A year of Mayor Johnson- verdicts please

[_float_]

@ littlebabyjesus

Venezeula should sell its oil at proper market prices and hire in the people it needs, mot likely Spanish speakers who have experience of cities like Caracus - although spending the money on maintaining the roads and on housing, schools, hospitals etc. rather than English 'consultants'.

The deal was a gimmick, political grand-standing by Chavez at the expense of his own citizens. He has revoked the license of the second largest TV network and replaced it with a government-run channel, passed laws to control the media and journalists have increasingly been arrested on various charges.

Chavez talks a good talk, but while some of his social programmes have been good, he is far more of a personality-cult than any real type of socialist. True he has been elected in reasonably free elections but this doesn't make him 'a democrat': after all he tried attempted a military coup in 1992. What kind of political party has he built up? Who else has a say in the government? He is a one-man show and as such relies heavily on gimmicks, grand-standing and pissing away oil money during the boom years.

He might be the best of a bad political bunch but its sad if this is your idea of a political pin-up/hero.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Let's not also forget the scrapping of the £25 congestion charge for the heavy-polluting vehicles which Ken was going to introduce, leaving yet another shortfall in public transport spending. Nice one, Boris.

I don't think this measure was ever going to raise much money for public transport- remember the cash from it was going to subsidise free access to Central London for low carbon cars....... so it basically relied on people continuing to 'sin' in order to subsidise the 'saints'....

It was a nice idea but the economics didn't add up, and it could well have resulted it less money being raised, not more.

 

[nino_savatte]

For all his presentation there is nothing beneath the surface. He's also taken the credit for some of Livingstone's ideas.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

@ littlebabyjesus

Venezeula should sell its oil at proper market prices and hire in the people it needs, mot likely Spanish speakers who have experience of cities like Caracus - although spending the money on maintaining the roads and on housing, schools, hospitals etc. rather than English 'consultants'.

The deal was a gimmick, political grand-standing by Chavez at the expense of his own citizens. He has revoked the license of the second largest TV network and replaced it with a government-run channel, passed laws to control the media and journalists have increasingly been arrested on various charges.

Chavez talks a good talk, but while some of his social programmes have been good, he is far more of a personality-cult than any real type of socialist. True he has been elected in reasonably free elections but this doesn't make him 'a democrat': after all he tried attempted a military coup in 1992. What kind of political party has he built up? Who else has a say in the government? He is a one-man show and as such relies heavily on gimmicks, grand-standing and pissing away oil money during the boom years.

He might be the best of a bad political bunch but its sad if this is your idea of a political pin-up/hero.

I'm not claiming Chavez is a saint, and many of the things he's done he has been criticised for internally. He closed down a channel because he said it had actively supported the coup. Maybe true, maybe not. What is true is that there was an attempted coup and that many media outlets immediately started broadcasting lies and propaganda about the coup (such as unprovoked attacks by Chavez supporters in the street when in reality it was they that were being fired at) as they thought the coup had been successful.

I also dislike the cult of personality aspects of Chavez's government, but in many ways it is hard to see how else he could do things given the deep-seated hatred the rich of Venezuela have for him. These are the rich, remember, whose chums held political power for many decades and who never once lifted a finger to help the poor. You think the oil money's being wasted now – in that case, what in the hell was happening to it before?

Chavez is the best bet for the poor of Venezuela. He is the one providing them with health care and education programmes. You may be right when you say that he could have done better than getting consultants from London – a great experience for the consultants to work there too, btw, in terms of building world approaches to such problems. Ken Livingstone was keen to see such things spread – he had an internationalist view on many things.

Then again, you may be wrong – I doubt you really know the ins and outs of what they achieved in Caracas; I don't. I also doubt Johnson knew – he certainly didn't mention it when he was explaining how we couldn't go on exploiting the poor of Venezuela.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don’t get why it always comes down to a personal argument about Hugo Chavez. Venezuela is a potentially very valuable ally because of their resource wealth, which is why the Chinese govt is all over them like a rash at the moment. However you look at it, it was a tactical mistake made for ideological reasons, which is pretty much what we all expect of muppets like BoJo.

 

[_float_]

...I doubt you really know the ins and outs of what they achieved in Caracas; I don't...

This is the most detailed thing I have seen so far: link (.rtf document)

I don’t get why it always comes down to a personal argument about Hugo Chavez.

I am criticising the deal itself as being a waste of money that would better be spent on other things in Venezeula. This criticism would remain regardless of personal issues re. BoJo, Chavez and Ken.

 

[bemused]

I don’t get why it always comes down to a personal argument about Hugo Chavez. Venezuela is a potentially very valuable ally because of their resource wealth, which is why the Chinese govt is all over them like a rash at the moment. However you look at it, it was a tactical mistake made for ideological reasons, which is pretty much what we all expect of muppets like BoJo.

We shouldn't be sucking up to people because they've got oil - that's why we're taking up the arse from random states.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

This forum will never give BoJo well,. Here's my honest, sitting on the fance as per, opinion.

