UPDATED:  APR 6, 2008

LETTERS FROM THE U.K.
LONDON’S MAYORAL ELECTION: THE ATTACK FROM THE RIGHT 

On May 1 Londoners will vote to elect the capital’s mayor for the next four years. The incumbent, Ken Livingstone, has served two terms since he was first elected in 2000. He is standing for re-election for a third term. 

Until recently the outcome of the mayoral election seemed a foregone conclusion. Livingstone would be re-elected. However, what seemed certain, now seems uncertain. Indeed, those who have been his staunchest supporters are beginning to entertain the kind of doubts and concerns about the eventual outcome that have emerged in the US amongst supporters of the Democratic candidates in the presidential contest. Might we be in for a nasty surprise?

While the US primaries have received very wide coverage in Britain, I doubt whether many (even amongst the well-informed subscribers to TPJ) in the US know much about the forthcoming mayoral election in London. But it’s worth knowing about because, quite apart from the impact a possible change of administration will have on the lives of Londoners, the election will be a weather vane for the main political parties in the run-up to the next general election in 2009 or 2010. The Tories, who have established a substantial lead over Labour in the national opinion polls, have chosen as their candidate to stand against Livingstone, someone who seems, on the basis of any sober calculation, about the least qualified person for the office of mayor: Boris Johnson. The expression ‘words fail me’ is not one chosen lightly by anyone who wishes to communicate by the written word. But, in this case I really do despair of finding the appropriate words and phrases to convey to those who are not familiar with the man, the ineffable preposterousness of Boris Johnson. I shall try. 

He has the appearance of a large, bumbling, shambling clown. He possesses an unruly shock of blond hair that might easily be mistaken for a wig. He is an old Etonian, given to expressing himself verbally in a style which will be familiar to devotees of the late P. G. Wodehouse. He is very right-wing. His views on matters of ethnicity may be adduced by the fact that, commenting on a royal visit to an African country, he remarked that the queen had to tolerate ‘picaninnies with watermelon smiles.’  He has hitherto shown no interest in or competence for local government. As editor of the Conservative journal ‘The Spectator’ he has managed to offend many people - indeed, in one cases the entire population of a major British city and in another, an entire nation – by his injudicious remarks. He accused the citizens of Liverpool of ‘wallowing in self-pity’ and claimed that the people of Papua New Guinea indulged in cannibalism. When the Tories adopted him as their mayoral candidate, it was reasonably assumed that because the party could find no serious contender with a hope of beating Livingstone, they had decided to put up a high-profile ‘celebrity’ – albeit one with no chance of winning. Johnson was chosen in desperation. His was most certainly not the face of the ‘new’ Conservatism that David Cameron has been trying to sell to the electorate. 

That is how things appeared until a few months ago. So how is it that Johnson, according to some polls, now has a ten point lead over Livingstone and appears to be in with a good chance of winning? To understand why, we need to look at Ken Livingstone and his record and consider the way sections of the press have treated him.  

Livingstone has been a prominent figure on the London political scene since the 1970s. He was the leader of the Greater London Council during the 1980s, where his term in office ran concurrently with Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. For years he was her nemesis. A Labour politician of the left, he aroused the intense hatred of conservatives and the right-wing press who nick-named him ‘Red Ken.’ The GLC, under Livingstone’s leadership, steered a course diametrically opposed to the direction of the Tory government. London Transport fares were pegged; comprehensive education was promoted and centrally funded throughout the London boroughs by the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA); London’s cultural and ethnic diversity was recognised and promoted by funding a variety of minority groups. The public sector was promoted in the face of the Tories’ frenzy to privatise everything. During these years right-wing newspapers – notably those owned by Associated Press, the London Evening Standard and Daily Mail, kept up a ceaseless campaign against Livingstone. He was treated almost as a traitor for initiating discussions with the Irish Republican movement – Sinn Fein, He was excoriated for throwing open County Hall (headquarters of the GLC) for a ‘republican’ celebration on the occasion of the royal wedding of Charles and Diana. Despite all the efforts of the Tories and their loyal supporters in the press, Livingstone enjoyed widespread support amongst Londoners. Thatcher’s response was to push through parliament legislation abolishing the GLC and with it, the ILEA.  From 1988 to 2000 London was the only metropolis in the world without a city government. In 1990 Thatcher was kicked out of the premiership by conspirators in her own party. Ken Livingstone was later elected to parliament as a Labour MP. 

