Boris uses the bully pulpit

All hail Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London. He has used his weekly column in The Daily Telegraph to highlight the shambles of Gatwick Airport - even going so far as to publish the address of the snivelling pillock who is responsible for the baggage handling "process" (if it can be given such a grand title). 

Perhaps he could now go on to use the power of the bully pulpit to highlight the ineptitude of BAA's monopolistic control and neanderthal practices at Heathrow too? Both airports are a grotesque embarrassment to Britain. If BoJo can sort out the mess, he will have a considerable number of very grateful people indeed.

First Lit, now Lewis

The resignation of Ray Lewis highlights the problem facing the Tories: when the Tories try to play identity politics, they get bitten. Tony Lit, Helen Grant and now Ray Lewis.

The key question is surely this: how on earth did nobody look into Ray Lewis' background before he was appointed as Deputy Mayor of London?

One of the courses that I teach at the Young Britons' Foundation focuses on the art of Opposition Research. Students are taught that the first piece of research that is undertaken is on your own candidate - not on your opponent. So why did those advising Boris Johnson not do their jobs properly? It's a basic first step and it wasn't done. Thanks a lot, someone, for making us all look stupid - yet again. Needless to say we won't ever find out whose cock-up this was.

Thanks for nothing, Boris

Less than 8 weeks - that's all it's taken for the Mayor of London to disappoint the thousands of activists who campaigned for him and the millions of Londoners who voted for him. Conservative Home and Iain Dale both report on the craven appeasement exhibited by Boris Johnson to the race lobby in the way that he's chosen to treat James McGrath. Responding to typically provocative comments from Darcus Howe in which he said that Johnson's victory "might just trigger off a mass exodus of olden Caribbean migrants back to our homelands", McGrath was reported to have replied: "Well, let them go if they don't like it here". McGrath resigned (or, "resigned", as it should be reported) to save Boris from embarrassment.

For how much longer are we going to allow the left to shut down debate by accusing anyone who disagrees with their warped worldview of being a racist, homophobe or discriminatory bigot? The tactics they adopt (as brilliantly argued by Jonah Goldberg in his new book, Liberal Fascism) are precisely the same tactics adopted by totalitarians in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy: denigrate your opponents and close down debate.

I'm not sure I even see what's so wrong with McGrath's response anyway. If immigrants who chose to move to Britain don't like here then they are indeed free to leave - former Labour MP Bernie Grant shared Enoch Powell's view that they should even be incentivised to leave by having their airfares paid for them but I don't remember Grant being decried as a racist. If someone chooses to make Britain their home, they should integrate into British society - not live in a cultural ghetto or seek to impose their values on the host community. If they subsequently decide they don't like it here, it is surely simply a statement of fact that they are free to leave? My mother, who emigrated to Britain from Ireland in the 1960s, chose to return to Ireland in the 1990s, decided she didn't like it back there and return back to Britain within 2 years.

No doubt my stalkers and those who have legitimate differences of opinion with me will be quick to cry "Fulham Homes for Fulham People" at me - a reference to a leaflet put out in my ward when I was a councillor and which resulted in a politically-motivated complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality by left-wing housing officers at the Town Hall. Simply shouting "racist" is enough in the eyes of left-wingers to determine that the accused is, in fact, a card-carrying Klansman. In my case, of course, The Guardian fails to report (a) that the leaflet was pre-approved before publication by the local Conservative Association; (b) that it was published and delivered without my prior knowledge; (c) that one of the families we were struggling to rehouse was actually black; or (d) that the CRE found no case to answer. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a smear. The complaint to the CRE - and the report of the story in The Guardian - had the desired effect both at the time (1999) and since then. For whenever I dare to discuss issues of race, immigration, political correctness, Islamism or the need to move away from the cultural apartheid of multiculturalism, you can pretty much guarantee that a leftist will prove my point for me, cite "Fulham Homes" as proof of my supposed racism and demand that I be treated as a pariah and my views ignored.*

Boris Johnson has done us all a grave disservice. He had the chance - only 8 weeks into a 4 year term - to stand up to leftist bullies who are waging the culture war with a ferocity that would make a Blitzkrieg commander blush. He showed that he is too weak to do so. He should not be surprised if conservatives who feel badly let down fail to come to his aid when he next finds himself in trouble.

UPDATE: When I was National Chairman of Conservative Future, I did a live interview on BBC Radio 4 with Anna Ford on Today. She asked me a question along the lines of "well, isn't the problem with young conservatives that you're all racists?" or some such similar question. My response was: "what a stupid question" and then to return to my message. Don't you hate the BBC?

* Come on leftists: that's your cue to launch a coordinated attack on me. Don't disappoint me now!

