Filed under: Life Under Boris
I was pleased to see that Monday’s Evening Standard carried a report of Boris Johnson’s decision to allow the closure of the GLA’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai, which were set up by Ken Livingstone to promote the capital’s interests in one of the developing world’s largest and fastest growing economies.
Hopefully other sections of the media will take up this issue, because it is an important one for Londoners and for the capital’s business community in particular. As the Economist recently reported, the developing countries have grown in global importance economically due to their having escaped the worst consequences of the recession. So it’s vital that the Mayor should play an active role in promoting London in India.
I’d heard rumours that the GLA’s India offices were no longer functioning, so I tabled questions to Boris about it at Mayor’s Question Time last month. In a written reply he admitted that the offices in Delhi and Mumbai have not been staffed since last year, although he hadn’t bothered to inform Londoners that this was the case, and we would still be none the wiser if he hadn’t been challenged over it at MQT.
Boris’s vacillations and u-turns over the issue of the GLA’s international offices have been a sight to see. During his mayoral election campaign he initially condemned the offices as a waste of public money and said he would shut them down. In a December 2007 radio interview with Nick Ferarri, he was asked: “Would you continue bureaux in Venezuela, Delhi, Beijing and everywhere else? Yes or no.” Boris answered emphatically: “No.”
This went down well with anti-Livingstone journalists like Andrew Gilligan and Nick Cohen, and with parochially-minded Tory councillors lacking any concern for London’s strategic interests, but the business community recognised how damaging the closure of the international offices would be to the capital.
At a business hustings in March 2008, organised by London First, Ken Livingstone went onto the offensive over this issue. He told the meeting:
“The greatest challenge facing London businesses is globalisation, and therefore maintaining London as the most international and diverse business city in the world. To meet this challenge London has to build its position not only in traditional markets, such as the US, but in the huge new markets of India and China.
“Nothing therefore more clearly symbolises the difference between myself and Boris Johnson for London businesses, and the future of our city, than my opening offices to promote London in the US, China and India and Boris Johnson’s pledge to close down all offices promoting London abroad.”
The following month the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry announced that they had commissioned a ComRes survey of 238 London businesses which found that 67 per cent of companies said that the GLA should have offices in India and China to promote trade and inward investment into London.
Peter Bishop, LCCI international trade director, was quoted as saying: “These figures demonstrate that London firms are convinced of the value of operating these overseas ‘business embassies’. Strong business relations with the emerging economies of India and China are vital for the capital’s economic growth, creating jobs and attracting investment and tourism.
“In 2006 India was the second largest investor in London and Indian tourists outnumbered those from Japan. The London Chamber of Commerce hopes that all the candidates for next month’s mayoral election will take note of these results and pledge to keep these offices open.”
Faced with this opposition, Boris backed off and changed his line. In an interview with the Ethnic Minority Business Group (UK), he stated: “Whilst we fully endorse the representation of London overseas, we are also committed to reviewing the GLA’s offices abroad to ensure that London is getting maximum value from the money being spent on them. This review will be conducted as part of our larger investigation of the GLA and its agencies’ financial expenditures.”
Boris’s promised review was launched in May 2008, shortly after his election victory, and was headed by his then deputy Ian Clement.
At the time, Boris told the Standard: “We have started the process of considering which of the Greater London Authority’s international offices perform a useful strategic function and deliver value for money…. We will consider the role of the Indian and Chinese offices in encouraging inward investment and business opportunities for London. We are eager to get on and review the international offices’ role in increasing foreign investment and employment, delivering value for money and ensuring London takes full advantage of emerging international markets.”
London’s business community lobbied heavily for the offices to be retained. In a submission to Boris’s review the LCCI stated:
“Closing the offices in India and China as part of a cost-cutting exercise would be short-sighted and send entirely the wrong signals to potential investors and importers in two of London’s most important potential markets. The GLA may save £1 million, but it is London firms that may ultimately end up paying a much higher price. If the Mayor is not out there promoting London, someone else will be promoting New York, Paris, or Sydney instead.”
The review was supposed to be completed by autumn 2008. However, as is often the way with Boris, he missed the deadline and the results were not announced till the following January, when a press release from the Mayor reported that “the review found the rationale for London to have offices in key emerging markets is fundamentally sound”.
Boris’s press release quoted Ian Clement as saying: “It is absolutely essential given the current financial crisis that we do everything within our power to promote the capital in major markets around the world to ensure London emerges strongly from the downturn.
“We have taken a serious look at whether taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely and how to get the best possible deal for Londoners. The review has found that the GLA’s offices do play an important role in promoting London’s interests, from supporting the capital’s businesses to enhancing the image of our city around the world.”
Under the headline “Boris saves City Hall ‘embassies’”, the Evening Standard hailed the decision to retain the GLA’s overseas offices, reporting that the Mayor had decided to retain the offices “because they are a good way of promoting London abroad during the economic downturn”.
