London: Mayor & More

Question Time Debate

I was disappointed. Several policy areas fundamental to the mayoralty - housing, transport and the environment - went completely unexamined. I sincerely believe we've gone over the Al-Qaradawi and "watermelon smiles" territory quite often enough and there were too many questions on the emotive subjects of crime, race and immigration. Perhaps the QT team was worried about being too London-centric, but I thought the emphasis was wrong.

On Question Time Extra which followed on BBC News 24 I was surprised to see that Veronica's Cat thought there was no clear winner. I thought Johnson did the better of the two frontrunners - faster on his feet, better at dodging the question to get his best lines in - and that Paddick seemed liberated (I laughed when he told Johnson to "shut up."). Nothing of great interest emerged. The Cat declared that Livingstone's assertion that securing government money for the Olympics was "a con trick" on his part was a gaffe and the big news story, but Livingstone had said the same thing the previous day.

The most diverting moment of the evening was the fleeting sight of Ken putting his arm round Boris as they left the set at the end. What do they talk about in these intimate moments?

A Boris Fan On Boris

A reader called Angela posted such an interesting comment here in response to my Cif piece on the Stonewall hustings that I thought it deserved a higher profile:

"Your article is very interesting and does capture many of the complexities of Boris Johnson. However, I genuinely believe that one of [the] guiding principles in Boris's life is that he hates to hurt peoples' feelings. Some people might see this as a weakness in a politician, but really it is his strength and why so many people warm to him and are tolerant of his failings. Dave we are all human, and no doubt, Boris has cracked many a witty riposte in the past for a certain audience, without having to worry that it might hurt someone. Now he is faced with a far wider audience, for whom the transient humour was not necessarily intended and I truly do think it upsets him to realise that, inadvertently, or if he is taken out of context, or misquoted, he might be hurting someone when that is the one thing that he really hates to do."

To me, this rings true. The more the campaign has gone on, the more confident I've become that Johnson is not the malicious, hard-faced right-winger his opponents have sometimes sought to depict him as. I'm gladdened by his enthusiasm for those working in the voluntary sector, trying to stop kids going off the rails. My worry about it is that he also gives the impression of having discovered this world - where troublesome kids are redeemable, where realistic, open-minded people are dedicated to redeeming them - for the first time. The same goes for his apparent mystification or mortification over discovering the offence he has sometimes given to people from social circles far distant from his own. I'm pleased he seems to have broadened his horizons. I also wish that he had broadened them before.

An Interesting Letter From Vince Cable

On 7th April, Sunder Katwala, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, published an open letter to London's eight Liberal Democrat MPs - plus their one MEP and Nick Clegg - which sought to persuade them to cast their second preference votes for Ken Livingstone and to urge their supporters to do the same. He has now received a reply from the most senior of them, Vince Cable. It reads as follows:

"I am sure you will understand that we do not want to be side tracked from promoting Brian Paddick as a first preference candidate. He is building up support as people look for an alternative and it isn’t helpful for attention to be focused on a debate about his second preference votes.

I also think you are mistaken in believing that I or other MPs can deliver Lib Dem votes to Ken Livingstone. I don’t think our voters see themselves as a vote bank which can be steered in that way. Nor is the choice as clear cut as you suggest.

To be sure, Johnson is utterly unsuited to be Mayor and I cannot envisage voting for him. His endorsement by the BNP is a further disqualification. But Livingstone is now a seriously flawed Mayor with the good ideas of this first term on transport giving way to arrogance and cronyism. I am horrified at the thought of him sloshing around billions of taxpayers’ money on his Olympic vanity project. I haven’t yet seen any indication of a willingness to change direction or style. His problem is not Lib Dem voters but disillusioned voters who, are I see locally switching in a serious numbers.”

It's interesting that Sunder received a reply from Vince at all. And is it just me or might - just might - that final paragraph contain a glimmer of a hint? A hint that while Johnson is indeed totally beyond the pale, if Livingstone were to provide some "indication of a willingness to change direction or style" - perhaps especially on the matters of "arrogance and cronyism" and his attitude to Olympic costs - then maybe Mr Cable would judge the Labour candidate just a little less "utterly unsuited" to be mayor than his Tory opponent? What do you think, dear reader?

