So – I can kiss Ken goodbye – metaphorically speaking!

A little while back Ken said he hoped I would soon go to Parliament and therefore stop harassing him with my questions at Mayor’s Question Time.

Thursday’s election has delivered his wish and I will be stepping down from the GLA as soon as I have tied up a few loose ends. Whilst over the moon at the General Election result in Hornsey & Wood Green, I am very sad to leave the Assembly.

Being Chair of Transport and a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority has been such a privilege in terms of actually getting things done. It will be interesting to see how being an MP compares!

At this morning’s Mayor’s press conference, Ken announced he was putting up the fines for fare dodging from £10 (derisory) to £20 (a Lib Dem proposal). Together with his decision to stop the Congestion Charge at 6pm to help restaurants and theatres – two tributes to our proposals as a parting gift?

It’s all been a mad whirl, needless to say, since Thursday night. With a swing that size from Labour to Lib Dem (nearly 15%), the media have wanted their pound of flesh. But might as well enjoy it while I can.

Why such a big swing? Well, many reasons. It was partly down to the hard work of our team – and it was so good when putting together our leaflets to see that there were so many positive achievements to talk about. More prominently, people were also sending a message to Blair – like it is unacceptable to wage an illegal war on a false premise and that civil liberties in place since Magna Carta are pretty precious. And I don’t think it helped much the Government talking about choice in schools – when 140 sets of parents locally had all three of their ‘choices’ denied.

And what happens now? Well – I’ve been inducted, got my pass, and am busy trying to organise surgeries, deal with around eight hundred emails, letters, phone calls, set up an office, thank everyone, tackle shed loads more casework, masses of media – all brilliant things to be dealing with.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who voted for me and to say that I will serve all the residents of Hornsey & Wood Green to the best of my ability. I went to my first meeting as MP on Tuesday night – organised by Friends of Red Gables, who are trying to save this fantastic local family centre from closure by Haringey Council.

The passion in the room from local residents and users was moving in the extreme. This is a much-loved local centre – and the fact that it deals with children heightens the feelings and emotions all the more.

Two Labour councillors were at the meeting to try to explain the Council’s plans. Impressive they weren’t! They want to close it to make savings and are promising to redistribute the ‘services’ to new childrens’ centres elsewhere in the borough. But they couldn’t say what, where or when. And whilst they made notes of what the packed meetings said – they batted away question after question without an answer. They didn’t seem to understand that when parents are asking what will happen to services for their children – they want clear, specific answers, not vague promises that something might be provided at a time and place unknown.

I think that the Labour duo were shocked by the depth of feeling in that room. I hope they were. And I hope when they reflect on the incredible contributions from the people in that room that they find enough understanding to change their minds.

It was a good first meeting to attend as MP as it reminded me sharply how much there is to fight for – and that fighting for residents is what comes first.

I was going to put to Ken Livingstone in Mayor’s Question Time a question on terrorism and terror laws and how the repercussions have been targeted on Muslims in London. But sadly – Ken had lost his voice, so Mayor’s Question Time was cancelled.

Here in London, we have lived through thirty years or more of fighting terrorism. That is the actual history and experience of our country – notspun, not hyped up, just the reality.

What have we learnt from thirty years of real terrorists, real bombs and real bloodshed? There are two very clear lessons from those years: firstly, internment failed. It didn’t stop terrorism. It simply created more terrorists. Secondly -despite extensive and detailed intelligence operations – we didn’t get the police saying after the bombs – ‘Hello, hello, hello – we knew that X and Y were about to plant a bomb and we’d have been able to stop the bombing if only you’d let us pop ’em away without trial’.

Two of the top policemen in the fight against terrorism were George Churchill-Coleman – head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist squad in the 1980s and 1990s – and now Lord Condon, the Met’s former top policeman.

Churchill-Coleman has spoken out against Labour’s house arrest plans, saying the plans are “not practical” and “I have a horrible feeling that we are sinking into a police state, and that’s not good for anybody”. Lord Condon too has opposed the plans – and voted against them in the Lords.

