The two GLA budget meetings happen at the start of the year to get plans sorted well before the new financial year. At the first meeting the Mayor presents his budget and we AM’s have a chance to put amendments. At the second we see if the Mayor has changed the budget in any way to reflect those suggestions.

During the last four years of the previous Mayor’s regime, 2004-2008, the Greens held the final two votes needed to get the Mayor’s budget through, so Darren Johnson and I had lots of opportunity to make the budget more environmentally and more socially friendly. For example, our Green Homes project helped people to save money on their energy bills, by helping them reduce their carbon footprint. That tiny glimpse of what it’s like to have power was very exhilarating, but now we’ve found that being in opposition can be just as exciting.

At the first meeting at the end of January, the Mayor’s budget had a zero increase in the council precept (the bit of the council tax that goes to the Mayor for disposal), while our green amendment had a cost of living increase of 1.2%. We wanted the allocated money moved around, for example where funding had been taken from green projects, we planned to reinstate it, and cut back on things like rephrasing traffic lights or scrapping the bendy bus.

At the second meeting, we had the opportunity to question the Mayor again, and he proved to be very competent at evading the questions. We AM’s are each hampered by strict time limits and the Mayor can waffle endlessly and take up all the time in making his own political points and not answering the AM’s question. While it often makes for entertainment, it does occasionally reduce the democratic process to farce.

During the actual budget meetings – both of them – the debate between AM’s began to get quite tedious because the only viable option on the table was the Greens’ budget amendment, which the other parties couldn’t be seen to support, and mostly said they didn’t agree with anyway.

Given that politics is basically about who gives what to whom, whether money goes to A or B is always a very political decision. So as the only Assembly Members to put an amendment to the Mayor’s budget, we found that in poring over the content of the draft budget, we were able to not only understand the direction of the Mayor’s agenda, but also put together a clear manifesto for ourselves for the next year.

If the London Assembly is going to scrutinise the Mayor effectively, we need to decrease his waffle and increase our cooperative working, regardless of party groups. Even if opposition is fun, it’s starting to look like a long three years to the next election.

The first part of the meeting was a timely opportunity to quiz the acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, and the Mayor of London, as Chair of the Police Authority (MPA).

Sir Paul gave a statement on the investigation into Damien Green MP, and the tragic Baby P case.  The Damien Green saga and the Mayor’s involvement proved to be the hottest topic for discussion.

Boris admitted that he had personally spoken to Damien Green MP, despite him being under investigation by the police.

Labour Leader Len Duvall AM and his Deputy John Biggs AM pushed Boris on this, stating that he could have influenced the investigation.

The Mayor just could not get the point that was being made.  Those of us from a local government background are always considering how our actions would seem to the public.  Yet this just does not seem to occur to the Mayor.

“Perhaps I should be arrested for leaking a private conversation” he quipped.

Much to the amazement of those present, the Mayor said on at least two occasions that his hunch was there wouldn’t be any charges or prosecutions.  Yet, the police are still investigating the case.

When pushed about the risk of how the public might perceive his actions and that he may have strayed into operational policing, Boris joked “I’m a mere toe nail in this”.

Lib Dem Leader Mike Tuffrey AM expressed concern at the extent that national security is being cited as a reason for police action – and how this had led to the loss of confidence in the previous Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - the politicisation of the police.

Sir Paul Stephenson did concede that the national interest should be used in a sparing and measured manner.  However, when asked to look into potential criminal offences he felt it is right and proper the police investigate.

Lib Dem lead on policing Dee Doocey AM quizzed Boris on police numbers and the fact that there will be 883 fewer front line police officers over the next three years in London.  The Mayor struggled to answer the detailed question.

The time that was left covered a range of topics such as safer transport teams, the cost of overtime and the departure of Sir Ian Blair.  Given the length of the session, Boris only managed a couple of Latin quotations – a relief for most of us!

