Assembly Budget: first real salvo of election campaign

On Thursday the first meaningful salvo of the 2012 Assembly elections took place as the parties put forward their proposals for the Mayor’s budget.

The Conservatives had already announced that they were proposing a tax cut (£3.10/year) and there were no significant surprises there. What the budget showed is that the four parties have four (sometimes modestly) different approaches to how to organise the London Assembly’s budget.

In presenting his budget Mayor Johnson did a fair amount of huffing and puffing. He described Labour as a “glove puppet of the unions” and was still gloating about cancelling City Hall’s Morning Star subscription, but when it came to substance the main direction of travel was the decision to steer a steady course with what Johnson described as a “nominal” reduction in tax.

The Conservatives presented a very clear steering a steady course budget that focused on “sensible savings” and avoided big brand-name projects or anything that might produce difficult headlines. One piece of evidence that the budget was a safety play was that the Labour group did not vote against it, specifically citing the cut in the council tax precept.

Stop the tax cut

Darren Johnson of the Greens was the only politician in the room who said a tax cut at this time was the wrong approach. Highlighting that it meant a £9.4 million reduction in revenue he argued that at a time when some are facing redundancy this tiny cut could have done real good in London. It represents 94 hybrid (eco) buses we could have bought that would have more than tripled the fleet. Alternatively 78,000 homes could have been retrofitted cutting bills and emissions as well as creating some hands on jobs.

He said to the Mayor that “You’ve whacked up fares whilst handing back this paltry tax cut – that doesn’t sound very fair.” He asked Boris Johnson to “cancel your paltry tax cut” and spend the money in ways that Londoners would actually notice. The Mayor congratulated Darren Johnson on his “fiscal honesty” but declined.

The Liberal Democrat Caroline Pidgeon asked where in the budget was the money for safer junctions. While the Mayor and TfL have begun to concede that action needs to be taken on road safety Pidgeon was concerned that they needed to put their money where their mouth is.

However, on the tax cut more generally the Lib Dems actually wanted the Mayor to go even further describing the saving as “a mouse of a cut“. This places the three opposition parties in three distinct camps. The Lib Dems arguing for greater tax cuts, Labour for the Tory level of tax cut and the Greens clearly opposed to the cut in precept.

Police numbers

Police numbers will clearly be one of the key election battlegrounds. Sadly the focus appears to be wholly on the rather dry subject of the numbers of uniformed officers. The discussion is unlikely to touch on how those police officers are used and what they are doing.

Darren Johnson from the Greens (again) last month was concerned that the focus on uniforms has led to the loss of civilian staff and more highly paid uniformed officers doing admin work they are not trained for, less well than the staff who’ve been laid off and certainly not free to wander the beat. Darren called for a more rounded police force as the emphasis on uniformed officers has led to an incredibly distorted debate.

The back and forth between Tory and Labour members on police numbers was particularly unfruitful as if numbers alone is what makes an impact. At least the Liberal Democrats had specific proposals around ensuring each Neighbourhood Safety Team had a Police Sergeant allocated to it, which was an attempt to raise the debate to how we allocate police officers rather than simply how many of them there are.

The Fairest Fares

Transport Fares will be the other key election issue and once again there was a real difference between the parties. The Conservative position is well established – an above inflation rise in fares with no similar rise in the congestion charge. Tory AM Tony Arbour surprised the room including fellow Tories by saying that “relatively few Londoners use public transport” sparking speculation that he simply didn’t know the kind of person who does, ie most of us.

Labour are for reversing the fare rise by using reserves which they describe as “excess profits” for a one off election headline. The other parties seemed to believe that these numbers did not stack up. Fares certainly need to come down and it’s likely this policy will win friends whether or not the accountants can make it add up.

The Liberal Democrats proposed targeted fare cuts that cost little in the overall budget but make a difference to the individuals concerned. These include an early bird ticket and a one hour bus ticket, both of which are pretty good ideas, if modest.

The Greens are for taking the fare increase down from its current inflation busting rise back down to an RPI rise. They also appear to be the only party proposing an increase in the congestion charge in the short term and in the longer term replacing the charge with road pricing which would work with a simple Oyster card-like system fixed in the car so you only pay for the amount of traffic you create.

And finally, special moves

There were a few other issues that were being raised that probably represent what we could describe as each parties’ “special move”.

The Liberal Democrats have developed a slight obsession with the London Fire Brigade Museum which is situated conveniently in Simon Hughes’ constituency. While they clearly feel this is a vote winner I’m not sure that the public will think a vigorous campaign over this particular worthy organisation while libraries and nurseries are being shut is a good use of their energies.

The Greens are talking about equality and pay. They want to make London a “fair pay city” by addressing the salaries of the highest paid officers and introducing a living wage for the lowest paid. That the Greens are the only ones campaigning on this issue is a shame but it may well mean it  does not become a theme of the election more generally.

The Labour Party’s John Biggs did make a strange intervention at the budget meeting about pot plants but it’s unlikely this will be one of Labour’s headline policies. Reversing the fares increase will be their main theme, something the other parties do not think adds up financially. Len Duvall described the fares increase as “morally wrong” because it hits the poorest hardest, although Labour then abstained on the budget.

The Conservatives appear to be the only party who will seriously deploy the economy savings argument. Brian Coleman said that eradicating “Spanish practices” among employees was the way to go. Other Conservatives criticised trade unions and Labour’s Navin Shah specifically for joining a GMB picket line. Reducing waste is always welcome although whether the public will buy that there is much fat left to trim is another question.