Boris goes off message to back polluters

boriswatch Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:48:04 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Boris Johnson’s environmentalist mask has slipped as Ken Livingstone launches London’s Low Emission Zone to cut down on high polluting vehicles.



The Tory MP for Henley-on-Thames has been touting his credentials as an environmentalist ahead of May’s London elections.  He recently bragged that he wanted to be “a very green mayor, the most environmentally friendly mayor possible.” 

His focus groups have clearly told him that backing polluters is a vote looser.  

But that mask has slipped over London’s Low Emission Zone, which came into force today.  On Boris’s website, he proclaims that he “will support the Low Emission Zone to improve air quality”.  All well and good except that only last week he said that it was “the most punitive, draconian fining regime in the whole of Europe.”

If Boris wants to beef up his Cameron-style green image, then he had better read his public relations lines a bit better than that. There aren’t many votes in backing polluters.


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Boris goes off message to back polluters | 3 comments (3 topical)

Re: Boris goes off message to back polluters (#1)

by Paradox on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:45:50 PM GMT

I don't really see why viewing a policy as punitive and draconian means that you can't agree with it.
Punitive and draconian measures are what is needed to prevent pollution.


Re: Boris goes off message to back polluters (#3)

by rwendland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:22:31 AM GMT

Eh? Operating profit has well exceeded enforcement income since 2004/5 at least, and from 2005/6 allowing for capital+setup cost repayment over a reasonable. (capital+setup+first_year_loss: £250 million at 6.5% over 12 years = £30 million/year by my simple estimate)

eg 2005/6 operating profit excluding enforcement income was £57 million, well above a (nominal) £30 million repayment charge.

Also, doesn't the enforcement income include an element representing the avoided daily charge? If so maybe 10% of the enforcement income should be viewed as non-penalty income.

The Bow Group analysis, which I suspect you are referring to, doesn't seem to handle capital repayment in a normal way as an investment to be repaid over the reasonable lifetime of the works/equipment. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Boris goes off message to back polluters (#5)

by rwendland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:06:38 PM GMT

The Bow Group revenue numbers differ from TfL reports, I have no idea why (the Bow Group report does not give precise sources).

For my calculation above I used the lower TfL revenue numbers, but the claimed Bow Group capital+other extra costs. i.e conservative.

Hugh, you made the allegation "it would collapse without the fines revenue", so the onus is on you to produce the numbers to back up this claim which does not seem to stand up to a quick analysis.


[ Parent ]

Boris goes off message to back polluters | 3 comments (3 topical)