Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence

Boris Johnson’s chief exec is stepping up plans to steamroller the independence of the London Assembly - the body set up to scrutinise the Mayor & Executive.

The independence of the London Assembly is under threat following the revelation that Boris Johnson placeman Leo Boland, chief executive of the Greater London Authority, is seeking powers “to monitor and review all official scrutiny reports produced by the Assembly”.

Documents leaked to journalist and blogger Tory Troll state that Mr Boland wishes to:

“Review draft scrutiny reports before their publication for the purposes of providing quality control and oversight of the written output from the Authority.

“This opportunity for review would be personal to the Chief Executive and would not be delegated to any other officer.”

His justification for this is:

(a). “It would provide the Chief Executive with direct oversight and input into the quality of scrutiny reports.”

(b). “The Chief Executive would be aware of reports before their publication, and would be able to anticipate any potential issues of conflict or controversy.”

Such measures, if approved, would appear to call into question the very purpose of the legislature – as set out in its Mission Statement, which reads:

“The London Assembly holds the Mayor of London to account and investigates issues that matter to Londoners. Its 25 members are elected at the same time as the Mayor.

“The Assembly works by directly questioning the Mayor about his activities, strategies and decisions. It also publishes the findings and recommendations from its investigations and makes proposals to the Mayor.”

13 Responses to “Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence”

  1. Shamik Das

    RT @leftfootfwd: Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence: http://is.gd/4YT6Y <— Stalinists!

  2. Adam Bienkov

    RT @leftfootfwd Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence: http://is.gd/4YT6Y

  3. Blah

    He is the Chief Executive and not an advisor. Why don’t the posts on the site ever portray stories accurately?

  4. Shamik Das

    The chief exec of the GLA, brought in by Boris at great expense (see Tory Troll’s piece for more). I would suggest that not only does he advise the Mayor but that he has a great deal of influence over him.

  5. Balham Bugle

    I thought this blog was supposed to be evidence-based. I don’t see the Assembly mentioned in any of the quotes included in the story, only the Authority. Where’s the evidence?

    Indeed, how would the Mayor or his Chief Executive enforce such an alleged desire as it would require legislative change?

  6. Azon T59

    Shamik Das – Is this blog evidence based or not?

    The statements you have printed are simply not truthful and honest. Have you checked the story for validity before posting them – it seems not.

    You should be ashamed of yourself printing stories based on dubious speculation and not evidence – especially since you claim this blog is evidence based.

    What about some truth from this blog for a change instead of misinformation.

    There are plenty enough stories on Labour you can print such as the MP’s due to charged over expenses, Harriet Harman leaving the scene of a crime and on and on.

    Truth please Shamik or find another job – this is a good site being devalued by your comments – or let me guess you won’t print this post.

  7. Shamik Das

    And your evidence for such unfounded vitriol is…

  8. Azon T59

    Shamik Das – Your story is speculative, biased, untruthful and not evidence based.

    That opinion is factual and not vitriolic and your “story” about Boris Johnson is the evidence for that.

  9. Shamik Das

    “Speculative, biased, untruthful and not evidence based” – seems to describe some of your comments. The facts are plain to see; are you implying there were no leaked documents or that they weren’t genuine? The Mayor, via the extremely well paid Mr Boland is looking to neuter the Assembly.

    He wants to “review draft scrutiny reports before their publication” … how exactly will this help the Assembly hold “the Mayor of London to account”?

  10. Azon T59

    Shamik Das – Why shouldn’t he review documents before they get published?

    He is the Boss – he has that right. Boris won – a majority of Londoners prefer him to Ken Livingston. It’s over in London and the South East for Labour – now you get over it.

    You lot blew it when you treated the voters like fools and in the General Election bloodbath due next year you will get what you deserve. This blog will be finished in six months when supporting Labour will as popular as Swine Flu.

    But that still doesn’t give you the right to claim to be evidence based when this “story” is just that – a “story” – a figment of your imagination.

  11. Arnold B Smith

    Shamik – What a disgrace you’ve made of this blog. You have the leader of the house, that Countess Toff Harriet Harman leaving the scene of a crime, six Labour MP’s, the governing party of this country, stealing tax payers money, soldiers being killed in Afganistan because Brown won’t equip them properly and then that idiot Bob Ainsworth smearing character of a dead soldier, this useless government borrowing as much taxpayers money as they can before being rumbled next year, the worst Queens speech on record and you go on about Boris Johnson?

    Get a grip on reality Shamik – if this job is to much for you to cope with then move over and let someone else take over. You are not helping the Labour parties cause with this rubbish. Get a real job – this is over your head.

  12. Shamik Das

    That’s it, just go off on a tangent and ignore the actual post. And yet again, someone accusing others of insulting and smearing people while doing the exact same thing. The Boris stooges are clearly rattled.

  13. Anon E Mouse

    Shamik – You say: His justification for this is:

    (a). “It would provide the Chief Executive with direct oversight and input into the quality of scrutiny reports.”

    (b). “The Chief Executive would be aware of reports before their publication, and would be able to anticipate any potential issues of conflict or controversy”

    Why shouldn’t the CEO do this? What’s the point of him being the CEO if not?

    Are you seriously suggesting that Brown and his cronies haven’t spent the last 12 years doing exactly that and worse by spinning? WMD anyone?

    Why don’t you answer some of the stuff Arnold B Smith asks – to me it seems far more important than this “story” and who is he insulting and smearing?

    Nothing he posted seems untrue – is it a smear because you don’t like it?

    Blogs are supposed to be about open and honest discussion, challenging different views and putting forward opinions for healthy debate.

    That is the way Will Straw portrayed LFF to Sky News – has your mission statement changed?

    To me this is unimportant it is a non story, just a means of filling space on the site but obviously others feel differently.

    With these sorts of stories though I suspect Guido Fawkes won’t be shaking in his boots!

Leave a Reply