Kanye weighs in...

For the benefit of my father, the Kanye West internet meme is explained here.

Congratulations Boris...

The winds of changed whistled through London this weekend, as 'Red' Ken Livingstone was booted out of office as Mayor of London and replaced by scruffy, but lovable Conservative Boris Johnson.

Johnson is a bit of a political enigma. His eccentric demenor and popular appearences on television shows like Have I Got News For You have won him a broad base of popular support across all demographics, while confirmed Conservatives still consider his weekly columns in The Telegraph required reading.

That's not to say he's not without detractors - even amongst those who share his political positions. Telegraph journalist Simon Heffer criticizes Johnson for his delight in "the charm of doing nothing properly."

However, maybe that's no bad thing. In contrast, Ken Livingstone's leadership style was nothing less than egomaniacal.

There were few election promises 'Red Ken' didn't break - like scrapping the popular Routemaster buses (after promising the voters "only a de-humanised moron would get rid of the Routemaster") and more than doubling cash-fare on buses even after a pre-election promise to freeze them for four years.

His most scandalous invention was the Congestion Charge, which has reduced traffic (and business revenue) in central London by as much as 20%, yet fails to provide the cash for public transport he promised (despite providing operating company Capita enormous profits.)

Ken Livingstone is an 'old school' Labour politician. Opinionated, egotistic and utterly without accountability. The positive things he's managed to achieve have often been overshadowed by petty displays of his fiery temper (such as accusing reporter Oliver Finegold of acting like a 'concentration camp guard') and accusations of cronyism (recruiting six friends to over-paid positions in the mayor's office, plus diverting £2.5 million into shady grants linked to his advisor Lee Jasper.)

Which is a pity. Because Livingstone clearly loves London and has dominated politics in the city for nearly thirty years. He was teary when he conceeded defeat and Boris Johnson was very classy in addressing the former major:

"For you, Ken, Mayor Livingstone, I think you have been a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader of this city. When we both have that drink together that we so richly deserve, I hope we can discover a way in which the mayoralty can continue to benefit from your transparent love of London."

He then addressed the beginning of a new era for London, announcing:

"We have a new team ready to go to City Hall. Where there are mistakes we will rectify them, where there are achievements we will build on them, where there are neglected opportunities we will seize on them and we will focus on the priorities of the people of London."

Before finally ending his victory speech with refreshing honesty:

"Let's get cracking tomorrow - and let's have a drink tonight."

Boris Johnson - Up in Smoke?

The likeable Boris Johnson, who is running against 'Red' Ken Livingston for the position of Mayor of London, is getting a lot of flak for his outspoken comments about the UK's recently adopted smoking ban.

Johnson believes that local authorities should have the right to opt-out of Britain's blanket ban on smoking in public places - but many people feel this is merely because his campaign received a much-needed cash injection from the Tobacco Association last year.

Whether or not that's true, Johnson's raised a very valid point. In a free country, isn't there something fundamentally wrong about our Nanny government telling us where and when people can light up?

I'm no fan of smoking. I don't enjoy going to a club or restaurant and coming back reeking of tobacco. However, I am a fan of free choice and I think the smoking ban is the thin edge of a wedge which will quickly see drinking, eating fatty foods and even being a coach potato 'banned' in the interests of 'public wellness.'

It's happening in America right now. Even though the Americans are generally a little more protective of their personal liberties, New York city followed up a blanket ban on smoking with a ban on foods containing trans fat. What's the next target in the health fascist's sights?

I'm personally an advocate of that most important of all human liberties - personal responsibility. We should be allowed to make our own decisions about these things.

Smoking causes cancer. Drinking effects the liver. Eating trans fat clogs the arteries. We all know the risks involved in enjoying our 'vices' and if that's the case, what's to stop us from making an informed decision to continue indulging ourselves?

As for the ban on smoking - I'm entirely behind Boris Johnson. I believe there should be a general smoking ban across the country, but certain pubs and bars should be allowed to appeal to their local authority and 'opt out' of it if they want to.

It would work, even if you're not a smoker. In a street with five pubs and bars, punters would have four smoke-free alternatives should one of the bars decide to allow smoking.

I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis and I'm even open to certain stipulations (like only bars or clubs that don't serve food opting out of the smoking ban.)

You don't have to be a fan of smoking to support this idea. As I mentioned earlier - smoking is just the first (and biggest) target on the Nanny State's list. Next will come drinking, fatty foods and idleness. They won't stop until the entire nation is vacuum sealed, homogenized and sterile.

The battle for our personal freedom begins here.

Giants come to London...

The good people of London were shocked this weekend.