I've not really noticed any difference. Whist Ken did improve the whole transport thing this was mainly at the end his first term. I think it's too early to tell for BoJo.

The only diffrence I've noticed so far is that Ken Livingstone isn't in the papers much any more, bleating and pontificating. Which is a good thing.

The impression I got from Ken is that he was just greasing his own palms by the end of his reign, and j he just seemed really bitter all the time. Don't think Boris is any different (well maybe not bitter), but I think London needed the change. Ken reminded me of a mad uncle who's wife had let him get away with too much .

 

[Wolveryeti]

Let's not also forget the scrapping of the £25 congestion charge for the heavy-polluting vehicles which Ken was going to introduce, leaving yet another shortfall in public transport spending. Nice one, Boris.

Hear hear. Not to mention scrapping the westward extention of congestion charging, and having the front to blame Ken for a hole in the finances that he caused by removing what would have been two important sources of income for the GLC.

 

[Wolveryeti]

This is the most detailed thing I have seen so far: link (.rtf document)
I am criticising the deal itself as being a waste of money that would better be spent on other things in Venezeula. This criticism would remain regardless of personal issues re. BoJo, Chavez and Ken.

Still sounds like a pretty good deal for London though. Your document spells it out perfectly

"4. Records of any additional services or work required to cover for absent staff, including the costs of such work
No additional services were required to cover absent staff as the length of time away did not warrant the arrangement of cover."

Not bad for a subsidy worth $32m a year. Do you really think BoJo's heart bleeds for the poor Venezuelans, given his very right wing comments about tax etc. Or is it just a cock waving exercise to distance himself from his predecessor?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Whatever you think of the man, he's not a clown, or dumbo, or any of the other names attached to him.

He got a scholarship to Eton. They don't give them to thickos.

Mistake his personal traits as signs of stupidity at your peril, just as so many of us did with W. Bush.

 

[nino_savatte]

He got a scholarship to Eton. They don't give them to thickos.

If you say so.

 

[Wolveryeti]

^ Innit. Someone's aptitude at the age of 14 is not a great guarantee of what it is going to be later in life.

 

[_float_]

Still sounds like a pretty good deal for London though. Your document spells it out perfectly

Bear in mind that the document (afaics) only covers what had happened in the first five months - ie 3 initial trips involving 5 or so senior execs. to discuss what TfL were going to be doing. After that they actually set up an office in Caracus and liason posts in London.

Not bad for a subsidy worth $32m a year.

My point is that it is a bad deal for Venezelans.

Do you really think BoJo's heart bleeds for the poor Venezuelans, given his very right wing comments about tax etc. Or is it just a cock waving exercise to distance himself from his predecessor?

Someone can support the right thing for the wrong reasons. In any case, the deal was a cock-waving exercise to begin with.

 

[bemused]

Not bad for a subsidy worth $32m a year.

Do you know the margin yet?

I'd really like to know how much these deals are all worth in real money.

£30 million is about 1% of the GLA budget so I'm not sure London will miss what is left over after they've serviced the contract.

 

[Maggot]

It barely seems a year, time goes so fast. After a long and occasionally nasty election campaign (with lots of debate on Urban and the odd spat or three) BoJo became your new mayor.

That's because it's not a year. Boris 1st anniversary isn't until 1st May.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Someone can support the right thing for the wrong reasons. In any case, the deal was a cock-waving exercise to begin with.

Either it was a deal that was good for London and good for Venezuela.

Or it was a deal that was good for London but bad for 'poor Venezuelans' (I would add here that it was a deal aimed at helping Venezuela develop its public transport infrastructure – rich Venezuelans don't use public transport, they drive; so it's more likely that, if the deal was bad for any Venezuelans, it was the rich).

Or it was a deal that was bad for London and good for Venezuela.

Whichever you believe it to be, who exactly is waving his cock at whom?

By the way, you do know, I assume, that Venezuela has entered into similar deals with North American cities?

If you truly believe Johnson's story, you are very gullible, although you now appear to be saying that, even if this wasn't the real reason he cancelled the deal, that doesn't matter because he's done the right thing for the wrong reeasons.

You've certainly covered your bases on this thread, which suggests to me that you've started with the opinion and then sought the reasons to hold that opinion, rather than forming an opinion on the evidence.

 

[_float_]

...a deal that was good for London but bad for 'poor Venezuelans' (I would add here that it was a deal aimed at helping Venezuela develop its public transport infrastructure – rich Venezuelans don't use public transport, they drive; so it's more likely that, if the deal was bad for any Venezuelans, it was the rich)...

...Whichever you believe it to be, who exactly is waving his cock at whom?

Transport infrastructure includes roads. By UK standards the vast majority of Venezuelans are poor. The deal was bad for all Venezuelans full stop.

Cock-waving by Ken and Hugo, at everyone else.

