Predictably, our boy (or rather his minders) is not impressed with Ken Livingstone’s latest incoming fire:
A spokesperson for London Mayor Boris Johnson said: “The story is incorrect. As yet, no money has been returned, and no-one is being “forced” to do anything.
“Livingstone should have got his facts straight before attacking the Mayor in the media.
“The fact remains though that, under the widely derided deal, Venezuela - a very poor country, has given London - one of the world’s richest cities, some £16m of which several million has not been used.
“Boris Johnson feels that this was a morally bankrupt approach, and it would be ridiculous if unspent money was not returned. Negotiation between the parties will decide the final amount.
“The Mayor is discussing with TfL how best to ensure that low income Londoners who rely on the public transport system will continue to get the assistance they require.”
Odder and odder. We’ve remarked before on how odd it is that Boris, elected to be Mayor of London and on a platform of being fair to all and not divisive, should be so much more concerned about the finances of an immensely wealthy state owned oil company than with some of the poorest of his own constituents.
As an example of this, wikipedia has it that Venezuela produces 2.8m barrels a day, which at current prices is worth around $340m. At the beginning of last year when oil was only just over $50/barrel it was $140m per day, so the poor Venezuelans Boris feels morally obliged to help with whatever’s left in the pot are $200m a day better off than they were before the prices shot up. Obviously poor Londoners, not having vast oil reserves under their feet, have to pay the cost of higher fuel prices in their gas and electricity bills and in rising fuel prices. Thanks to Boris preferring to enrich oil companies than the lives of his constituents, of course, on top of that they’ll now have to pay more to get around on the bus, too. Then he lectures us on moral bankruptcy. What an arse.
A final thing - I bet the Tories would have been the first to condemn Livingstone’s profligacy if the cost to London had exceeded the £16m coming in, so they can’t complain that it’s actually made a profit.
Tags: 13 Comments
13 responses so far ↓
Anyone who looked at this deal in detail would be able to spot the holes in it. The income was designed to cover the cost of the concession. It did not cover the cost of the services given to the Venezuelans. It did not cover the the £975K ad budget.
The whole thing was always silly. It made Livingstone feel good that he was helping a socialist vote stealer and media censor stay in business. Everyone else just felt sick.
where exactly was this deal widely derided? At the dining tables of Notting Hiill perhaps.
BBC Radio London is running a phone in on the first 3 months of Boris’s reign. So far (well from 7am) all very pro Boris, including a conservative blogger whose name escapes me, parotting the booze ban and the more police at transport hubs.
Boris apparently on his second holiday of his first 3 months. Apparently nobody from Boris’s PR department could be bothered to call the BBC London reporter Alan back to confirm this.
Note the difference.
Phil, you do know that every time you post online you confirm that you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t you? What ‘concession’? The best detailed look I’ve seen on the deal (other than my own) is Damien Hockney, who reckoned it could cost TfL more than the money brought in if takeup was 100%. Since it was actually 30% it’s not particularly surprising that it brought in more than the cost.
As I’ve mentioned on here before, the combination of rising oil prices and rising bus mileage means the sum brought in would easily hit the cap of $32m, which is where the £16m figure comes from, which last time I looked was more than £975k. The cost of services provided to Venezuela to *us* is negligible, the value to them was in comparing it to international consultancy fees. This along with the low takeup rather explains why we apparently have £7m left over. I really can’t understand what you’re getting at - do you want it explained with easily-understood diagrams or something?
As for feeling sick, I notice your abject lack of any kind of sympathy for those of your unfortunate constituents who are going to see their bus fares double. Fine democratic representative you are, forsooth - it certainly makes me sick to think you and your cronies (with the exception of Mr. Oakley in Hillingdon, thank goodness) will be inheriting Mr. Brown’s mess in two years time. With the level of intellect and honesty displayed so far you stand a good chance of making it worse.
It’s surprising to see the GLA’s spokespeople saying this is untrue. It’s patently obvious that if you enter into a deal and then one side unilaterally reneges on their obligations the other side is going to be aggrieved. Quite right too; the real moral bankruptcy is to refuse to provide a developing country with the assistance they believed they were getting, purely for ideological reasons.
And, of course, there isn’t much moral credit in abolishing a half price fares scheme for the poorest people in London without telling them what the replacement arrangements will be.
Anyway, here is the original article that appeared in the Venezuelan press with very much the Boris Johnson spin: http://www.eluniversal.com/2008/08/03/eco_art_alcaldia-de-londres_978200.shtml
I don’t read Spanish but have had the gist of it read to me. I don’t think on that basis that the GLA have got much of a case to say that Livingstone’s comments are wrong.
Most of the article in the Veneuelan press, mentioned in Comment 5, is about how the journalist couldn’t get much information from Matt Brown about why the deal was cancelled.
Ah, the sweet smell of openness and transparency.
It’s still unclear to me whether Boris’ complaint about the deal was that London was robbing Venezuela or that Venezuela was robbing London. I get the impression, though, that the Venezuelans would rather receive the advice about congestion and air pollution than get back 7 million pounds.
Do you know what’s really tragic about all this? It’s the spectacle of Ken Leninspart sitting in the gallery at City Hall like the ghost of Miss Haversham. All his dewy-eyed, fawning acolytes desperately trying to shore up his ego as if he’s been done some great injustice by being democratically voted out of office adds a certain frison to the tragicomedy. Excellent stuff!
I hope he’s paying you guys for keeping his dream alive?
Could you kindly keep your off-topic comments off this blog, mate? This is about *Boris Johnson*, in case you’d forgotten who was Mayor. I know letting go is hard (just ask Phil Taylor), but try and make the effort for the sake of the rest of us, there’s a good chap.
Tom: “I know letting go is hard”
Try telling Ken that!
I would if a) I knew him and b) I wasn’t spending my time more usefully trying to hold the current incumbent to account.
Tell you what, why don’t you, since you’ve evidently got time on your hands and have very little to contribute here? Best of luck, let us know how you get on.
“since you’ve evidently got time on your hands”
Speak for yourself, Tom. This blog - QED