MIG wrote:


Maybe it was a slightly more complicated discussion on the lines of
BC: "This idea of publicly intending to bash us is making us nervous
and to mistrust every deal. This isn't helping London is it?" BJ:
"Good point; I'd like to reconsider my dismissive attitude and talk to
you directly instead of via my hit man."

The more prosaic explanation of Parker's departure is that he really
wanted to make radical cuts in GLA and TfL expenditure. This would have
horrified the elected politicians Milton and Johnson, who are quite
happy to have public expenditure as long as it goes into Tory areas,
preferably accompanied by a freeze or cut in the Mayor's precept (which
doesn't fund TfL). They could foresee the headlines in the suburban
freesheets - 'Boris Slashes X, Y and Z Shock Horror'. That explains the
whole 'TfL Chair Needs To Be Democratically Accountable'. Parker would
never have carried the can for the cuts, the public would look to blame
the high-profile elected figure of Boris.

Boris is quite right for once - TfL does need to be democratically
accountable at the top. It's a shame he's taken four months to realise
what Livingstone knew in 2000, that's all.

Tom