London 2008

[JohnFKennedy]

Applied for my postal ballot the other day (election is during term time).

[jeron]

There was an LBC radio debate this week, which I had a listen to. No clear winner, I'd say, but they all seem reasonable people- although Boris the least. He did get his facts wrong about Thatcher- she was Education Secretary under Heath, IIRC.

Ken Livingston seems reasonable? How?

[Silent Hunter]

There was an LBC radio debate this week, which I had a listen to. No clear winner, I'd say, but they all seem reasonable people- although Boris the least. He did get his facts wrong about Thatcher- she was Education Secretary under Heath, IIRC.

Ken Livingston seems reasonable? How?

Because his policies are. Bad choice of friends aside.

Best of a bad bunch, IMO.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I took the poll. My comment is: who the hell is William McKenzie?

A former boxer turned frequent candidate who's been a member of more political parties than I've drunk cups of tea.

[Silent Hunter]

I've got the candidate booklet now. You can read it here.

So, in book order.

Richard Barnbrook- BNP
From the first line, this is just plain wrong. "Clean, friendly and safe"? Has he never heard of pea-soupers? The Blackshirts? The Krays?
"Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are engulfing London?" No, they're not. Most of the immigrants into London are legal and they're hardly "engulfing the place". Asylum seekers are not the same as illegal immigrants and it's our duty international law to take refugees.

24 hour travel passes for pensioners. The Freedom Pass already exists and has for a while, although it is off-peak (I've heard it called the "twirly pass" as the bus drivers have to keep saying "too early")? While it's an interesting idea, how many pensioners head down to the West End of a Friday night?

"I'm voting BNP because I'm Irish"- so, she's possibly a turkey voting for Christmas.

Policies section- this is the GLA, not Whitehall. Don't promise what you don't deliver from City Hall.

What is so wrong with political correctness on a fundamental level?

[Silent Hunter]

Lindsey German- The Left List

Trot grouping number whatever. Again, policies ultimately outside remit. This isn't Whitehall- you don't set income tax. A 35 hour week? This isn't France.

Full of majority against minority appeal, rich versus poor etc. Taxing the wealthy more sounds a nice idea, but there's only so far you can go before you lose income via overtaxation- and the big business of London head for other countries. Life isn't black and white.

Boris Johnson- Conservatives
It sounds reasonable, but I'm not one to trust this guy. It seems to be a lot of spending promises- where's the money coming from, Mr. Johnson.

Siân Berry- Green Party

I say it again- this isn't Whitehall. You can't renationalise the railways from City Hall, for a start. Cancelling the Thames Gateway Bridge and the 20 mph speed limit- not the solution for carbon emissions. All you get are longer journey times by car, more carbon emissions and more traffic jams. (I live in Havering. If I want to drive to Bexley, I have to drive all the way to the Woolwich Ferry or the Blackwall Tunnel, both jam zones- or use the Dartford crossing).

Congestion charge modifications- good idea, but that will just increase traffic problems.

Brian Paddick- Liberal Democrats

I'd hardly call my local transport services poor. I've seen much worse. The buses are comfortable and frequent in my area, the rail service is pretty good (the refurbished trains on the District Line are much better than the old ones) and much of the problem is of aesthetics.

I'm going to another question to Political Debate.

More later.

[Hash]

German wants a 35 hour workweek? Lol.

[Silent Hunter]

German wants a 35 hour workweek? Lol.

Quite.

Gerald Batten- UKIP

This guy at least has the sense to realise that he's not Whitehall. He does give the reasons that UKIP (now with MP) want you to vote for them- anti-European, but lists them as an also ("no to mass immigration" etc.)

Wants to scrap the congestion charge- seemingly to get London moving economically and also emissions charges. I dislike economy first people.

"Money will only be spent on the services and projects that benefit all Londoners equally"- what does that mean?

Alan Craig- The Christan Choice

OK, where's the catch? Merger of two "Christian Parties". Their policies look half-way reasonable. I can't help thinking something is up though.

Guy is apparently the sole non-Labour councillor in Newham.