Me On Paddick At Cif

This went live at Comment Is Free at lunchtime:

"First, the cold, hard truth: Brian Paddick will not be London’s next mayor. Unless the opinion polls are sensationally wrong there’s no way he’s going to finish in the top two places when the first preference votes are added up. That is where you have to be to stand a chance of winning, and those positions are fully booked by Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone. It remains anyone’s guess which of those two will prevail. By contrast, Paddick is certain to finish third. But how distant a third does he deserve to be?

Boris & The Undisclosed Shares

From the Standard:

"The Tory mayoral candidate was facing a Parliamentary probe today after it emerged that he had failed to declare shares in a TV company."

Now read on. And on. It's a proper news story, though I'm sure Boris has been forgetful rather than deceitful. Imagine, though, if the error had been made by Livingstone. Would the coverage have been tucked away at the bottom of page eight of the newspaper with no mention on the front of it? Now let me guess...

Who Would Be In Boris Johnson's Mayoral Team?

It's no longer just me asking this question. There's now quite a chorus. Tony Travers yesterday:

"The Conservatives will still not tell us who, precisely, will run Boris Johnson's London. This is a profound weakness for a candidate who remains vulnerable to a battery of attacks on his competence to govern. If Johnson is to run the capital as "chairman of the board", he really should tell us who the executives will be."

What's more, the Telegraph in a leader:

"It would be to London's advantage to see the back of Ken Livingstone; but how convinced are voters that his principal opponent offers something worth supporting? Who, for instance, will run the city in a Johnson mayoralty? So far, we have been given one name, that of Bob Diamond, president of Barclays, who will administer a fund to help disadvantaged youngsters."

In fact, the same day's paper revealed a list of others who will assist with Johnson's proposed mayor's fund. But this is a side issue. Who will be bossing the mayoral ministries, the advisers on transport, policing, housing and so on? Who might be brought in at TfL? Apparently, Johnson will tonight in a debate on ITV hint that Peter Hendy and Tim O'Toole might be kept on. But if so, for how long? And is dropping this hint simply a ploy to keep the issue at arm's length?

Sian Berry Interview

I talked to the Green Party's candidate for mayor in a cafe near the junction of Charlotte Street and Goodge Street. Before addressing specific issues I asked her to provide a little personal history - I'd realised how little I knew about her.

Well, now I know that she was born in Cheltenham, is 33 years old and has lived in London since completing an engineering degree in 1997: Archway, Gospel Oak, Highgate and now in a rented flat above a shop in Kentish Town. She's been a Green Party member for seven years, working as their national campaigns co-ordinator and political speaker, running for parliament and - almost successfully - for Camden Council. She's most famous for her anti-4x4 campaign, less so for her efforts on behalf of Camden Greens with the Stop The War coalition. There was a lot of leafleting: "That's where I cut my political teeth."

I asked her first about a point of policy difference between her and Brian Paddick. She supports Livingstone's Low Emissions Zone, Paddick opposes it, claiming it is a mere gesture and one that's hurting small traders who can't afford to update their vans. She replied that the idea had been around for ages and that it's basic purpose was to, "Stop dirty vehicles coming into London." Just one sooty, unfiltered vehicle can cause an asthma attack, she said. "Clean air is all about that. It's not about the averages, it's not about climate change in terms of long term totals. It's actually about the hour-by-hour concentrations of these things on the streets." She says it's a social justice issue because people in the poorest areas suffer worst.

What about the £25 gas-guzzler charge? I'm puzzled that the other half of the proposal will allow a lot of small cars to enter the C-charge zone for free. Is the charge about congestion or emissions? Sian replied that she was "fully in support of the way it's being done except for the discount level for the smaller cars." She insists that people have been given "a huge incentive" to switch to smaller cars, but thinks Livingstone has made a mistake in failing to say, "How long that discount, at that level, will last." She'd have liked him to have restricted that category year by year, to encourage manufacturers to make more low emission models. She thinks the policy, "could save the whole car market across Europe."

And so to Boris Johnson. He claims that by enabling traffic to flow more smoothly - by re-phasing traffic lights, for example - you reduce pollution because vehicles spend less time idling. Is there anything in that argument? "I think this is largely nonsense," she replied. If a car heading in one direction had to wait for less time at a crossroad, it would mean cars heading in other directions waiting for longer. Or else it would mean taking more time from other street-users - like pedestrians. She advocates a 20 mph speed limit across Londoner: "That is the way to get traffic flowing more smoothly."