But it turns out that this was just eyewash. In response to my questions, Boris now concedes that the GLA’s representatives in Mumbai and Delhi “resigned last year and have not yet been replaced”, and that the offices will remain closed pending a decision on whether to reopen them. So much for Boris’s supposed commitment to promoting London abroad during the economic downturn.
Both Boris himself, and a spokesperson for the Mayor quoted in the Evening Standard report, have claimed that a review of the India offices is under way. They omit to mention that a review has already been held and that it came out unequivocally in favour of keeping the offices open. Boris has ignored the results of that review, mothballed the India offices and has now apparently launched a second review which he perhaps hopes will come up with a result more to his liking.
Some people take the view that Boris is a total opportunist who lacks any ideology other than a commitment to furthering his own political career. There is some truth to this. But Boris is not entirely without political principles. He remains an adherent of a Thatcherite free-market philosophy that deprecates state intervention and is concerned only with cutting the costs of government without any regard for the consequences. This has been exacerbated by Boris’s personal inclination to what might be politely termed a laid-back, hands-off attitude towards his duties as Mayor. It has resulted in a lethargic, non-interventionist administration which stands in sharp contrast to the energetic, proactive approach of Ken’s mayoralty.
As the scandal of the India offices shows, this combination of laissez-faire and laziness is proving seriously damaging to the interests of London.
February 10, 2010
Last week Boris Johnson became chair of London United, the organisation co-ordinating the capital’s support for the England 2018 FIFA World Cup bid. This after he stood down the previous week from chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Waste and Recycling Board. What does that say about his priorities?
Well, apart from breaking pledges he made to the London electorate in May 2008 that he would chair both the MPA and LWaRB, it shows that when the going gets tough Boris will leave it to others to get things going on major issues like crime and policing or building London a new waste management infrastructure.
Boris promised to chair the MPA as part of his scaremongering election campaign about crime in the capital, which was in fact falling overall and continues to fall. Nevertheless, last year faith hate offences in London were up by 46.7%, homophobic offences by 26.9%, rape by 24.2%, gun crime by 12.6%, residential burglary by 5.9% and personal robbery by 5.7%. So Boris can hardly claim to have got crime sorted during his brief stint as MPA chair.
With the new Waste and Recycling Board, it is crucial that it makes an impact now and doesn’t miss the golden opportunity to adopt new low carbon technology. But again Boris is walking away when needed.
By contrast, chairing London United is not a job Londoners elected him to undertake. But it is far easier position for Boris to entertain himself with, involving a lot of promotional events but not much actual hard work or attention to detail.
This is what we have come to expect from Boris. His is a mayoralty that gives precedence to photo ops and self-advertisement, but when push comes to shove on the big issues that affect Londoners, the Mayor is nowhere to be seen.
February 8, 2010
Boris Johnson started the year by hitting Londoners with record public transport fare increases of up to 20 per cent on a single bus journey and 18 per cent on some outer London tube fares. These are the biggest real-terms fare increases in the history of Transport of London.
The direct result of the London Mayor’s decision will be a big, late-recession hit on the finances of public transport users (especially those on lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their incomes on travel).
People are rightly pointing out the injustice of public sector workers being urged to forego pay increases while Boris wades in with a massive 20 per cent hike in their bus fares. And what do commuters get for their increased fares? The Mayor who promised “more bang for your buck” is actually proposing a reduction in bus services by eight million kilometres. This is on top of his decision to start reducing the number of London’s police officers (455 fewer by 2012/13) and firefighters (16 less during 2010-11).
This is all in contrast to his natural, instinctive defence of those “masters of the universe”, the investment bankers on whom we have become dangerously dependent. Appearing oblivious to the public revulsion at the bonuses, excess and peril in which they placed our economy, Boris went in to bat for the City (leading figures from which helped fund his election campaign).
Obama has come out so strongly in favour of re-regulating financial services that the Tories nationally have realigned themselves with the United States government. But Boris is still “instinctively anxious” (David Cameron had to deny a split over the issue) and continues to warn somewhat hysterically that bankers could leave London in their thousands. This claim looks more dubious by the day as big firms cut their year-end payments as a result of Alistair Darling’s reforms and the property market looks up.
How Britain and the world emerges from the economic crisis and what regulatory shape our financial services take is set to be a key battleground in the coming months. Will Boris Johnson continue to rail against any Government action and increased regulation? The same City figures who financed his bid for the mayoralty also fund the Tory Party and may expect similar levels of support.
It’s clear that, in the capital, the Tory Mayor had no more hesitation in clobbering the travelling public with massive fare rises than he had in jumping to defend the financial services from any kind of Government action.