New Labour came to office in 1997 committed to re-constitute a London-wide authority to govern the capital. The new authority, an elected Greater London Assembly, would be led by a directly elected mayor. But for Tony Blair and his New Labour acolytes the choice of candidate for mayor posed a problem. The obvious choice for the Labour Party would seem to have been Ken Livingstone. Blair’s attitude to him, however, was no different from the Tories’; he hated Livingstone as passionately as had Thatcher. He announced publicly that Livingstone would be ‘a disaster’ as mayor. He pressurised a decent ‘old Labour’ cabinet minister, Health Secretary Frank Dobson, to resign his office and stand as the official Labour candidate, in the first mayoral election in 2000. Livingstone announced his intention to stand and was immediately expelled from the Labour Party. He stood as an independent and won handsomely. Dobson was humiliated and, receiving no thanks from Blair, returned to the back-benches where he remains. 

During his first term Livingstone did great things for London. Free travel on all public transport throughout the Greater London area was introduced for everyone over sixty. London was the first city in the world to introduce a congestion zone, the result of which has transformed the city centre, reducing traffic and pollution levels. London’s buses, which used to be notoriously unreliable, now run frequently and punctually. Livingstone fought hard (but unsuccessfully) against central government to prevent the part-privatisation of the underground system. His administration has promoted many local business initiatives, notably in ethnic minority communities. He has also, somewhat surprisingly, shown himself to be favourably inclined to corporate capital, making London a tax haven for non-domiciled businesses. He has also increased the numbers of the Metropolitan Police, and, defended them from criticism over the shooting and killing in 2005 of an innocent Brazilian who was mistaken for a terrorist. 

Livingstone was re-elected in 2004. Blair, whose popularity had plummeted, largely as a result of the Iraq war which Livingstone vociferously opposed, realised before the election that any Labour candidate standing against Livingstone would be defeated and probably relegated to third place behind the Liberal Democrat. For purely opportunistic reasons, he performed a volte face, inviting Ken back into the Labour Party to stand as the official candidate. He was re-elected but with a reduced majority. In my view he would have done better as an independent. Now, he is, to some extent associated with the unpopular Brown government.    

To return to the subject of the May election, it remains to be explained why it is that Livingstone finds himself seriously challenged by a candidate who was initially regarded as a joke. Here are some possible reasons.  

He has been accused of ‘cronyism’ and there may be some basis to the charge. Some people promoted by him have been accused of dishonest or illegal dealings of one kind or another, although it must be said that no charges have been brought against them. He has also refused to apologise for the occasional injudicious remark. Here, also such incidents are in no way comparable to the outrageous racist remarks uttered by Johnson. Livingstone has an unblemished record as an anti-racist and he enjoys overwhelming support in the Black and Muslim communities. 

His stand on international issues has led to intensified attacks in the right-wing press. He described the US ambassador as a ‘crook’ for refusing to pay the congestion charge. He has let it be known that he regards George W, Bush as an idiot. He has negotiated a deal with Venezuelan president Chavez involving assisting Caracas in dealing with its traffic problems in exchange for cheap fuel for poor Londoners. In speaking his mind he does not always express himself very diplomatically. He has made many enemies, mostly on the right, but also, more recently he has been attacked by some on the left. There is nothing new in this. What is new is the ferocity of the attacks against him in the right-wing press. 

For many months he has been the subject of an intensified campaign of vilification in the London Evening Standard and the Daily Mail. These papers have been completely uncritical in their support for Johnson. They are both owned by Associated Newspapers, part of Lord Rothemere’s media empire.

(Although often overlooked, it is worth remembering that the Daily Mail has a long history of support for unsavoury causes and opposition to the left. Over one hundred years ago it was to the forefront of an anti-immigrant, racist campaign against a supposed ‘alien invasion.’ In 1924 it published the forged ‘Zinoviev Letter’ that helped bring down the first Labour government in Britain. From the late 1920s through the 1930s it was a firm friend, first of fascist Italy, then of the British Union of Fascists - with a front page article in 1934 penned by Rothemere entitled ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts!’ -  and, for a time, of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Its anti-immigrant stance has survived virtually unchanged up to the present day.)  

The Mail’s hatred of Livingstone is not surprising. What is surprising is that some journalists, of whom one might have expected better, have joined the witch-hunt. Every bit of dirt they can dig up is now being thrown at him. The newspapers involved in this mud-slinging are not interested in his policies or the issues that should be at the heart of an election campaign. They are into character assassination.  

I will return to the mayoral election in my next column. At the moment it is very difficult to say whether enough of the mud will stick to secure Livingstone’s defeat on May 1. The latest opinion poll (Guardian/ICM 03.04.08.) has Johnson on 42% and Livingstone on 41%. The outcome could well be decided by how second preference votes are cast. No other candidate stands a chance of winning. According to this poll, the Liberal Democrat (former police officer, Brian Paddick) is on 10%. How his second preferences and those of the handful of other candidates’ are distributed may determine the outcome. 

Whether any of this is relevant to what may happen between now and November in the US electoral contest is for TPJ readers to contemplate.