Livingstone attempts another land grab
I do wonder how Livingstone finds the time to attempt to rebut just about anything The Standard, London Councils (individually and collectively) etc say about London, in between hob-nobbing with dictators, insulting ethnic minority Londoners and generally behaving in an odd way, but he does.
London Councils has put out a release noting that "when London boroughs’ recycling rates for 2005/6 are compared with similar large urban authorities in England , nine of the top ten performing authorities are London boroughs. London also sends less waste per head of population to landfill than the national average". In part this is due to there being less gardening related waste in London than elsewhere, unsurprisingly.
Anyway, the Livingstone media machine was electrified into action by this, and in a release dripping with bile (London Councils and research are both put in inverted commas) Livingstone or one of his homunculi, 'argues' "The London Councils 'research' has trawled through the available research on recycling and all they have managed to show is that half of London councils are recycling less than Barnsley. We cannot go on like this - we are the major global city in Western Europe and we should be at the cutting edge of recycling". There then follows a very selective laundry list of cities that recycle a higher percentage, although if this is a valid like for like comparison it is not explained. London (pop. 7.5m) is compared with Melbourne (pop 3.7m) and Seattle (pop 600,000), inter alia although not with Gay Paree, which with a population of 9.6m (city limits) or 11.1m (metro area) has at least as good a claim to be 'the major global city in Western Europe' .
Rather than greenery, what I consider Leninspart is really interested in is a land grab: "The only way to deal with the vast amount of waste we produce in this city is to have a London-wide body responsible". And I wonder who that would be answerable to? Answers on a postcard please. Perhaps the great lover of democracy might like to consider that once statutory obligations have been discharged, how councils choose to direct their time, energy and spending is an issue for the councils and their electorates, and wrapping oneself in a green shroud does not give him, or anyone else, such a unique moral authority that it trumps localism.
And there's more - London Councils have now responded to KL, "Environment minister Ben Bradshaw MP has written to all London council leaders to reject the Mayor of London’s calls for the creation of a single waste authority in the capital. He also warns that setting up a single waste authority would mean Londoners having to pay more through their council tax to deal with their waste – KPMG have estimated that the costs would total an extra £5.5 million per annum".
Quite the turf war.
London Councils has put out a release noting that "when London boroughs’ recycling rates for 2005/6 are compared with similar large urban authorities in England , nine of the top ten performing authorities are London boroughs. London also sends less waste per head of population to landfill than the national average". In part this is due to there being less gardening related waste in London than elsewhere, unsurprisingly.
Anyway, the Livingstone media machine was electrified into action by this, and in a release dripping with bile (London Councils and research are both put in inverted commas) Livingstone or one of his homunculi, 'argues' "The London Councils 'research' has trawled through the available research on recycling and all they have managed to show is that half of London councils are recycling less than Barnsley. We cannot go on like this - we are the major global city in Western Europe and we should be at the cutting edge of recycling". There then follows a very selective laundry list of cities that recycle a higher percentage, although if this is a valid like for like comparison it is not explained. London (pop. 7.5m) is compared with Melbourne (pop 3.7m) and Seattle (pop 600,000), inter alia although not with Gay Paree, which with a population of 9.6m (city limits) or 11.1m (metro area) has at least as good a claim to be 'the major global city in Western Europe' .
Rather than greenery, what I consider Leninspart is really interested in is a land grab: "The only way to deal with the vast amount of waste we produce in this city is to have a London-wide body responsible". And I wonder who that would be answerable to? Answers on a postcard please. Perhaps the great lover of democracy might like to consider that once statutory obligations have been discharged, how councils choose to direct their time, energy and spending is an issue for the councils and their electorates, and wrapping oneself in a green shroud does not give him, or anyone else, such a unique moral authority that it trumps localism.
And there's more - London Councils have now responded to KL, "Environment minister Ben Bradshaw MP has written to all London council leaders to reject the Mayor of London’s calls for the creation of a single waste authority in the capital. He also warns that setting up a single waste authority would mean Londoners having to pay more through their council tax to deal with their waste – KPMG have estimated that the costs would total an extra £5.5 million per annum".
Quite the turf war.
Labels: Livingstone, Odd press releases
This entry was posted
on Monday, January 15, 2007 at 1:08 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Right on the ball C this one gets a letter from me to my local chums . it is excatly what David Cameron was saying undermined reasonable concern for the future.
Excellent work and a nice contract with Elee . She is running the optimistic view of green in a very good post at the moment
Mr Mania
do fancy Cameron or something?
You seem to have girly crush on the man
Must be my boyish charm.... Anyway, off out for a bit.
PHITCH try not to be jealous. I`m not that sort of chap anyway.
I shudder to think how many PR people Ken has employed at our expense.
Put getting rid of them on your mayoral to do list please N.
Cityunslicker, I saw a Guardian advert for 2 new Press Officers for Ken's office, he is well looked after in that department.
Re London and reycling, I wrote about this in 2004 when only seven out of 33 London boroughs achieved their government set recycling targets for 2003/04. I think that says it all.
KL has more press people than the average woman has pairs of shoes. So quite a few...
I couldn't find quite the right place for this, but Livingstone's money-grabbing seemed the closest. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122606.php3
This is by one of my favourite columnists, a conservative thinker called Thomas Sowell.
I understand this, Mr. C:
...setting up a single waste authority would mean Londoners having to pay more through their council tax...
but appalling as Red Ken is, how does it actually translate into a landgrab?
Here's another good one, talking about this "relative poverty" rubbish.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122806.php3
James, I see the attempted landgrab in that the waste authority would be answerable to him, not to council tax payers in individual London councils.
Good stuff Verity - thank you.
Thanks Verity. This relative poverty thing makes my headache. It is all so illogical.
City Unslicker - Agreed. My head begins to hurt when I even hear the term, even before I hear the expansionist lefty rhetoric. If you go back to Sowell's site, you will see that this "relative poverty" exercises in him in other pieces. He is always a reasoned and eloquent read and he is a Milton Friedman style conservative.
» Post a Comment