Tuesday 24 April 2012 6.34pm
Rambling Phil wrote:
This is really tedious playground politics.
Has anyone got anything to say about their respective policies? Or their records in, for example, long-term strategic planning, or addressing real problems, such as the accommodation crisis, the living wage, or crime?
It really makes no difference what their policies are. With the current squeeze on public money, they're going to find it nigh on impossible to deliver on any of their grandiose schemes. The London mayor and GLA was an unnecessary extra tier of government installed when Labour was in under the guise of "giving power back to the people". In reality, it was a way of sharing around the blame if things went wrong. A friend of mine went to one of livingston's shindigs and he said that Livingston spent the entire time telling all and sundry that he can't do this particular thing or deliver on that particular promise because his hands were tied by central government. If I had been there and had availed of the refreshments, I would have asked the obvious question, "so why the hell do we have a mayor?"
A mayor and legislature that was voted for by 72% of a voter turnout which was 34% of the London electorate. Democracy in action!
That said, if we are going to have a useless figurehead, give me a tousle haired buffoon over an oily little political has-been anytime!