After a brief pause, the attention of the Assembly moved to the subject of fire, with Chair (man) Brian Coleman AM and Commissioner Ron Dobson of the Fire Authority.  To mark their contribution (or perhaps the Queen’s speech?!), there was a gun salute from the Tower of London, resulting in great puffs of smoke and flames just above the fire duo’s heads!

Brian, the king of bling, enjoys wearing the Fire Authority’s chain and badge and questioned whether Jennette Arnold, the Chair of the Assembly’s gong was bigger than his!

Despite this good natured start, the fire questions soon deteriorated into a bizarre rant to most questions from the Chair.

He would not properly answer my questions on his plans for the fire budget, which could put Londoners lives at risk.

The Tories tried to have some fun with a story about former Assembly Member Lynne Featherstone MP.  Lynne had called out the Fire Brigade due to her house shaking and fear of an explosion.  Tony Arbour AM questioned whether she would be recharged for this call out – for what he described as an “air block in her boiler”.  Mr Dobson made it clear that any such call would have gone through the necessary triaging and a fire team would only have visited if it was assessed as needing a crew.

Asked by Val Shawcross AM about plans to ‘amputate’ the library and museum, Brian Coleman stated that in the past the Labour group had “gone to the barricades” over issues such as cooks, only to vote for the cuts a few years later.  “Everything comes to he who waits” he stated ominously.

Green member Jenny Jones raised the issue of health and safety performance of the fire brigade and the increase in road collisions in London that she felt LFEPA were not taking seriously.  Clear answers were not forthcoming.

Following these two scrutiny sessions, two important motions were debated and passed – one on saving the trafficking unit in the Met and the other on dial-a-ride and taxicard services. 

A long morning for all involved – successful in parts!

Caroline’s website can be found at www.carolinepidgeon.org

I’m writing to update you on the activities of Progressive London - a new coalition launched earlier this month. You can sign up for regular updates from Progressive London here.

First, I am pleased to provide more details of the first Progressive London event - a conference that will take place on 24 January 2009 at Congress House, Great Russell St, WC1 and will address key issues to keep London at the cutting edge of the world today, including the international financial crisis, culture and art, and community relations.

Among those who have confirmed as speakers are Assembly Members from Labour, the Greens and Liberal Democrats; minister Tessa Jowell MP; MPs and MEPs from across the parties; leading trade unionists including from Unite, Unison, the FBU and NUT; intellectuals such as Eric Hobsbawm; artists and cultural practitioners; community activists; campaigners for a better deal for young people; student representatives; leaders of the peace movement; and city government experts.

The media partners for the event are Comment is Free.

I hope you will be able to come along and take part in the discussion. To be sure of your ticket, register for the conference now by emailingevents@progressivelondon.org.uk and we will contact you with more information soon.

Tickets will be £10 waged, £5 unwaged and £20 per person for organisations. Details of new speakers and sessions will be frequently updated on the website at http://www.progressivelondon.org.uk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=85

Progressive London aims to bring you information and debate about the key issues in London. The website includes news and articles sections so that you can read more about the latest important stories in the capital. We also feature guest blogs such as from Jenny Jones AM on why she is so angry about the planned above-inflation fares increase. Read Jenny’s blog here.

Also on the blog, Koy Thompson of the London Cycling Campaign says why London’s new bus lane policy is ill-thought out, and Rob Miller discusses international social progress, whilst you can also find updates on cuts to cycling funding, why we need to campaign for more social-rented housing for Londoners, and how to secure the future of London’s economy. All of this can be found at the Progressive London blog here.

I hope you will be able to visit the blog regularly and check the news updates on the site.

Finally, as you may know, this January the Mayor plans to raise fares by six per cent, with some increasing far more: the price of a single bus journey on Oyster will go up by eleven per cent, to £1. Yet at the same time the Mayor is throwing away millions of pounds by cancelling measures like the planned £25-a-day charge on the worst polluting cars, like Chelsea Tractors, in central London. At a time of financial crisis politicians should be helping Londoners by holding down fares and investing in key public services like transport. The opposite is happening. The Fare Deal Campaign is calling for the fares rise to be cancelled: to read more about this and to sign up for regular updates on Progressive London’s campaigns, clickhere.