Matt O'Connor- The English Democrats

Seems to be Scot-bashing, saying that Scotland has it better, the government is run by Scots etc.

BTW, England didn't give the world democracy- that was ancient Greece.

Ken Livingstone- Labour

The word Labour doesn't appear at all. Suspect Ken's trying to hide the connection here, but he's been like that for a while.

Wants to make the Freedom Pass operate 24/7. I'm in favour of that, provided it's costed. Mentions the Olympics victory, but nothing on cost issues. Double-edged sword, that.

Lot of purple wasted.

Winston McKenzie

No manifesto submitted. Only official page is a MySpace one. You're right, Al, about the parties he's been in.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"Money will only be spent on the services and projects that benefit all Londoners equally"- what does that mean?

Approx. translation: "the inner city can go screw itself"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite a few things are "up" with him...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was the only one elected as such in 2002, but some defected all over the place between then and 2006 (all lost their seats) and Craig's running mates got in in 2006 as did Respect in one ward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol at a man with such an Irish name running for a party of virulent English Nationalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's actually managed to run a more openly racist campaign than the BNP so far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and everyone knows who he is and what party he's from anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still can't believe that he made the ballot.

[afleitch]

OK, where's the catch? Merger of two "Christian Parties". Their policies look half-way reasonable. I can't help thinking something is up though.

They are a front for the Green/Hargreaves 'Chrsitian Voice' w@nkmobile. Quite a few of the membership have been involved in unsuccessful 'entryist' politics in a few Tory (and one Labour IIRC) constituency parties. They are horrible people pretending they are 'Christian Democrats like in Europe.'

Everything I said was 100% biased but I had to face down the b*stards under another name up here.

[Harry Hayfield]

London Assembly Projections
(based on average April polls, national projected vote share and past London results)

Constituency Forecast Vote Share: Con 38% (+7%) Lab 20% (-4%)Lib Dems 18% (n/c) Greens 5% (-2%)UKIP 11% (+1%) Others 5% (-2%)

Regional List Forecast Vote Share: Con 35% (+7%) Lab 20% (-5%) Lib Dems 16% (n/c) Greens 6% (-2%) UKIP 9% (+1%) BNP 5% (n/c) Respect 3% (-2%) Christian Party 4% (+1%)

Constituency Forecast: Con 10 (+1) Lab 3 (-2) Lib Dems 1 (+1)

Regional List Forecast
Qualifying Parties: Con, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green
Seat 1: UKIP (Lawrence Webb)
Seat 2: Lib Dems (Michael Tuffrey)
Seat 3: Lib Dems (Dee Doocey)
Seat 4: Greens (Jenny Jones)
Seat 5: Labour (Nicky Gavron)
Seat 6: UKIP (Kathleen Garner)
Seat 7: Lib Dems (Caroline Pidgeon)
Seat 8: Labour (Murad Qureshi)
Seat 9: Lib Dems (Jeremy Ambache)
Seat 10: Labour (John Biggs)
Seat 11: UKIP (Michael McGough)

Total Composition and Change: Con 10 (+1) Lab 6 (-1) Lib Dems 5 (n/c) UKIP 3 (+1) Greens 1 (-1)

[Harry Hayfield]

BREAKING NEWS
English Democrat candidate for Mayor withdraws from race: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7366662.stm

[Hash]

Will UKIP actually gain seats?

[afleitch]

Will UKIP actually gain seats?

No.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BREAKING NEWS
English Democrat candidate for Mayor withdraws from race: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7366662.stm

His name will still be on the ballot though. Who's he endorsing [qm]

[Hash]

The BNP?

Will UKIP actually gain seats?

No.

Ah, was scared for a moment there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The BNP?

Will UKIP actually gain seats?

No.

Ah, was scared for a moment there.

The BNP will take at least one seat from them (well, technically from "One London" but...)

[Hash]

One London will become another joke party, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One London will become another joke party, right?

I must disagree strongly with the word "become"...

[Hash]

One London will become another joke party, right?

I must disagree strongly with the word "become"...

