The first forensic results are in

Boris’ Forensic Audit Panel has released an interim report on effectiveness and value-for-money in the LDA and GLA. I suggested when they were formed that their job would be to find just enough dirt on Ken to make Boris seem like a white knight in comparison, but from this release it seems that they’re taking a slightly more subtle approach. There are two parts to this: the official interim report, and then the panel comments to the press about the report. A quick summary of both:

In the report it is claimed that “the London Development Agency has been historically an organisation where success was measured by money out rather than objectively observed results”, and that the structure and relationship between the GLA and LDA was poorly understood and poorly managed, leading to money being squandered. This of course (and it is acknowledged in the report), all follows on from Andrew Gilligan’s dednunciation of, and subsequent war with, Ken Livingstone over allegations that the former Mayor was diverting LDA funding to his friends. Nicely summarised here. But although this is the sexy scandalous bit, they have to concede in the report that although Ken’s advisers may have pressured the LDA into making decisions about who to give grants to, “it appears that they would have been within their rights to do so. They are employed to help the Mayor achieve his objectives and the LDA is charged with delivering on those objectives.”

Thus the interim report doesn’t really conclude very much of interest. They claim that the LDA wasn’t very well managed and that some money was wasted, but they don’t really come up with anything nasty against the former Mayor.

In the press, however, it’s a different story.

For starters, Patience Wheatcroft, head of the panel, has let it be known that she is “somewhat horrified” by the results of her findings. And the Times is running a story entitled Boris uncovers Ken’s ‘wasted millions’. All this is to be expected – the panel claims to be uncovering an inefficient regime that wasted tax-payers’ money, and although (or perhaps because) they don’t have hard facts and conclusions yet, this being only an interim report, they are spinning what they do have as much as possible. But the really sneaky bit is this: The Sunday Mirror online is running a story entitled ‘Reduce Boris’s powers’. They’ve managed to get a quote from Wheatcroft claiming that “We are looking at things which could be a potential curb on the powers of the Mayor.”

Shock horror! The panel has found that Ken Livingstone expanded then abused his powers by diverting millions to his own terrible ends. They even call the Forensic Audit panel an “anti-corruption panel”.

Now compare this to the report itself, which didn’t find anything inappropriate about the behaviour of the Mayor and his aides. All it did was criticise the efficiency and effectiveness of the LDA and GLA grant-giving process. There was nothing in the report to support the idea that the Mayor’s powers need curbing.

As far as I can tell, this all means that Boris and his chums are still scared of Ken. They want to criticise and damn him, but don’t have any actual dirt. So rather than risk his wrath by insinuating anything too mean in an official document, they keep their interim report bland, and simply use it to express “concern” (the word is used five times in three pages”, but then let slip little digs at him to all any any journalists who care to listen.

It’s rather pathetic really.

As to the extent to which money was wasted by an inefficient and perhaps incompetent LDA, we can’t be sure yet. Ken Livingstone is quoted in the Times as saying “The fact that even a Tory-dominated panel keeps repeatedly coming back to such a small number of projects which allegedly failed and which represents such a tiny fraction of the LDA’s budget actually shows the organisation’s overall success.” Which is one way of looking at it. I fully expect the panel’s final report, which should come in about a month, to have some actual findings based on solid evidence, and I would imagine that it won’t reflect very well on Ken Livingstone’s mayoralty at all. But whether we’ll be able to find the evidence and facts amidst all the bluster in the press is another story, if this interim report is anything to go by.