If you truly believe Johnson's story, you are very gullible, although you now appear to be saying that, even if this wasn't the real reason he cancelled the deal, that doesn't matter because he's done the right thing for the wrong reeasons.

His motivation, which unless you are a mind-reader you can't prove either way, is irrelevant to what I hink about the deal. What he was saying about it being bad for Venezuelans is correct regardless of whether he actually cares or not.

You've certainly covered your bases on this thread, which suggests to me that you've started with the opinion and then sought the reasons to hold that opinion, rather than forming an opinion on the evidence.

The evidence pre-dates his thread. I had already formed an opinion about the deal being a bad one for Venezeulans before this thread existed, not surprisingly because the deal started in 2007.

Also you haven't offered any new evidence, in fact you haven't really offered any evidence at all.

 

[_float_]

Feel free to post some evidence of what was achieved between the first discussions (May 2006), the signing of the deal (Feb 2007), its formal start (date August 20 2007) and its cancellation (around May 26 2008).

Apart from around four TfL officials spending a few days having meetings in Caracas I haven't found any details of anything being achieved at all.

If London recieved £16m and gave back £7m, what exactly did Caracas get in return for its £9 million?

 

[nino_savatte]

Cock-waving by Ken and Hugo, at everyone else.

Spoken like the unofficial communications officer for the Mayor.

 

[_float_]

Feel free to explain where the £9 million went nino.

 

[nino_savatte]

None of what you are saying is new (indeed, much of it is questionable) and was the stuff of the anti-Ken PR machine's tactics during the election.

Johnson's termination of the oil deal was done entirely for ideological reasons and nothing else. It wouldn't do to have a dyed-in-the-wool Tory shaking hands or, at the very least, talking with Chavez, now would it?

As for "cock-waving", Johnson (appropriately named) is guilty of it too, perhaps more so.

 

[_float_]

None of what you are saying is new (indeed, much of it is questionable) and was the stuff of the anti-Ken PR machine's tactics during the election.

Johnson's termination of the oil deal was done entirely for ideological reasons and nothing else. It wouldn't do to have a dyed-in-the-wool Tory shaking hands or, at the very least, talking with Chavez, now would it?

As for "cock-waving", Johnson (appropriately named) is guilty of it too, perhaps more so.

Yes he probably is (I am sure you can think of some examples), but I am no trying to defend Boris Johnson or support him.

I am am simply pointing out that regardless of whether you like or dislike any of these three people (BoJo, Ken, Hugo) it is still the case that the oil-for-advice deal was bad for Venezeulans.

It is for this reason that I am in agreement with it being cancelled, not because I am for or against any of these three people. As it happens I think that both Ken and Hugo have done some good things - but this deal was not one of them.

If you think stuff I am saying is "questionable" then please go ahead and set out your evidence.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm with LBJ on this: the only Venezuelans the deal was bad for were those who don't use or have no need for, public transport; in other words the middle classes.

I don't think I need to say anything more than the fact that this 'evidence' serves a particular ideology. Indeed, it resides alongside the same ideology that claimed Chavez supporters were firing on 'unarmed' middle class protesters during the coup attempt of 2002.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

This was another impressive display of professional cuntery from the cunt Johnson.

I think in addition to all the shite outlined above I think one of Johnson’s most negative impacts on London is to its image. I don’t live in London myself but it’s always struck me as, on the whole, one of the most tolerant, diverse and progressive cities on the planet. Having that fucking sexist, racist, homophobic bigot who’s utterly contemptuous of the poor at the helm has seriously dented that ideal. I mean, let’s never forget that under his editorship the Spectator ran an article which claimed black people were genetically inferior beings and also carried front page articles about Islamic takeovers of Britain. Someone like that should never be in public office. Ever. You’d have thought the huddled masses of London would have sussed him out – but sadly not enough to stop the cunt from taking power.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What a fucking prick.

 

[_float_]

I'm with LBJ on this: the only Venezuelans the deal was bad for were those who don't use or have no need for, public transport; in other words the middle classes.

I don't think I need to say anything more than the fact that this 'evidence' serves a particular ideology. Indeed, it resides alongside the same ideology that claimed Chavez supporters were firing on 'unarmed' middle class protesters during the coup attempt of 2002.

So for £9 million Caracas got *what*?

I am arguing that the money should have been spent on basic services. What has this got to do with the 2002 coup?

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who criticises Chavez is automatically right-wing, despite criticism of various aspects of his government from the left.

How about you explain why this was a good deal for Caracas. If you actually find me some evidence of what was achieved I am willing to reconsider. I have actually been looking for details of what TfL actually did but have so far found almost nothing - just the link which I have already provided.

 

[Chz]

Eh, I still don't like the bastard but he's nowhere near as horrific as I thought he'd be.

But there'd still have to be some really, really awful competition for me to vote for him. I think I'd just spoil my ballot.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

That's because it's not a year. Boris 1st anniversary isn't until 1st May.

OK, so I was a little quick of the mark. Only 11 days to go though, and this last year fair seems to have flown by...