Premiership football will always attract big names from overseas

There are rumours afloat that one of Boris’s aides was behind the letter in the Financial Times last week which was signed by a group of Economists calling for the 50p rate of tax to be axed in the UK. The letter has successfully reignited the “50p” tax debate and has continued to rage in its letter pages.  It was also picked up by the Sunday papers last weekend.  Boris even managed to weave it into his Daily Telegraph column this morning when writing about the proposed Thames super sewer, gleaming that the 50p tax debate “seem to be moving in the right direction”.

For me, the letter would have had a lot more gravitas if any of the signatories to the letter had been economists who’d predicted the financial crisis. However, like the vast majority of the profession, most had little to say when it came to foreseeing the evolving financial crisis. How then, or more to the point, why then, should we invest any faith in their prediction about the effect of marginal taxation on the rich? Moreover, it would be interesting to know how many of the signatories are themselves paying that rate?

Contrast, Warren Buffet in the USA and the rich in France signing up for more taxes on the grounds of national interest and equality. It seems that the UK’s calls for a scrapping of the top rate of tax is not indicative of a wider universal revolt by the super rich against higher tax. (The Boris camp must be asking where the self-publicity seeking Richard Branson is when you need him?)

Take also one part of the economy which has seemingly not even blinked an eye during the financial crisis – premiership football.  There are still a plethora of top international players keen to ply their trade in England. One does not hear many of them complaining about the top rate of taxation when they arrive at their new club.  In fact it would a story in itself if we heard about any top player leaving because of the 50p tax!  Player’s decision to leave are often football related, on the hunt for more trophies, prestigious clubs or sometimes personal family reasons.  A 50p tax regime has never even been mentioned. 

So, I think the Mayor should start speaking up for all Londoners, most of whom would delight in being in the privileged position of pay a 50p rate of tax and stop flying the flag for his banker chums.  He would also do well to take note of the rest of the world’s super rich on this issue, not forgetting the foreign footballers clambering at our door. 

In Sep 2010 the Mayor referred to the hacking scandal as "codswallop"

 In 2008, Johnson won the London mayoral election and one of his manifesto promises to chair the Metropolitan Police and hold it to account. No offence would be too small, he said.

Fast forward to September last year and, as new damning revelations emerged about the conduct of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, the Mayor claimed it was, variously, a “song and dance about nothing”, “completely spurious and political” and – in true Boris Johnson style – “a load of codswallop”.

When he was asked by Labour members of the London Assembly what assurances he had sought from Assistant Commander John Yates about the initial inquiry into phone hacking, the Mayor said he had asked for none. He insisted that he was completely satisfied with the police investigation and said he had not spoken to any senior Met officers about the issue.

Knowing what we know now, this is truly astounding. The man elected on a platform of holding the police properly to account asked no questions at all about the biggest scandal to engulf the Met a since Sir William Macpherson’s report into the events surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence

So why did this issue not get the attention from the Mayor and his team that it so clearly merited? A look at his diary might provide some answers.

In his three years at City Hall, Boris Johnson has had nine lunches and meetings with senior News International figures – including Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks. He attended a News International board meeting just last month. Meanwhile, he has dismissed concerns about Rupert Murdoch’s influence on British public life as “rants”.

It’s now that the scandal that has engulfed the Murdoch empire and the Met is not going away. David Cameron is on the back foot. As more and more is revealed, the Prime Minister’s decision to bring former News of the World editor Andy Coulson into Downing Street at the heart of government as his director of communications raises serious questions about Cameron’s judgement. We know that Cameron was warned by the editor of The Guardian and others that Coulson was a liability and that there were more damaging revelations to come. Cameron either chose to ignore these warnings or was persuaded not to act on them .

It’s not just Cameron’s judgement under scrutiny. Initially Boris Johnson dismissed The Guardian’s stories about the News of the World’s behaviour as “codswallop”. He decided not to ask any probing questions of the Met despite chairing the body that holds the force to account. He joked in the £250,000-ayear column which he writes for the Daily Telegraph that celebrities who haven’t been bugged would be sacking their agents and tried to deflect attention onto other news organisations.

The extent of Murdoch’s corrupting influence on this country is becoming increasingly clear.

Questions must to be asked about why the London Mayor was so quick to dismiss the allegations against Murdoch. Boris Johnson’s decision may come back to haunt him.

