I was going to write about Iris Murdoch and Social Responsibility this week, but the media frenzy about the London Mayor seems to be heating up, and the esteemed Editor suggested I might like to try something new, like, ooh, why not write about politics? I said: Have you gone completely insane? But he meant it, apparently. So here goes: my four point plan to end Ken Livingstone’s career. My suggestions are in places general (i.e. they would apply to whoever fights the Tory corner) and in other places specific (either in terms of policies or in terms of the candidate: I am partisan for Andrew Boff, whom I believe to be best placed to defeat Livingstone).
Step 1 - Select a candidate who frightens Labour
I’ve known Andrew Boff for ten years, and I can’t think of anything about him that doesn’t make him a perfect candidate to be a great Mayor. He has the right set of just enough attention-grabbing, much-needed policies (some of which I discuss below). More importantly, he has London-ness in buckets: he has been the leader of Hillingdon Borough Council – so has experience of the fabled ‘Outer London’ of Tory mythology – as well as scoring the most spectacular by-election victory in Hackney’s Queensbridge ward a couple of years ago – so he knows how to win in Inner London. He helped establish (as secretary of the Residents and Traders association) the Broadway Market, one of the most successful of London markets that has been responsible for the regeneration of the London Fields area. He lives round the corner from London Fields and you’re more likely to see him cycling down the Regents Canal towpath to see a client in Maida Vale (non-London readers: that's a long way!) than you are ever to see him in a car. “London-ness” is what I call that ineffable quality a candidate for Mayor must have: they have to look, sound and live like the Londoners they want to represent. That might seem a tall order in a diverse world-city, which is why I call the quality “London-ness” rather than any specific demographic. Like the divine, you know it when you see it, and you feel its absence when it ain’t there. Andrew has it. The others don’t.
Andrew also frightens Labour. The Compass website is a sort of leftwing mirror of ConservativeHome. In a number of its recent discussions on the mayoralty, commentators there have singled out Andrew as the Tory they would most fear to battle. This might be, as I have previously suggested, because he is the sort of Tory who confounds the expectations of the commentariat (in a way that some of the other candidates do not). I happen to think they’ve misunderstood Andrew’s most pertinent charms – being leftwing, Compass focus on certain of his demographic characteristics – but having been with Andrew on the council estates of Hackney and seen the visceral hatred with which Hackney Labour poured enormous resource in order to win back that single ward seat, I know that this guy is the sort of person who terrifies the left.
Tory discussions about strategy always seem to devolve to either/or – either we focus on Outer or Inner London – when what we need, of course, is someone who’s a natural in both. For proof that an Etonian education is not required in order to be comfortable with people of any type of background, look no further than Mr Boff.
Step 2 - Don’t campaign in the Tory comfort zone
Remember that this is not a First Past The Post constituency election. It is very likely to be won by the candidate who achieves the highest number of FIRST and SECOND preferences in the ballot. So retreating to the Tory comfort zone is not an option if we want to win. We have to win the votes of Tories, of course, but we also have to be attractive to enough LibDem and Labour voters to out-gun the other centralist candidates. For example: I take it for granted that any Tory candidate will campaign on the need to improve our safety. But I am depressed when I hear Tories go on about “bobbies on the beat”, as though another retro-appeal to the 1950s is all that is needed to win. We need a more sophisticated approach to crime (and we need someone who will state clearly that he will demand the resignation of Sir Ian Blair, the worst Met chief in living memory). Don’t mistake the dog whistles which push your button to necessarily be those which will make your liberal neighbour give us his or her second vote, rather than award them to the socialist. Choice of second preference is likely driven by the “softer” psephological urges: do I like this guy? Does his vision for living match mine? I urge all Tory primary voters to look at each of our candidates and ask themselves, not “would I vote for this person?” (of course you would, they’re all good Conservatives), but think of someone you know well who doesn’t vote Conservative – the sort of person who wouldn’t normally dream of voting Conservative. If you live in a safe Tory borough (where most of our primary activist voters live) you can usually ignore these people but not at this election.
