Thursday, 27 March 2008

Boris Johnson to plant 98% fewer Trees.

In any other campaign, a pledge to plant 98% fewer trees than your rival would be seen as laughable. But this isn't any other campaign. 

In fact in this campaign the two major media outlets covering the elections were both happy to spew out the line that Boris Johnson had pledged '10,000 new trees' for the capital.
David Cameron stealing a tree
Speaking to the BBC, Boris said: 

"in the last few years a third of (London) boroughs have seen a decline in the number of street trees - the mayor has done nothing to reverse this trend."

Well nothing that is except to plant 400,000 trees since 2004 and to make a pledge to plant a total of 1 million trees by 2012. By comparison, Boris would plant around only 10,000 of the 600,000 trees due to be planted.

Despite this The Evening Standard seemed more than convinced. For them, Boris pitiful announcement was in fact the start of a new green dawn for London. They explained:

"A tree lined street has only 10-15 per cent of the dust of a street without trees, as well as being 6-10C cooler. They absorb some traffic noise as well as providing habitats for local wildlife. Street trees also mitigate the effects of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, cooling streets that are suffering from the "heat island" effect and by soaking up rainwater from flash floods. Urban trees can confer economic benefits as well, the Tories say. They point to estate agent's claims that the presence of trees in an urban area correlates with higher property values, perhaps as much as five to 15 per cent higher."

So more trees equals cleaner air and extra money in your pocket. All of which must mean an Evening Standard endorsement for Ken Livingstone can only be days away.


Anonymous said...

I think you'll find that not only was the pledge to plant 10,000 NEW trees (not like he's saying Ken's planted nothing but corruption in City Hall...or has he?!) - it was to do so using money which would be saved from axing that propagandist pamphlet 'The Londoner'.

Boris is planting trees whereas Ken would chop them down to make megalomaniacal papers about how amazing he is.

The Tory Troll said...

Yes thank you mr back boris. I think you will also find that ken was to plant 600,000 NEW trees.

As for the londoner, I assume you haven';t received Boris new rag 'the greater londoner' just yet. I have , it was huge and printed in a thick print unlikely to be recyclable.

Anonymous said...

Bully for Ken...huzzah! Such the noble newt.

As for Boris creating the 'Greater Londoner', funny thing you fail to note, is that he difference being that the 'Londoner' is funded by TAX PAYERS MONEY! The Greater Londoner is, as far as I know, not. There is the principle of receiving political literature (which I am not adverse to), and the ridiculousness of having to pay for the honour.

600,000 new trees? This clearly is not a costed proposal. Ken will now say and do anything, he's desperate.

The Tory Troll said...

Whether or not you have actually read the Londoner I do not know, but wherever you live you will probably have received some form of council pamphlet/leaflet telling you what new services are available and what the council is doing with your money. Maybe if London had an impartial press that reported on these things alongside their campaign fluff for Boris, then there would be no need for the Londoner. Unfortunately there isn't.

I may do a post on this in the future and as and when I do I look forward to your comments. However, as you may have noticed, this post is about trees, which even if you think are not important, Boris claims to think they are. And unfortunately as on most issues Boris and the Tories won't put their money where their mouth is.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but I have read it - and it is unabashed propaganda. As I said in my previous comment I am completely happy to receive political literature, provided I do not have to pay for it. Politicians / public officials have plenty of medians through which to convince me of their role in my life (like say branding up public transport!) without having it pushed through my door at my expense.

You seem to get the idea that money is on tap and that Londoners should be forced to pay through the nose for gimmicks and stunts that politicians wish to use to convince us of their worth.

Incidentally - good press or bad press, chances are there is a reason Livingstone gets bad press, and one of those reasons is he professes to have changed London for the better. Clearly we are not going to agree on this, but I think its high time that the costing of this scheme of Boris' (bringing it back to trees) is appreciated. Small changes lead to larger movements and this one, improves the quality of my local neighbourhood and reduces the crud stuck through my letter box with King Newt on it.

The Tory Troll said...

It's quite simple really, Ken has had the tree scheme in place since 2004 and he plans to extend it . Boris would cut it by 98%. Not much of an improvement whichever way you look at it. Anyway I must be off. By the way, can you put a name on your posts please. It makes it easier to follow.