21 April 2016
Big City Blues
by J.R.Thomas
This week we look at political contrasts in two great cities either side of the Atlantic. In the USA, New York has voted, producing a spectacular win for Mr Trump – and a spectacular defeat for Mr Cruz. On the Democrat side, a strong victory, but still not a defining one, for Mrs Clinton. In London the Mayoral and Assembly elections are well underway and, at least in the main party candidates’ camps, there are some signs of the contest finally coming to life – not before time as the polls are on 5th May and Boris’s reign is rapidly drawing to a close. But the London public seem still pretty much uninterested in the elections and there is little sign that they are going on.
In New York, yesterday was the Presidential primary for both the Republicans and the Democrats, with an overwhelming victory for Donald Trump in the GOP, taking 89 delegates, 60.5% of the vote, even better than his own forecasts. Equally, Ted Cruz had a disastrous showing, no delegates and 14.5% of the votes, leaving John Kasich to take 3 delegates for 25% of the vote. (The GOP in New York has a transferable vote system that favours strong winners -very New York, you might say).
That leaves John Kasich still with a marker in the race and a remote possibility of emerging in a contested convention as the compromise candidate. It is hardly surprising that Cruz did badly; not only is this Trump’s home city and a hotbed of what might be called Trumpian values, Mr Cruz has used “New York” as a term of abuse in much of his campaigning. To the devout small town voters of the south-west and middle America, New York is the great Satan, indeed, a cesspit of moral corruption and financial greed, the very epitome of big city politics, and to reference it thus in a Cruz speech is always good for a cheer. But perhaps not such a great idea when there were 92 delegates at stake and Ted needed to close the gap. Now the circus moves on to Pennsylvania, and another mini super Tuesday, also looking like a Trump clean sweep.
On the Democrat side life will still not run smoothly for Hillary. George Clooney gave a very grand Los Angeles style fundraising dinner for the lady, with tickets, it is rumoured, at US$353,000 a pair, with a prime Hollywood turnout. Down the street, Howard Gold, a Californian businessman, held one for Bernie Sanders – tickets US$27 each (the average donation size to the Sanders campaign). When questioned on this, Clooney said his own dinner was “obscene ” and “ridiculous” and that such events should have no place in politics. Mrs Clinton was said to appreciate Mr Clooney’s fund-raiser. Mr Sanders was said to appreciate Mr Clooney’s remarks.
How much this affected the result in New York is hard to say; Bernie was raised there and Mrs C was Senator for the city, so they both had some home advantage. The out-turn was 58% for Hillary and 42% for Bernie, splitting the delegates 135/104. A victory for Mrs Clinton, but far from decisive, and the next mini Super Tuesday round may tend to favour Bernie.
Meanwhile, in Old London Town… It is the Mayoral elections, and, rather overlooked, the elections for the London Assembly, the twenty five London Assembly Members. (Should not they be called Councillors or Alderpersons or something? Do they really trot out at cocktail parties “Hello, I am London Assembly Memberperson for Penge?”) It is fair to say that such attention as is been paid is focussed on the Mayoral run, where are there twelve candidates running, though excitement amongst the voters as to this splendid choice has so far been somewhat muted. Such rumblings that there have been have rather focussed on Labour’s Sadiq Khan and as to whether he is close, or not close enough to his party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and as to what his history is with Muslim extremism (none, seems to be the answer, but mud continues to be flung).
Attention on Zak Goldsmith: you certainly would not criticise him for being too close to his party leader. He is notoriously a free spirit and in some ways Mr Cameron might prefer to have him out of Parliament, even if only down the river running London. But, one tends to forget, Mr Cameron has a very narrow majority in the Commons, and over the lifetime of a parliament it could erode to be much narrower. And Zak’s Richmond on Thames seat was a fairly safe Liberal seat until Zak developed such a large personal following. It is dangerous to see political shenanigans everywhere, but might it rather suit Mr Cameron for Zak to lose the Mayoralty?
The other ten have not attracted much public attention, and one could blissfully move around London without their existence as candidates to run this major world and financial city impinging on one’s consciousness. To help us know them better, the Greater London Returning Officer (now there’s a title to trot out at a cocktail party) has circulated to every London home a synopsis of each candidates manifesto, in their house colours. The synopsis cannot be missed on the door mat – it has a very bright pink cover (is the Greater London Returning Officer not perhaps giving away his own political preferences here?)
In fact, there are only ten mini manifestos. Neither Ankit Love, of the One Love Party, or Prince Zylinski, Independent, submitted any insights into their plans if and when elected. As the Shaw Sheet likes to hear from under-represented minorities, we have done our research and bring you their voices first.
Mr Love wants to build one million homes in London in his four year first term; he also wants to legalise cannabis, to use electric cars as public transport, ban investors from buying new homes, provide free education for Londoners (we thought that…oh, never mind), and carry out maintenance by drones. The Prince outdoes Mr Love – he wants to build one and a quarter million new homes and as a successful property developer says he knows how to do it. He carries a sword and challenged Nigel Farage of UKIP to a duel last year (Mr Farage declined). That’s seems to be about it.
Alas, the editor has declined the suggestion that this article should wade through each manifesto, but we can say that in addition to our two shy boys above, and of course, Mr Khan and Mr Goldsmith, there is a Liberal Democrat candidate – Caroline Pidgeon; a Respect George Galloway candidate – George Galloway; various candidates loosely emanating from the right; Green and Women’s Equality candidates; and a Cannabis is Safer Than Alcohol Party candidate. All of life is on the ballot paper, though somewhat boringly all the candidates promise much the same things – a couple of hundred thousand new homes over four years, safer and preferably cheaper public transport, improvements to the environment, less crime, no third runway at Heathrow, and, of course, special treatment for their particular interest. None of them set out how this will be paid for, or indicate that the Mayor has very limited fundraising, and indeed legislative, powers. Only the Cannabis Party candidate dares to be different. He wants to use this ancient and respected office just to promote pro cannabis legislation.
Having examined this hopeful dozen, whatever rude things the Shaw Sheet may have implied about the Presidential hopefuls in the USA race we must now withdraw. They have so much to learn from London’s Mayoral candidates. Starting with a read of that little pink book.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet
