Victoria Borwick: Tories should take the London Mayor seriously

Victoria Borwick, the second prospective mayoral candidate to launch a campaign, writes exclusively for ConservativeHome about how important the position is.

For too long, Conservatives have been ambivalent about the post of London mayor. Our small state instincts have made us sceptical of the value of an elected leader of our capital. Many of us remember with dismay the loony Left antics of the GLC until its unlamented demise in the mid-80s.

Some have refused to vote in the mayoral elections as a matter of principle. Bizarrely, others have swallowed Ken Livingstone’s propaganda and voted for him on the grounds that he represents some kind of  threat to Tony Blair and the New Labour hierarchy. People should recall that Livingstone has been a professional politician and member of the Labour tribe all his life since his days as a Lambeth councillor in the early 70s,

Small wonder then that London has endured six years of Livingstone’s bossy, incompetent, posturing rule and, if Conservatives do not unite against him, face the prospect of seeing his smug grin adorning the Olympic Games in 2012.

By then, of course, traffic in the Strand, now down to an average speed of 2.9 mph will be moving – if that’s the word – even more slowly, only millionaires will be able to afford to move their cars, the centre of London will have become a bus park and the mayoral slice of the council tax will be into four figures. It is already nearly £300 and that’s more than double the level Ken began with six years ago.

As for violent crime, unless firm action is taken now, the streets of London will resemble the urban war zones of the US in the 70s and 80s.

Livingstone already has considerable powers. He is responsible for policing, transport, economic development, and fire and emergency planning. Courtesy of  HMG, he is about to get a lot more, strengthening his grip on planning, housing, culture, health and the environment and weakening the powers of the 32 London boroughs, where the Conservatives made such sweeping gains a couple of months ago. He will have the power to decide major planning applications in London – approving them or turning them down as he sees fit. Judging on past performance, we will have more tower blocks, not fewer.

It would be a bitter pill for us to be running 16 boroughs, with Labour at their lowest point in the capital for 40 years, only to see Livingstone trample all over public opinion because the Conservatives were still dubious about the wisdom of giving the capital a single political voice.

His record gives no cause for comfort. This is the man who said he wouldn’t raise the congestion charge for a decade, then put it up a year later to £8 and now wants to charge larger cars £25. This is the man who carried out two expensive consultations on the congestion charge, then ignored the massive No votes. Conservatives on the GLA have rightly warned that Livingstone is bidding to become London’s dictator. The outlook for the capital is bleak unless Conservatives band together to kick him out and inject some respect for democracy and integrity into City Hall.

And neither am I a great admirer of Livingstone's style. It will not be my policy to go around insulting the voters, particularly the many different ethnic groups that make up the capital. So far he has infuriated the Jewish community by likening a newspaper reporter to a "concentration camp guard" - for which he might yet be suspended from his office. Nor are his transatlantic relations in good shape after he branded the US ambassador a "chiselling little crook" because his embassy refused to pay the pointless and unfair congestion charge. I will strive to retain friendly relations with all groups and will try not to let my tongue run away with me.

Of course, the real power of the mayor is rhetorical and strategic. As the elected leader of 7 million people, the mayor is second only to the Prime Minister in terms of claiming a popular mandate. It is a post that has enormous political potential – a pulpit from which London’s interests as the powerhouse of the British economy and the heart of its cultural and commercial life can be advanced and defended. Does anyone seriously believe that this chippy and erratic old Leftie is the man to set the pace for the greatest city on earth in the 21st Century?

Londoners definitely could do with a change.  Under Livingstone we have seen crime, particularly knife crime and street crime, soar. Meanwhile, the Cost of Ken continues to rise as he racks up his taxes and pays little regard to the scale of his bills.

Livingstone is rapidly changing the GLA back to the bad old days of the GLC, with 58 media and marketing officers in his private office and six advisers earning considerably more than £100,000. Ken’s Cronies are running riot.

Despite appointing Peter Hendry to sort out transport, we are still paying Bob Kiley £1.8 million. Livingstone’s private office costs taxpayers £14 million a year. Staff numbers at City Hall are rocketing. There are 678 posts in his shiny new building near London Bridge, which was designed for 450 workers. I think the payroll could be cut by at least 100. If not Ken will be granting himself planning permission to build a South Bank extension.

Meanwhile, he continues to spray taxpayers’ cash over the rainbow coalition that keeps him in power – people like CND and the Stop the War Coalition. Spending on our very own Pravda, delivered free to homes across the capital and also known as The Londoner, which boasts of the mayor’s many achievements, runs at £3 million a year.

I am a businesswoman and, having worked for multinational companies, I am a  believer in bringing the disciplines of  commercial management to reducing the costs of  City Hall. We want to see better value and an end to self-serving propaganda and waste.

My first priority in London would be reducing crime.  There are about 50,000 streets in London and about 31,000 police officers.  The police should be accountable for their own patch.  Every police officer should have named streets they are responsible for and get to know like the back of their hand.   I want them living in their area and being part of the community. 

We need to see New York style policing over here – zero tolerance of even minor crime – repair broken windows, clean off graffiti, stop drug dealing in the streets. The New York cops who were over here a few months ago were quite clear how making beat officers accountable and monitoring their performance had produced dividends. Serious crime such as murder, rape and robbery have nearly halved in New York over the last 16 years while London becomes an increasingly dangerous place.

This is a great capital city – the powerhouse of Britain - and we want to have pride in our city. We want clean and safe streets, a transport system that runs on time and gives increased flexibility for interchanges between underground / over-ground and bus travel.

We also have to sort out housing for Londoners and particularly for police officers, nursing staff, teachers and all those who provide the services we need in our communities.  Tax incentives and political will are needed to help people live in the areas they work in.

As a councillor in Kensington and Chelsea, I believe the mayor should have a light touch and that local councils should be left to run their boroughs.  At the May elections we saw a  big swing to the Conservatives because more and more people appreciate their councils provide better services at lower cost.  This is what we need for London.

I was born in London, and have lived in London all my life. Jamie and I have four children and are “seven day a week Londoners”. We don’t disappear off at the weekends. I care passionately about London and I have plenty of experience of real life – I am on the local residents committee, go to the local police meetings, I’m a school governor, and with two teenagers in the family I get instant feedback on what’s happening on the streets.

I have worked on this campaign twice now, flying the Tory flag throughout London, so I know how important the mayor can be and how we have to demonstrate to the people of London that we can make a difference.  With the proportional voting system it is vitally important that all Londoners realise that they need to get involved. This is our city and we need a Red Head not Red Ken.

Comments

[Kevin Davis]

This is an excellent dissection of the problem with Ken but is a little light on what Victoria would do. It's also a tough argument for the party to take the Mayor seriosuly and then argue that his powers should be returned to the Borough's. I agree that Councils should have mpore powers but I do wonder if they should be given to them from central Government rather than the Mayor. Control over their incomes is a case in point.

[Selsdon Man]

Kevin makes excellent points.

The ideal candidate is someone who has

a) Experience of dealing with London's media
b) Has a proven track record of delivering change, ideally within a major government organisation.
c) Has the ability to reach out beyond the core Conservative voter.

A local councillor simply does not meet those criteria.

[kris F]

It concerns me that Victoria states that she would put an end to Police patrolling in pairs. This is worrying because it weakens the power of the police. People are less likely to attack two police officers than one on their own. This would completely weakent their position. Also forcing officers to live in certain streets in London sounds crazy. I work for the VAT office and we make sure that an officer does not visit businesses near where they live in case of reprisals. I would say that many Police would be upset and deeply disturbed by her proposals.

[TaxCutter]

The party should not shy from attacking the creation of a Mayor of London for what it is - another New Labour failure.

Creating a Mayor and GLA has only resulted in additional costs and additional restrictions on our liberty - its created nothing of either social or economic benefit. London's dynamism comes from the many varied individuals that live in it, not from a new tranche of bureaucrats. Its about time the party committed itself to abolishing this unnecessary layer of government.

[mattsimpson]

Our best attack on Ken is that he is a "Zone 1 Mayor in a 6 zone city", so it's a shame that the only declared candidates are people who won't be able to use that line of argument.

I'm also not sure how Kensington & Chelsea councillors will appeal to people in Tower Hamlets, Lewisham, Lambeth, Ealing etc

[sjm]

Why do we need a Mayor for London when there is a Minister for London - or vice versa? If we need someone to speak for London in terms of 'selling' it to business and tourism, why can't the powers of the Mayor of the City of London be extended, bypassing politics altogether.

Is there a case for co-ordinating the London Boroughs? Well, just possibly, but then such an assembly could vote for its own Leader.

I still haven't read a convincing argument for the Mayor and Assembly since the whole stupid idea was mooted, way back when.

[Adam]

I wonder who is supposed to pay to accomodate police officers living in their streets in Mayfair and Belgravia?

[Helen Thomas]

Victoria is right to say we should take the Mayor's job seriously. A Conservative Mayor could make the kind of big New York-style improvements in policing that could reverse the rising tide of crime we've experienced under two terms of Livingstone. However, I don't think Londoners can take her seriously as a candidate, or as a potential Mayor. She has no business management experience--procuring party donations from wealthy friends hardly counts. And the only election she has ever won was last year--as a councillor in the most Tory borough in London. She tried and failed to secure even a nomination to represent the party for a seat on the London Assembly, a task which, to say the least, is not as difficult as unseating the man who has run London for11 years--13 by the time of the next Mayoral election. We need a big personality, whom Londoners know to take on the Mayor, someone who can connect with less affluent areas and London's many diverse communities.

Perhaps running for the GLA again might be a better idea?

[Victoria Borwick]

Thanks for the comments - I am not standing because I am a local Councillor although the political experience is useful. I was born in London and have lived in London all my life. I am standing because I have over 25 years business experience with multi-national companies, (and 2 interesting years at Central Office working for Stanley Kalms, the founder of Dixons - a great business man and leader.)

I believe that running London needs business brains - understanding budgets, strategic planning, teamwork and focussing on what is needed for London, rather than playing politics. The selection of the Mayor is political, but we need a chief executive who would work with the London Boroughs and deliver the right solutions for Londoners (reducing crime, improving transport, addressing the housing shortage, environment and so forth) This is not about posturing it is about action. Victoria Borwick

[Selsdon Man]

But what have you, personally, actually delivered, Victoria? What and how will you deliver as Mayor? You have not told us.

A Chief Executive can be appointed to deal with strategic plans and budgets. The Mayor must be a political leader with vision and innovative ideas on crime, transport, housing etc.

Your comments suggest that you are more suited for a management role.

[Martin Hoscik (MayorWatch)]

Victoria

A couple of points on the Ken issue - you seem to have missed a few vital points about why he won in 2000.

When your party abolished the GLC in 1986 it allowed Ken to spend 14 years telling anyone who would listen that he did such a good job of opposing Tory policy that the only way Thatcher could silence him was to abolish his job.

People will hold differing views about the validity of those claims but because they were made at functions and via the airwaves no-one ever had the chance or inclination to challenge them.

The myth was strengthened when new Labour and Tony Blair nakedly and publicly rigged an entire selection process to try and prevent him from securing the nomination. Blair's apologists spent weeks claiming the fixed process was the same as the one which selected him - except it wasn't. Under the Mayoral selection unions didn't need to ballot their members.

This easy to spot difference added to the smell of vote-rigging and completed the myth of Ken as some form of Arthurian King over the water figure.

I recall asking one person to vote for Susan Kramer whose campaign I worked on in 2000. This normally LibDem supporting Londoner told me he "owed Ken" his vote in return for the policies he'd pursued in the 80s which saw his wife receive good pay at the GLC and have access to childcare so she could work and increase the household's income, improving their quality of life.

These were the policies many in your own party dismissed as 'PC gone mad' but are now accepted facts of mainstream politics and this this was someone who'd never had the chance to become disillusioned with Livingstone the man and vote him out because - I have to echo the point - of the decision to abolish London's government. Instead he voted for a selectively remembered myth.

That Steve Norris did as well as he did in 2000 and 2004 was in no small way due to the perception that he'd distanced himself from the central party.

Anyone looking to stand instead of Steve and who seriously wants to unseat Livingstone (and I don't think anyone from any party is going to do that) needs to recognise that the reason he looks so smug is because two very strong autocratic PMs have tried and failed to stop him running London.