So when Labour politicians tries to paint opponents of their plans as soft on terrorism – remember that they’re accusing two of the top policemen in the fight against the IRA. Hmmm … !

The reality is that at the moment we are talking about fewer terrorists in the UK, with less training, less equipment and less experience than the IRA had at their peak. So anyone claiming more measures and more powers are needed really needs to make the case against that background.

Too much of the government’s case has rested on the idea that the authorities “know” who is the terrorists are and as terrorists are bad guys, doing something about this must be a good thing.

Well, yes – the authorities say they “know.” Just as they “knew” the Guildford 4 did it, and just like they knew the Birmingham 6 did it – and like they “knew” there were WMD in Iraq. That’s the other lesson from the fight against the IRA – taking action against people because you “know” they did it doesn’t result in terrorists being caught; it results in innocent people suffering whilst the real terrorists get away with it.

One last thought about house arrest. How will it work?

Imagine the scene. Person under house arrest. Well – that won’t stay secret for long.

So you’ll have the person in the house. The police watching outside the house. The protestors around the police. More police policing the protestors protesting against the police. And a road full of TV vans.

Way to go guys!

But the serious point is the damage this does to communities and policing -and all in the name of measures which go over the top.

I don’t want to die in a terrorist attack – but the fear of terrorism shouldn’t blind us to accepting anything dressed up in the language of being tough on terrorism.

Ken’s had a bit of a week!

It started well for him. Two-thirds of the London Assembly having voted down his budget the previous week – he ‘bought’ the two Green votes he needs (in addition to Labour) to get his budget, with its tax increase, through. And he had to give away almost nothing to get their votes. Consequently he was smiling very happily at the weekly press conference at City Hall. He obviously now felt safe in the knowledge he would be able to put his hands in Londoners’ pockets once again.

But by the very next day – his old uncontrollable mouth delivered him into unsavoury difficulties. Calling a Jewish reporter, simply doing his job, a “concentration camp guard” was not the action of a sensible person. That the Mayor sullied London’s reputation with this outburst on the eve of a visit to London by a team to assess our Olympics bid made his comments particularly ill-timed – though they would have been offensive at any time.

Why does he do it? It’s not a one-off. Perhaps it is because Ken has got used to believing he walks on water and can say what he likes – and get away with it. Even when the Assembly debated the issue – he didn’t seem to understand what he had done wrong – and refused to apologise.

He is the same in private as he is in public. Not in the same league, but on a recent occasion, Sir John Stevens’ retirement bash to be precise, I was talking to Ken when David Blunkett came up to us. Ken introduced me to Blunkett and we shook hands. Blunkett commented on how warm my hands were. To my horror – and I assume to Blunkett’s too – Ken said something like “careful David – you know what you are like with women.” Ken likes to be risque – and thinks he can get away with it (cheeky chappy stuff), never quite understanding what’s OK and what’s not.

Flashback to Tuesday when he came before the Transport Committee that I chair to answer on his desire to raise the Congestion Charge to 8. Not the same sort of thing exactly – but a good demonstration of saying what he damn well pleases.

Originally, when he was first trying to sell the idea of the Congestion Charge, Ken told London he needed to reduce traffic by 15%. This critical level of reduction would make London work and stop the 2 million per week cost to business that congestion was causing.

He succeeded. Hats off to the Mayor. Traffic was reduced by 15%. But the traffic hasn’t risen back again in the Central Zone since the charge was introduced – so what’s the need the raise the charge now? Ken’s answer to the committee was that he wanted to drive the traffic level down further – by between 17 and 21% – to create a better quality of life.

Sounded plausible so far, but was this the end of it? Would 8 be for the whole of his current term of office? Well – he wriggled, wiggled and tiggled about it. He “couldn’t envisage a situation where it would need to rise further.” He had no “plans” to raise it further. You don’t have to be a lawyer (and I’m not!) to spot the loopholes he’s leaving himself.

“You’re a slippery one,” I said.

“I know! I do it all the time and get away with it,” responded our august Mayor. So true!

