Boris Johnson's Blog, page 20

China buys up Britain as politics takes a back seat

For example, Beijing’s state sovereign wealth fund, CIC, has used part of its £300 billion in assets to snap up 8.7 per cent of Thames Water. That is on top of its 10 per cent stake in Heathrow. If a new airport materialises in the Thames Estuary, Chinese investment will certainly be sought – not to mention for HS2, wind farms and a new sewer network for London.

MG Rover, Manganese Bronze (the black-cab maker) and the company that produces Weetabix are among other investments in the Chinese portfolio – though a bid for United Biscuits, home to Jaffa Cakes and McVitie’s digestives, failed. Wanda, the firm behind the Nine Elms project (which has annual revenues of £15 billion), has also purchased Sunseeker, the UK’s leading luxury yacht-maker. Its chairman, Wang Jianlin, celebrated on a stage shaped like a boat with a troupe of dancers in glittering dresses behind him. “We wanted to buy 30 Sunseeker yachts because we are planning to build three marinas here in China,” he explained. “So then we thought it would be a better deal if we just bought the company.”

In all, some 500 Chinese companies have invested in Britain, not counting certain long-standing Hong Kong firms that have been here since before the hand-over. The Chinese see Britain as being on a growth path, and value the legal standards here as well as the openness of our economy. Mr Osborne, keen to take advantage of this, has laid out plans for London to become the international centre for trading in the Chinese currency, the renminbi.

There are other explanations for China’s interest, of course. Some companies hemmed in by fierce competition and price controls at home think they can enjoy bigger profit margins by investing abroad. Others want to acquire technology, management and marketing expertise. For property firms, Britain is something of a bargain compared with the soaring price of land in big cities on the Chinese mainland – right now, according to Wanda, London is cheaper than Beijing.

Yet this week’s back-slapping cannot hide some more fundamental issues. For example, it is clear who is in the driving seat of the British-Chinese relationship: this current entente follows Beijing’s decision to remove Britain from the 18 months of purdah imposed after David Cameron and Nick Clegg met the Dalai Lama. However much Messrs Osborne and Johnson talk of China valuing Britain, the power is tilted very much Beijing’s way. And the exclusive focus on economics gives the impression that Britain has, in effect, given up seeking a meaningful political relationship with a regime that is going to play a growing global role. The Chinese have been allowed to set the parameters on the level of concern they will allow Britain, along with other foreign powers, to express about their human rights record, Tibet or other sensitive matters.

There also the question of how far we should let certain Chinese investments go. National security concerns have impeded the expansion of the telecommunications giant Huawei, given constant allegations – especially in the US – that it is connected with the Chinese military (which the company stoutly denies). And would involvement in nuclear power be a step too far? Also, how large a stake should state enterprises from the People’s Republic be allowed to build up in our key industrial sectors?

Then there is the issue of reciprocity. Having an open market is good for the inward investment Britain needs – but China, with its 1.3 billion population and relatively underdeveloped market, offers a huge opportunity for our businesses to invest in turn. Yet managers of British and other Western firms report increasing difficulty in operating freely, and recent crackdowns over alleged corruption have mainly targeted foreign enterprises.

Our politicians should not simply be relieved to be out of Beijing’s doghouse, as they welcome the rush of Chinese money. During their trip, the Chancellor and the Mayor need to press for British companies to have the kind of freedom to operate and expand in China that Chinese companies enjoy here. They must make clear that this relationship has to be a two-way street – if it is not already too late.

Jonathan Fenby is the author of 'Tiger Head, Snake Tails: China Today, How it Got There and Where it is Heading’ and 'The Penguin History of Modern China’

Boris Johnson out-charms George Osborne in China

Mr Johnson then turned to a Chinese student, asking: "The yin and the yang. What do you say for a harmonious, sounds like one of those Chinese fireworks, a harmonious dove or something like that? A pair of harmonious doves. What is that in Chinese?"
A...

