On Jun 9, 1:59*pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Of course Ken had the advantage
that the stars aligned for him, i.e. both he and central government
were the same colour.

On the contrary, I think there was far more "clear blue water" between
Ken and Tony/Gordon than there ever could be between Boris and Gordon.

I disagree. Ken Livingstone was *very* successful in squeezing as much
money out of central government as he could. Additionally, he also
encouraged the government to devolve further powers to the GLA i.e.
the Mayor - the Greater London Authority Act 2007 gives the GLA more
responsibilities with regards to planning and policing, for example
(it was this Act that enabled the Mayor to chair the Met Police
Authority - which Boris subsequently took advantage of). He also
persuaded the DfT to give TfL control of the ex-Silverlink Metro
routes, which are now London Overground. And during the tenure of Ken,
central government agreed in principle the transfer of responsibility
for the construction of Crossrail to TfL - a very major project, to
which central government is investing serious money.

It's no secret at all that Ken Livingstone and Gordon Brown did not
get on very well on a more personal level - and of course Livingstone
was very critical of Brown for foisting the PPP on the Tube. No doubt,
the tribal Gordon Brown and (to a lesser extent) Tony Blair less less
than impressed with Livingstone's 'disloyalty' to the Labour party by
running as an independent in 2000 - but that of course came about as a
result of them working the Labour party machine to exclude Livingstone
from being a nominated as the Labour candidate for Mayor.

However this frosty beginning thawed fairly rapidly as the GLA - and
in particular TfL - under Livingstone demonstrated their capacity to
deliver. Tony Blair ended up eating his words on Livingstone, and
Gordon Brown managed to come to an accommodation with him.

I doubt Brown remotely likes Boris Johnson - he'd regard Bozza as an
indulgent quasi-aristocratic southern toff, in contrast to Brown's
more humble and puritanical roots.

Therefore I think it's right to say that one of the big reasons for
Ken's success as Mayor (cue dissenters) was that he managed to court
those in central government so effectively - and it was advantageous
that both he and the government were 'of the left' (a careful
description), and thus of the same hue. (After he'd rejoined the
party, of course.)

No doubt, Livingstone was of course inclined to be rather more left
wing, but he had come to a pragmatic accommodation with the way this
world worked and proceeded with his Mayoralty on this basis.

We shall see how Boris gets on when Cameron & co gets in - the
landscape will be rather different of course, as there isn't going to
be a lot of money swilling around. It's a bit hard to tell whether
'austerity Boris' is the result of his own belief in smaller
government, or a pragmatic position taken by him in the knowledge of
the forthcoming 'austerity' Tory government - I'd say it's probably a
mix of the two. The problem is that, apart from Crossrail, Boris isn't
acting as an advocate for any significant projects at the moment
('Borisport', the 'living bridge' and other bits and bobs are nothing
more than gimmicks). Of course the counterpoint to this is that public
spending has to be significantly reduced, so costly projects have to
be shelved.

Oh, I forgot the 'Borisbus'. We shall see about that...