Boris Johnson tests out a bed on his visit to the Olympic Park and Olympic Village on July 12, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Exclusive: Boris's hypocrisy on working from home

Mayor of London has worked from home despite denouncing the practice as a "skivers' paradise". 

Back in the summer of 2012, as ministers advised people to work from home during the Olympics to reduce congestion, Boris Johnson urged resistance. Denouncing the practice as a "skiver’s paradise", he declared: "Some people will see the Games as an opportunity to work from home, in inverted commas. We all know that is basically sitting wondering whether to go down to the fridge to hack off that bit of cheese before checking your emails again. I don’t want to see too many of us doing that."

Nor was this mere flippancy from the mayor. He added that working from home was "greatly overrated" and that "In my opinion people need to get in. They need to meet each other and they need to exchange ideas in an office environment."

But it seems that Boris isn't prepared to practice what he preaches. In an interview with me in this week's NS, Ken Livingstone reveals that disgruntled Tories on the London Assembly have told him that the mayor plans to start working from home on Fridays. He said: 

What I find interesting is that almost all the dirt I get on Boris comes from the Tory members on the [London] Assembly. They're really angry because he's decided he's going to start working from home on Fridays. 

When I spoke Boris's official spokesman, he told me: "Unlike Mr Livingstone, this mayor has no plans to work from home on Fridays. Unlike Mr Livingstone, this mayor's focus is on jobs and growth, infrastructure investment, housebuilding and crime. That has delivered Crossrail, the Northern Line extension, 150,000 apprenticeships, an 11 per cent fall in crime and more affordable homes, over 70,000 so far, than Mr Livingstone ever built."

But he conceded that Boris had "occasionally" worked from home before again accusing Livingstone of hypocrisy. Another mayoral source said: "These are the tired ratings of someone who lost two elections to Boris. His views are total guff; Livingstone was often absent on a Friday." But regardless of whether that is true, Boris, thanks to his earlier comments, is himself open to the charge of hypocrisy.

And whether working from home involves completing his planned biography of Churchill, plotting to stop George Osborne getting his hands on the Conservative leadership, or just gorging on cheese from the fridge, the revelation will only enhance the impression that he is a part-time mayor. One source close to City Hall said that he had "never known the place to be so quiet". 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496