Step 3 - Destroy Livingstone’s credibility
I cringe whenever I hear a Tory refer to Livingstone as “Ken”. We need a simple, twin-track strategy to destroy that man’s credibility between now and the election. I think this is the easiest objective to achieve but it will require some guts on our part. Livingstone sells himself as cuddly “Mr London” and as the man who has improved transport in the city. We can destroy both claims.
Sufficient detailed work has been done (like the excellent analysis on this site by Phil Taylor) about the disaster of Livingstone’s transport strategy. Transport affects every single Londoner and Livingstone hasn’t got a thing right. He has destroyed London’s heritage (Only some ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster - Livingstone, shortly before getting rid of the Routemaster), bankrupt the TfL bus bill (how many billions in the red are we now?), clogged up the roads with very empty buses – that few customers pay for – while the Congestion Charge has done nothing to reduce congestion. I’m a professional statistician, and I can feel when people are attempting to manipulate numerical data to fit their argument: thus the propaganda about the Congestion Charge, which anyone travelling across central London can tell has been a failure (other than to provide cheap west end parking for the rich people!)
And we get personal. Every Tory press release must have on it somewhere, in large bold type: Livingstone invited to London, and physically embraced, a man who campaigns to have gay men executed. Livingstone – not fit to be London’s Mayor. This is our job as activists (definitely not the candidate’s) – get out there into the blogosphere, the radio call-ins, the local press and spread the message that reasonable people react to Livingstone with disgust.
Step 4 - A Positive Agenda for London
Andrew has previously written on ConservativeHome about his ideas for voter recall and voter proposition initiatives. These are powerful and novel ideas which will capture much media attention – quite rightly, Andrew also favours allowing residents to campaign for the creation of smaller boroughs where and if they feel the need. (Does it make sense for councillors in Stoke Newington – N16 – to have planning rights about Broadway Market – E8?).
These are great ideas. Another plank to his policy which hasn’t yet received as much attention as it will is his championing of London Leaders to replace the Mayor’s current inhouse staff of thousands. London Leaders will be selected from the officers of the boroughs and report directly to Andrew. Anyone with experience of a matrix management organisation will understand the concept, and the efficiencies which can be achieved through its implementation. We completely do away with the bulk of the parallel hierarchical structure which Livingstone has set up in City Hall, and leverage instead the real experts – the successful officers and councillors already in place in London’s boroughs. The power of Mayoral patronage – if that Mayor has the mandate and exciting ideas – will be sufficient to bring about the changes we need.
Andrew has many detailed policies you can read about on his website but I recommend that he pick only two or three and campaign on them relentlessly.
There you are. Four steps to ridding London of one of the most unpleasant of modern leftwing politicians, and replacing him with a genuine Londoner with a track record of delivering that most powerful of Tory objectives: power to the people! See you at the hustings, comrade.
***
If you would like to make the case for one of the other primary candidates please email us.
The way I see it, as an ordinary citizen, as a non-Londoner, is that the Conservative party will need a very big wheel to unseat Ken Livingstone. Ken Livingstone seems to have been around forever, and whether we like him or not there is no doubting his presence on the political scene. It will take a big hitter to floor a big hitter and thats why I think Boris Johnson is the man to take on the legendary Red Ken. In these days of high-profile campaigning we need someone of real persona and charisma to match and supercede Ken Livingstone's 'Presence'
Posted by: Tony Makara | August 26, 2007 at 10:20 AM
The quid pro quo for smaller boroughs in London is that, because some services can't be delivered effectively by an authority serving an urban population below about 100,000, those services need to be delivered by a Londonwide body. London education until 1990 was always delivered by a Londonwide body and the Greenwich judgment effectively rendered inner London boroughs largely ineffectual; social services have problems tracking people who move between boroughs; the GLC's public housing system placed people throughout the capital regardless of where they had started, until the Horace Cutler-era scorched earth policy forced the housing down on the boroughs.
Are Andrew Boff and the Conservatives generally going to acknowledge that smaller local government means transfer of powers to Londonwide government?
There is another option to this which is a third and lower tier of government at the parish level; London will soon be allowed to have parish councils.
Posted by: David Boothroyd | August 26, 2007 at 11:06 AM
O/t Mr Archer I liked your response to Jasper Gerrards inane comment piece in the Observer - well said.