Proof of slippery pudding arrived only a day later when I looked at new papers from Transport for London (for their next Board meeting). Lo and behold – the papers clearly stated that traffic in the Congestion Charging zone was running at a 21% reduction from the original level from when the scheme was first introduced.

So with the 21% reduction in traffic the Mayor told the committee he wanted to introduce the charge for already achieved – I assume Mayor Livingstone will immediately drop any idea of raising the charge

High Noon at City Hall. Well – more to do with the boys in the playground again – but sadly the topic was serious.

Mayor Ken got in an absolute stew over a question from Green member Darren Johnson about his ‘support’ for Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, according to Darren, supports and encourages the death sentence for homosexuals. Ken says this is not the case and that he is a moderate and a progressive community leader.

He had been publicly welcomed to City Hall last year by Mayor Livingstone and there had been a bit of a row then. The Assembly had debated the rights and wrongs of this invitation and had, in its wisdom, stood up for the rights of free speech – even when one disagrees.

It seemed to me, listening at the time, that al-Qaradawi’s remarks could be interpreted in a wide range of different ways. Even as a minimum, it was regrettable that he didn’t feel the need to avoid such ambiguities in his comments. But his views aren’t easily pigeon-holed. For example he’s been quoted as both supporting suicide bombings and criticising attacks on civilians.

There is though a real difficulty if, on ground of free speech, you listen to controversial people such as him but do not accord a similar opportunity to those of differing views.

So for me there is a question over who Ken does choose to give a publicity platform to at City Hall and who he doesn’t. A wiser Mayor would ensure a clearer sense of balance on issues as sensitive as those surrounding the Middle East. Whilst the Mayor has had meetings with the Board of Jewish Deputies and others – those have been in private, unlike the very public event involving the al-Qaradawi.

Sadly the City Hall pantomime didn’t really deal with this issue. Ken’s view was that Darren was distorting a particular quotation from al- Qaradawi to suit his argument and called Darren ‘Islamophobic’ and then, as the argument between them built up, ‘dishonest’.

At this point, Chair of the Assembly and my co-columnist, Brian Coleman banged his gavel and demanded that the Mayor withdraw his remarks. Ken, being Ken, stuck out his petulant lower lip and said ‘I won’t!’

I don’t want to bore you with the ensuing ‘Oh yes you will’, ‘Oh no I won’t’. Suffice to say – the Assembly was adjourned and when returned the legal advice was that this was a matter for the Standards Board if Darren wished to pursue it – which I believe he is so doing.

There may be another, unintended consequence of this distinct cooling of relations between the Mayor and the Green Party. In order for the Assembly to over-turn the Mayor’s budget proposals, a two-thirds majority is needed. If the Greens vote with Labour, a budget will get through but if they join all the other parties and vote against a budget it won’t.

Now, there probably won’t be the usual arguments over how high Ken wants to increase his share of Council Tax. That’s because it’s an election year and – surprise! – he’s already said he will not be wanting an increase of more than 5% (or 20-30p per week for the average London resident).

Instead, the debate will be much more about priorities within the overall budget. What I would like to see is for curbs on Ken’s astronomical spending on his own publicity machine. That money would be better spent on improving road safety – which doesn’t get enough attention or funding considering how many of London’s citizens die each year. I was very struck by a BBC report last year that at the time more people die on the roads in London than are murdered.

Could the Greens and other parties be tempted to vote for this over Ken’s publicity budget? Interesting times ahead!

‘Twas Christmas Eve and the snow was falling gently on the beautiful glass palace where twenty-five political elves and a handsome Mayor (more of a frog really – but for the sake of the story, handsome) lived.

Nearly a year had passed since the Mayor had been discovered – frozen on a plinth in Trafalgar Square. And much had come to pass in the land in that year and the ruling order had changed.

The red elves had taken the cold, stiff body to No 10 Downing Street where the all-powerful strong-willed Prince – much more powerful than the Mayor – had breathed life back into him. But not life as the Mayor had known it before. Now the Mayor no longer cared about the people of London. All he now cared about was pleasing the Prince.

