London Banter - View Single Post

Colin Rosenstiel · August 20th 08, 12:06 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(Tom Barry) wrote:

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.

Milton may have been elected in Westminster but he's not elected now at
the GLA, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel