Well, what a welcome surprise. Boris is keeping Evil Old Ken’s foreign ‘embassies’ open, except for Caracas and Moscow, which would upset the neocons, or something. Perhaps some of the criticism over his inward looking Little Englander pose is getting home?
More at Mayorwatch.
[Later - Red Boris Helps The Feckless Unemployed Travel On The Buses - two cheers for this one as well]
Update [via ToryTroll]: ConservativeHome aren’t taking it too well.
Tags: 5 Comments
5 responses so far ↓
This issue is no small one as it symblises perfectly the backwardness of the Johnson administration. Johnson himself went on the Nick Ferrari programme to pledge these offics would be closed. The first point on the election addresses of Tory candidates for the London Assembly was a pledge to close down London’s representtive offices abroad. They were asuredly labelled ‘embassies’, when they are small offices, precisely to appeal to the most backward.and ignorant sentiments.
The review of the offices now finds the resons for opening them are ‘fundamentally sound’ and that ‘the GLAs offices do play an important role in promoting Londons interests, from supporting the capitals businesses and to enhancing the image of our city around the world.’
I deat with this on my blog on London last November as follows and the comment remains entirely valid:
‘Few things illustrate Boris Johnson’s administration’s failure to understand the modern world, and therefore its incompetence, more completely than the saga of London’s offices set up to represent and promote the city in India and China – the world’s most rapidly growing giant new economies. It is an issue thrown into particularly graphic light by the current world financial crisis.
‘During the Mayoral election campaign Boris Johnson, and Tory candidates, did everything possible to present it is as ridiculous for London to maintain offices to promote the cty abroad – Think London, the city’s inward investment agency, which is funded by the London Development Agency, also has offices in the US.
‘Boris Johnson and Tory candidates frequently attempted to exploit the most backward looking sentiments regarding these – often making attacks on them the first point in their campaign literature.
‘Thus for example Richard Tracey, Tory candidate for Merton and Wandsworth, announced in his election leaflet to electors: ‘Local Conservatives are campaigning to remove the extravagances such as Ken Livingstone’s “foreign embassies”. Matthew Laban, Tory candidate in Enfield and Haringey, in his address to constituents, attacked that ‘our money has been spent opening embassies in other countries.
‘Boris Johnson himself took the same position. Taking the Nick Ferarri show on Wednesday 12th December 2007, Ferarri asked: ‘And would you continue bureaus in Venezuela, Delhi, Beijing and everywhere else? Yes or no. Boris Johnson: “No.”
‘This pledge was strongly attacked by leaders of Londons businesses, who understood the importance of these decisive new markets overseas – for example at the Mayoral London business hustings on 26 March.
‘Boris Johnson, worrying about such business criticism, therefore scrapped his previous pledge to close the offices and announced to the Evening Standard the same day that he would ‘review them. Then on 14 April he announced in his business manifesto today that ‘we fully endorse the representation of London overseas (p13). In other words a complete U-turn.
‘That, however, as has already point out above, did not stop Tory candidates across London campaigning against Londons representative offices. There was, in short, a complete shambles.
‘And what is revealed by the present international financial crisis, of course? That the two economies in the world which will be most relatively strengthened by it, because they are continuing to grow most rapidly through the crisis, are China and India – the places where Boris Johnson pledged to close down London’s representation. A truly brilliant move that would have been. And of course his administration would never have opened them in the first place.
‘It is said that the difference between a statesman and a politician is that a statesman leads the country and a politician follows it. Ken Livingstone will be remembered as a great Mayor of London because he led the city to face key challenges that confronted it at the beginning of the 21st century – just as, in a different way, he redefined politics in London by facing the different challenges it confronted twenty years previously when he was leader of the GLC. Boris Johnson’s administration, as shown vividly by its opposition to London’s offices abroad, and its use of the most ignorant sentiments to attack them, has no understanding of the the most important challenges that face London at the beginning of the 21st century.’
Reality has hit Johnson’s administration over the head and forced it not to close the offices – except they would never have set them up in the first place, leaving London unrepresented in the world’s most rapidly growing large markets.
To make explicit my interest, as Director of Economic and Business Policy under Ken Livingstone I was responsible for the policy of opening London’s offices abroad.
Do I detect a note of smug in that, John? There’s a lot more around this, particularly the now abundantly evident conflict between traditional Tory business-friendly principles and the radical bastard-son-of-Maggie’s-Militant-Tendency who prefer satiating their own ideological prejudices and neuroses over instituting realistic, sensible policies. One can almost approve of the old-school business-friendly Tory, since you can at least see the point. What’s the *point* of the drivel that lead to the bendy jihad, the Russian Winter Festival withdrawal (upset over Georgia?) and the ‘Kenbassies’ saga?
It was never, fundamentally, about the money – just look at the ConHome comments thread. They think it’s a plot from Brussels, like everything else.
Tom,
No its not smug. It is a question of making sure the electors know that the test of events showed Johnson’s administration to be persistently wrong on this and many other matters.
The way in which Boris Johnson’s campaign attempted to appeal to the most backward and ignorant sentiments, as shown in labeling what are really small offices ‘embassies’, is also symptomatic of its character – an inability to understand the modern world. The only ‘feeling’ I have is sadness that London should be dragged down for four years by such an administration and that income and jobs should be damaged as a result.
The only ‘feeling’ I have is about the damage which the Johnson administration
OK, I withdraw smug, although you’d be entitled to a bit of a pat on the back for, effectively, getting Boris to dance to your tune. You sandal-wearing socialists aren’t supposed to enact sensible policies that helps British business, you know. No wonder Boris is confused.
The next step is, like with the Bendy Jihad, to go back and dig out where this came from, and expose whoever put it in Boris’s manifesto for the berks they are. If the answer doesn’t, at some point, contain or relate to the words ‘Policy’ and ‘Exchange’ I’ll eat a snotty tissue.
It’s natural to jump all over Boris for going back on a manifesto pledge when he’s realised that the pledge wasn’t sound – however perhaps we should at least be grateful for the pragmatism?
It’s just a shame that the pragmatism doesn’t extend to bendies…