Downing Street hints it will make Boris's life difficult - report
In the final paragraph of a story in the Observer: The government is considering whether to impose greater scrutiny of a Johnson administration on critical issues such as the Crossrail project or the Olympics budget. It is unlikely to claw back powers already devolved to the mayor but while Downing Street was content to allow Livingstone to get on with big budget projects there is greater nervousness about allowing Johnson free rein.
Sour grapes?
Now wouldn't that be typical of a Labour administration? Not only is Gordon afraid to accept the will of the people and call a general election, but he also won't accept the mandate given to Mr Johnson by the people of London. I'm not sure the Labour relaunch (Mark 4) will go very well once the Evening Standard and co. get their teeth stuck into this!
Posted by: Chris Blore | 3 May 2008 23:28:16
Well isn't that just typical NuLabour!
If you can't beat him by fair means.........use foul!
I really don't think we can afford to wait two years to get this bunch of crooks out of government.
Revolution anyone?
Posted by: Silent Hunter | 3 May 2008 23:28:55
Well isn't that just typical NuLabour!
If you can't beat him by fair means.........use foul!
I really don't think we can afford to wait two years to get this bunch of crooks out of government.
Revolution anyone?
Posted by: Silent Hunter | 3 May 2008 23:29:53
I think perhaps it is best to let Boris' buffoonery mess up London. I don't have any ill will to Londoners, but having been born in London (and moved since), i say that because they voted for a joke, they should at least get one without Number 10 putting on damage limitation measures.
Posted by: Hadleigh Roberts | 4 May 2008 00:34:32
So.... Mr Hadleigh Roberts, ....presumably you DON'T see the present incumbent of No10 as a complete joke.
What a shame you can't share the joke that the rest of the electorate are having at your expense.
:O)
Posted by: Silent Hunter | 4 May 2008 00:46:39
So.... Mr Hadleigh Roberts, ....presumably you DON'T see the present incumbent of No10 as a complete joke.
What a shame you can't share the joke that the rest of the electorate are having at your expense.
:O)
Posted by: Silent Hunter | 4 May 2008 00:47:39
The rats are deserting the sinking ship of Johnson's mayoralty already. See Bruce Anderson's article in the Indie today (May 5).
Posted by: Bob | 5 May 2008 10:31:46
Good for you, Chris Blore, supporting democracy. And who, pray, elected the Evening Standard and gave it the right to run a months long campaign for Johnson using free advertising space outside every tube station?
Posted by: Ben | 5 May 2008 11:00:15
Ben, let's not be too silly, eh. It's a newspaper, innit? They can print bleeding anything they like - same as the Sun, the Mirror etc.
Nobody 'elects' newspapers, and the public can buy them or reject them, can't they?
More importantly, Livingstone was elected and then chose to spend our cash on his own publicity newspaper, distributed free (i.e. at my expense) all over London. I take that as being gross misuse of public monies.
At least newspapers are not paid for by the taxpayers - yet. Although if NuLab has its way that day is rapidly approaching, together with nationalisation of all media.
Posted by: Chuck Unsworth | 5 May 2008 16:21:02
Chuck, I'm talking about abuse of journalism. It's not the role of newspapers to run political campaigns. You think that it's right for billionaire news proprietors to control political agendas for the rest of us?
Posted by: Ben | 5 May 2008 18:59:38
@Bob
Iain Dale added some context to Mr Anderson's article, it seems he was sacked from his post at The Spectator by Mr Johnson.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/05/journalistic-sour-grapes-no-94-bruce.html
Posted by: Dave B | 6 May 2008 08:17:17
Ben,
What garbage. 'Abuse of Journalism'? What on Earth are you on about? 'Journalism' has some sort of 'codes' or 'moral standards' does it?
Newspapers do not 'run' political campaigns. They might support them, but so what?
And you seriously believe that 'billionaire news proprietors' 'control political agendas for the rest of us'? So your powers of rational thought and deduction are completely controlled by such people? Well, in your case that is probably so.
Your argument is base. The assumptions you make about the voting public are naive and grossly insulting. This is democracy, with all of its strengths and weaknesses. Nobody, but nobody, forces me, you, or anyone else to buy a newspaper or to slavishly agree with its content. And nobody forces me to put my X on the ballot paper, either.
Posted by: Chuck Unsworth | 6 May 2008 10:12:00
Chuck, calm down. If advertising and media control of the news agenda had no effect, why are people so worried about Berlusconi controlling Italian media outlets? Why do people worry about excessive spending by parties (eg in the US and here) on political advertising? The Swift Boat smears did have an effect on people's judgment.
The Evening Standard broke journalism's ethics (1) by putting political "support" on its front page where the news should be, instead of on the comments page, and (2) by abusing its control of the news-stands outside every Tube station, thereby getting free political advertising ("Livingstone a crook - claim denied"). Just because it's not breaking any law doesn't mean it's ethical.
Posted by: Ben | 6 May 2008 11:49:45
Ben,
Calm down? Listen, sunshine, I'm extremely calm, but you are seriously deluded if you think there is any 'code of ethics' in 'journalism'. Where are these 'ethics' enshrined? Where is this ethical code which says that it is wrong to put political 'support' on the front page of a newspaper which should be devoted to news? And for that matter, would you care to define 'news'?
As to 'abusing its control' - nonsense. It's a news-stand, that's all. Perhaps you also believe that there is (or should be) a code of ethics which covers the location and use of news-stands?
When newspapers or broadcasters run any campaign they're subject to the same laws on publishing and commerce as anyone else. For you to aver that newspapers etc should somehow be answerable to sort of a higher code of 'ethics', behaviour or law is preposterous.
Ethics, eh? Who will set these ethical standards? Since when did any form of free speech involve ethics? Maybe you'd like to see yet further controls imposed on the written and spoken word - by whom, exactly, and by what right? The State?
You want ethics? Try somewhere else.
Posted by: Chuck Unsworth | 6 May 2008 12:39:34