The Wall Street Journal loves Boris

More pro-Boris coverage - this time from the Wall Street Journal!

Hat Tip: Bill McCarthy.

Winning elections is not enough

Winning elections is not all that matters.

That may sound like a strange statement from someone who is, as most Tories are, salivating at the prospect of winning a general election for the first time since 1992. But victory alone is not enough.

This is not a plea for us to dispense with a "win-at-all-costs strategy" (not that I believe, I hasten to add, that we are saddled with such an unprincipled strategy - I am more than happy with the current direction of the Party's leadership, especially since last October's Party Conference).

It is, however, a plea for us to remember that governing is campaigning by another means. When we take power - be it in local government, at London City Hall or in Whitehall - we need to remember to campaign forcefully for the manifestos on which we were elected and to position ourselves for re-election from day one.

The stunning victory of Boris Johnson has been followed by some truly superb early decisions ranging from the easy (cancelling subscriptions to left-wing rags and dropping The Londoner newspaper) to the understandably gimmicky (banning drinking on tube trains) to the declaratory (ditching Livingstone's outrageous oil deal with Venezuela). Livingstone has whined about Boris' decision but at the moment there is little appetite among voters or the media to listen to what Red Ken says. At the moment.

In a few short weeks or months, however, the media - manipulated by left-wing pressure groups, activists and self-styled community leaders - will begin to aggressively question Boris' decision-making and leadership. Conservatives must not rest on their laurels, comfortable in the knowledge that Boris is in place until May 2012. It is imperative that ordinary activists, party officers and councillors throughout London vocally support Boris and complement what he is doing as Mayor at local level. Just as Tory councils throughout Britain are a beacon as to what a Cameron-led government will be (or at least should be - too many Tory councils are barely conservative at all), so the same applies with knobs on in the case of Boris as Mayor of London.

We need to keep our eyes on the ball. Just because Labour nationally is imploding we must not be foolish enough to think that the liberal-left coalition that has dominated society since the 1960s is going to give up and implode that easily too.

Is Boris right?

The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has announced that the consumption of alcohol on tubes or buses is to be prohibited. The Home Secretary plans to make this law nationwide. But is it really enforceable?

What if I want to drink lemonade shandy (I don't, the stuff is foul, but you see my point)? Or grape juice? Or Ribena? Or alcohol-free lager? Will an eagle-eyed tube employee come over and sup from my cup to check what I am drinking?

What if I am carrying a hip-flask? Or, as was the trick at school, I poured some booze into an innocuous looking can of Coke?

I know what Boris and the Home Secretary are trying to do and they should be applauded for recognising the curse of anti-social behaviour. I cannot particularly see why anyone needs to drink booze on a tube or bus. But on a long train journey I have been known to enjoy some wine or a cold beer - and now that pleasure is set to be banned. Is it really necessary to use the sledgehammer of an outright ban to crack the nut of anti-social behaviour by a handful of tramps and drunks?

UPDATE (9.50AM): Sam Leith has an interesting angle on this in today's Daily Telegraph.

From Red Ken to Dead Ken

Just in case you were feeling sorry for him:

Accountability at City Hall

Boris has a number of policy commitments to enact in his first 100 days. To do so, he needs to remove Ken cronies and appoint an executive team that he can trust. One of the many criticisms of Livingstone's eight year tenure at City Hall was that he ran it like a fiefdom. Boris needs to show, from the outset, that his tenure will be a shining example of accountability and transparency - a model that will then, hopefully, be followed by Tory councils throughout the country and, in two years, by David Cameron when he becomes Prime Minister.

Boris ought to consider adopting the US system of Senate-style approvals of executive appointments. The GLA should have the power to block an appointment if, say, 2/3 of its members object. This would ensure that we are never again saddled with a Lee Jasper.

The advantage of such a system is that it will ensure that the GLA works more effectively and holds the mayor to account. It is also the kind of power that a reformed House of Lords ought to have - reviewing appointments to quangos and other executive non-ministerial appointments. Yes there is a risk that the GLA might vote no to a Boris appointment. But equally a future GLA might vote no to a left-wing mayor's appointments too - for once this reform is enacted, no future mayor will surely be able to remove this power.

The London Mayoral Debate: My Verdict

I've just watched the Sky News London Mayoral debate: very unedifying television. Why can we not have debates of the quality of the US primary debates that we have seen involving up to ten candidates. In those debates, candidates actually answered questions, exhibited humour, delivered their remarks clearly and managed to come across engagingly to voters. 

In contrast, the debate on Sky News just now sums up quite how weak our political system is - not to mention how badly produced the programme was (roaming boom microphones taking too long to reach questioners - in contrast to the efficient production values of Question Time, for example). 