Next, housing policy. Sian wants to go bigger than Livingstone in imposing an "affordable" percentage on the boroughs. He pledges 50%, she pledges 60%. I find the housing arguments hard to disentangle, and also worry about the centralising implications. Isn't there something to be said for allowing the boroughs more autonomy? And doesn't reducing it go against Green principles? "I think you do have to set minimum standards," she replies, "and London is at a local level compared with national level...as far as I'm concerned 60 percent's the very least we can expect." She adds that this still leaves 40% that can be any price and that her proposals represents the balance London presently needs.

My last question was about the mayoralty as an institution. Is the mayor too powerful and how could or should the present position be reformed? Sian's answer to the first question is "yes," though notes that major changes would need government legislation. However, if she were mayor she'd use the post's existing powers to ensure greater transparency. Planning meetings, for example, would be held in public. There are too many private chats with developers. She adds that if the Assembly wanted to question advisers more often - as they would under Johnson's proposals - they could already "sort that out for themselves."

To hear the full interview CLICK HERE.

Ken Livingstone's Drinking Habits

You know, they do an excellent cream tea in these parts...sorry, where was I? Oh yes. A member of the London Assembly - not a Labour one - told me a story the other day about being invited into Ken Livingstone's office one afternoon at about 3.00 and asked, "Would you like a drink?" The companionable AM said, "I'll have a brandy if that's OK," to which the mayor replied, "Oh, I meant tea or coffee."

Snow Job

Here I sit in a pub by the sea with coffee and whisky for company, reflecting on Brian Paddick, Boris Johnson and cocaine. From a call I received this afternoon and from reading Mayorwatch this evening, I gather that Brian pitched in to The Blond at today's Reuters hustings over his past excursions into the land of snow. I'm told this took the form of a not-very-good joke, to which Johnson responded by suggesting that humour wasn't the former policeman's forte. Perhaps he should be nicer to Brian, as Ken as been recently - those Lib Dem second preferences could still go anywhere, Paddick's own included.

Anyway, all this reminded me of Pippa Crerar's recent blog on the subject of Johnson's apparent acknowledgement of his coke use to Janet Street-Porter and subsequent denials that he'd done such a thing. She gently pointed out that, "Boris was sacked from the Tory frontbench by former Tory leader Michael Howard in 2004 not for having an affair, but for failing to tell the truth about it." Frankly, I couldn't give a hoot or toot if Boris powdered his nose illegally when aged 19 - after all, I did and look what a terrific fellow I've turned out to be - and wouldn't blame him if he'd fibbed about it later. But just imagine if the Evening Standard was conducting a vendetta against Johnson rather than against Livingstone. We'd hear of nothing but denials and evasions and insinuations of profound untrustworthiness from now until polling day.

London Citizens Mayoral Accountability Assembly

It was an extraordinary occasion. London Citizens is a large, multi-faith coalition devoted to "reweaving the fabric of society." Johnson, Livingstone, Berry and Paddick were asked to support four of their campaigns. In the grand setting of Westminster's Central Methodist Hall before a young and buzzing audience of almost 2,500 it wasn't going to be easy for any of them to say no. I've written a piece for the Guardian - check here for it later - which tells a fuller story of what was said. But to do proper justice to the proceedings would take many more words than I've time to write at present. Some other time, maybe. For now, though, a few video highlights. First, an opening song to set the tone.

I think Brian and The Blond enjoyed that, don't you? (Ken and Sian were concealed by the podium in case you were wondering) And soon Boris was supporting the London Living Wage. Please note the boos.

Then came Sian on the same subject...

Follwed by Brian...

And finally on wages, Ken. Note applause - he's already brought the policy in.

Now here are Boris and Sian on affordable housing...

And now the difficult one: Boris on amnesties. I think we've got that clear now.

Anyone for signing a Safer City initiative? Thought so.

Ken's closing speech.

Boris's closing speech (they were less cross with him by this point).

I love the "access" handshakes at the end. Dawkins fans would call that a faith group power grab, but I reckon its just smart politics.