It’s a vigorous, voracious press that keeps our country honest

A public inquiry became inevitable, and before that inquiry there trooped a succession of famous people who felt that the media had been not so much wrong as plain beastly; just horrid in the way they behaved, the kinds of questions they asked, the appalling things they wrote. By the end of the whole fandango – and it was a long time coming – it was obvious that we would have some kind of attempt at regulation; and it was also obvious that any such regulation was a nonsense.

We already have abundant law against obscenity, or breach of official secrets. We have laws against libel and defamation, against bugging, hacking, theft, bribery of public officials. We have a growing tort of breach of privacy. We have no need of some new body backed by statute, or the Privy Council, and it is wrong in principle. You either have a free press or you don’t. You can’t sell the pass, and admit the principle of regulation – because it is in the nature of regulation that it swells and grows. You can’t be a little bit pregnant.

Every day I see signs of investor confidence in London – and why do international companies and individuals want to put their money in the British capital? It is not just because of our bikes and our beautiful new buses. It is because of the rule of law, the absolute certainty over title, the virtual absence of corruption. They know that the British system is as transparent and honest as any on earth, and I am afraid that is not just because of the natural purity of the British soul: it is because we have a vigorous, voracious and sometimes venomous media. And that is why the ruling classes don’t dare bend the rules, in the way they do in other countries; because no one wants to be dangled before that great media beast and look into its bloodshot yellow eyes and feel the hot carnivorous breath of its displeasure.

I am afraid it is inevitable that a vigorous media will cause occasional heartache, and dish out the odd uncalled-for insult. It strikes me that Ed Miliband was well within his rights to stick up for his father, for instance. But you can’t regulate the press just because they are insulting, or subversive, or find stories in tainted sources. We need someone to tell us that we are all being spied on by the American security services – that strikes me as being an invaluable bit of news, if hardly surprising. And if papers are genuinely at risk of compromising our national security by their revelations, then we have the D-notice system – to which all editors subscribe – to keep them in order.

The last and most powerful point against any new regulation of papers is that it is so completely pointless. We live in a world in which vast quantities of news can be instantly disseminated across the internet, and by companies way beyond any conceivable reach of parliament or government.

So I hope the press will tell the Privy Council to stick it in the privy; and if you are bothered by those nasty people from the media, and they won’t go away, and they continue to sit outside your house asking questions to which you have already told them the answer, may I recommend that you do as my children and I once did years ago. We imitated Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop, and we stuffed bananas secretly up the reporter’s tailpipe, and I remember us laughing helplessly at her air of puzzlement as she kaboing-ed up the road. Far better than regulation.

Tax relief is just the ticket to placate hard-hit commuters

And yet for millions of people who have to use buses every day – and who have no choice about which mode to use – the feeling is very different. If you have to use public transport morning and night, then you know that it can take a huge slice of your income – and that is why we politicians cast around so desperately for ways to reduce the burden.

Every autumn we face the same dilemma. If we follow the pleas of our officials, and raise fares – to cope with inflation and the cost of investing in our systems – we are tightening the squeeze on people who have already seen their disposable income shrink over the past five years.

If we are irresponsible, on the other hand, and we fail to replenish the “fare box”, then we risk disaster. We are coping with the oldest underground train network in the world, and with a city that is growing faster than any other European capital. If people are to have any hope of living near their place of work, we have to supply them with adequate trains, buses and Tubes. We cut costs at every opportunity – selling buildings, introducing automation, axing bureaucracy – but the trouble with a universal fares freeze is that it takes a huge chunk out of the budget. It means indefinitely postponing or cancelling schemes that are essential for growth, such as replacing the clapped-out signalling on the District line, or ordering new trains for the Piccadilly.