"Giants?" They asked. "Battling Dolphins?"

Expecting something from a Godzilla movie (or possibly an episode of The Goodies) they dutifully lined up at the new Wembley Stadium and watched NFL legends the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants battle it out for... Well, I'm not quite sure.

What the American Football match was FOR was not important. What was important was that two legendary National Football League teams had crossed the Atlantic for a groundbreaking grudge-match on British soil.

It was a trial run, to see if the NFL could successfully make the transition from an American institution to a global phenomenon. Two of the greatest football teams in American history were matched against each other (both the Giants and the Dolphins have won two Superbowls) and the reaction was carefully gauged, to see if a future European transition might be successful.

And what was the reaction?

Curiosity. Confusion. A certain amount of ridicule.

American Football is such a spectacle in comparison to British sports. The armour and uniforms. The cheerleaders and half-time shows. You really do get your money's worth at an NFL game, but I suspect the British mentality will never quite gel with the concept.

Soccer (what we Brits call football, because you play it with your feet) dominates the sports scene. It'll take more than a few burly Americans to knock that institution off it's pedestal. And rugby? The closest comparison to American football?

Well, in Europe we joke that American Football players get modelling contracts, while rugby players wind up with cauliflower ears and broken noses. While the games themselves are quite similar, the way they're played is very different.

American footballers are larger, stronger and more powerful - able to perform astounding feats of speed and strength during the very short 'plays' of the game.

Rugby players, on the other hand, are tough and fast, but those attributes are tempered by stamina and grit. An American football game gets stopped and started many times, giving their athletes a chance to catch their breath. Rugby players just keep on going.

Rugby is a brutal, but unpretentious game. There are no cheerleaders or fancy costumes. It's toned down and much more in keeping with the British mentality. Like very small children, we Brits are overstimulated when confronted with the pomp, ceremony and showmanship of the National Football League of America.

So while I admire the American sport and the incredible athletes who play it, I don't think it will ever catch on in England. On the surface of it, we're too reserved and self conscious to enjoy the spectacle of an NFL game - and if we secretly did, we'd all be far too snobbish to admit it.

The Giants won 13-10 against the Dolphins in yesterday's game.

Channing Crowder, defensive back for the Miami Dolphins, admitted he wasn't aware that people spoke English in London - proving conclusively that a football scholarship from the University of Miami isn't really all that academically impressive.

Congestion Charge to Come to New York City

Taking a leaf out of "Red" Ken Livingston's book, New York City Major Michael Bloomberg unveiled plans for an $8 "Congestion Pricing Strategy." Drivers could face a fee commuting into New York's central borough, Manhattan.

Similar in principle to the £8 congestion charge for driving through the centre of London (although half it's price) Bloomberg's charge is intended to ease congestion, improve air quality and help raise $31 MILLION for new rail links, tunnels, subways and buses.

It's just one of 127 energy conserving measures unveiled on "Earth Day," intended to help America's biggest city cut it's carbon footprint. The plan is backed by 70 businesses, civic and green groups - but still has to make it's way through the state government before it can be implimented.

That won't be easy. Over 60% of drivers in New York are against the fee - despite being informed by Bloomberg's spin doctors that Londoners over in the UK overwhelmingly supported their similar congestion charge. Not that it would have mattered. Unlike Bloomberg, Ken Livingston had the clout to bring in the congestion charge whether Londoners liked it or not.

Before New York votes on the issue, they'll hopefully examine the lessons Londoners have learned following the introduction of the charge. The most obvious of these being the effect the charge has had on local businesses.

John Lewis reported an 8% drop in revenue in central London since the introduction of the charge - while revenue outside of the area was actually on the rise. The drop in revenue suggests that the charge didn't encourage people to take public transport instead of the car - it simply dissuaded them from entering London at all.

Herein lies the greatest problem with the London congestion charge - and possibly New York's.

The key to making people switch from private to public transport isn't found in raising the cost of driving. It's in making public transport an attractive alternative to cars.

If public transport was quicker, more reliable and cheaper, more people would use it. It's as simple as that. But instead, the British government is stuck in an idiotic mindset of raising prices without offering alternatives.

One recent moment of genius (which I blogged about here - British Trains are Awful and Expensive) was to increase the cost of rail travel to reduce congestion. It succeeded - but only by reducing the number of people who could afford to travel by train.

We can only hope that people in New York are smarter than that - and instead of hoping a congestion charge will solve all their traffic and smog problems, they'll take the initiative to redirect that revenue into the public transport system where it's needed most.

New York might surprise us all - and prove that a Congestion Charge isn't necessarily a bad thing - but the way it's implemented in London is.