Posted by: Ted | August 26, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Interesting article, Graeme - and your point about second preference votes is a very important one!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I do not agree with all that you say by any means, but I am with you 100% on not referring to the present Mayor as Ken. We must not play his game. Every time a Conservative refers to him as Ken it bolsters his aim to be London's cuddly friend. Let's call him Livingstone, Mr Livingstone, or the Mayor.
Posted by: Sepoy Agent | August 26, 2007 at 02:31 PM
[Livingstone has] clogged up the roads with very empty buses – that few customers pay for – while the Congestion Charge has done nothing to reduce congestion.
This is not quite true. Congestion has got better in central London, although worse elsewhere as a result. I can assure you that the buses are too full - it's just that empty ones often run minutes behind. We have the right number of buses, but the wrong timetables.
I’m a professional statistician, and I can feel when people are attempting to manipulate numerical data to fit their argument: thus the propaganda about the Congestion Charge, which anyone travelling across central London can tell has been a failure (other than to provide cheap west end parking for the rich people!)
I, for one, feel central London is moving much more smoothly because of the congestion charge, although it has had knock-on effects elsewhere. Figures are manipulated, but there is no doubt that the general trends show there are fewer cars in central London and more people using buses.
Ken Livingstone's congestion charge is unpopular with many people, but to back up such an opinion with hearsay or a "feeling" when figures have been massaged is unhelpful. Ken's office speaks half-truths to keep him in power; I'd hate to see people resort to his tactics to oust him from office.
Posted by: Ali Gledhill | August 26, 2007 at 02:43 PM
I agree with Graeme that Boff has what it takes. Johnson comes across as a Tory Twit, Borwick is just too posh and Lightfoot is too cerebral. Boff connects at all levels and that is crucial to motivating the electorate to vote.
However, I would not agree with Graeme about second preference votes. There are just too many lefties who vote Green, Respect, Lib-Dem, even BNP and UKIP - as a first preference "protest" - then vote Labour second, for us to overcome.
What we have to do is make sure those inclined to switch, do so with their first vote and that we get our support out to vote. That means taking the election seriously in those areas, which is something we did not do in 2000 or 2004.
We must motivate and mobilise the existing Conservative vote in our strongest areas, where, on an analysis of the 2004/2006 elections, we got about 50% of the votes for the Mayoral election compared with that we got for the Council elections two years later.
That campaign should also be starting now, with a push to get our supporters involved in selecting the candidate, then continue for the whole seven months from our candidate being in place.
We have no need to be fixated on having a "Big Name". The Conservative candidate to be Mayor of London is a Big Name, whoever they are, though they should definitely be called Andrew.
Posted by: C List and Proud | August 26, 2007 at 05:32 PM
boff won one by election in particularly difficult circumstances for labour then promptly lost the seat (in part because his constant 'energy' started to piss people off locally.
his limited success in hackney is based on forming alliances with trots and hiding the fact he is a conservative - not sure how this is meant to translate across london
he is inconsistent in that he sides with those who oppose the 'gentrification' of hackney yet profits from a dreadfully written magazine that is full of estate agent ads.
he has a dreadful temper so it is unclear how he would respond to the pressure of being a high profile candidate
having said all thta i'll vote for him as candidate as i want ken to win
Posted by: jonathan | August 26, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Graeme makes some good points though I don't agree with all of them.
Boris Johnson has a problem in that he is the 'marmite candidate' - you love him or hate him.
This may not be a problem in a first past the post ballot but is an issue when in the second round, second preferences are tranferred (we can reasonably assume) to the Conservative or Labour candidates.
The election for Rector of Edinburgh University in which Boris fought a spirited campaign is ominous. In the first round Boris gets a creditable 2040 votes, in the second he gains a mere 83 additional transferred votes. They loved him or hated him.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the hustings and if a clear alternative to Boris emerges from the other 3 candidates.
Graeme has opted for Andrew Boff, maybe Andrew's bandwagon will be the one to really start rolling.
Posted by: Steve Smith | August 26, 2007 at 06:28 PM
The Mayoral job is bigger than running a Government department. Boris is not considered good enough for the Shadow Cabinet so he should not be considered a suitable Mayoral candidate. The same problem applies to the other candidates. They are no doubt good councillors but they have not run a substantial organisation.
