05 May 2016
Re-advertised Due to Lack of Interest
by J.R.Thomas
It is one of the greatest cities on earth; it has established itself as a major, probably the major, financial centre of the west; it is one of the most innovative and exciting cultural centres in the world. So why does nobody want to be mayor of it?
It is London’s Mayoral elections today (if you reach for the Shaw Sheet as soon as you rise each Thursday) and we are taking the major risk of writing about an election the day before the electors go to the polls to prove every prediction wrong. So we will try to avoid predictions or even well informed guesses – venturing only that opinion polls do tend to under estimate Conservative voter turnout – and concentrate on the campaign. That might not take long – twelve candidates and it almost seems that nobody really wants the job. Nobody who is likely to get it anyway. We do not doubt that Prince Zylinski wants the job, and that he would do as he says if he got it – call in every residential planning application and approve it. And on the second day in office he would begin the legal fight which would swiftly follow such a strategy.
We also have no doubt that George Galloway would very much like the job, and that he also would set about it with great enthusiasm; “Respect, George”. Those three parties whose policies might be collectively described as “London for the English” no doubt dream of an unexpected surge in their direction; any of their candidates would be astonished but delighted to have their hands on the levers of power for the first time ever. The Women’s Equality Party candidate, Sophie Walker, the only one to send her literature to J R Thomas Towers three times, certainly seems keen, if her delivery schedules accurately bear witness. The Greens seem to be conserving energy by a minimal campaign, so it is hard to know how keen they are.
But the two big beasts, Mr Khan and Mr Goldsmith, seem strangely uninvolved with the whole process; and the little beast (if we may be so rude) Ms Pidgeon, though making a few waves, seems to lack that LibDem campaigning passion, the pounding every pavement and mass leafleting of every letterbox, the haranguing of the electorate from Volvo mounted loudspeakers, that used to win the party astonishing victories in local elections.
London, judging by the results of the general election last year, is a Labour city now. So maybe Mr Khan thinks it is all in the bag, and the best policy is to keep his head down and not risk upsetting anybody. He is probably right on both counts. Mr Goldsmith probably feels he has lost and it is not worth much further effort. He is probably right too.
In the circumstances it does seem a pity that the only real sign of passion in the whole debate in the mayoral struggle has been over the last week as the side wash of the unpleasant anti-Semitic allegations in the Labour party have flooded into the behaviour of the Mayoral front runners. Mr Goldsmith is of course of Jewish descent and Mr Khan is a Muslim; and they are both highly civilised, well educated, and tolerant men. The progressing defenestration from the Labour Party of Ken Livingstone, for eight years Mayor, (though Ken is not an easy man to push out of anything) has created an opportunity for mud-slinging both within the Labour Party and outside it, and Mr Goldsmith would have been a strange politician had he not hurled some. Indeed, handfuls had been thrown before, with allegations about Mr Khan’s sharing of platforms with alleged Islamic extremists, or persons who might be, or have been, or might be in the future, acquainted with such types. That had largely been seen off by carefully released photos of Dave and Boris on platforms with people they would not be natural supporters of, and Mr Khan distancing himself from being a Corbyn supporter by keeping the Labour leader away from the campaign, Mr Khan pointing out (or maybe this is pointing up) that he only nominated Jeremy for the leadership in the interests of democracy and did not vote for him…
The Livingstone affair has enlarged the mud-pool and Zak is scooping some up. Anti-Semitism is the mud now and there seem to be enough people in the Labour Party whose no doubt genuine support for Palestine, but almost rabid dislike of Israel and what they label “Zionism”, have led to unpleasant and intolerant public remarks. Couple this with a lack of vigour by Mr Corbyn in dealing with these wilder fringes of his party and a difficult issue has been created for Sadiq. Although on Thursday it will probably do more damage by losing some formerly dedicated London Labour Party workers (and some financial support) than by affecting the vote, it is a sensitive and unpleasant issue which has doubtedlybeen badly handled by both parties
But, as we have suggested in these pages before, being Mayor of London isn’t that much of a job, other than for a transport enthusiast with a side interest in town planning and an urge to closely study the Metropolitan Police budget. (For the benefit of our out-of-London readers, this mayoralty does not get you accommodation in a Georgian mansion, fancy robes, and a golden coach – that’s the other chap, the Lord Mayor, in the City). Both the main candidates may well feel they have bigger fish to fry than to occupy such a role, and that their political futures may be stymied by having to give up their parliamentary seats. Whoever wins might at some point in the non-too distant future wish they were in the House of Commons to seize the opportunities available to bright ambitious MPs, rather in City Hall worrying about police headcounts and cycle super highways. Zak always denies ambitions for ministerial postings, and we believe him, but Sadiq hasn’t, and we believe him too.
To set off down a side street, there is no reason why the Mayor of London cannot also be an MP. Indeed as he is representing the largest and capital city, and the mayoring job does not really need full time attention and has certainly not fully engaged the two previous occupants of the office, it would make entire sense if the Mayor was also an MP. It was Boris who said that he would give up his, then Henley, Commons seat to gain, he hoped, mayoral electoral advantage. It worked, but took a very ambitious man out of the Commons with what could be calamitous results for his career.
Which brings us back to that original question. Why would an ambitious politician want the job? We don’t know the answer, we are just asking. It involves some travel, but not as much as is available to the golden coach chap, and status, maybe, though again the golden coach chap tends to get more of that too, and often a knighthood for his troubles. Admittedly, politicians always do like campaigns and winning things. Show them a platform and a crowd and they will be out there hustling for votes. But in the case of this lacklustre, bad tempered, unimaginative fight, it is difficult to avoid the impression that all three big party candidates would ideally like to lose, but lose well. That would preserve their reputations, bring them future compensatory rewards, and free them up to do other things. Many of us take jobs just to enhance our C.V’s. In London 2016, the best way to enhance your political C.V. might be to honourably avoid getting the job at all.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet
