In a somewhat surprising article in last week's Jewish Chronicle, Jonathan Freedland urged Jewish voters to discount Ken Livingstone's anti-Semitic remarks, his penchant for extreme Islamists and South American 'strongmen' on the grounds that - at least Ken is efficient in running London. Well forgetting the fact that actually Livingstone's competence is seriously under question (more on that in a moment), the underlying premise of Freedland's argument has disturbing undertones.
Freedland's remarks hark back to the 1930s when observers suggested turning a blind eye to the democratic deficit in Germany and Italy, because at least "the trains ran on time". Similarly, when the British Socialists went to Russia and saw Stalin's Potemkin villages and the like, they noted that Stalin may be a bit of a dictator, but at least wheat and steel production was at record levels.
Now, I am not suggesting for a moment that Ken Livingstone is on a par with 1930s dictators. Indeed it would be ludicrous to say so. But the logic of Freedland's argument points in the direction of fascism: In essence, it doesn't matter what a ruler says, does, or who he consorts with, as long as the trains run on time.
The fact that Mr Livingstone chooses to come out with anti-Semitic statements, or that he consorts with fanatical Islamists like Sheikh Qaradawi, cannot be separated from policy. The Mayor's outbursts have a profound effect on community relations, by encouraging radical Islamism in London, and adding to the discomfort felt by Jews and Christians alike. Telling a couple of Jewish business men to 'to go back to Iran', plays into the hands of the BNP and does nothing for community cohesion. How can it be right for voters to support a Mayor who is happy to support those who have no penchant for democracy and the rule of law? Whether it is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Sheikh Qaradawi, Londoners have a right to support someone who puts democracy before extremism and political opportunism. Indeed, Mr Livingstone's trenchant criticism of Israel, whilst not unusual amongst left leaning politicians and not by itself an inditement, fits into the general pattern of his world view. This has nothing to do whether a Mayor would or would not be welcome at a Jewish Care dinner.
Next, and uncharacteristically for a journalist of Mr Freedland's calibre, he attempts to smear Boris Johnson by suggesting that he is courting the BNP and quoting out of context a particular word that Boris Johnson used some time ago in an article. Not forgetting that Mr Johnson has apologised on numerous occasions for that remark, the Tory Mayor Candidate has gone out of his way to stress his Muslim heritage and has even called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants - hardly the actions of a man hoping for BNP support. Mr Freedland conveniently does not mention that Boris Johnson has also publicly distanced himself from the BNP saying he would be ashamed to be a second preference for their voters. The idea that Mayor Ken has the monopoly on anti-BNP support is laughable and - as been shown above - his actions have simply enlarged rather than hindered BNP political activity. It is no accident that it is after two terms of Mayor Ken, the BNP look set to make significant advances in these London elections.
Finally, back to the question about those trains. Even Mr Freedland's arguments on competence fall short. Corruption at City Hall, with the resignation of top aides, crime up, traffic up, pollution up - all this has been well documented in the Evening Standard. How many of those driving through traffic in the City of London really believe that the Congestion Charge has been a success? How many people really feel safe walking the streets or travelling on the bus or underground at night? How much of our taxpayer's money has been wasted on dubious causes?
Unlike many honourable people on the left, notably Nick Cohen and Andrew Gilligan, Mr Friedland has chosen to stick with Ken Livingstone. That is his right, but please have the intellectual honesty not to tell us that Ken Livingstone's anti-democratic activities as Mayor don't matter. As for engaging in cheap 'Livingstonian' political stunts by trying to smear the Conservative candidate with unjustified claims of racism and such like, it demeans you as a thoughtful journalist and of course the real victims of racism - such as Oliver Feingold and the Reuben Brothers.
Moderation and competence is all Londoners are after and that does not mean Ken Livingstone.
