Turnout, Turnout, Turnout....
I'm hearing that turnout is high in both Labour and Conservative areas and that postal voting too has been high. If true, this news could be encouraging for Ken and is definitely not good for the BNP.
I'm hearing that turnout is high in both Labour and Conservative areas and that postal voting too has been high. If true, this news could be encouraging for Ken and is definitely not good for the BNP.
From the FT:
"Ken Livingstone has won the tacit support of the City in his bid to be re-elected as London mayor, Financial Times research suggests. Leading business organisations, while stressing their apolitical nature, praise the Labour mayor's 'good track record' in running the capital. The City is not overtly hostile to Boris Johnson, but sees the Tory candidate as an untested proposition, given his lack of experience in running large organisations."Now read on.
From The Times:
"The 25-strong London Assembly is a waste of money and should be scrapped to save nearly £7 million a year, says a left-wing think-tank. The New Local Government Network, led by Chris Leslie who co-ordinated Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign, argues that the assembly members, who are up for election on May 1, do not do enough to justify their £50,000 earnings. Much of their work is spent compiling 'superfluous' reports and investigations that have little impact, the network’s report says. It proposes instead that Ken Livingstone or his successor as Mayor of London should be held to account by the leaders of the 32 London boroughs."
I wonder what Ken, Boris and Brian think about that?
Lots of good stuff from Matthew Taylor in the Guardian today. This piece, co-written with Patrick Wintour, focusses on the advice given to Livingstone's campaign by Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and Philip Gould, the heart of the "New" Labour electoral machine that Livingstone took such pleasure in crushing back in 2000. The most interesting bit is this quote from Team Ken:
"Ken Livingstone welcomes the support he has had in his campaign from anyone including Alastair Campbell, Philip Gould, and particularly the strong support he has had from government ministers. At the same time, you only have to see the importance his campaign gives to issues like opposing the war in Iraq and bringing the maintenance of the Tube back into public ownership to understand the character of his campaign."
It's a difficult blend: on the one hand, Livingstone has always profited from his outsider charm, tailored to liberal Londoners, on the other he needs to contrast his experience - his establishment record - with Johnson's lack of it and perceived frivolousness. He also needs to mobilise the loyal Labour vote. Can he have his cake and eat it?
The theme of which version of Ken is running is also explored in a longer piece by Matthew. But I'm especially interested in what he says in this audio clip, where he anticipates Johnson heeding those calls to name at least some members of his intended mayoral team, and Livingstone announcing a review of City Hall procedures.
Fascinating. On the first point, I've no idea who might be unveiled as a Johnson lieutenant at this stage. But I keep wondering if it could have been pure coincidence that Team Boris adviser Steve Norris made it known to the FT the other day that he wouldn't mind running the LDA. A bit of strategic leaking, perchance? And I keep wondering if Ian Clement, the likeable leader of Bexley Council who's often been at Johnson's side during the campaign, is being lined up for a role. Incidentally, Johnson will be at the Telegraph office today answering readers' questions online. I sent him one, which has been posted:
"Many people considering voting for you may have doubts about your competence and experience. You have explained why you are unable to name the team of advisers you would have around you should you win. Nonetheless, I suggest worries will persist unless you can do more to reassure uncertain voters that your administration would be efficient, moderate and capable. Can you do more to offer such reassurance?"
To see if he answers it, look here from 1.00 pm.
As for Livingstone announcing a review of City Hall procedures, I'd guess that would be a calculated risk. I wrote yesterday that his team has kept notably quiet on the question of Johnson's unannounced administration, perhaps preferring the issue not to be raised at all in view of the Jasper affair. And what if Johnson produced a string of vote-winning names? It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Well, well! Now the Standard's Anne McElvoy thinks we should be told! She's even moved to "take issue" with Veronica's cat!
"Mr Johnson's energetic campaign has, to his credit, brought them very close to the prize. I must take issue with my esteemed colleague Andrew Gilligan's contention that it does not matter if the candidate had, in a previous job, shown himself to be 'crap at the general day-to-day stuff [like] checking the expenses - but great at the strategic vision'. The point about the Mayoralty is not just about vision but delivering on that vision. Making sure things are done on time and costed properly is part of the job. It is a state of mind which applies in large things as well as small. Just as Ken has rightly, if belatedly, been held to account for his lapses here, so we should expect Boris to be - which means he should be on top of the general day-to-day stuff."
Now read on.
While I was away I wrote a piece about mayoral accountability. It centred on Boris Johnson's policy proposals for enhancing this. These aren't terribly bold, but they're not bad. My article inspired a good comment from one "Greatunclefred"
"Ken's often defends himself by saying that he is running an Executive system, set up by New Labour. He implies that the Mayor has been given complete power and it couldn't be run any other way. There is some truth in that, but Boris is at least trying to rethink it. I doubt that his 'fresh start' would stay fresh for very long, as a mix of transparent incompetence and business interests was exposed to the world, but it all sounds plausible at the moment. Ken needs to show that he will make changes in not only what he does in his third term, but how he does it. The ability of the London Assembly to hold him to account is the key thing and his dismissal of the Assembly as a bunch of part timers (excepting Labour and the greens) is counter productive, as it reinforces Ken's image of being unaccountable. Over to you Ken."
Food for thought, I'd say. Here's my piece:
“If elected,” writes Boris Johnson, with suitable modesty, “I will aim to create a different style of government at City Hall.” Only “aim”? But perhaps I’m splitting hairs.
After his speech this morning, Johnson told journalists (including me) that he would definitely not be announcing prior to the election who the members of his City Hall team will be in the event of his becoming mayor. He first repeated the view that this would be presumptuous, then added that it would be "impossible" for contractual reasons - presumably a reference to potential recruits needed to extract themselves from existing employment before signing up with him. Asked if it might be helpful to him if a team could be announced in advance he thought it difficult to speculate. Speaking of speculation, though, my information is that James Cleverly, Assembly candidate and blogger of note, has not been sounded out by Johnson to become his "race advisor" as has been reported elsewhere.
David Cameron quoted in the FT:
"There's no point trying to pretend that if we don't [defeat him] it's good - winning is good, losing is bad, it's that simple...Boris is not running as 'I'm the chief operating officer you've always wanted.' He's actually running as a person who can have right priorities for London...What you're seeing with Boris is very sensible, practical things that he'd do as mayor. You're also seeing, increasingly, a very strong team of people that he'd work with in order to do that."
Please note "practical". Please note "sensible." And especially please note "seeing, increasingly, a very strong team of people that he'd work with." Not yet, we're not Dave. But are you hinting that we will be?
From the FT:
"Boris Johnson, the Tory frontrunner to win the May 1 London mayoral contest, is holding secret negotiations with potential executives for the new administration to run the capital if Ken Livingstone is defeated. The Conservative leadership is anxious to ensure that Mr Johnson, under attack from Labour for his lack of experience in running big institutions, has a high-calibre team to administer London's £11bn budget...Mr Johnson has to date refused to name his candidates for crucial posts, such as the heads of London's transport and planning systems. Aides ascribe this reluctance to comment publicly on his proposed administration to fear of hubris. Asked about the proposed implementation of policies, one insider said it was 'too early; [it would be] presumptuous' to go public on it."
Presumptuous? It might be thought presumptuous not to go public, especially with so much talk of "zero tolerance" policing and tube privatisation around the place. Come on, Boris, out with it.
Recent Comments