So on the same day G8 countries endorse halving greenhouse gases by 2050, our dear Mayor Of London shows his impeccable green credentials by…. axing the increased £25 Congestion Charge for the most polluting cars.
Bozzer has also agreed to pay £400,000 of taxpayers’ money in legal costs to settle Porsche’s legal challenge against the increase (because if you own a Porsche, you’re disposable income is pretty damn low!)
Porsche have ‘kindly donated’ the amount to Skidz, a charity that helps to train young people to become mechanics (so they can no doubt service the myriad of Porsches driving through the City with gay abandon.)
So how are Londoners going to get that £400,000 back?
Well, cancelling Ken’s cheap oil deal with Venezuela to give half price bus and tram travel for London’s poorest will bring in a bit. As TFL said at the time, they’ll save £67,000 from closing the Caracas office!
And from March 2009, more than 80,000 of the capital’s most needy, will see their bus fares double as the last people to benefit from the deal will have to pay the full price.
The problem is having London’s poor effectively subsidising Coke-snorting, Champagne-quaffing City boys in 911 Carrerras doesn’t really fit in with Dave’s narriative of the Tories becoming the party of social justice.
So we at Recess Monkey feel it’s our duty to help Dave and Boris out on this one. (And you can have this policy free of charge.)
Why don’t we solve the two problems at once and make it a condition of exemption from the C Charge for Porsche drivers to car share with the poorest Londoners!
C’mon. It’s win, win!
* Commuters get to travel for free in Posh Porsches not Bendy Buses.
* Compassionate Conservatives will be able to boast: “I had a working class person in the back of my car the other day!”
* It helps to meet the Tory goal of improving social mobility! DE to ABC1 in 3.6 seconds!
P.S. Thanks for those who correctly pointed out that no discussion of Johnson’s transport ‘policy’ is complete without THAT Newsnight interview.
“I DESPAIR!”
Loading ...
It’s a shame.. this blog used to be funny…
Tory Bear said this on July 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Sorry - we bow to the unbridled wit and wisdom of the Tory Bear blogspot.
Branded thongs, you say?
Racy!
chunkymonkey said this on July 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Politicians fulfilling manifesto pledges must always come as a shock to Labour bloggers I suppose…
Tim J said this on July 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
You wouldn’t be able to fit a working class person in the back of a Porsche, they’re all obese (and it’s their own fault). Maybe you could in the back of a Cayenne but what sort of c*** drives a 4*4 in London??
Shoplifter of the world said this on July 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The tories are the party of the elites after all. The mayor is acting badly. Appoints a bad deputy mayor and cuts public transport and gives breaks to the rich elites.
Hamish said this on July 8th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Thanks Boris. Thanks everyone who voted the rich elites to get a better chance in life under boris. They are the people who really need help in these difficult times in the banking crisis.
Porsche 911 driver said this on July 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
It’s a shame.. Boris used to be funny…
Hughes Views said this on July 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Well done Boris another two fingers at those horrible class hateing lefties.
Next stop booting out the K&C congestion charge extension,it’ll take another 12 months or so to rid London of the Livingstone trash.
kevin said this on July 8th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’ll send you one if you like?
Tory Bear said this on July 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Ok - but I’d ask your mother first, son.
chunkymonkey said this on July 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Does Mama bear wear a tong?
Call me Dave said this on July 8th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Silly monkey.
Social justice, but not at the cost of smarming up to tinpot Central American dictatorships. Pretty simple really.
Now remember you’re a white middle-class public schoolboy New Labour PPC spiv in a shiny suit, and not at the vanguard of the Great Livingstone’s “radical revolution against the fascist Bushitler”, or whatever bullshit you tell yourself in order to pretend you’re not a disgrace to the name of social democracy.
Anonymous said this on July 8th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Boris has stuck two fingers up to lefties and the poor of london. He cuts pubic transport and gives economic breaks to the rich. Thanks.
People of London said this on July 8th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Boris shows, once again, that the difference between the Tories and Labour is that the mock socialists impose their ill thought through kneejerk views on everyone whilst the Tories listen to what people actually want and then do that. Which is why Boris won and why Cameron will win the next General Election. So it’s another 18 years in the wilderness for your lot Recess which will hopefully give you the time to return this blog to being funny and worthwhile again.
Mr Angry said this on July 9th, 2008 at 11:17 am
This is a message form, Boris to the poor of london.
???????? ??????
????????? ??? ??
? ?=?????=??????????
? ?????????????????
??????????????????
??????????????? ……
Screw you Up with multi millionaire bankers.
