caller,
Just for you, here is the relevant Wikipedia entry about the GLC:-
The GLC's hopes under the Labour administration of Reg Goodwin were badly affected by the oil crisis of 1974. Massive inflation combined with the GLC's £1.6 billion debt led to heavy rate increases (200% in total before the next election in 1977) and unpopular budget cuts. Some months before the 1977 elections the Labour Group began to split. A left group, including Ken Livingstone, denounced the election manifesto of the party.
The Conservatives regained control in May 1977, winning 64 seats under their new Thatcherite leader Horace Cutler to a Labour total of just 28. Cutler headed a resolutely right-wing administration, cutting spending, selling council housing and deprioritising London Transport. In opposition the Labour party continued to fractionalise: Goodwin resigned suddenly in 1980 and in the following leadership contest the little-regarded left-winger Ken Livingstone was only just beaten in an intensely tactical campaign by the moderate Andrew McIntosh. However the Labour left were strong at constituency level and as the 1981 election approached they worked to ensure that their members were selected to stand and that their ideologies shaped the manifesto. The eventual manifesto topped out at over 50,000 words.
The May 1981 election was presented as a clash of ideologies by the Conservatives - Thatcherism against a 'tax high, spend high' Marxist Labour group, claiming that Andrew McIntosh would be deposed by Ken Livingstone after the election. McIntosh and Labour Party leader Michael Foot insisted this was untrue, and the Labour party won a very narrow victory with a majority of six. At a pre-arranged meeting of the new Councillors the day after the election, the Left faction won a complete victory over the less-organised Labour right. McIntosh lost with 20 votes to 30 for Ken Livingstone. Livingstone, dubbed 'Red Ken' by some newspapers, managed to gain the guarded support of the Labour deputy leader Illtyd Harrington and the party Chief Whip and set about his new administration.
Livingstone was able to push through the majority of his policies and became surprisingly popular (only 16% of Londoners wanted the GLC abolished). The increased spending of the council led the national government to reduce and eventually end the GLC's central government grant as punishment.
Livingstone's high-spend socialist policies put the GLC into direct conflict with Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. Livingstone soon became a thorn in the side of the sitting Conservative government. He deliberately antagonised Thatcher through a series of actions (including posting a billboard of London's rising unemployment figures on the side of County Hall, directly opposite Parliament), reducing London Underground and bus fares using government subsidies, entering into dialogue with Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams at a time when Adams was banned from entering Britain due to his links with the Provisional Irish Republican Army, and endorsing a statue of Nelson Mandela while Thatcher regarded the future South African president as a terrorist.
By 1983, the government argued for the abolition of the GLC, claiming that it was inefficient and unnecessary, and that its functions could be carried out more efficiently by the boroughs. The arguments for this case which were detailed in the White Paper Streamlining the cities. Critics of this position argued that the GLC's abolition was politically motivated, claiming that it had become a powerful vehicle for opposition to Margaret Thatcher's government.
So I stand by my statement equating you to an unreformed Thatcherite, as these were precisely the arguments used against Livingstone being in control of the GLC, over 30 years ago. He was doing a good job for Londoners back then when the GLC was abolished, and was doing a good job while Mayor, only to be turfed out because he is allied to the Labour party and thus tainted by what the government has done/is doing. I think Londoners will regret the day they elected Boris, however entertaining he may be. And getting back to the corruption debate, although cronyism is not a good thing, and can lead to corruption, I think it is hard to draw a clear line between giving jobs to people who you have trusted and have given good advice over time, and giving jobs to people who are your friends just because you have the power.
Isn't Boris Johnson an upper class twit?
