Mayoral choices

I don't often disagree with David Aaronovitch's political judgement, but on the London mayoral election I do. In his column today, David says: "Far from alienating the bankers and industrialists, Ken wooed them when necessary. Ken, wrong on all the things that don't matter in a London mayor, has been right on almost all the things that do."

Let's take first just a couple of things on which Livingstone is plainly wrong. His judgement on foreign affairs in general is ridiculous. His literal embrace of the reactionary Islamist cleric Yusef al-Qaradawi is repugnant. These things matter in a London mayor because he represents a huge, cosmopolitan capital city. Many of the contentious international and communal issues on which he intervenes are replicated in tensions within London. A civic leader, especially in London of all places, ought to exemplify the principle that there is a single category of citizenship that transcends national and religious divisions. Ken Livingstone does not do that.

My greater worry about David's argument is, however, that I also consider Livingstone to have got wrong some of the issues that are central to the mayor's responsibilities. Yes, Livingstone has wooed the bankers and industrialists. As a result, London's landscape is being deformed. I agree with Simon Jenkins as rarely as I disagree with David, but on this he is right:

"Livingstone's towers answer to his curious edifice complex. They are for the rich and he knows it. He just cannot kick the habit, familiar to lapsed leftwingers, of loving those with money. I suspect that even the rich, when they see what he has done to their city, will hate him for it."

Business and the City are sectional interests. It is not the role of the mayor to court them, and this mayor is too close to them. I do not believe he is a sensible choice for progressive voters, and I hope that Oona King can be prevailed upon to run against him.

Comments

[Sempronius]

Is there really any prospect that Oona will stand? What if she doesn't?

Fortunately there is a potential candidate available with a strong sense of public service, impeccable progressive credentials and first hand experience of one of the most remarkable and improbably successful electoral campaigns in recent British political history.

Run, Oliver! Run!

[Mark]

For all of Oliver's criticisms of Ken Livingstone (many of which I agree with) he has yet to make the case that Boris Johnson would do a better job. Or Brian Paddick. Or any of the other candidates.

Since Oona King is rather obviously not going to run, to keep suggesting that she ought to looks to be merely a device to avoid the real and immediate decision that London voters have to make.

Like David Aaronovitch I will be voting for Ken as the best option from a depressingly poor field of candidates.

Those who are not prepared to vote for Ken owe us at least some sort of argument as to why one of the other candidates would do a better job. Oliver has not yet supplied one.

[Matthew]

Oliver, when you say you hope "Oona King can be prevailed upon to run against him", who by? Can you give us any more details? Is this likely? As a friend of hers are you putting pressure on her? Or the Euston Group?

[Jeremy Jacobs]

"Business and the City are sectional interests. It is not the role of the mayor to court them, and this mayor is too close to them"

and what of the Lord Mayor of London in this regard?