You’ve received this email as someone who signed up to support my election campaign earlier this year. If you don’t wish to receive any more emails from Progressive London simply reply to unsubscribe@progressivelondon.org.uk and we will make sure you are removed from the list.

I hope you will find that Progressive London is a useful addition to London’s political life and will support its activities. We have made a great deal of progress over the last few years and London’s future depends on progressive Londoners continuing to take the city forward. If you want to help, don’t forget to sign up for regular updates here.

We won’t pass on your email address to anyone else.

Yours sincerely

Ken Livingstone

So, that answers my earlier questions… it’s a leftish, Boris-bashing organisation. If Ken can keep enough of his base on side, and a stalking horse for Labour’s nomination doesn’t make themselves known, the next couple of years promise to be interesting.

Written by Andrew Stevens, Simon Hughes MP, Alan Jones, Jess Steele, Geraldine Blake and Greg Taylor, the paper is an examination of the possibilities that more local government could offer the capital, and the problems which it may also cause.

From the introduction to the pamphlet:

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP, spoke recently about her faith in the role which parish councils can play in “putting power in the hands of local people, to make the key decisions that act their local communities”.

The Secretary of State went further to indicate that she would like to see the largely rural model of parish councils translated to towns and cities across the UK, “empowering communities”. What would such a move mean for London and its already complex system of government?

LondonSays asked a number of figures from across different levels of government and community engagement to give us their thoughts on these proposals. The varied and thought-provoking articles contained within this pamphlet are their response.

You can download the full pamphlet here. Please let us know your thoughts.

The London Assembly Meeting is a 21^st century reinvention of the mediaeval stocks – an oppositionist format.  Usually members gather to throw political tomatoes at the Mayor.  So a meeting aimed at scrutinising Lord Coe – Chair of LOCOG and Paul Deighton CEO poses a special problem for the pack.

Labour and the Lib Dems support the Olympics – are glad of it as a focus for regeneration and investment to East London.  The Tories support it officially and aim to be polite to our  guests but their anti interventionist and anti public expenditure instincts make them very restless.  Which way will the meeting go?

First political animal off the leash is the un-house-trained Tory Brian Coleman – he harasses our distinguished guests “are we expecting sponsorship from Cadbury’s – what connection has confectionery to the public health agenda?” Resisting provocation the slender, Italian-shoed Lord Coe rises elegantly above it.  John Biggs –Labour’s intellectual greyhound pads forwards with a public defence of a grand old Quaker British company and brings in a core rationale for the Olympics - showcasing British industry. The first exchange is often the format for the rest.

Tory attack dogs harry at  Lord Coe but Labour does a faithful guard dog thing – we continue to defend a Tory Peer from Tory Assembly members attacking a Tory supported national project. It feels weird.

Kit Malthouse lollops, big front paws first, into the fray   “the LOGOG are arrogant and confused”   but Coe is still a faster runner and leave Malthouse nodding behind him like a Churchill Insurance dog.  Lord Coe coolly assures him that there isn’t any confusion about roles  and responsibilities.  It’s all going well and they are expecting to hit their targets. Malthouse  complains that the Committee never goes to a vote, Coe not surprisingly thinks this is a good thing.

Lib Dem Olympic enthusiast Dee Doocey makes a  friendly yap at the heels of  the team and Lord Coe tickles her behind the ears with a flattering recognition of Dee’s persistent championing of disabled people’s rights.  Several Assembly members chance a peak at their Blackberries while this goes on – no blood and guts expected for a few minutes.  Nicky Gavron turns up late and a note passes up and down the Labour line sharing out the remaining time-  be good dogs.