Meanwhile the dark shadow of mistrust had fallen across the land. Once upon a time, not that long ago, the people had truly loved the Prince – but he had betrayed them and taken them to war and death on falsehoods. Now the forces of darkness were gathering against him.

His staunchest ally, an authoritarian and illiberal wizard, had fallen in love with a seductive witch who cast a spell upon him. The spell made him do things that no wizard should – and he had used his power for personal gain. When a Wizard misuses his powers – he is done for – and thus it came to pass that he left his master’s service in disgrace.

And the enemy within was not far away. There was a most powerful foe living only next door, brooding and jealous, and the strong-willed Prince was scared – but still his power was absolute and his rule iron. Anyone who challenged him was dispensed with. The Mayor too now did his bidding. London was in darkest danger.

Only the political elves could save London. But the blue elves continued to fight amongst themselves. The red and green elves (much less in number than before) had no will of their own and did whatever the Mayor instructed them to do. The purple elves – who were new – didn’t have a clue what they were doing. Only the golden elves stood up for the people of old London Town. And the people were glad.

But the Mayor did not like the popularity of the golden elves. He was jealous and he would peevishly attack them whenever he could. In fact the Mayor and the Prince had both begun to notice a golden glow in the skies above an area in the north of London Town.

On Christmas Eve preparations were already well underway for the Great Event- an event foretold by the soothsayers which would fall on May 5 in the year of Our Mayor, 2005.

The Prince instructed the Mayor to stop the golden political elves at all costs. So as the snow fell on Christmas Eve the Mayor called the golden elves to his chamber and offered them each a golden glass of bubbling liquid to celebrate the year’s end. But the chalice was poisoned and they all fell into a deep sleep from which no one could awaken them.

The people were distraught. As they wended their way home no one knew whether they would live or die. Golden helpers delivered leaflets up and down the land asking people to clap their hands at midnight on Christmas Eve as the only way to save the elves.

And the people did clap. And the elves were saved.

As the snow settled on the rooftops of London all was well and there was peace and goodwill to all throughout the land.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

‘Hopefully you are going to Parliament so I will not have to put up with your questions much longer.’

Thus spoke Ken at last Mayor’s Question Time. The Mayor clearly no longer loves me!

Ken’s ‘dear john’ came at Mayor’s Question Time when I was pushing him intensively on the 152 million fares dodged since he took office. That’s 132,000 per day. True to form, whenever the questioning going gets rough – Ken likes to change the subject.

However, I wasn’t in the mood for jollity. £40 million was lost this year on the buses and £43 million on the tube. Given Ken is breaking his promises not to raise fares above inflation and is going to break his promises in each of the next three years as well as this one – the least he can do is make more of an effort to crack down on those who dodge fares.

In recent weeks I have become an expert on fare dodging – not through practising the dark art – but by being forced to pursue a Mayor who does not appear to care half as much about catching fare dodgers as raising fares for those who are honest and pay them.

Currently, Revenue Inspectors are catching only about one in seven hundred dodgers. I doubt whether Ken would be equally sanguine if only one out of every seven hundred evaders of the Congestion Charge were caught and prosecuted.

I suggested to him that he ought to double the £10 penalty currently levied on fare dodgers – a charge so derisory that it apparently isn’t worth the time and effort to pursue. The Mayor should put fare dodging on a par with transgressing into a bus lane, evading the Congestion Charge or running over on a meter – and double the penalty charge for dodging to £20 which if not paid promptly, should double and then double again – like all the other charges now levied on Londoners. Sauce for the goose etc.

There’s a particular problem with the ‘bendy buses’ and the number of doors they have – which are not all by the driver. Some people seem to feel no need to buy a ticket as they can board the bus away from the driver (and there are no conductors). Already radio jocks have christened these huge new vehicles the ‘free’ bus. But where’s the action from the Mayor? Ken needs to implement an intense and high profile anti-fare dodging campaign targeted on people who seem to think they really are ‘free’ buses.

Ken was annoyed with the term ‘free bus’ – but action would be even better.