[afleitch]

(currently torn between Berry and German)

Gag.

[afleitch]

(currently torn between Berry and German)

Gag.

Oh, piss off.

So saying 'Boris Johnson (gag)' is all right but a half assed attempt at a parody is worth you telling someone to piss off? Why the hell would you want to vote for German anyway? I can understand Berry from what I know about you, but German? That's why I 'gagged'

[afleitch]

I just realised why you might have said what you did, because I capitalised 'German' - that wasn't what I was meaning.

[Hash]

Two little articles...

Every vote counts—twice

Apr 24th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The capital's curious electoral system creates a market for second-hand votes

LONDON'S mayoral race is too close to call, but one thing is clear: the contest rests on voters' second choices. The pink ballot that Londoners will fill in on May 1st has two columns: one to mark their favourite candidate, and another to name their grudging second preference. Ken Livingstone, the Labour incumbent, and Boris Johnson, his Conservative rival, are expected to finish neck-and-neck in the top two spots, neither with a majority. The second choices of those who backed losing candidates will be added to their totals, to produce a winner.

The “supplementary vote” has never mattered much before in London, where Mr Livingstone has won the past two elections comfortably. (By contrast, three of England's 12 other elected mayors have at one point taken office only thanks to second preferences.) Now, it could swing things. The biggest prize is the votes cast off by the Liberal Democrats, Britain's third-largest party, which may account for nearly half the total. At London's last mayoral election Lib Dems backed Labour over the Tories. Their current candidate, Brian Paddick, has refused to say which of his rivals he dislikes least, but some polls show Lib Dems leaning towards Mr Johnson.

That may be misleading. For one thing, the polling samples are tiny (sometimes fewer than 100) at that level of detail. And it is tricky to get at true intentions, admits Nick Sparrow of ICM, a polling company. “We have a long history of casting one vote rather than two. The pollster may be asking about something that the poor old respondent has not previously thought about,” he says.

The London Assembly is also hard to predict, again owing to the way it is elected. In a system introduced in 2000 that no other English council uses, 11 of its 25 seats are allocated by proportional representation to any party that polls above about 5%. Small parties benefit: at the last election seats were won by the Greens and the right-wing UK Independence Party (UKIP), which have never elected an MP. The worry this year is that the British National Party (BNP), a thuggish far-right outfit, could win a seat, as it came close to doing last time.

In the past the far right was kept at bay by the electoral system. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics points out that in 1977 the National Front polled 5.3% in elections for the Greater London Council, but failed to win a seat because London then used a first-past-the-post system. If the BNP managed that share this year, it would win a seat. Their chances have been improved by the implosion of UKIP, whose supporters they hope to attract. Maybe—but only one in five UKIPers chose the BNP when casting their second-preference votes in the last mayoral election.

Much rests on turnout, which in past years has been little more than a third. Higher turnout will make it harder for the BNP to reach the 5% threshold, and may benefit Mr Livingstone, whose supporters are more reluctant to vote than Mr Johnson's. Turnout might be boosted by the candidates' larger-than-life personalities and intense rivalry. Which makes it all the odder that the outcome may be determined by people who don't much like either of them.

[Hash]

Two

Send out the clowns

Apr 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The lesson of London's funny but sad mayoral election

IN POLITICS, jokes can be serious. A skilful rhetorician—such as William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary—can use humour collusively, recruiting his audience via their laughter. Boris Johnson MP makes lots of jokes; many are funny, and such is his aura of shambolic wit that audiences titter even at the duds. But they are not really purposeful. They are just jokes.

Mr Johnson is the Conservatives' candidate in London's tight mayoral election on May 1st. Along with the gags, his oratorical style combines arcane vocabulary and distracted amateurism (“he's fumbling all over the place,” Arnold Schwarzenegger once commented). The whimsy is coherent enough, however, to have repeatedly if inadvertently caused offence—to London's ethnic minorities, among others; they have been only partly comforted by Mr Johnson's apologies and advertisement of his cosmopolitan descent, from a Turk and (reputedly) a Circassian slave.