Is this what we can expect from the Tories nationally? In opposition, they have taken a populist line in support of Obama’s proposals. But let’s watch this space.
First published in Tribune, 31 January 2010
January 29, 2010
As often happens with the newly converted, Boris is now piously preaching to the rest of us on all matters green, for example in his latest Telegraph column on his way to the sideshows at the Copenhagen Summit. Not that he necessarily practises what he preaches. For a start, it would have been better if he had made the effort to get to Copenhagen by train via Brussels rather than on a short-haul flight.
Nor was it clear what he was doing there. Telling the world how London shows the way with retrofitting public buildings and promoting electric cars is all very well, but Boris can take little credit for the former policy, which was launched under the previous Mayor. As for electric cars, it is not at all clear that the Mayor is in a position to lead on this, given that the vast majority of charge points will have to be on suburban roads controlled by local authorities and not on the TfL red routes where we rightly have little off-street parking. And Boris fails to explain what the source of supply for the electricity will be. Is it to be from renewable energy sources or from the sources we are already using? If the latter, then even if electic cars would reduce noise and air pollution they would contribute little to reducing our carbon emissions.
And whilst Boris is preaching to the world about London’s achievements, we should not lose sight of the fact that, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s recently published European Green City Index, we are only a middle ranking city when it comes to greenery – in 11th place, just behind Paris. That’s the reality: in the European cities league table we occupy an equivalent position to Fulham or Sunderland in the Premier League, not Chelsea or Man United. Quite honestly only the host city Copenhagen, which comes out top of the Green City Index, is entitled to go preaching to the rest of the world on what cities can do to reduce their residents’ combined carbon footprint.
While he has a look at the tables in the Green City Index and London’s position in them, Boris should also take time out to reconsider his neo-Malthusian views on population growth as a cause of potential environmental catastrophe. (“We are replicating too fast,”, he tells his Telegraph readers, “hurtling towards nine billion souls on the planet like bacteria multiplying on a Petri dish.”) While the Evening Standard has highlighted how this does not fit very well with Boris himself having four kids (which of course is a personal choice), a more fundamental criticism is that the perspective of disaster caused by rising population has been discounted on numerous occasions before in history.
As I wrote about advocates of neo-Malthusianism in an earlier post:
“What they do not want to admit is that the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less, the magic number consistent with stable population, and that it’s expected to fall below this level between 2020 and 2050. (See the recent article in the Economist.) That’s not surprising as poor countries are going through the same demographic transitions that rich ones went through, but at an earlier stage in their development and much more quickly.
“As for environmental damage, the poorest people in the world like the Bangladeshis are producing at most 0.3 tonnes of CO2 emissions per capita annually, whereas a US citizen produces 20 tonnes. So, while it’s clear that if the poor countries recreate the same consumption patterns as the US we will certainly have some problems to deal with in the future, at present that is a distant prospect. It is the environmental damage caused by the developed countries that is the immediate challenge.”
Boris’s time in Copenhagen would have been better occupied advocating that cities should be party to any agreement, given that 75 per cent of the CO2 emissions originate from cities and the human race has reach a point now that 50 per cent of it now lives in these huge urban centres. Particularly now that nation states have proved unable to agree amongst themselves on the way forward after the Kyoto agreement, Boris should be calling for cities to step into the breach. Now that would be some leadership!
December 19, 2009
Oops – another environment report fails to appear on time
Last week my office was informed that the Mayor’s draft Waste Management Strategy will not now be available for consultation till the 18th of December, when we had been expecting it to be released at the beginning of the week and it had originally been scheduled for publication back in the Summer. In this instance I’m told it’s the lawyers who have stopped the release of the document, suggesting something must have gone badly wrong for them to get involved so late in the day.
Unfortunately, this delay is par for the course with the Mayor’s environmental strategies and consultations. Boris’s Environment Direction of Travel statement was due in the Spring but was not published till July, while his draft Water Strategy which was also due in the Spring was not published till August. Boris’s draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was another publication due in the Spring but it has yet to see the light of day. His draft Air Quality Strategy was due in the Summer but was not published till October, while his Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy was due in the Autumn but has still not been published.
What does this say about the ability of the Mayor’s office to progress environmental concerns? Not much at all is the short answer, but this is perhaps to be expected from an administration that has cut its environment team from 41 posts to 24 and now relies on outside consultants to do most of the work.
As I have remarked before on this blog, no amount of charm, bluster and hot air from Boris on green issues can substitute for making an impact and a real difference to the environment. The Mayor’s credibility has already been seriously undermined here. So much for voting blue and going green.
Summary table of delays
November 23, 2009
Next page
Previous page
I was pleased to see that Monday’s Evening Standard carried a report of Boris Johnson’s decision to allow the closure of the GLA’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai, which were set up by Ken Livingstone to promote the capital’s interests in one of the developing world’s largest and fastest growing economies.