Boris Johnson's local government advisor implemented a series of cuts in his borough, culminating in the axing of hot meals on wheels for old and vulnerable people.
Before he stepped down as the head of Bexley Council, Ian Clement told pensioners that they would no longer receive their meals on wheels service but should instead order frozen food from 'approved suppliers' on the internet.
Meals on wheels, which were pioneered in London during the Blitz, and have since spread across the world, were axed according to Clement, as a means to "provide users with greater choice and offer an enhanced service."
But unfortunately for Clement, angry pensioners failed to see how removing the option to have a hot meal delivered to their door was increasing their choice, or how forcing them to cook a meal that they were incapable of, was improving their service.
And as the protests grew, Clement was forced to make it clear that pensioners would be assessed for need and could claim an 'attendance allowance' to pay for the meals to be heated if necessary.
But with many pensioners unable to access the internet, let alone submit themselves to the application process, Bexley council were accused of implementing cuts for cuts sakes.
Thirty council workers were also due to lose their jobs, and Bexley Council had shed themselves of a huge subsidy, but for the vulnerable pensioners whose daily visits from the meals on wheels van were often the only ones they had, Clement's decision was to have an even bigger impact.
Because when Boris Johnson came to power, he promised to give greater power and influence to individual boroughs, but the problem with giving that extra power away is that individual boroughs already make very self-interested and damaging decisions as it is.
And without that central control over key social and housing policies, that Livingstone was so criticised for, people in one part of London will often suffer in ways that those in other parts avoid.
In his latest rallying cry against waste and 'politically correct London,' Andrew Gilligan wrote yesterday that when :
'the GLA's new cost-cutting chief executive, Tim Parker, starts work, we will see that second essential revolutionary moment: the part when selected victims are led out to the firing squad.'
He then goes on to say that under Boris money will be redirected away from 'cycling for the blind initiatives' and 'gay Bengali workplace sustainability forums' and will instead go towards helping the most deprived people in London.
But beyond Andrew Gilligan's fantasy land where Notting Hill liberal Tories toss help to London's poor, lies the realities of a political party dedicated to cutting taxes and the services that go with them.
And while Gilligan's eyes are turned, it is not gay Bengali cyclists, but the ordinary pensioners and vulnerable people of London who are often the first to be 'led out to the firing squad.'