And then there is a second problem with an across-the-board fares cut – namely, that it is a hopelessly blunt instrument. Think of me luxuriating there on the Oxford Street bus, on my once-in-a-blue-moon shopping trip. Do I need a fare cut? Think of the millions of tourists who use our transport networks every day, and who probably don’t even notice how much they are paying. Would they be any more inclined to come to this country if the cost of their urban transport was a little lower? Do they need or deserve an abatement in their fares? I don’t really think so.

Look around you on the bus, and you will see that almost 40 per cent of the complement are travelling free or at cut price: the pensioners with their Freedom Passes, the kids, the veterans, the disabled, those in search of work. No politician is easily going to remove these concessions (try telling the affluent bourgeoisie that their Freedom Pass is at risk, and see what mayhem ensues).

The result is that the entire burden of fare-paying is carried by the 60 per cent – and that includes the people who make this country work, the people on low or moderate incomes who travel large distances every day to their places of employment and who have absolutely no choice in the matter. It is time we did something specifically to help them, and that something is to give tax relief on travel.

We need a scheme that is analogous to the government help currently given to child-care vouchers or cycle-to-work schemes. Employees should be allowed to pay for their season tickets from their pre-tax income.

To see what I mean, take a customer who buys an annual bus pass for £784. At present, he or she buys that season ticket after paying tax. Under the tax relief scheme, the employer would buy the season ticket and deduct the cost from his or her pay packet – and only then would the employee be assessed for tax. With their taxable pay reduced, the employee would save £251 in tax and National Insurance, and the employer would save £108. The administration costs would be kept minimal by doing it all online, and of course the relief would only apply at the basic rate.

Yes, there would be a cost to the Treasury – but then every year the government spends huge sums trying to hold fares down. This scheme strikes me as one George should consider further. You would allow continued investment in transport, and you would target your help at exactly the people who need it – not the millionaires and the tourists and the casual shoppers, but the hardworking people who are really turning the wheels of recovery.

Crystal Palace exhibition hall ‘to rise again’

A new Crystal Palace on "the same size and scale" as the original gigantic iron and glass structure is to rise again on the south London site.


The surrounding public park is also to be restored "to its former glory through landscaping, planting and...

Boris Johnson grilled over political future on radio phone-in

London Mayor Boris Johnson said he did not know whether he would stand again as an MP after being repeatedly questioned about his ambitions by a caller on live radio.


There has been growing speculation that the mayor could stand for Parliament befo...

A return for Boris MP is embraced by Cameron

When asked later if he wants to lead the Conservatives, Mr Johnson said: “My leadership chances are, as I may have told you before, about as good as my chances of being reincarnated as a baked bean.” But he added: “Which are probably quite high actually.” He then refused to rule out running in the 2015 election. The Prime Minister has been overshadowed by Mr Johnson at previous conferences. In his speech yesterday the mayor urged party activists to “cut the yellow Lib Dem albatross from around our necks” by helping Mr Cameron to an outright victory in 2015.

The Prime Minister told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he would give Mr Johnson a “warm welcome” if he returned to Westminster politics.

“My message to him is that … it would be great to have you back in the House of Commons at some stage contributing to public life,” Mr Cameron said.

He later said that “it’s not for me to pick my successor [and] the Conservative Party will do that when the time comes.”

He told Five News: “He’s a very talented member of the team and I like the fact that I have got talent on the team. That is good for the Conservative Party and potentially very good for the Government.”

Mr Cameron said he has had “conversations” with the mayor about the possibility of him returning to Westminster.

“Boris and I talk all the time,” he said. “There is no agreement or deal or anything like that but we have friendly conversations about this but my view about this is very simple – it’s up to Boris.”

Mr Cameron also said he would be putting himself “forward for a full term” in the 2015 election.

Despite backing Mr Cameron, the mayor used his speech to criticise George Osborne, the Chancellor, over the “baleful” impact of stamp duty. He said it is “stamping on the fingers” of people trying to climb the property ladder.

