comes from tax on the GLA “family”.
Transport for London are taxed £1,500,000. In other words £1.5 million of road safety projects are on the shelf to make way for this wasteful spending.
LDA are taxed £500,000 to pay for it. I really do not see how spending £500K on the Londoner helps promote London’s economy.
The Met have to make a contribution of £250K. Would they rather spend this cash on coppers? I would.
Some idiot has sold Transport for London, Ken’s transport quango, the idea that they should develop their brand hence the Your TfL advertsing campaign currently running across television, cinema, radio and billboards.
I have been chasing TfL to fess up to how much this is all costing. TfL started using https://www.billboardadvertising.org.uk/outdoor/bus-stops to help advertise. After three e-mails Sheila Sachania from TfL writes today with the final pieces of the jigsaw. They are spending £2.6 million on the Your TfL campaign. This includes about £1 million for telly slots, £500K for cinema, £270K for production of the ad itself and £520K for billboard sites.
Livingstone, rather than let TfL spend so much on advertising can we either have some more policemen or please give us some of our cash back.
I don’t know how much “double hatting” is going on with these Safer Neighbourhood Teams but I wonder if they are what the Met professes them to be. There was a great photo of Sergeant Andy Storr in the Gazette this week. Apparently he is head of the knife amnesty campaign in Ealing. Whilst I accept that this might not be a fulltime job I note he is also SNT sergeant for Norwood Green.
If you go to the Ealing SNT page on the Met’s website 9 out of 23 wards appear not to have a sergeant.
Are we getting what we have paid for?
The July edition of the Londoner plopped through my letter box today.
It is no surprise that Livingstone is against nuclear power. Apparently the headline “Londoners say no to nuclear power” follows from a MORI poll we have paid for. 45% oppose building new nuclear power stations. Maybe. They asked 1,006 people by phone and this is the answer they got. They don’t tell us the question! The poll is not published on the Mayor’s website so it is impossible to have much of an opinion about it. Certainly calling people at home during the day selects a pretty slanted sample.
The Rise anti-racism festival is another 80s throwback. With all the anti-stuff I feel 24 again when I read the Londoner. GLC deja vu. What a treat.
This £3 million a year fib fest is well down on advertising this month. No advertising at all this month from any organisation that has a choice about where it spends its advertising budget. Poor old Transport for London have to cough up for 3 whole pages. I bet their marketing department really hate the Londoner.
Councillor Will Brooks, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, has been chasing Transport for London to tell him what the West London Tram has cost so far using the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Their project “director”, Christopher Dean, wrote yesterday to say that: “Since the inception of the West London Tram project in 2002, Transport for London has spent approximately £23m on the development of the scheme.”
He blathers on: “This development cost is small relative to overall investment in infrastructure that the tram would bring to West London and is entirely in line with other major infrastructure developments.”
No you silly man this is a lot of money to spend on a scheme that we do not want in West London and is now just a totem that allows Mayor Livingstone to talk about how he is “investing” in West London. The reality is that the Tram simply destroys one public transport system (the bus) and replaces it with an unproven one while West London spends four years in chaos not to mention a couple of years of planning blight thrown in.
Phil Taylor 