But those indiscretions are not the main reason to doubt that he is the right man to run London. The main reason is that before deciding, after much equivocation, to stand, Mr Johnson had neither evinced much interest in London nor properly run anything. True, he was editor of the Spectator, a weekly magazine; but rigorous administration is not the trait for which his tenure is most remembered. He is propounding some sensible policies on crime, but for much of the campaign he has been aloof, relying on his already high profile to work for him by proxy: “Boris” was the candidate rather than the actual Boris. His Tory handlers say that, if he is elected, a team of crack managers will help to govern London and govern him: a dubious reassurance, especially since no one knows who they would be.

So the incumbent, Ken Livingstone, ought to clean up. On his watch London has become an even more diverse and magnificent city. That has little to do with Mr Livingstone, but he has made some useful marginal contributions. He bravely introduced a charge to drive into central London; he has improved the city's buses; he oversaw a revamp of Trafalgar Square. Following a similar ideological trajectory to Labour, the party that he nominally represents, despite his professed socialism “Red Ken” has, as mayor, encouraged developers and championed the City.

Weighing against this record is the mayor's own problematic personality. The problem is not his taste for mid-morning whisky, his complicated personal life (Mr Johnson's is also colourful) or his enthusiasm for newts. It is that Mr Livingstone is a megalomaniac. For all his long involvement in local government—he was leader of the Greater London Council until, not unrelatedly, Margaret Thatcher abolished it—ruling London was never Mr Livingstone's main ambition either. He wanted to be prime minister (at least), and it shows. He has used his consolation job to cultivate Latin American autocrats and fanatical Islamists; when the conversation turns to global affairs, he can sound like one of those sane-seeming people who suddenly claim to have been abducted by aliens. His apologists say these pseudo-radical antics don't matter: forget the agitprop, they say; focus on the buses. But they do matter, and the symbolism will be even more important in the run-up to the London Olympics.

The absurd freelance diplomacy is not the only hint of megalomania that makes a third Livingstone term look undesirable (he originally said he would seek only one). What often happens to long-serving incumbents, even those who are not confirmed megalomaniacs, has happened to him. His administration has become opaque and detached. He has tolerated and defended dodgy practices among his acolytes, and seems to have used city resources for his own political ends. He is vindictive and insulting to anyone who disagrees with him.

Democracy usually involves choosing the lesser of two disappointments. But in this case the choice is especially disappointing. (The third main candidate is Brian Paddick, a sometime Liberal Democrat and gay former policeman who made his name with an experimental approach to drugs policing. He is earnest and personable but has no chance of winning.) Alongside the headline quandary—Ken or Boris?—Londoners are pondering another: why are the candidates so badly flawed?
Reductio ad absurdum

One answer—the wrong one—is that they are the candidates the job deserves. The role is weaker than, say, that of the mayor of New York; but it is still the most important directly elected office in Britain. The mayor is compensated for the narrow range of his powers by having few checks on those he does wield (mostly over transport and planning, and to a lesser extent policing). The real explanation is an historical quirk. When the post was established in 2000, irreverent Londoners used the inaugural vote to cock a snook at Tony Blair, then in his imperial pomp. They elected Mr Livingstone, whose cheeky petulance and nasal whine appeal to some voters as ugly men appeal to some women, and who was loathed by most of the Labour Party even before he stood against its official candidate. To dislodge him, the Tories felt they had to field another first-name-only politician. Even more than most mayoralties, London's has thus become reserved for mavericks and celebrities.

Therein lies the real lesson of the mayoral circus. So exotic is the race that extrapolating predictions about the next general election from the result will probably be unwise (though if Mr Johnson wins, and then gaffes or flops, the Tories will certainly be wounded, which is why, until recently at least, some of them thought a noble defeat might be preferable). The lesson instead concerns the direction in which all the parties are collectively travelling. In a post-ideological era, everyone now agrees, politics is dominated by personality. In London that proposition has been tested—to destruction. It has been a joke, in other words, with a serious point.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11049572