Malthouse lurches in for a different line of attack , will Zill Lanes (Olympic “bus” lanes) cause public hostility he barks?  Coe uses the question to give an impressive account of his grasp of the detail and the massive size of the operation.  Anyway, says he, the traffic will be 20% down during the school holidays.  Kit says yes he “buys that”.  Coleman straining at the leash at this outbreak of peace yells “who cares they can all take the bus” and immediately realises that as the no 1 taxi user in the City  Hall he had made a mistake, as the entire pack turned on him and growl back – “what do you know about buses Brian?”  Coe must be feeling relaxed by now.  But has Boris, upstairs, yet noticed quite how ‘barking‘ his Chair of Fire and Emergency Planning is?  The man who accused Britain’s successful Olympic athletes as ‘checking in their conscience’s at Heathrow’?

Questioning goes onto security issues – for me something really interesting at last.  Paul Deighton knows what he is doing “this is all about co-ordination, integration and forward planning”.   But Roger Evans isn’t reassured about the financing of all this security.  He wants to see the details and costed security plan.  Deighton says this is “owned” by the Home Office and will go to Ministers (top dogs only Roger!).  Roger has his teeth into this one – will it cost too much?  Will we overspend?  He plays tug of war on this, but missies the key question “will it be safe?”.   Fortunately Caroline (Lib) Pigeon dashes in  to get her jaws on this abandoned bone.  LOCOG answers positively  but clearly aren’t willing to advertise London’s Security ‘dirty zones”.

Coming to the end of the questioning now and Paul and Seb are still free of bite mark or scratch..  I get my one question in that I have been waiting down our line for – I want the Ebony Horse Club (Brixton) to be recognised as an official part of the Olympic Legacy so that it can obtain Sport England funding to build a new Equestrian centre for disadvantaged Brixton kids rather than bussing them all around London as they have to now.  Seb and Paul are bound to be sympathetic  - and I get a public, and afterwards, private promise of help.  I tick the one box I had on my wish list for the meeting.

On to Motions,  the first a great dog fight about  Boris  dropping road safety schemes and public realm projects – it turns predictably into Tory vs Progressives (Labour, Green and Lib Dems.)  Tories are well behind the pace on all kinds of thinking about improving the pedestrian environment.  Motion two - Murad Qureshi (Lab) waxes Lyrical about Cricket  and wins a unanimous vote to support a proposal to have 20-20 Cricket as  showcase sport at the Oval.  Definately happy with that – in my Constituency.  As a finale, James Cleverly – the smart new Tory member for Bexley and Bromley moves a motion on food policy in London  which Brian savages as woolly thinking. The Assembly turns friendly in sympathy  and claps Gareth Bacon (Con) for speaking up for his colleague  against….. his other colleague.  Jenny Jones(Green)  ever wise and wonderful, wraps  up the entire meeting with a finger wagging at bad dog Brian Coleman,  ‘Brian’ she says, ‘you are always good for a laugh  and we particularly enjoy it when you turn like a terrier on your own side’……hear, hear, woof !

Ms Shawcross website can be found at www.valshawcross.com 

FED up of poor decisions being made wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money every day?

Fed up of corruption and behind-the-scenes deals bypassing democracy and accountability?

Are you angry at the perceived dominance of idiocy within central and local government where ethics and common sense appear to have gone out of the window?

If you have answered yes to any of those questions, then why not get involved with a new campaign to make government more transparent, open, democratic and value for money. We want better politics – that is the aim of the campaign.

And we are appealing to Londoners who want to get involved and make a difference.

Our capital is the heartbeat of Britain and in these difficult economic times we need to ensure that those in power are making the right choices.

And we must keep a close eye if they are not and highlight poor practice.

That said, we will also applaud good decisions and government as we should, so others can learn from them and go forward.

London has a population of 7.5 million and is the headquarters of more than half of the UK’s top 100 companies.

Apart from being a financial hub, it also leads the way in culture, the arts, politics, fashion and the media.

It brings in billions of pounds in tourism and is a major player on the world stage.

Yet, we see so much waste and corruption and opportunities thrown away in a capital which could be achieving much, much more than it does.