Naturally I dearly want Boris Johnson to remove Ken Livingstone from City Hall. Livingstone is a thoroughly unpleasant, venal and dangerous tribalist who delights in dividing Londoners along racial and religious lines. But I cannot help but think that whereas Boris could and should have used tonight's debate (and, from what I understand, previous debates) to win over more and more voters through his force of personality, humour and intellect, he didn't capitalise adequately on the opportunities presented to him. It was as if he was unprepared, which I cannot for a moment believe. 

Debates of this ilk are very valuable indeed in US politics. Voters are brought up on them taking place in races ranging from the class president in the 4th grade to the President of the United States. Perhaps if more kids learned the art of debating in school - and if voters could be persuaded to engage more in the democratic process in Britain - we might have higher quality debates between stronger candidates at all levels of government. Or is this just a pipe dream?

They don't like it up 'em!

I have never met Alex Hilton. He is the "brains" behind Labour Home (he must be a creative genius to have come up with such a clever name for a blog). Despite never having met him, he hates my guts - not that I particularly mind that. I've been provoking leftists for some 20 years now and I have no intention of stopping. 

On Labour Home today, Hilton previews his appearance alongside the suave Iain Dale on Sky News tonight. In his biting piece of satire, he refers to Andrew Gilligan as "that Tory spokesman". Riiiiiight. Just because Gilligan has exposed Red Ken as being a bully, a coward, a profligate waster of taxpayers' money, a man who gives succour to homophobes and Islamists, a drinker and and an adulterer - just because of Gilligan's exposure of all of that, that makes him a Tory spokesman, does it?

As they said in Dad's Army - "they don't like it up 'em". In fact, given that a catchphrase from Dad's Army was "don't panic, don't panic" that probably ought to be required viewing for Labour activists, candidates and MPs right now.

Lecherous Livingstone wrong again

Bed Ken has attacked Boris, despite also calling him "formidable". He attacked his mayoral credentials saying:

"The only real thing he's ever managed is a small right-wing magazine where the most difficult decision was where to take the staff for lunch."

This is, of course, nonsense. Lunches were always hosted on the top floor of The Spectator's Doughty Street premises in a delightful dining room. 

Boris and the BNP

Conservative Home reports that the BNP has told its London supporters to vote for Boris Johnson as their second preference. In response Boris has made it clear he has no desire to receive a single second preference vote from a BNP supporter whatsoever.

As libertarians, neither Boris nor I have anything in common with the authoritarian BNP. I share his revulsion at what the BNP stands for and the way in which it operates.

But I wonder whether by drawing attention to the BNP's call for its supporters to give him their second preferences he has made the right decision.

Who, after all, would have noticed what some knuckle-dragging neanderthal in the BNP said were it not for it being publicised by Boris?

I cannot help but feel that mainstream politicians make a huge mistake by demonizing the BNP in this way. The Labour MPs for Barking & Dagenham made this mistake last year. By demonizing the BNP, this party of thugs and misfits is given credibility in the eyes of those who feel victimized by capitalism, immigration and society generally. It would be far better if the mainstream parties pre-empted the BNP and addressed the concerns of their supporters where such concerns can sensibly be addressed.

Ignoring voters' concerns breeds extremism - be it on the authoritarian right with the BNP or the authoritarian left with Respect. Indeed the authoritarian left's London poster boy, Ken Livingstone, has played on the resentment and victimhood status of many Londoners for much of the past 25 years and it is the reason he won in 2000 and 2004.

I therefore cannot help but feel that it would have been better had Boris ignored the BNP's encouragement for its voters to vote for Boris as their second preference. Even if Livingstone had tried to insinuate that the BNP's "endorsement" somehow proved Boris was a racist, that absurd slur wouldn't have stuck. It didn't stick last year and it won't stick now.

But once again, the odious BNP has managed to get itself talked about and demonized in a way that will only aid it to get more support on May 1st.

Endorsing Red Ken

Moving on from the oh-so powerful list of race-baiters who announced their endorsement of Ken Livingstone, we now see a new list of Livingstone supporters - except that this time it isn't particularly impressive at all.

The idea that this alcohol-dependent divisive figure should be re-elected as Mayor is absurd. He has had his time and it is time for a change. While Boris Johnson may not be perfect, he'd be a damn slight better as Mayor of London than Ken Livingstone.

Brian Paddick: Talentless & Desperate

The sight of Brian Paddick, famous only for being a gay policeman and downgrading cannabis on his patch, at a celeb-filled fundraiser for his London mayoral campaign shows how weak his campaign for mayor has already become. How he can use the phrase "Serious About London" as his campaign slogan is beyond me: it must be his display of humour.

