London: Mayor & More

Boris Meets The FT

From an interview with the FT's Bob Sherwood:

"The mayor revealed that plans were being drawn up for the creation of a "special purpose vehicle" to overhaul urgently the plans for the [2012 Olympic] games' legacy and seek to ensure that the huge public investment was translated into useful facilities, jobs and skills for Londoners. Mr Johnson is worried that a lack of joined-up planning between the agencies involved with the Olympics could jeopardise the prospect of 'lasting value' from what he calls 'this weird constellation of huge objects that we are building'. He said he was 'certain' that work that should have been done on legacy planning 'hasn't been done'."

This "special purpose vehicle" - love that jargon - will be set up next month. There's also interesting stuff about PFI investment for the Tube and those overseas offices. Now read on.

Headhunting Mayoral Advisers

A spokesperson for the Greater London Authority said:

"The GLA have employed an executive search firm to search for individuals to fill two to three senior positions. These essential roles will support the Mayor in delivering his vision for London and it is therefore crucial that highest quality of applicants are put forward for these positions. Executive search firms have the capacity, network of contacts in the specialist fields and the ability to approach a range of individuals about the roles in a confidential manner. It is expected that this process will enable the recruitment of exceptional individuals with track records of success in their fields of expertise. The cost quoted is the maximum payable, in practice, we expect the final costs to be less."

This follows my observation here.

Mayoral Advisers: Boris Buys In Some Help

I've been looking at the Mayor's report to the Assembly for 10th September. I can't find it on the website yet, but let me quote an item from it, reference MD 65:

"Agreed the award of and entry into a contract with Egon Zehnder for search and selection services to assist with the recruitment of 2-3 senior appointments within the Mayor’s Office (agreeing an exemption to the Authority’s contracts code of practice for this purpose)."

Under "financial implications" it says:

"The maximum cost of this contract to the GLA is £125,000 and will be contained within budgets set aside for the Mayor’s Office."

Authorisation for this was given by Nick Boles on 7th July. Egon Zehnder are headhunters. Not cheap are they?

Value For Money: Light Bulb Scandal

Mark Pack enlightens.

Cut & Paste With "London's Quality Newspaper"

As we know, the Standard went into maximum malicious spin mode yesterday over the severance packages Ken Livingstone's former advisers. Predictably, the Tory nationals have "followed up", meaning they've basically re-written the Standard's piece. However, the Telegraph's version differs from the Standard's in one significant way. Unlike the Standard it carries what appears to be the whole of the statement about the matter from the mayor's spokesman which reads as follows:

"The Mayor of London is dismayed he has had to take a decision on the fate of the previous Mayor's staff who were on fixed contracts. He feels he is not best placed to do so and that the law is flawed on this issue. Employment rights for these members of staff overtake the GLA Act which states they are on fixed contracts, hence the position the current Mayor finds himself in."

In his piece Veronica's Crony quotes only from this part of the statement. He does not quote from the remainder:

"The Mayor wants to make clear that he has no problem with the staff who by all accounts served the previous Mayor well. The Mayor has followed legal advice on this matter and made a decision with the taxpayer in mind. These members of staff are entitled to these settlements. They are only receiving what they are entitled to. Some members of staff have over 20 years loyal service in local government and payments were agreed with this in mind."

How interesting that Gilligan didn't quote from any of that section of the statement, either in his front page piece or his comment effort inside. Could that possibly be because to have done so would have undermined - indeed directly contradicted - his insinuation that these payments are not deserved?

Design For London To Be "Absorbed"

From Building:

"Design for London is to be absorbed into the London Development Agency as part of Boris Johnson’s bid to streamline city operations. The body, set up 18 months ago to advise the mayor on design, will merge with the LDA’s land and infrastructure directorate. It will take responsibility for land holdings, environment projects and area planning, with an expected budget of £70-80m."

It quotes DfL director Peter Bishop, who's still in a job:

“You could say this was the end of DfL or see it as a huge opportunity. There are obviously frustrations about being a free floating organisation. There have been times when we have put an awful lot of effort in and not a lot has come out. Now there’s the opportunity to take a lot of ideas and back them with spending budgets and put them into practice. It’s a logical move.”

Good idea? Bad idea? Let me know?

