Bojo is planning to reduce his press office from 73 to 50 and cut London’s advertising budget by £2 million.
This is actually a good idea. As well-done as a lot of Ken’s ad campaigns were, it’s rather hard to defend the cost. Another £2 million freed up for other, more important, projects sounds like a good deal. (We shall leave the question of what these more important projects may be for another time).
However, before we start toasting our blond bombshell too much, it’s worth noting that London-specific public-health campaigns also come under this advertising budget. Let’s hope that these more worthwhile endeavors don’t suffer the same fate as those that deserve to be cut.
After all, in this article about the planned spending cuts we are also told:
The mayor plans to get the message across with new posters to be unveiled advising passengers of the no-alcohol policy across the transport network including the underground and at bus stops.
Those posters have got to come from somewhere, Boris. Make that money count.
13 responses so far ↓
Simple. Just a red circle with some bottles and cans in and a line through it, and a notification of the fine and all the other legally-required guff underneath. Stick it next to the no smoking signs.
Why such measures have to be paraded with glossy posters at extortionate cost I do not know.
“Let’s hope that these more worthwhile endeavors don’t suffer the same fate as those that deserve to be cut.”
Yes, lets hope so Martha. As far as I’m aware there is no suggestion that they will - but I take your point, we’ll just have to wait and see.
And I share your delight at the fact that the mayor is reducing the burden of his Press Office to the tax payer. Good, isn’t it? I admire your sense of balance.
Public health campaigns are worthwhile endeavours? You could have fooled me.
Of course the press office can be reduced.
BoJo has got the Evening Standard working for him not against him.
He wont need such a large press office to get his points across.
Ken needed the Londoner to publicize his works without constant sniping, BoJo has the ES & Metro to do the job for him.
Kirth,
“Ken needed the Londoner to publicize his works without constant sniping” - the Londoner was paid for by the taxpayer - very much like Pravda.
If Ken wanted sympathetic press from London’s leading daily newspaper then perhaps he shouldn’t get drunk and compare Jewish journalists to Nazi concentration camp guards, and then refuse to apologise. Just an idea. The arrogance of the man is astonishing. In the real world the media is there to hold politicians to account. Ken didn’t like being held to account, so he just set up his own media outlet, which WE paid for! And you can’t see anything wrong with that?. Go and have a long hard look at yourself , Kirth….
“If Ken wanted sympathetic press from London’s leading daily newspaper then perhaps he shouldn’t get drunk and compare Jewish journalists to Nazi concentration camp guards, and then refuse to apologise.”
You’re right, in that it was appallingly insensitive from Ken, and he should have apologised immediately. We could, however, speak about Boris’s use of the term ‘picaninny’ and his long record of casual homophobia.
“We could, however, speak about Boris’ use of the term ‘picaninny’ and his long record of casual homophobia.”
Please do, BenSix…but I’m not sure how far it will get you. Just because he ‘might’ have used an offensive word doesn’t make him a racist, no matter how much you might insist it does, nor is there any ‘real’ evidence to suggest he’s a homophobe, is there? We don’t all live in a hypersensitive PC bubble BenSix. It’s a typical left-wing ad hominem attack, which proved both without foundation nor was it in any way effective.
Now, as for Ken - he’s demonstrably an unreconstructed anti-Semite. The evidence for this are his comments to the Standard reporter Oliver Finegold and also by his invitation and willingness to share a platform with Muslim fundamentalist Al-Qaradawi who makes no secret of his desire to destroy that state of Israel and his er….rampant homophobia. Didn’t he want all homosexuals crushed to death or something? What a lovely chap he was. They say you can judge a man by his friends, don’t they?
Will H,
It’s not an ad hominem, as I can substantiate it. Not only did Boris support Section 28, but he wrote, in the Spectator, of ‘Labour’s appalling agenda, encouraging the teaching of homosexuality in schools, and all the rest of it.’ Only two years ago, in The Telegraph, he wrote that “Gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing”. I called it ‘casual homophobia’ because I don’t think that Boris is actively bigoted, but that he hasn’t addressed a relatively quiescent prejudice.
Having said that, I do agree with you that the invitation to Al-Qaradawi was an incredibly offensive and insensitive act, and one that - while not actually proving Ken Livingstone to be an anti-semite - certainly showed a dreadful flippancy with regards to prejudice.
BenSix,
I think one could quite reasonably argue that simply because someone disapproves of gay marriage and does not want to encourage the teaching of homosexuality in schools that he is a homophobe. Far from it. It might be useful to the left to interpret it as such, but it certainly does not prove the case one way or another. You are perfectly within your rights to call him a ‘casual homophobe’ but I think that casually throwing around slurs such as that is not only not very meaningful, but also illustrates the impoverished nature of the debate and the paucity of the opposition. Or, to put it another way, if you want to attack Boris Johnson, you’ve got to come up with something a lot more substantial than that.
Will H,
Section 28 did not merely attack the ‘teaching’ of homosexuality in schools; homosexuality was never ‘taught’. Rather, it decreed that an educatory body “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. This is a homophobic piece of legislation, which shows a clear antipathy towards homosexuality. Therefore all of it’s supporters have practised casual homophobia.
Boris’s view that homosexual marriage is a ‘ludicrous parody of the real thing’ can be corroborated by his statement that ‘ we don’t want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage’. Later, he wondered why ‘did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?’. This shows a clear contempt for homosexual relationships
The argument is also, however much you attack the ‘impoverished’ debate, very relevant to Boris’s current position. Just as Ken’s invitation to Al-Qaradawi was an insult to the Jewish community of London, Boris’s statements are an insult to the homosexual citizenry. I consider it deeply sad that the only reasonable candidates were so very devisive to minority communities.
BenSix,
I did not support, nor did I want my MP to vote for section 28. I also do not agree with gay marriage. I believe there are very legitimate and reasonable reasons to oppose these two measures. Am I a homophobe?
Now, I know that I’m not. But I also know that I leave myself open to accusations that I am by people with a very narrow, deliberately simplistic and intolerant point of view. Just because you, or anybody else decide that it is justified to infer from these two statements that I am homophobic does not make it more or less true, because, luckily, neither you, nor Peter Tatchell are the authorities on what is and what isn’t homophobic. Sorry about that. You are of course entitled to your opinion. It might be politically expedient to call me homophobic. It, however, doesn’t make it right. I am a conservative. I have a conservative point of view. If you choose to interpret that as homophobic, so be it. But it is surely some sort of tyranny to brand someone with a different point of view to yours with these sorts of derogatory epithets (not that I care either way). I want to see controlled immigration. Am I also a racist?
Will H,
I don’t for a moment believe that calling homosexual priests ‘poofs’ and homosexual relationships ‘ludicrous parodies of the real thing’ is the legitimate expression of a political opinion. The phrasing of his opinions - and the entirety of section 28 - show an antipathy towards homosexuality, which - although entirely his opinion to hold - is extremely devisive. That is not simplistic, it is an observation with regards to stated principles and the semantics of opinions. I see, however, that we shall have to agree to disagree.
“But it is surely some sort of tyranny to brand someone with a different point of view to yours with these sorts of derogatory epithets (not that I care either way).”
I would add that you have already called Ken Livingstone an ‘unreconstructed anti-semite’. Though I believe Mr Livingstone to be a man who is often extremely insensitive and shows offensive flippancy with regards to bigotry, I see that this use of the term could also be seen as ‘politically expedient’.