People of London said this on July 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
This is a message from, the tories to the poor of london.
???????? ??????
????????? ??? ??
? ?=?????=??????????
? ?????????????????
??????????????????
??????????????? ……
Up with multi millionaire bankers. :
The nazi party of ttories said this on July 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I hope we all agree that London is supposed to be a first world city. I hope we also agree that one of the hallmarks of a democratic society under law (as opposed to, say, a tin pot dictatorship) is the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law requires, among other things, laws to be consistent and known in advance.
Constitutional lecture over. Let us look at Ken’s handling of the congestion charge to see if it measures up to that ideal.
When introduced, the charge was five pounds a day, the official explanation being that it was intended to reduce traffic to the most congested part of London, namely the centre. All well and good, although not, one might note, particularly socialist of Ken because it amounted to a regressive tax. Poor people spend a greater percentage of their income and therefore the flat rate of five pounds would hit them harder. Cleaners in Elephant and Castle might struggle to make ends meet paying another £5 a day while merchant bankers in the City wouldn’t have blinked.
The charge was then increased to eight pounds - far in excess of inflation - without evidence that the increase was necessary for the purpose of reducing congestion. First breach of the rule of law, and another one in the eye of the struggling delivery drivers, cleaners and so on.
As ever in British life ‘exemptions’ were made where it was thought the Mayor might gain a political advantage, in this case minicabs. Exemptions are always a breach of the rule of law because they create uncertainty about who falls within the exempted class. Lawyers benefit because they can advise on and litigate the issue. The rich occasionally benefit because they can purchase such advice. And so it was here: it transpired that many expensive cars had been registered as minicabs with no intention of their being used as such, because the owners found it was cheaper than paying the charge. (One smiles at the thought of Ken trying to flag down an armoured Maybach for a ride after being told it was a licensed minicab …)
Other exemptions were made for ‘green’ vehicles such as hybrid cars. This meant that a Lexus L600h was exempt but a 1.2 litre VW Polo not, despite the former being conspicuously less green by any measure.
Further exemptions were for residents of the zone, which was later pulled out from under their feet. One more breach of the rule of law.
Then Ken changed his mind and decided that a whole new set of charges would be introduced - massively greater for many owners - based on the entirely separate issue of C02 emissions. Yet another breach of the rule of law: we were told the charge was one thing (congestion reduction) and then another (C02 reduction.).
Then the ‘green vehicle’ exemption was removed. Still another failure to keep rules consistent. Pity the people who had purchased hybrid cars in the interim.
One might also note that by offering CO2 reduction as the new justification Ken was really acting outside the purview of municipal government. The issue of carbon emissions is quintessentially something that should be addressed if at all by central government, not local. Central London emissions don’t amount to a hill of beans in Britain’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
So Ken increased the charge enormously over his tenure with no justification linked to the original basis of the charge whatsoever; indeed he virtually abandoned the original justification. He commissioned a report by Kings College which told him what he didn’t want to know - that his increased charges would raise, not lower CO2. As it didn’t suit him he ignored it. So having told us it was all about congestion, and then said it was really all about emissions, he never once said the truth - that it was simply a tax all along, or perhaps an outlet for his previously declared class war and car hatred.
Boris, by contrast, promised in his manifesto to reduce the charge and did so once he was elected.
Political Umpire said this on July 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I had a word with a senior administrative lawyer over the weekend, who observed two things about Porsche’s judicial review challenge:
(a) once the report by King’s College London came to light, showing that the proposed new charges would in fact increase CO2 emissions, the challenge was almost certain to have succeeded. Therefore Boris would have had no choice but to decline to introduce the charges; in fact he had promised not to do so anyway. It was shameful of Ken to have tried to suppress the report because it didn’t coincide with his ideology.
(b) In those circumstances the mayor would have had to pay Porsche’s legal fees; that is the standard consequence. But how on earth did those costs equal £400,000? Most completed judicial review challenges end up with costs below £10,000; this particular challenge did not even proceed to a court hearing. The issues were not particularly complex and neither of us could see any other reasons why the costs should have been as high as they were.
Needless to say the mainstream media, even the anti-Ken variety, has failed in its duty and has hardly mentioned either point.
Incidentally you write:
“Bozzer has also agreed to pay £400,000 of taxpayers’ money in legal costs to settle Porsche’s legal challenge against the increase (because if you own a Porsche, you’re disposable income is pretty damn low!)”
1. You mean ‘your’ not ‘you’re’
2. More to the point it isn’t Porsche owners who brought the challenge but the manufacturer.
Political Umpire said this on July 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am