Mayors

This is the story of big city, elected Mayors. In London we have Boris Johnson, and his predecessor was Ken Livingstone. In New York we have Mayor Bloomberg. These two cities are roughly equivalent in size and budget, but most similarities in how they work and how they are run ends about there.

Boris Johnson ran a carefully modulated campaign recently, in which his party machine pretty successfully stopped him saying anything of substance, and much to the surprise of many, including myself, beat the incumbent, Ken Livingstone.

I admit to preferring Boris to Ken on a political and personal level. Boris has an avuncular style in which he seems to be mates with everyone whereas Ken was a pretty miserable man. However it is becoming apparent that Boris is not on top of his brief whereas his predecessor was a notorious micro manager. There are details to be mastered when you run a multi billion pound budget, that Boris seems to prefer to delegate. That can work; witness the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the serious amount of delegation that he devolved. But the difference seems to be that Ronald surrounded himself with real experts while he had a nap, whereas, so far, Boris has seemingly hired some very suspect duffers while he is away earning his additional £250,000 ($500,000) per year as a journalist.

Mayor Bloomberg has a big advantage when it comes to running the police service in his native New York, which Boris doesn’t enjoy in London. Whereas the police budget rests with Bloomberg his colleague across the ocean only directly manages one third of the police budget in London. With money comes power, without power comes confusion and mixed messages.

The upshot for New York is that the Mayor, his predecessor, and his police service have brought down the crime rates enormously and made the city one of the safest in the States from its previous status as one of the most dangerous. The opposite has happened in London. In England’s capital city the perception is that the city has become totally crime infested with knife welding teenagers who are totally on the rampage.

I repeat that this is the common perception, but I am afraid it is largely a misconception. I have done some research to discover actual crime statistics and the truth is that the major crime figures in London are, in general, on the decline. There are areas in which crime has gone up, and some type of crime inevitably rise whilst others decrease, but murders in London are a fraction of the numbers found in New York.

Ken Livingstone, the last Mayor of London was quoted as saying, ‘This is the fifth year running that we have seen crime in London fall. Crime has fallen by 19 per cent with the fall in crime accelerating sharply. Last years 6.1 per cent fall in crime was the highest (drop) yet. The average annual fall in crime in London in the last three years has been 5.5 per cent”.

“The longer-term trends released today show how not only all crimes but the most serious crimes in London are falling”.

He went on to say, “Murders are down by 28 per cent since 2003 - from 222 to 160. Rape is down 25 per cent in five years. Gun crime and knife-enabled crime are both 22 per cent down in the same period. Robbery is down 23 per cent”.

These are the police figures that are reinforced by the government and all other official bodies, not those from the Mayor himself. They are accurate and verified.

Whereas the city of New York, once widely feared for its mean streets scarred by random violence, is on course for its lowest murder rate in four decades with this year's total expected to be below 500. This drop in the New York rate from its previously terrifying rate still leaves “America’s safest big city” nearly three times as dangerous as London even if the common misconception is entirely the opposite.

Since the beginning of the year the New York police department has recorded 428 murders compared with 579 for the whole of 2006. Only 35 of these deaths were at the hands of complete strangers while the rest arose from personal disputes such as romantic tiffs, gang warfare or confrontations with acquaintances.

Aided by increased material wealth and a decade of "zero-tolerance" policing, a maintained and steady decline in the Big Apple's violent crime rate has left the city basking in a newfound feel good glow of safety. Criminologists there imply that killings by strangers have become so rare that the police cannot reasonably be expected to reduce the problem further.

In that city of 8.2 million people, the chance of being murdered has fallen to one in 17,000. The figures are a far cry from the dark days of 1990 when the terrible high water mark record 2,245 people were murdered as an epidemic of crack cocaine abuse gripped New York.

The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, regularly heralds his city's re-emergence as "the safest big city in America" and has defended his ban on carrying hidden weapons, which enrages America's gun lobby.

The drop in crime took root under the leadership of mayor Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the man widely credited with the zero tolerance policing and law enforcement who instituted a sweeping crackdown on drug abuse and all forms of antisocial behavior. Just ride the subway in New York to notice the enormous improvement. It has gone from being one of the scariest rides anywhere to become a pleasant, hassle free experience.

The major difference is the perception of inhabitants and visitors to these two great cities. In London people are scared for very little reason, whereas in New York they are not nervous, and neither does that feeling have much basis in fact. London is still safer than New York, both are not as safe as they should be, and neither is perfect. You are far more likely to be murdered in New York than London, but neither is as bad or as dangerous as they used to be. So, be properly cautious, don’t be silly, but go out and enjoy our wonderful cities. The Mayors are trying their best, but Bloomberg and Boris have something else in common, they are blamed for everything that goes wrong and won’t get too much credit for anything that turns out right. We need less government at every level telling us what we’re doing wrong and punishing everyone and more encouragement and inducement to do right.