Tuesday 15 August 2017 3.57pm
denis loretto wrote:
I understand your point but look at the situation Sadiq inherited. Boris & Co. had established the widespread impression that this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, largely funded from private sources and with much money already spent. It is hardly surprising that he took some time to see where his public duty lay. His ultimate decision was courageous.
I agree with most of this, but the adjective I'd use at the end is 'pragmatic' rather than 'courageous'.
The monstering that the Russian oligarch who owns the Standard would have instructed his editorial poodles (Sands then, Osborn now) to deliver to a Labour candidate who opposed the bridge in the 2016 elections would have massively diverted campaigning attention.
Instead, Khan took the easier route of switching to support the bridge during the campaign and then, quietly and methodically, getting the evidence and public support to end it. Every time the anti-bridge campaign made a noise, and every time more evidence of the inability of the trust to deliver its promises became more obvious, this became politically easier.
I'd rather the Mayor had stood up to the bully-boy lick-spittles of the tax-avoiding oligarchs, and their public money trough-feeding hangers-on, and cancelled it immediately, but I understand why he didn't.