One aspect of the issue he wouldn’t or couldn’t answer is how the targets for the Revenue Protection Inspectors really work. Now, I’ve been told that they are given a target number of tickets to check (rather than evaders to catch). This means there’s actually an incentive on them not to catch any evaders – as finding an evader slows them down as they have to deal with it.

Another one is – what’s been the impact on ticket revenue where Routemasters have been replaced by bendy buses?

Both fair questions in my book – and ones a London Mayor who was really on top of the job would be able to handle. But he didn’t. I’ve more hope for the meeting I have scheduled with the Director of Surface Transport at Transport for London next week. I’ll get a chance to follow up on these then.

So Mayor Ken may very well wish me gone to another place – but right now – I just want answers!

A very, very, senior officer of the Metropolitan Police said to me in a nudge nudge, wink wink sort of a way: ‘It’s voluntary – until they say no!’

Now I suspect that, if asked, he would say he was joking – but I don’t think he was. I think that statement is a true reflection of the situation in an investigation taking place into a serial rapist in South London.

What this officer was referring to was the taking of DNA samples from members of the black community because a new type of DNA profiling has indicated the perpetrator is of mixed black origin. This is being done on a ‘voluntary’ basis from ‘persons of interest’. ‘Persons of interest’ are people who have a possible connection with the crime either through location, profession or some other connection which might indicate they could be a suspect.

This rapist has been committing the most horrific crimes against old women for twelve years now – and the police are absolutely and justifiably desperate to catch the perpetrator.

I have been pursuing, in my role as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, a number of legitimate concerns around the taking of these DNA samples and the testing of them. This is not just ordinary DNA testing (which simply answers the question – is this trace of DNA really from person A?).

This is DNA profiling and involves cutting-edge science to get someone’s genetic mix out of the DNA sample. The technique is in its early days, but already can identify the racial mix from four main racial groups.

There are around 900 ‘persons of interest’. One of the key issues for me has been that if the ‘person of interest’ declines to give a ‘voluntary’ sample, he has then received a letter from a senior detective saying ‘I am looking into the reasons for your refusal and will let you know of my decision’. That is a pretty intimidating statement in my view. It gets worse. Out of 125 initial refusals who got the letter – the police went on to arrest five men. Two of those changed their mind on the point of arrest and ‘volunteered’ their DNA. DNA was taken from those arrested.

It is so easy to say end justifies means. It is easy to see the argument that this crime is so horrific that it is right to take DNA voluntarily or otherwise. Don’t get me wrong. The police are doing a great job. But it is a complete misnomer to call this type of testing ‘voluntary’. It is clearly mandatory in practice.

Moreover, recent new legislation means that if you or I are arrested – we can be taken to a police station, our DNA taken from us and kept on record in perpetuity – even if we are not charged with any crime.

In practice, we are getting mandatory DNA testing and a national DNA database by the backdoor. Now, one objection to this is that such important decisions should be made up front and in a publicly accountable way. Balancing civil rights, personal freedoms and the fight against crime are tricky – which is all the more reasons why such decisions should not happen on the quiet and without proper public debate.

There is a risk of an over-reliance on technology. What happens if the police do succeed in testing all 900 persons of interest and the culprit is not amongst them. What is plan B?

Additionally, this cutting edge science appears to only be able to define a mix from black ethnic backgrounds at this point in time. Thus far the DNA test has not been able to distinguish within the White European race. Does this mean that this method of detection can only be used to catch black criminals? If it does – does that mean the police should stop using it as a detection tool as it discriminates against black criminals?

On top of all of this, there have been cases where DNA has not proved to be the infallible methodology we were all led to believe in and has been proven to have been corrupted within laboratories.

So – my view so far? We need a public debate on these issues. In particular, we need to look at what safeguards are needed to accompany this approach to crime-fighting – and whether they can be sufficient to overcome the risks which go with it.

Thin end and wedge are the words that spring to mind…

Henny Penny the world is falling on my head!

I was pretty sure that an investigation by the London Assembly’s Transport Committee into parking enforcement in London would be of interest to residents.