Mayor Hires Consultants

From the Sunday Telegraph:

"The consultancy firm which warned the Mayor of New York that the city was in danger of being 'relegated to a regional market' is to carry out a similar review of London's status as one of the world's leading financial centres. McKinsey, which conducted a review of New York for Michael Bloomberg last year, has been appointed to co-ordinate a review commissioned by Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London."

How much will McKinsey cost, I wonder? How many bus conductors would its fee pay for?

UPDATE, 21.22: I asked the mayor's office to comment on the McKinsey story. Its response, just arrived, says: "McKinsey has been commissioned to provide independent, fact-based analysis to facilitate the work of the City review group, which is examining ways in which London can sustain its position as a leading global financial centre. The review group has commissioned McKinsey to provide a fact-based analysis to facilitate its considerations. This work is being undertaken on a pro bono basis."

Journalism Of Denial Continued

EYLA chairman and LDA board appointee Steve Norris applauds the FAP Report. He doesn't mention that four out of its five members are fellow Tories, though. Funny that. [Thanks, Michael]

FAP Report: Tory Readings & Journalism Of Denial

Naturally, "London's Quality Paper" highlighted the bits that could be used to vindicate its dismal conduct during the election campaign and ignored any that didn't. Predictably, the chief offenders seized on the report as an opportunity to attack Ken Livingstone again rather the face the fact that even this profoundly partial "audit" acknowledged that in many respects the LDA has done good work. Never let reality get in the way of a good persecution, especially when you've invested so much of your collapsing credibility in it.

For the record, I've long been perfectly persuaded that the relationship between mayoral advisers and the LDA needs to be clarified. Indeed, it was the Standard that persuaded me. I'm also quite satisfied that Lee Jasper displayed poor judgment over some LDA grants and in one case hid from the consequences. He wouldn't be my choice for equalities adviser either (though even his enemies applaud his work with the police.) But these were never grounds for a hard-right newspaper to smear the individual and an entire Labour administration, which is what the Standard and its political assassins did.

Mayor Johnson's Tory panel was only ever going to provide an opportunity for it and others to spit on the victim. Moreover, its report has had the unintended consequence of spreading alarm both within City Hall and beyond. Why else did the mayor give it such a carefully-qualified welcome at MQT yesterday? Why else might Tim Parker have sent out that memo the previous day after reading the report himself? Might he be among those disquieted by the Wheatcroft prescription for the future size and scope of GLA activity?

The real problem with the FAP report is not that sets out a Tory vision of how to proceed - that is mayor Johnson's prerogative - but that it and its apologists have tried to foster the impression that it is politically unbiased or that its Tory-ness is of no consequence.

Yesterday, I posted a comment beneath the Standard's leader on the report, pointing out that three of the panel's five members were declared members of the Conservative Party and a fourth chaired a Conservative business organisation. At the time the leader had said that only two of the panel were Tories. My comment has survived - just as well, because I'd be so fed up if it disappeared - but the leader has been re-written, and now makes no mention at all of the panel's deep blue political complexion. All journalists have biases, but we should at least try to report the world with 20/20 vision. That's rather tricky when you've only got one eye.

UPDATE, 11.03: I see the FAP has its own spin doctor now. Some kind of "lefty" apparently. How strange.

FAP: The Broader Picture

Martin at Mayorwatch has been through the FAP report in more detail than me:

"The panel also suggest that management of Trafalgar and Parliament squares 'would lie better on an agency basis with TfL or Westminster City Council who would have the necessary infrastructure skills and management, with events being co-ordinated through the events team [and that]....There may also be scope for reviewing the list of events offered through Events for London; it is possible that a detailed critical analysis could generate substantial savings, particularly if entire events such as the ‘Rise Festival’ (which cost over £300,000) were cancelled'."

He continues:

"Despite the criticisms the report concedes that 'in the last 18 months there have been significant improvements' in the LDA’s performance. In addition, and despite City Hall’s attempts to draw attention to criticisms contained in the report, the panel 'examined a number of smaller GLA consultancy contracts in the range £5,000 to £30,000, i.e. beneath the threshold for which full competitive tendering is required. In all cases we established that outputs which appeared appropriate had been received, and that the work was either consistent with one of the Mayor’s statutory function or was part of a Mayoral priority.'"

Read it all.