« Forensic Audit Panel Report: Ken Livingstone Responds | Main | At Guardian Politics: Boris Distances Himself From FAP Report »

July 16, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This is the problem with giving so much kudos to what is effectively just a policy review process. After banging on about it for so long, it isn't enough for them to just to say "oh well this won't necessarily effect what we do." It's too late. You can't just march your troops up the hill and then march them quietly down the other side. Tory members will want to see the suggestions in it implemented, and the press will quite rightly assume that most of them will be. Otherwise, why spend £50,000 of public money on it?


One outcome could be that the recommendations are taken on slowly over a longish period. I tend to agree with Livingstone, in that devolution of the funds to local boroughs would be a perfect excuse by local boroughs to make savings in existing provisions. Not even necessarily Conservative ones. If you're strapped for cash and your existing services are clamouring, then the Mayor's office gives you a nice subsidy, what are you going to do?

Not that I'm suggesting Ken's squeaky clean by any manner of means, but at the same time, funding priorities analysed by that particularly Conservative biased panel, funnily enough, might not quite match those of a funding body led by a formerly left wing Labour Party member. So I wouldn't wholesale buy the criticism.


Quite - 'Livingstone Found Not To Be Implementing Conservative Policies' comes roughly in the same degree of surprising news as the Pope's religion or bears' defecatory habits. Not worth 50k in my book - the new administration could already have saved 60k by not having the audit and telling their Assemblymen to cut down on taxis.

I think they should surcharge Gilligan.

The comments to this entry are closed.