However I had no concept of quite the extent of the hoo-ha that would follow the public announcement of it. ‘Can’ and ‘worms’ are the words that spring to mind – particularly judging by the veiled and not so veiled threats I hear whispered from corners of our capital about the temerity of the London Assembly in deciding to examine this issue.

All I can say is the more authorities object to us looking at something, the more I might believe they may have something to hide. It will be interesting to see!

Working as a local councillor for the last six or so years – and now in my fourth year as Chair of Transport at the Assembly (and one as vice-chair), parking disputes have registered heavily in my post bag.

There are two main types of complaint. First – where the process of ticketing, charging or clamping appears to have gone wrong or been unfair. Second – where local residents, whilst wanting schemes to resolve traffic flow issues, are concerned that councils’ parking charges and penalties may have more to do with raising revenue than solving problems.

For someone like myself who believes that traffic shouldn’t be left to a “free for all” on the roads, but that it needs managing, it’s important for such measures to have public support. I want people to comply and pay their charges and their penalty notices – and I want councils to use the revenue on improving local schemes, not for subsidising their other activities. (Although in theory there are legal restrictions on this, that doesn’t necessarily stop it happening in practice).

But that’s all at risk if schemes aren’t fair or are being misused to raise money. It brings the system into disrepute, risks non-compliance and makes life miserable for the well-behaved.

If it is all fair and above board then local councils don’t have anything to fear from this investigation. And if motorists are cheering believing somehow that parking restrictions are under attack – they are wrong too. The Assembly is neither friend nor foe – this is a quest for effectiveness and fairness. My hope is that we will be able to make recommendations that will help Londoners, not necessarily by naming and shaming – but perhaps by applauding and rewarding those that do it well. I am, after all, an optimist.

One surprise already. When we originally decided on this investigation, I asked the staff at the GLA to check out what work had been done previously on parking in London – so we didn’t just duplicate it. The answer came – virtually none.

We will not only be looking at local councils – we are also looking at Transport for London’s enforcement of red routes. We will be also examining whether there is any room for harmonisation between boroughs. Boroughs argue that they need to vary the details of schemes to suit their own areas. But we have a plethora of different times, different signs, different charges and different penalties. These often cause confusion for people driving around London. Is all this variation really necessary? We shall see…

And we will be looking at the money. Are boroughs using parking schemes to raise revenue? And if they are – is that their fault, or the fault of the financial rules and restrictions they operate under?

Since the announcement of the plans, calls and emails are flooding in both from individuals and organisations. I am keen to get the maximum amount of evidence from across London. So if there are views you have, please email me at parkingreview@london.gov.uk or write to – Parking Review (Paul Watling), City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA.

‘I just ha-ate Hillary Clinton. She has done a great disservice to womankind. Every ma-an now thinks he has ca-arte blanche to do as he pleases. She ha-as legitimised adultery’.

It helps if you read that first sentence aloud in an American deep south, Gone with the Wind, accent – for full effect.

This was the view expressed to me by Marilyn on my last night on the West Coast of the USA as we meandered around San Diego bay. I was departing for New York the next day and the conversation had turned to the Republican Convention opening there the day after I would arrive. (Unintentional timing!)

I had ventured into dangerous waters – so to speak – by asking Marilyn what she thought of Hillary Clinton’s chances if she ran for President next time out. I knew she was a Republican because her husband Jim – who was not – told me. Jim and I agreed that Bush had rushed into war, wrongly used the war on terror to justify invading in Iraq (when there was really very little connection between Iraq and Al-Queida) and not thought through what would happen after the invasion. But Hilary’s blow to American womanhood as a reason for not supporting her was a new one on me.

America was buzzing with the presidential election when I visited on my holidays. The TV blasted out politics non-stop including negative broadcast advertising campaigns. Bush and Kerry were heavily engaged in slugging it out in terms of their Vietnam record. Nasty! It’s not a way I would like to see our political campaigning go any further towards.

Anyway – off to New York. I have never felt so safe walking there in my life. There were at least four police officers on every intersection in Manhattan. The choice of New York – a Democrat stronghold despite having a Republican Mayor – as the venue for the Republican Convention was much commented on. New York was the place they wanted to be for a convention whose theme was to be 9/11.

