I spent some of the Easter break listening to London's mayoral candidates. At times, I felt quite sorry for myself. To be honest, there were places I would rather have been than a mayoral debate on a bank holiday Monday. I felt even sorrier for the candidates. Ken did not really want to attend the more challenging gatherings because he knew he was miles ahead in the polls already. His best tactic was to say as little as possible and watch the votes pile up. The other candidates knew they were heading for humiliating defeat and yet had to carry on. They could have been on holiday in Barbados for all the good these never-ending meetings did them.
Come to think of it, I could have been on holiday in Barbados as well. But I am pleased I suffered, briefly, with the power-seekers. As a result, I no longer believe the myths that have grown up around the mayoral contest. As everyone knows, the myths tend to centre around the word "calamity". The whole damned business is meant to have been a calamity for Labour and calamitous also for the Conservatives. Most of all, it has been, apparently, a calamity for London.
Of course, there have been moments of shambolic farce, from Lord Archer's brief, preposterous candidacy to Labour's tortured deliberations about what to do with Livingstone. On the whole, though, the myths miss the point. The mayoral contest has been good for London, and nowhere near as bad for the political parties, as even the parties themselves realise. There has been, though, one depressing, gaping hole in the campaign that none of the myths addresses.
Let us consider the myths first. Labour's internal contest was a shambles, as all those involved privately admit. It will not be long before Tony Blair says "sorry", just as he has apologised for what happened in Wales. But, as far as Blair is concerned, the outcome of the shambles has been rather better than it might have been. He acquired a reputation for deviousness in the run-up to the selection, but that is nothing compared to the contortions that would have been required had Livingstone secured Labour's candidacy.
How would Blair have responded to Livingstone's more outlandish statements? Would he have campaigned openly and unambiguously for Livingstone? Blair would have been seen dissembling wildly. Instead, Livingstone's independence has produced a more straightforward, open contest.
Livingstone himself has benefited from his liberation. Never a great party politician, he has now been able to say what he wants without any fear of the Labour machine descending on him. This does not mean he is a loner, or impossible to work with. These are separate myths associated with Livingstone himself. Those who worked with Livingstone at the GLC enjoyed the experience on the whole. Some of them are saying different things now, but that is to pursue their own careers in the new Labour hierarchy. Every word that Livingstone has uttered in the campaign - and I do not believe he is merely posturing - points to a broad-based administration. At most of the meetings I attended, Livingstone mischievously invited Dobson to join his administration, with the specific task of fighting poverty in London. He is partly playing games, as he is when he talks up Steve Norris's vote to discourage complacency among his supporters, but Livingstone intends to lead a pragmatic administration.
Dobson did not perform too badly at the meetings I witnessed. Ironically, he has been brought down by a lack of spin, rather than too great an association with Labour's spin-machine. "I don't use spin-doctors," he proclaimed proudly. But the result has been a lack of any distinctive narrative in the media and a slow response to the damaging stories that have run in the newspapers for months. Dobson's lacklustre campaign has been the best advert for spin-doctors anyone could devise. In contrast, Norris is rather good in the media and in the hustings. His problem is his party, which he tries, Blair-like, to transcend by making a broader appeal. Norris has not been an embarrassment to the Tories. It has been the other way round.
As for London, the poor old neglected city has come out of it rather well. For the first time since the early 1980s, the capital has been the centre of attention. This in itself vindicates Blair's decision to introduce mayors. In the past, some councils have got away with murder partly be-cause no one was noticing. This will not be the case with London's mayor. At a stroke, Blair has made local government more accountable.
So what is the depressing, gaping hole? Behind all the thousands of words the candidates have exchanged with each other, no one really knows what they would do with the limited power that is about to descend on one of them. Take London Underground, which has been the dominant issue of the campaign. Dobson says only that the public/private partnership is "likely" to be the most effective solution. Livingstone claims he will "fight" to keep the tube in the public sector, but cannot say for sure whether his famous bonds will ever happen. The government has already legislated for a public/private partnership. Norris is theoretically opposed to congestion-charging. Even so, at one meeting he declared that he would be in favour if he were certain that the cash would not disappear into Gordon Brown's pockets.
And there is the even bigger gaping hole. All the candidates admit that their proposals will cost more than they have got to spend. None of them is even sure that they will be allowed to spend the money specifically allocated to London in the way they would wish. Brown's absence at these meetings was the gaping hole. He will have more of a say in London's future than any of the candidates. Perhaps he was on holiday in Barbados.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