If you look at the Deputy Mayor’s “spin” page headed “Equality and Diversity”, the story takes on even more of a sharp, most would say ironic edge. In it, he mentions how he is now the champion of one of the Mayor’s policy documents Equal Life Chances For All and the author of a GLA equality framework Equal Life Choices For All. What, I wonder does this say about the Mayor’s choice of personnel for key posts in his office?

Amongst other pledges, the Deputy Mayor promises to:

• Ensure that all communities are supported in the economic downturn – I take it that either the economic downturn is now up or he didn’t mean to include the Irish!
• Embed equality at the heart of business and corporate planning – We can safely conclude this does not extend to the building trade!
• Provide practical solutions that effectively tackle inequality – here’s a suggestion, say “sorry”
• Support the development across the London economy of diverse markets, workforces and suppliers – presumably to the exclusion of Irish builders!

No more jokes Deputy Mayor, time to say sorry

Medway campaign poster on Boris fantasy island

The debate over airport expansion in London has rightly concentrated on the plan for a third runway at Heathrow and its potentially damaging environmental consequences. However, for the citizens of east London, a more immediate concern is the noise and nuisance caused by flights into City Airport following Newham council’s decision to give planning permission for an increase of flights from 80,000 to 120,000 a year. So I was pleased to move a motion at last week’s Mayor’s Question Time which called on Boris Johnson to show leadership on the issue by initiating a review of the impact of flights into City Airport. The motion received cross-party support and was passed unanimously by the London Assembly.

The depth of local feeling on this issue was made clear at the Mayor’s “Environment Question Time” event in Ilford in January, where I was on the platform as chair of the London Assembly’s environment committee. During contributions from the floor, speaker after speaker complained about the disturbance suffered by those living under the City Airport flight path. In reply, Boris told the audience that he felt their pain, but unfortunately there was nothing he could do about it. The planning authority in this case was Newham council and he had no powers to intervene.

But Boris’ expressions of regret were the purest hypocrisy. Under his predecessor, there was a clear and robust policy on City Airport expansion. Ken Livingstone’s administration had urged Newham council to reject City Airport’s application for an increase in flights on the grounds of environmental impact and noise. If the council did not agree to this, the Mayor’s position was that the government should call in the application and convene a public inquiry, and that the Government Office for London should prohibit Newham from granting planning permission pending a decision by the Secretary of State.

One of Boris’ early decisions as Mayor was to overturn this policy. In July 2008, in a letter to Newham council, he paid tribute to “the contribution London City Airport makes to London’s world city status, and the benefits the airport offers to the City and Canary Wharf”. In light of that, he continued: “I offer support for the expansion sought by London City Airport…. I shall therefore be writing separately to the Government Office for London, withdrawing earlier objections, and confirming my support for the current proposals.”

So while Boris was bidding for popular support by opposing airport expansion at Heathrow, he was giving it the green light in east London. To cap it all, Doug Oakervee, the architect of the Mayor’s plan for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, has declared himself unavailable to defend that proposal before the environment committee, suggesting that Boris’ fantasy island is dead in the water. The Mayor’s lack of any coherent strategic policy towards airport expansion in London is plain to see.

Published in Tribune, 5 March 2010

The Policy Exchange report, entitled At a Rate of Knots, asserts that the current Transport for London (TfL) subsidy to Thames Clippers amounts to a mere 14p per passenger journey compared with 33p for buses. This struck me as an unbelievable claim, since an earlier report by the London Assembly, London’s Forgotten Highway, had quoted a TfL figure of 69p. So I tabled a question about it to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

The Mayor replied that the most recent monthly figure from TfL is 56p per passenger journey, four times the level of public subsidy claimed by Policy Exchange. He explained the discrepancy between the two figures on the basis that it was “likely that the Policy Exchange figure has been arrived at by dividing the TfL contract payment over the whole of the Thames Clipper operation, i.e. both the supported and the commercial elements”.

In other words, Policy Exchange got their sums wrong.

I take the view that there is much scope for the Thames to play a greater role as a transport highway – but as a means of moving freight rather than passengers. This would have a positive environmental impact by reducing the number of HGVs passing through London. However, if the case is to be made for increased public subsidies to underpin a large-scale expansion of passenger transport on the Thames, it requires more than a dodgy dossier based on faulty arithmetic.