And virtually every speech hinged on 9/11. The Republican strategy was to bring those horrors back to the surface to persuade voters that the war on terror was the Holy Grail. They also wished to thereby push the Iraq war out of the public mind. A very effective strategy too – as the surge for Bush in the post-convention polls demonstrated.

I went to Ground Zero to pay my respects too. Four years ago I had gone with a cross-party transport delegation from the London Assembly to New York and we had gone to meet the NY Port Authority in one of the twin towers. Eerie to stand there now, reading the names of the dead inscribed on the wall. I felt the anger and the horror all over again myself.

The counter-strategy was at work too. There were anti-war protests and I was stopped on many a street corner by Democrat activists asking if they could have my vote for Kerry. I would explain that I didn’t have a vote, but that if I did, they could.

But it wouldn’t surprise me if Dubya wins. Sometimes, over here, it seems unbelievable that anyone would vote for Bush. But there’s more to him that meets the trans-Atlantic eye. Right-wing cheerleader, but also presiding over a huge boost in public spending (and not just on anti-terrorism). And that old strategy of scaring a nation and then appearing to be the only one with the experience or strength to protect them seemed to be working over there – at least it did at that point. And Kerry didn’t seem to be rising to the occasion. Maybe his ratings will perk up as the convention hoo-ha dies down.

Now if Hillary was running…

Summertime – and City Hall’s emptying out. Tired and grumpy politicians are dispersing for the month of August. The staff heave a sigh of relief as the politicos desert the capital’s government building.

The Scoop – which is a kind of amphitheatre next to the Thames outside City Hall – is staging Shakespeare free for six weeks. The tourists love it, and for those who haven’t visited City Hall – it’s certainly worth taking a trip to London Bridge station (Northern and Jubilee lines) to tour the building.

In fact, the whole area is absolutely bustling and blooming – from Hayes Wharf galleria (an atrium shopping/eating mall) to Tate Modern, the wobbly bridge, the London Dungeon, Tower Bridge and across the bridge – the Tower of London and that glass gherkin gashing the skyline. It all happens on The Queen’s Walk. Mind you when the Queen came to open the building – I don’t think she did walk.

I felt a twinge of guilt when writing “wobbly” to describe the wobbly bridge because, of course, it isn’t too wobbly any more. It is – and will be for many decades, if not longer – a fantastic bridge across the Thames. All the fuss over its initial teething problems now seem hugely overblown to me given how long it will be around for. But the British seem to revel in knocking such adventurous architecture – and not being willing to make that extra effort initially to get things right for the long term. We see the cost of this in the second-rate architecture and ugly quick fix builds that disfigure so much of London.

Some politicians have headed west across the water – those that weren’t invited to Tuscany I guess. I was watching a reporter speaking from the Democrat Convention in America. She gave her report, finishing by saying that as a Brit she could spot a Brit accent in a nano-second and she had heard two English voices at the convention. She then appeared interviewing them – and I realised that they were a young couple I know, both of whom had been involved in the LibDem London election campaign earlier this year.

There seems to be a buzz of expectation that Kerry can do it even with the disadvantage of a charisma bypass. I guess America is waking up to thinking that anything is better than Bush. Rumour has it that the Lib Dems were warmly welcomed at the convention but that the Iraq war advocates of New Labour were not. How things change!

Summer, of course, means silly stories in the press – though I did say no to an invitation to back a new policy of making it mandatory to walk up tube escalators during rush hour to cut congestion and create healthier commuters. It did get me thinking though. Perhaps Ken should introduce a congestion charge for lift users in the City’s skyscrapers – all in the name of encouraging fitness by getting people to walk up stairs you understand …

As for Labour, they would probably like to murder Mandelson for his late decision on the European Commissioner’s post. His apparent dilly dallying, shilly shallying has given the Lib Dems extra time – and judging from our stunning by-election victories in Brent East and Leicester South – the by-election in Hartlepool will be a real opportunity.

But I will leave politics behind for a little while as I too head for my summer break to come back refreshed for the year ahead at the London Assembly.