Boris: the u-turns and cronyism begins
According to the Sunday Times today:
At least two ideas mooted by Johnson during his campaign have been squashed by his rigorous new policymen. A proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants who are “established” in London has been quietly dropped.
Johnson also talked of axing various “embassies” City Hall has sprouted in China, India and Brussels. Some may be closed, but most will simply be incorporated into existing UK government offices in foreign cities.
How f*cking unsurprising. He stood in front of an audience only last month and said he supported an amnesty in London for long-established illegal migrants. The Tories, who would hate the idea of more brown people voting in London, have forced him to drop the idea. I wonder what other pledges Boris the buffoon will do a u-turn over.
Oh, and for all the talk about cronyism, isn’t it funny his team is entirely populated by Tory councillors and friends from the thinktank Policy Exchange. The same think-tank that promised to sue the BBC because they had one of their ‘investigations’ blown wide apart… and err, has yet to do so.
Does Boris actually have the power to grant an amnesty?
There is a difference between employing friends for your mayoral team and funneling taxpayers’ money to projects run by friends. And what Bishop Hill said about the amnesty.
He may have supported it, but did he actually say he would do it? Unlikely given his powers.
You’ll have to make your new lab spin a deal less transparent than that sunny boy…
Mind you, Sunny’s point about the “embassies” is fair enough. Get rid of them.
“Politicians says any old shite to get elected shocker!”
…
Personally I am not surprised and I don’t blame him at all; I blame those gullibles who voted for him. The guy doesn’t even know what’s like to be an illegal immigant in this country.
“The guy doesn’t even know what’s like to be an illegal immigant in this country.”
Well, no! I don’t suppose Ken L did either though.
Supporting an amnesty and actually being able to implement it are two different things - though whether that was made clear to the voters is another question. The more interesting one will be whether he can make getting rid of bendy-buses stick.
Rumbold - Boris (or to be more accurate, his campaign team) ran a campaign that was, in large part negative. That utterly ridiculous term ‘cronyism’ was a part of that negative campaigning. If he wants to use such a media friendly yet vacuous attack he can have no complaints when it jumps up and bites him. I suspect that Johnson knows that.
Then again, Ken Livingstone still hasn’t sued Andrew Gilligan for anything that he wrote about him and Jasper.
And if I remember correctly, Boris Johnson never made an amnesty part of his policy list - he just said he supported it, like Ken and Brian.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
It’s all a vast right wing conspiracy! Well, it’ll give something you chaps can constantly rant about, at least till Cameron’s in office
Anyway, the cronyism was related to giving tax payers money to friends and lovers. I don’t remember you complaining that Ken had 80 of his closest friends working for him. In fact you were urging everyone to vote for him, so you surely can’t have a genuine problem with this.
“The Tories, who would hate the idea of more brown people voting in London”
Hahaha. Yes, I’m sure. Shame then, that Bromley & Bexley voted in a Brown Tory candidate.
Oh and look at Labours’ new BNP style tactics
There was absolutely no fear in Ken’s campaigners that people in the suburbs (yes, many hideously white) would vote against Ken. Because it wasn’t as if Ken was concentrating on solely getting the vote of ethnic minorities in the inner city, and neglecting the suburbs, or anything!
Letters From A Tory -
I would strongly expect that the London Evening Standard’s legal team took a very, very close look at every word that Gilligan and the rest of their hacks wrote about Livingstone. Certainly I don’t expect that there will be litigation.
Just because it is legal however does not mean that the LES’ coverage as a whole and Gilligan’s in particular did not leave a bad taste in the mouth or was ‘a good thing.’
In fact you were urging everyone to vote for him, so you surely can’t have a genuine problem with this.
I urged people to vote for Ken because he was better than Boris, not because I approve of cronyism more than you do.
So if people complained about Ken’s cronyism (incl me by the way!) then its surely right to complain about Boris’s cronyism?
There is a difference between employing friends for your mayoral team and funneling taxpayers’ money to projects run by friends
Well, no not really. The problem only occurs when what you’re funding is illegal or goes against your policy objectives/goals. Has it been proven this was the case with Ken?
And it doesn’t worry you that a supposedly independent think-tank, who’s reputation is in tatters, is so close to a Mayor? Suppose Policy Exchange gets some work from the Mayor’s office. What would you call that then?
Bit of a slippery slope you got there mate.
Leon and Sunny:
A good comparison is with an American president. The president is free to appoint people to his executive team (e.g. Miss Rice), but cannot divert taxpayers’ money to projects run by their friends. Boris has a staffing allowance, and is free to use that to appoint who he thinks will be the best people for the job. As long as he does not use the general budget to fund his friends, I don’t see anything wrong with that.
If Londoners’ money was used to fund Policy exchange studies (more than other think tanks), then I would have a problem with that; I would call it corruption.
I tend to agree with Rumbold on this, except to say that I don’t think Londoners’ money should go to any think tanks. It’s for political parties to spend their own cash on coming up with ideas.
Rumbold, yep your answer is strongly enhancing my instincts on this that it’s all going to end in tears…but hey ho that years away so let’s not quibble over speculative details.