Stories about high levels of crime, poor housing, pathetic child protection, social cohesion problem and drug abuse are forever splashed across London’s front pages.

While, we also read of London councils failing spectacularly in their basic duties to govern and provide basic services. We’ve all seen recently seen sad stories such as in Haringey where Baby P tragically died despite dozens of visits by child protection officers and the Hackney headteachers sent on jollies to Arizona costing thousands while schools fail at home.

This new campaign wants to carry on highlighting issues like this to raise public awareness of the stupidity and waste within government, which so often goes, unnoticed and even, unreported, for whatever reasons.

If no-one else will mention it, we will. Enough it enough.

Millions and billions are spent on government and the public sector and it’s time we got our money’s worth.

And we want to have a say on how things happen and work.

We have noticed how council chief executives across the country earn up to 200k while residents struggle to find food for the table – this is not good enough.

We have seen officers and directors make key decisions – the wrong ones – without publicity or even telling leading councillors about them leading severe problems. This must not happen.

In Lancashire, officers failed to tell decision-makers about failings in its fostering service and children suffered as a result.

We are looking to start with a wide remit with the ultimate aim of concentrating on an issue or series of areas which need highlighting as part of a series of mini-campaigns.

If you believe you can help then please get in touch and spread the word.

This movement starts here and starts now.

A new politics is emerging in Britain based on action and community involvement – and the internet gives us these tools.

It’s time that those in cushy public sector positions were given a scare.

It’s time to root out the time wasters and make a change.

Please get in touch and let’s get to work! We are watching every move.

For more information, please visit www.betterpol.com

With a logo which echoes Mr Livingstone’s previous “LondON” branding, and with a hint of his independent-purple colour scheme, the organisation has a distinctly leftish tinge. So what is it for?

MayorWatch reports that “the coalition is expected to campaign against Mayor Johnson’s recently announced above-inflation fare increase.” So, it’s a campaigning body, right?

However, not all on the left are happy - Workers Liberty call it “quite transparently a vehicle for Ken Livingstone to return to City Hall in 2012″ and then go on to castigate Mr Livingstone’s convenient memory-loss over his own above-inflation fare increases.

Mr Livingstone has stated that he’d like to return to his old job in the past. Is Workers Liberty correct to assert that this enterprise is his poorly-disguised Trojan horse?Until Progressive London do more, it’s going to be hard to tell.

Perhaps Mr Livingstone himself is unsure - this could be his swan-song: creating a leftish coalition for the capital in order to combat the blueish tinge which currently covers local government. His legacy would be a new candidate, built from the grassroots, and a prize for himself as the grand old man of London politics. Of course, that could just be wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

UPDATE: Andrew Gilligan writes eloquently on Progressive London and what it means for the capital here.

Over the years out on the campaign trail I have met many people, maybe hundreds, who said “what’s the point” when I asked them about voting. For these people, politics and politicians appear to be an irrelevance, strange people, doing strange things somewhere else.  Politics is something that happens to them and without their input.

I have always felt uncomfortable knowing that so many people feel disengaged from politics.  A low turn out at the polls or a small audience at a political event takes some of the shine away from any successes you may have.

Outer South East London has traditionally been, at best, partially engaged in the Mayoralty and Assembly elections of the past.  The “nothing to do with us” mindset was strongly in evidence up until the 2008 elections, but with Boris making a number of visits and policy statements about Outer London we saw some of the largest increases in turnout in my corner of London.

This renewed interest in London regional politics caused a sell out (heavily oversubscribed) PQT on the 6^th November, it was clear that Londoners don’t just want to vote and then disengage again.  I believe that this is incredibly important, politics should not just be about election time and politicians who only talk to people in the lead up to an election are doomed to fail.  And rightly so.

I have heard many people in politics say that big speeches are dead and mastery of the more intimate media of the internet and TV are the only skills a politician needs.  Thursday of last week was evidence that that idea is wrong.