Cameron gives every impression of burying Thatcherism and Old Labour look likely to bury Blair before long. Meanwhile sitting in City Hall with an enormous budget, increasing powers and growing international profile is that former Lambeth councillor.

No wonder we see so much of that smug grin. If any of us were he, we'd sport ours for the cameras 24/7 too.

[Dawn Cole]

As a party worker, I think our candidates sometimes allow spin to get the better of them in the presentation of their experience. Victoria says: "I have over 25 years business experience with multi-national companies" but being an employee of multi-national companies is not the same as having "business experience" or directing as a CEO of London vast budgets for a variety of public services that are much more challenging than simply working as an employee. Other candidates do this too, saying they're business people but neglecting to point out that they inherited the business or started with inherited money. Perhaps Victoria means that her husband runs his own business, for example, but he inherited it from his father. That kind of experience is a little different to building a business oneself, to say the very least. In this election so far, we've had people tout that being an employee for a large company is "business experience" (guess what? large companies have more employees than smaller ones because they are larger: their size does not give you "business experience" and most Londoners are employees working for companies that does not give them "business experience" either), we've had someone who used inherited money to start a business with a handful of clients described as a successful businesswoman, and someone who ran a DIY business, all try to claim that this experience is somehow comparable to making executive decisions about multi-million pound budgets. It isn't and they know it.

[Martin Hoscik (MayorWatch)]

I managed to miss something in your original post:

'Many of us remember with dismay the loony Left antics of the GLC until its unlamented demise in the mid-80s.'

Can you tell us which parts of the GLC's policies you consider 'loony left'? Was it the policy of equal pay for woman? for BME's? tolerance towards other expressions of sexuality or faith? access to childcare?

It's fine if the answer to any of those is 'yes' but I think you need to be clearer so that Londoners can make an informed decision.

As for the abolition of the GLC being 'unlamented' I think you're very wrong.

There were many people who lamented the vandalism which was the removal of London's government.

Perhaps not relying on the GLC for your home - and thousands did - or through ILEA the eduction of your children insulated you from the impact of what was an unwarranted act of vandalism.

Millions of the people you want govern weren't rich enough to be so insulated.

[london tory]

Martin is right about this. The policy of leaving London without a local government was a huge mistake, and, as Martin says enabled the current Mayor to prolong his political career far longer than if he had had to face the electorate every four years.

I think having an elected Mayor is a huge improvement over the old GLC, although the post really needs more powers over the police and transport especially to be made more effective. Ironically, by trying to unfairly cut Livingstone to size both Labour and Conservative parties have made him more popular, allowed him to play the victim, and provided a distraction from his many failings on crime and now even congestion.

Let's leave the outdated "loony left" rhetoric in the past where it belongs. The Conservative Party missed a trick when they thought racism, sexism and homophobia didn't matter. Our Mayoral candidate has been quite a bit ahead of our party in recognising that. I don't think the Conservatives are sufficiently strong that they can ignore that painfully learned lesson.

[Graeme Archer]

I shouldn't really post this - if you can't say something positive, don't say it really - but I thought Victoria's article was dreadful. It has no vision and is full of tiresome cliches. The opening paragraph makes my heart sink.

I'm sure she's a great woman & any Tory putting themselves forward is to be congratulated - but I think that a councillor in a safe seat in a safe council is probably not best psychologically equipped to articulate what needs to be done to get the Tories a solid majority across all the communities in London.

I thought Steve Norris was always very strong on this - OK I am more than a little in love with Mr Norris - but we need someone with a similar strength of vision about why London matters before we commit to a candidate.

[Jill Murray]

I think this statement of Victoria's...

"Jamie and I have four children and are “seven day a week Londoners”. We don’t disappear off at the weekends."

...demonstrates that she is out of touch. Most Londoners don't have holiday homes. Her neighbours in Kensington & Chelsea may disappear off at weekends but that is not something that marks out the vast majority of Londoners from their neighbours.

I think we need a candidate who can relate to the vast majority of Londoners for whom the option of disappearing off at the weekend doesn't exist and is not spoken of.