He also said that British young people lack the motivation and work ethic of Eastern European immigrants. He backed comments by Jamie Oliver, the television chef, and said the Government needs to encourage teenagers to see “menial” jobs as “stepping stones”.

Mr Johnson praised the prime minister as the “only statesman in the European Union” capable of delivering reform and a referendum for the British. He said that voters will have to choose between the “fool’s gold” offered by Labour and a Conservative Party that has taken “difficult and sensible” decisions.

Sketch: Boris dives into the glorified sheepdip

Boris and David Cameron are supposed to be on good terms at the moment – the Prime Minister even told the Today programme that Boris should “absolutely” be an MP again. After the speech, a mob of journalists – or, if you prefer, a ginormous convocation of worms – followed Boris round the exhibition hall, asking him whether he agreed. He didn’t seem desperately keen to answer.

Would he look for a seat in 2015? “There’s been no change in what I’ve said in the last five years, and I’ll continue to say it until I’m blue in the face and blue in every other portion of my anatomy!” What seat would he like? “It’s got a kind of spongy bottom, and it swivels, and it’s to be discovered in the office of City Hall!” Was he going to keep fudging the question? “Yes.”

Around the hall, little old ladies looked up from their tea, waved excitedly and trilled, “Ooh, hello, Boris!” Others pointed admiringly at his hair, which more than ever resembled an upturned colander of spaghetti. Goodness knows how he gets it looking so messy. It must take hours of preparation.

Fortunately for the convocation of worms, when Boris is in what Bridget Jones calls “full autowitter” he generally blurts out a gobbet of truth sooner or later. “My leadership chances, as I may have told you before, are about as good as my chances of being reincarnated as a baked bean. Which are probably quite high, actually…”

What did it all mean? Was Boris really plotting a Westminster comeback? Or had he privately concluded that Mayor is the job that suits him best: maximum publicity, minimum pain? Does anyone know? Does Boris?

Urb urb urb murm murm.

Ed Miliband in power ‘like a turbine on a windless day’

So now that he is in opposition, and struggling with his ratings, I find it rather incredible that he can seriously pretend to want to do something for the hard-pressed energy consumers in this country, and I find it astounding that so many people are falling for his Wonga-like offer.

He says he will imitate the catastrophic policies of the emperor Diocletian, by imposing a price freeze on energy bills for the 20 months succeeding the election. And, er, then what? Well, then the energy companies will of course recoup their losses by whacking the prices jaggedly upwards again.

In the meantime, the Labour government would have achieved all sorts of undesirable outcomes. By their meddling jiggery-pokery, they will send out the worst possible message to anyone thinking of investing in this country, or buying shares in British businesses.

Worse still, perhaps, he will trigger all sorts of perverse behaviour by the companies – none of which is likely to be in the interests of the consumer. The energy companies will sullenly cut costs by laying off staff – so that you spend even longer waiting for a human being to answer the phone, and have to wait in all day for a repair man to come.

They will seize the opportunity to go slow on the investment that this country so desperately needs. According to Ofgem, there is an increasing risk of brown-outs – about one chance in four – and we are in the absurd position of having to ask some of our more energy-intensive industries to cut production in peak times.

And whose fault is that? Who was sitting there, luxuriating at the Department of Energy and Climate Change? It was Ed Miliband, whose sole discernible contribution was to continue the pointless desecration of the moors and dales and valleys of this country with wind farms. There they stand – wrecking some of the most gorgeous views in the world and producing derisible quantities of energy. He totally flunked his main task, which was to get on with building the new nuclear reactors that this country needs. Why do the French have lower energy bills than the British? Because 80 per cent of their needs are supplied by nuclear power. They are laughing at us.

Yes, we need to help bring down the costs of living – but you do that by investment, not by attacking the private sector companies that are indispensable to that investment. We need to help people with the cost of housing; but that means building hundreds of thousands of homes – homes for sale, for affordable rent, for private rent. But you won’t get developers risking their cash to build, if they are told they are vulnerable to Mugabe-style expropriations and a new mansion tax.

