Is this rubbish ‘the big one’ Gilligan was saving up?
There’s been a lot of speculation during the campaign as to what big ‘revelation’ Andrew Gilligan would be saving up for the day before the vote, which then couldn’t be refuted in time to stop people fleeing from Ken in droves and into the arms of Gilligan’s on-off "pal" Boris.
The Tory Troll reports that Gilligan claims in today’s Evening Standard that the congestion charge has brought in 96% less money than Transport for London say it has.
That’s one hell of a big claim. I mean, couldn’t they have come up with something a bit more believable, 50% or something? Surely no-one will buy the idea that TfL would over-report their revenue by that much?
Ah, but of course, they’ll have shown their workings in great detail and it will be based on calculations and assertions by renowned experts in the field, so it will be believable on that basis, won’t it? Er, no.
They don’t disclose any detailed calculations, and the figures are based on an anonymous banker – he has that much faith in his figures that he fears for his job if he’s named – and a Tory councillor, active in the campaign to elect Boris, who is so out of touch with transport issues that he thinks Oyster bus fares are 67% higher than they really are.
So, was this supposed to be the big revelation that would make us delete our web site in shame at ever considering voting against Boris? I think we’ll keep the site up.
Addendum:
As Gilligan himself points out in the comments, he didn’t actually write this article. I must confess to having based my post primarily on The Tory Troll’s post, only clicking through to the main article to check a few figures, so I didn’t notice that it wasn’t actually written by the usual suspect.
That doesn’t make the Standard’s article any less rubbish, but it does leave open the possibility that Gilligan still has his ‘big one’ saved up for tomorrow’s paper, perhaps not thinking the Standard has yet abused its position enough in an attempt to affect the election’s outcome, and therefore that it’s imperative to cover their advertising boards with one last inverted pyramid of piffle as an onslaught on commuters heading home to vote. Time will tell, but he commented through his employer’s internet connection so he’s certainly working late tonight on something.
Gilligan also thanks us for hours of entertainment. If he and his Standard cohorts have been reading the blog for a while, and this is the first time he’s been moved to comment about an inaccuracy, I suppose we do at least have their tacit admission that everything else we’ve said is accurate 
Which is certainly more than can be said for those Standard advertising boards…
April 30th, 2008 at 21.50
Accurate to the last, I see. That story isn’t even written by me! But can I take this opportunity to thank “Stop Boris” for providing us all at the Standard with hours of family entertainment. We’re thinking of asking Lee Jasper to get you a grant…
April 30th, 2008 at 22.29
Mr. Gilligan! How good of you to drop by. And such a kind offer. I’d certainly fall into the 99.9% of LDA grants which have been used for worthwhile causes, that’s for sure.
I’ve corrected the one inaccuracy (you not being the ‘journalist’ behind the Standard’s story) in the above post in an addendum. I now look forward to the Standard reciprocating by issuing an entire newspaper’s worth of corrections for the inaccuracies and misleading headlines they’ve carried over the past nine months.
April 30th, 2008 at 23.19
Andrew, can you please pass on my apologies to Keith Dovkants for having referred to him as you. I don’t know how I made such a terrible mistake. I just saw a worthless story based on an anonymous source and for some reason I thought the story must be yours. Please pass on my sincerest apologies to Keith.
May 1st, 2008 at 09.08
I am sorry guys but the TfL figures and mine pretty much come out the same.
They say they have £382 million net. I say yes when you look at the revenue account but when you then subtract £322 million of capital costs and £18 million (my estimate) for R&D and consultation that leaves about £40 million out of £1.2 billion. There will be some small differences as my figures for the year just ended are estimates - TfL will publish them in June.
See all figures on spreadsheet here:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/17/cc_figures_2008.jpg
Some might say that it is not fair to weigh the capital costs in the balance but remember that the ANPR technology is just a temporary solution on the way to tag and beacon and that all the capital is technology and cameras left out in the rain so it is hard to make a case that any of it is going to last very long. Five years maybe but not 20.
On a cash flow basis this scheme has taken £1.2 billion off Londoners in 5 years and produced no net cash to speak of. If this is competence then no thanks! If Joe Blow thought that all but 14p of his £8 Congestion Charge was just going to be spent on the charge itself he would happily strangle Livingstone - which is why he has been at such pains to hide this information.