05.27.08

bojo watch: the second move

Posted in politics at 7:19 pm by Rob Fahey

Writing in the Guardian this week, Charlie Brooker makes a typically self-deprecating comment which, in fact, astutely sums up a large part of the problem - and pointlessness - with party politics.

During the London mayoral election, I had two main fears. The first, obviously, was that Boris was going to win. For weeks I repeatedly voiced that fear to everyone I met - to no avail as it turned out. But the second fear, the one I kept tucked away somewhere near the back of my head, was far more sinister. It was this: what if Boris won - and then turned out to be really good at his job? That might force me to question my cherished anti-Tory prejudice, which is so ingrained and instinctive it feels like something hand-stamped on my DNA.

This leapt out at me because it describes exactly why I have such difficulty in debating politics with, or even having a friendly discussion with, anyone who unswervingly devotes themselves to a political party. There’s a basic illogic to it - it comes with baggage which prevents you from recognising the benefits on the other side of the fence, and you end up twisting your world-view to suit your support of the party, rather than moving your political affiliations as your world-view changes. It’s deeply unhealthy to hitch yourself to a monolithic, bureaucratic body whose sole aim, ultimately, is to gain power - the contrast being those who support individual policies, ideals, or even politicians, of course, all of which are healthy parts of the political system. The parties themselves are merely parasites within that system which, sadly, are necessary for the functioning of our type of democracy.

Anyway, that’s why the phrase - with its perfect summing up of the closed-mindedness engendered by party politics - struck a chord with me. It came back to mind earlier today, however, because Boris’ actions as Mayor came back to the fore. Frankly, I don’t think Charlie has much to worry about regarding Boris turning out to be really good - not if th evidence thus far is anything to go on.

What has Boris Johnson done so far as Mayor of London? Two things. Firstly, he brought in a new rule which banned consuming alcohol on buses, tubes and trams in the city. While this doesn’t actually affect me in any way, and won’t affect most people, it’s clear that it’s the worst kind of gesture politics. People who drink on the tube aren’t the problem where anti-social behaviour is concerned; in fact, your average tube journey is so short that even if you downed half a bottle of wine at the beginning, you’d be off the tube at the other end before it started having any major effect. The problem is people who get onto the tube incredibly drunk and proceed to act in an anti-social way - banning drink on the tube won’t fix that in any way.

The ban also didn’t actually come with any additional budget for enforcing it, so fuck knows who’s meant to do that. In other words, it’s a tiny, largely unimportant freedom that’s been removed from us not for any practical reason, but because a politician wished to make a statement. That’s not a good way to set the scene for the rest of Boris’ tenure as Mayor, is it?

Well, if that’s worrying news, consider his next move - details of which were shuffled out of the Mayor’s office on the Sunday of a Bank Holiday weekend. Boris (or rather, Boris’ Tory Party minders - I doubt sincerely that he’s making these kind of decisions for himself) has elected to end London’s deal with Venezuela, which saw the city’s transport network being fuelled with cheap Venezuelan oil in return for a fairly significant return of expertise and knowledge back to the developing South American economy.

The deal was controversial, largely because some saw it as exploitation of a poor South American country by a wealthy European city - and, of course, because the US media and their cohorts deeply dislike Hugo Chavez himself. (One oft-ignored fact is that by cutting out oil companies and middlemen, another aspect of the deal which enraged parts of the media, London ended up paying Venezuela directly and the country didn’t do all that badly out of the deal, even before considering the value they got from the imported expertise we returned to them.)

However, what the deal did on the ground was simple - it provided half-price transport for Londoners living on Income Support. That covers a wide range of people, including a large number of those with disabilities - a great many of whom aren’t eligible for the Freedom Pass scheme, so this deal made a fairly significant impact for them.

In canceling the scheme, Boris has removed that half-price travel. The last half-price passes, which are valid for six months, will be issued in August - after which those on Income Support, including the disabled, will essentially see their transport fares double.

The Mayor’s office says that its concern here is for the poor of Venezuela - although how exactly this is going to help them, or when exactly Boris Johnson and his aides became so concerned for them, is not explained in any way. The reality is that the Conservative party in the UK has major problems with Chavez’ regime, and rather than acting in the interests of the people of London - especially the most vulnerable people in the city - Boris has just toed the line and done exactly what he’s told by his party and his advisors.

So there we have it. Two moves from the new Mayor - one removes a part of our freedoms in order to make an empty gesture, the second directly hurts the city’s most vulnerable people in order to toe the party line (and make an equally empty gesture). Further government intrusion, illiberal policies and snatching money from the hands of the poor and the disabled - is Cameron’s idea of making the Conservatives seem “compassionate”? I think Charlie Brooker need not worry; four more years of this and nobody will doubt who was in the right at the last Mayoral election.

Technorati Tags: Boris Johnson, Charlie Brooker, Hugo Chavez, politics, London, Venezuela