Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding. But political enemies of Boris Johnson will surely claim it as a victory. Last Sunday - with Bank Holiday timing that some thought deeply cynical - the new London mayor terminated Ken Livingstone's famous oil deal with Hugo Chavez. The arrangement was that London buses and trams ran on Venezuelan fuel in return for advice on running public transport.
Much political scorn was directed at this very Livingstonian initiative but tens of thousands of Londoners on income support did not complain, because the deal meant that they traveled half price. And when Mayor Johnson's announcement contained nothing to suggest that a new system of concessions would take the old one's place, the cry went up that the Nasty Party had returned.
"This is the first indication we have had of the true direction in which Boris Johnson wants to take London," declared Labour's Valerie Shawcross AM. "By scrapping half-price fares for those on the lowest incomes, Mayor Johnson is punishing the least well-off and most vulnerable Londoners, including thousands of carers and single parents."
But what's this in my inbox? In answer to a question seeking confirmation that those on income support would indeed have to pay the same as everyone else in future, I'm provided with a helpful statement which concludes with the news that the mayor, "Has asked officials from Transport for London to consider whether there may be alternative ways of providing this support."
Yes, this does refer specifically to those on income support. But what else does it mean? That this new information should have been included in the original announcement or that someone, somewhere, recognised that picking on the poorest is something New Boris and New Conservatives aren't meant to do? A bit of both, maybe? But the real test, of course, is whether those TfL officials manage to find those "alternative ways."
It's all a bit enthralling, really, watching the new regime bed down. Yesterday, Tim Parker, Johnson's virtuous cost-cutter or pitiless job-destroyer, depending on your point of view, addressed the GLA's staff.
He insisted they call him "Tim" but, according to one of those present, left little doubt that he was preparing the ground for some of them to leave. There will be "clarity" by autumn apparently.
We've also witnessed the new mayor's first undeniable U-turn, a retreat from his campaign pledge to have a statue of war hero Sir Keith Park permanently installed in Trafalgar Square on the hotly disputed Fourth Plinth. Blame has been placed on "complex planning issues" and "outstanding commitments" to exhibiting contemporary sculpture there on a rotating basis, but apparently there's more to it than that.
Quoth Boris: "I recognise that this revolving programme has proved very popular and I welcome the important contribution it has made in shaping public debate about contemporary art."
Well, there's a turnaround, one which brings Johnson completely in line with Livingstone's policy on the fourth plinth and honouring Sir Keith. The ex-mayor had said that a different location should be found for a statue. Now the new mayor is saying the same thing.
I've yet to discover what Munira Mirza, Johnson's culture director, thinks about all this. In her former capacity as libertarian scourge of "political correctness" - she criticised a previous fourth plinth inhabitant, Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper, as "preachy" - but I do know that the conservative New Culture forum is not best pleased by the decision. "Timid" and "cowardly" it calls it.
Is Boris getting his betrayals in early?