Livingstone, whom I despise with a passion, at least had the track record of running the GLC. That have him credibility. He can only be beaten by a credible Conservative candidate who can demonstrate that he or she can run London. None of our shortlisted four candidates have the necessary credibility to beat Ken.
The ideal Conservative Mayoral candidate would be an experienced and successful former Cabinet Minister, e.g. Michael Howard (who is leaving the Commons) or Sir Malcom Rifkind who now represents K&C. It is a pity that Sir John Major was not interested. We desperately need a heavy hitter to take on and beat Red Ken.
Posted by: Not Boris (or the others) | August 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Graeme, an excellent piece as always. Agree with everything particularly the need to destroy Livingstone's credibility.
Andrew Boff needs to campaign much harder within the Conservative activist world if he is to have a hope of beating Boris. He should be putting forward his ideas on CH,Doughty Street the Evening Standard etc.I think Boff would make an excellent candidate but sadly will not have a vote as I don't live in London anymore.I fear he is going to lose because too few people know what he stands for.
Posted by: malcolm | August 27, 2007 at 08:23 PM
Malcolm, only sad no-life Tories watch 18 Doughty Street. Iain Dale takes himself far too seriously. He lost all credibility after shipping 10k votes in North Norfolk last time yet has the gall to apply for safe seats.
Posted by: Not Boris | August 27, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Malcolm, only sad no-life Tories watch 18 Doughty Street. Iain Dale takes himself far too seriously. He lost all credibility after shipping 10k votes in North Norfolk last time yet has the gall to apply for safe seats.
Posted by: Not Boris | August 27, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Not sure I agree with this. Why pick out (in itallics, too) the nasty thing Mr Livingstone's guest said about one particular group (gays), when he may be against all non-Muslims? I understood (rightly or wrongly) that he is a supporter of terrorism and of the school of thought that sees war against all non-Muslims as the way to impose Islamic rule.
In this age of celebrity, I think Boris is our best hope for Mayor, as long as he comes up with some serious credible policies. Also, like me he is from outside the London area but works in London, so might be the best candidate for my intertests!! E.g. Mr Livinsgtone's emphasis on greater frequency inner metro rail services (which is good - I support better public transport, about the only thing I agree with Mr Livingstone on!) could work against commuters from outside the Greater London boundary by slowing down and reducing space for their trains on the network. Boris, from Henley, might understand this.
Posted by: Philip | August 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM
I have met Andrew Boff on a number of occasions and he is always full of bright ideas. Andrew also is prepared to muck in whenever there is a by-election and is full of energy.
Unfortunately though Andrew is too grey and does not have that Machiavellian streak to undermine Livingstone, who we know is totally unscrupulous. Hopefully, Boris becomes Mayor and promptly invites Boff and Lightfoot as part of his team.
Posted by: Yogi | August 28, 2007 at 12:15 PM
The few times I visit London, all one hears are Londoners vilifying Livingstone. Maybe the next Tory candidate should harness that hatred for his campaign. Londoners loathe what he has done to their city so fight dirty at his level, because that will be the only method for success. As much as I like Boris, I feel Andrew will have a better chance.
Posted by: Anna Rasmussen | August 30, 2007 at 02:15 PM
According to one poster, "general trends show there are fewer cars in central London and more people using buses." Even if true, this does not mean that there is less congestion. Livingston’s pet obsessions have managed to increase congestion regardless of the volume of traffic. I am thinking of things like new road layouts, never-ending roadworks, bendy buses that take up more road space, Routemaster replacements that don’t allow passengers on or off except at bus stops resulting in longer stops.
If he were genuinely interested in reducing congestion,
- big hyrbids such as the V8 Lexus would not be zero rated for the congestion charge
- small, eco-friendly cars (including efficient petrol cars) would attract a reduced rate, but not a zero rate
- “free travel” ((ie travel paid for by the taxpayer) for school children and OAPs would be restricted to off-peak hours, freeing up room for commuters to abandon their cars in rush hour
Posted by: David Boycott | August 31, 2007 at 06:50 PM