Yes, Paddick was surrounded by Dale Winton, Elton John, David Furnish and other lovers of Dorothy along with the usual assorted crowd of self-confessed (and vulgarly described) "fag hags" who see hanging around with prominent homosexuals as a badge of their tolerance and sophistication (when, of course, they only do it to get photographed in the newspapers - by the way, why is it acceptable for them to call themselves "fag hags" or for gays to call themselves "queer" but for anyone who is not gay to be barred from using such terms?).

I couldn't give a monkey's whether Paddick is gay, bi, straight or into cavorting with gerbils with a satsuma shoved in his mouth. His sexuality is none of my business and it will make no difference whether he could be a good mayor or not. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, I prefer to judge someone on the content of their character and not the choice of their lovers.

The fact that he has had to resort to so nakedly pandering to a community - in this instance "the gay community", rather than treating voters as individuals - highlights how his politics are closer to those of Ken Livingstone than to Boris Johnson (or dare I say, the majority of Londoners). He prefers to segmentalise voters in a way that pits one group against another: hardly a true liberal in the English sense of the word.

Paddick was a spectacularly poor borough commander who saw his job as being one of being accepted by the Lambeth Massive rather than protecting Lambeth's citizens - of all races, religions, sexualities and creeds - from crime. Paddick and Sir Ian Blair are the very model of what is wrong with policing in Britain: self-indulgent, publicity-seeking and politically correct careerists.

Paddick makes Susan Kramer look well suited to the job of being mayor and even makes Livingstone look respectable. Thankfully he has even less chance of winning the mayoralty than Elton John has of keeping his temper for more than five minutes.

Question: will the LibDem blogosphere, such as it is, have the good sense to ignore this article or will they be stupid enough to argue that Paddick is electable? They will, of course, do neither and will instead seek to attack me personally for daring to raise this as an issue and I will be decried as homophobic. Such is the standard of debate now from those who have betrayed the liberalism and tolerance of Gladstone.

How to make a Paddick of yourself

Brian Paddick is a former commander in the Metropolitan Police: he was hopeless in his role and endorsed downgrading of cannabis in a pathetic attempt at gaining street-cred in South London. He is the Lib Dem candidate for Mayor and exhibits the political skill of Frank Spencer or Stan Laurel.

Today he has attacked Boris Johnson as being "a clown". This comes after allies of Ken Livingstone, himself a close friend of tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, has attacked Boris for supposedly being a racist.

If I were Boris I'd be heartened by these attacks. The worst thing that could happen would be for Boris to be ignored. That his opponents are attacking him with such consistency and vigour only suggests that he stands a good chance of winning the mayoralty.

There's surely no point in Boris suddenly pretending that he has the gravitas or emotionless calmness of John Redwood. Boris is Boris: that's why people like him so much. But to win the campaign he does need to campaign. One can only hope that the hiring of Lynton Crosby will bring some much needed professionalism not so much to Boris himself but to the campaign being run so disappointingly thus far in his name.

Today's Hero is...Ken Livingstone

Today’s Hero is…Ken Livingstone, for handing the Tories an election winning issue in London. Transport for London has today announced that drivers who stray into cycle lanes face fines of £120. Only 3 such notices were handed out last year. But under the proposed new system, councils will monitor cycle lanes and cycle boxes at red lights through our Big Brother network of CCTV cameras. The proposals will even see drivers fined if they inadvertently drift into an empty cycle lane when passing a vehicle turning right.



The vendetta against drivers needs to end. These fines are simply the same kind of nuisance pseudo-taxes that sit alongside the Congestion Charge and parking tickets in the pantheon of victimization of the middle classes. Why not focus on noisy or inconsiderately and dangerously driven motorbikes? Or pick on cyclists who weave erratically across the roads, oblivious to both other road users, the Highway Code and red lights at junctions.

We don’t need more cycle lanes or bus lanes. We need less of them. Traffic congestion in London is exacerbated by these expensive, ugly and pointless road markings and constructs. When will drivers finally learn to stand up and fight Big Brother?

Today's Hero is...Boris Johnson

Today’s Hero is…Boris Johnson, who has today thrown his hat into the ring and announced he wants to be Mayor of London. He has stood down from the front bench to do so, although he will remain MP for Henley.

Boris is my Hero not because I support his candidature. I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other. He is my Hero for standing notwithstanding his propensity for gaffes, his colourful private life (as the euphemism goes) and for having built a reputation of being a jovial clown. Hopefully now the brain-power so evident from his schooling and his journalism will come to the fore so Londoners can see Boris is a serious candidate and not someone indulging in jolly japes.

We don’t want Boris to do a Jeffrey Archer on us all – and the awful thing is you know he could well end up doing so, which is why the media is salivating at the prospect of him as the official Tory candidate.