We need new transport infrastructure – and that means a government with boldness and vision, such as the one led by David Cameron and the Conservatives, not a Labour government that can’t make its mind up on the crucial challenges facing the country. Ed Miliband is against the third runway at Heathrow; Ed Balls is for it, even though it would be environmentally catastrophic and politically undeliverable.

We need a government with the guts to go for the real solution that will let this country compete with our neighbours – and help British business and consumers to fly to more destinations.

I know how hard it is to fight against a Labour Party that dishonestly pretends it can cut your costs. I’ve done it; and I know that in the end people see through the con. The public will go for the party with vision and ambition and sheer courage to take the big long-term decisions that will boost Britain’s competitiveness, cut costs and improve the standard of living for everyone.

What would Ed do if we were mad enough to put him back into office? What he did last time. Sit like a panda masticating bean shoots, or like a turbine inert on a windless day.

Miliband in power ‘like a turbine on a windless day’

So now that he is in opposition, and struggling with his ratings, I find it rather incredible that he can seriously pretend to want to do something for the hard-pressed energy consumers in this country, and I find it astounding that so many people are falling for his Wonga-like offer.

He says he will imitate the catastrophic policies of the emperor Diocletian, by imposing a price freeze on energy bills for the 20 months succeeding the election. And, er, then what? Well, then the energy companies will of course recoup their losses by whacking the prices jaggedly upwards again.

In the meantime, the Labour government would have achieved all sorts of undesirable outcomes. By their meddling jiggery-pokery, they will send out the worst possible message to anyone thinking of investing in this country, or buying shares in British businesses.

Worse still, perhaps, he will trigger all sorts of perverse behaviour by the companies – none of which is likely to be in the interests of the consumer. The energy companies will sullenly cut costs by laying off staff – so that you spend even longer waiting for a human being to answer the phone, and have to wait in all day for a repair man to come.

They will seize the opportunity to go slow on the investment that this country so desperately needs. According to Ofgem, there is an increasing risk of brown-outs – about one chance in four – and we are in the absurd position of having to ask some of our more energy-intensive industries to cut production in peak times.

And whose fault is that? Who was sitting there, luxuriating at the Department of Energy and Climate Change? It was Ed Miliband, whose sole discernible contribution was to continue the pointless desecration of the moors and dales and valleys of this country with wind farms. There they stand – wrecking some of the most gorgeous views in the world and producing derisible quantities of energy. He totally flunked his main task, which was to get on with building the new nuclear reactors that this country needs. Why do the French have lower energy bills than the British? Because 80 per cent of their needs are supplied by nuclear power. They are laughing at us.

Yes, we need to help bring down the costs of living – but you do that by investment, not by attacking the private sector companies that are indispensable to that investment. We need to help people with the cost of housing; but that means building hundreds of thousands of homes – homes for sale, for affordable rent, for private rent. But you won’t get developers risking their cash to build, if they are told they are vulnerable to Mugabe-style expropriations and a new mansion tax.

We need new transport infrastructure – and that means a government with boldness and vision, such as the one led by David Cameron and the Conservatives, not a Labour government that can’t make its mind up on the crucial challenges facing the country. Ed Miliband is against the third runway at Heathrow; Ed Balls is for it, even though it would be environmentally catastrophic and politically undeliverable.

We need a government with the guts to go for the real solution that will let this country compete with our neighbours – and help British business and consumers to fly to more destinations.

I know how hard it is to fight against a Labour Party that dishonestly pretends it can cut your costs. I’ve done it; and I know that in the end people see through the con. The public will go for the party with vision and ambition and sheer courage to take the big long-term decisions that will boost Britain’s competitiveness, cut costs and improve the standard of living for everyone.

What would Ed do if we were mad enough to put him back into office? What he did last time. Sit like a panda masticating bean shoots, or like a turbine inert on a windless day.