Over 600 people packed out a public hall to listen to, and more importantly, ask questions of the Mayor and Assembly.  The questioners were asked to cluster their questions within a number of themes, crime & policing, transport, the environment, the Olympics and then an open section to mop up any other topics not covered elsewhere.

While it was clear from the election results that there is a huge amount of support for Boris in Bromley it was also clear from the questions that local people expect results and were not shy about demanding them.  What also struck me as Chairman of the event was the civility and politeness of the questioners.  I don’t mean that the questions were easy of fawning, far from it, but they were not aggressive or rude.

Because the audience was firm but fair, the pressure was on the Mayor and Assembly to be open and fair in their replies.  There is a lesson there, a rude or aggressive questioner can easily be dismissed and ignored, a tough question politely presented has to be answered.

The PQT harked back to the town hall meetings of the past, so while the live digital voting system and webcast are modern some elements were very traditional.  Protesters are one of those traditional elements and we had one last week.

He was a particularly pleasant protester, he had a guitar, he sang a song, he left when asked to and he waved goodbye to everyone as he left.  All very nice, indeed he was quite the nicest protester I have ever met.  If I have to be protested against at any point in the future I’ll be getting in touch with him.

So, we seemed to have all the elements of perfect politics; public engagement, dialogue, a nice bit of mutual respect and a traditional protester.  Did that make it perfect?  It isn’t my job to decide, I enjoyed it and there were more people happy by the end of event than unhappy ones.  Hopefully even those with unhappy faces felt that their concerns had been listened to, even if they didn’t like the answers.

The legislation underpinning the GLA demands two such public meetings a year.  Boris thinks there should be more, I agree.  Luckily when the Mayor wants something like this to happen, it tends to happen.  For that reason there are plans to hold up to six PQTs per year.

These meetings won’t reinvigorate politics on their own but they do show a big step in the right direct.

James Cleverly Blogs at http://www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com/

The details for the latest People’s Question Time have been released and can be found below:

Time: 7.00pm – 9.00pm (doors open at 6.00pm)

Main Hall
Bromley Civic Centre
Stockwell Close
Bromley BR1 3UH

How to get there

Tickets to attend People’s Question Time (PQT) are free, but you should request your ticket(s) in advance.

How to get tickets

Your opportunity

People’s Question Time is your chance to ask the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and members of the London Assembly what they are doing for the capital and its people. This PQT meeting will be chaired by the Bromley & Bexley London Assembly Member – James Cleverly.

PQT happens twice a year. The four main issues it will focus on are policing and safety, transport,environment and the London Olympics Games in 2012. There will be an opportunity at the end to raise other issues not already discussed. Each section will be allocated approximately 20 minutes.

Your Mayor

The Mayor makes long-term plans for London’s transport, planning, culture, sport, environment and economic and spatial development. His plans set out priorities for organisations from boroughs to bus companies. The Mayor also sets budgets for the Metropolitan Police Authority and London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London and the London Development Agency.

Your London Assembly

The London Assembly examines and questions the Mayor on his decisions and strategies and holds him to account for his actions. It may also amend the Mayor’s budget if two-thirds of Assembly Members agree to do so. The Assembly also investigates important London issues – from the emergency response to the 7 July bombings to the state of London’s transport services.

Your questions

If you would like to put a question to the Mayor or London Assembly at PQT, you can fill out theonline form or else email your question topeoplesquestions@london.gov.uk. Some questions submitted in advance will be asked on the night. Any questions not answered on the night will be responded to afterwards.

Ken Livingstone has defended the right of London’s mayor to dismiss the Met Commissioner, while still criticising the manner of Sir Ian Blair’s exit.

Mr Livingstone said elected mayors must have the right to hire and fire chief constables and their senior officers.

But he told the BBC that Sir Ian was undermined by the media and his record in office did not justify his removal.

[BBC]

Personally, I fail to see what Mr Livingstone gains from such an intervention - as much as he tries to angle his words to be critical of the Mayor’s approach, he basically backs granting him further powers, and supports Mayoral intervention. Is the former Mayor trying to have it both ways?