In today's Times, Anatole Kaletsky comments on the lacklustre quality of the London Mayoral campaign. Having watched a number of the public and broadcast debates, it's hard not to agree. But the reasons he puts forward- a disdain for local politics, and over-centralisation - miss the point, and do not explain the reasons for the parochialism and lethargy of the debate.
As a Londoner born and bred (the type I think Livingstone reserves a special contempt for) it seems clear to me that there are essentially two cities now: the one in the official version, and the one experienced by most people.
The official version runs as follows, and can be found on the lips of the capital's media commentators, and in the pages of ES magazine : A dynamic melting pot; an unrivalled selection of restaurants; over 200 languages spoken; vibrant celebration of diversity; the creative and media hub of the world; massively rich; New York can't hold a candle to it.
The other city, as experienced by millions, is however characterised by: a frightening expansion of ghettos along ethnic lines; social fragmentation and fear; an annual exodus, or so-called 'white-flight', of over 300,000 a year; a basically sound infrastructure which is near to breaking point; a cultural shift which has seen the capital become divorced from the wider country (to the relief of the nation-hating liberal elites); a sense of unease, hostility and battered resignation which brings back memories of pre-New York Giuliani.
Of course, it's the case that nobody wins by accentuating the negative. But the fact is, have you heard any discussion of the second city? The real city? The debate has an artificial quality about it simply because all these issues are resolutely ignored, and most people sense it.
