We asked supporters of the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens to give us a short, "democratic" case for their mayoral candidate in tomorrow's London election. This is what they came up with - presented, for want of a better system, in alphabetical order. Who makes the best case?
The case for Boris
Jonathan Bryant (Brighton & Hove, Direct Democracy)
Direct Democracy's top 5 reasons for voting Boris (and 1 good reason for not voting Ken):
- Boris was selected to be the Conservative candidate by open primary. This means that every Londoner was able to help decide that he should be the Conservative candidate - and shows that Boris is more than merely the candidate for one party, but for all Londoners. The current U.S. presidential election campaign has demonstrated how open primaries can transform the democratic process. We believe that all those standing for public office should be selected in this way
- Boris has recognised that London governance has become too centralised and has pledged to devolve more of the Mayor's powers, particularly over housing and planning, to the 32 boroughs.
- Boris has pledged to exercise his right to personally chair the Metropolitan Police Authority, thereby making himself as personally and directly accountable for tackling crime in the capital as is possible under the current system.
- Boris has promised to increase accountability in local policing by publishing local crime maps. Common practice in the U.S., he wants this street-by-street data to be used to directly hold Borough Commanders to account through monthly open public meetings.
- Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Boris's election would represent the head-on confrontation of the malign symptoms of what David Cameron has termed the ‘bureaucratic era'. London is currently being run as a centralised quasi-Marxist fiefdom, where public money is sprayed around unaccountably at a wide array of politically correct causes. Localism it certainly isn't. Boris' proposals to establish a philanthropic ‘Mayor's Fund' are the very antithesis of the Left's approach and point to the emergence of a broader Conservative thinking around encouraging free institutions to tackle seemingly intractable social problems at a local level.
So, we believe that there is an excellent democratic case to be made for voting Boris on May 1st. But as our own Daniel Hannan pointed out in his blog last week, there is also a very good reason for positively not voting Ken. As he himself said in his 1998 "Manifesto for a Mayor and London Assembly":
So much of the American experience of directly elected mayors shows it gets progressively more difficult to defeat a well-dug-in incumbent who has been able to establish extensive systems of patronage. As recent experience in Paris also shows, corruption tends to flourish the longer an incumbent is able to hold onto power. In a city that changes as rapidly as London it is hard to believe that a mayor who has served two terms will have the freshness of approach that is required to stay abreast of such a dynamic city
Spot on Ken! Time for a fresh approach.
The case for Brian
Jo Christie-Smith (London, Liberal Democrat)
You don't have to listen to Brian Paddick talking about London crime statistics for very long to understand that he both cares about Londoners and knows exactly what will work to make their lives better.
He is a ‘grass roots' man; working for Londoners is not just the latest wheeze that he has alighted on. And he has form: he listened to people in Lambeth as Borough Commander and when he left, the communities he listened to set up a campaign to reinstate him.
As Mayor, Brian will hold regular public meetings where Londoners will be able to ask him questions directly and get answers. He will end Ken's cronyism of the last eight years by bringing together a cabinet made up of directly elected London Assembly members not appointed advisors. He can afford to because he doesn't need to compensate for lack of experience, like Boris will have to.
He will be accountable and chair the MPA. If crime doesn't fall by 5% a year then he won't stand for Mayor again. Not much wriggle room there!
Critically, he is also a man of integrity; on Tuesday we read in The Independent that he could have been the Conservative candidate. They offered him the world apparently and a big budget. But he's not a Tory for any money, he's a Liberal Democrat. And unlike Ken, he doesn't move in and out of parties for political expediency.
He is that rare breed in politics, that wants to do something not just be something.
A first preference vote for Brian will ensure London gets the best candidate for the job. This election is a chance to vote positively for Brian; you can then use your second vote tactically to ensure your least favourite candidate out of Ken or Boris doesn't win.
The case for Ken
Jeremy Gilbert (London, Compass)
Reflect on this, as you consider the latest attack on Ken Livingstone in the British press. The fact is that his leadership of the Greater London Council was savaged in the 1980s for policies that today would be thought uncontroversial. In those days, actively combating homophobia and racism - even acknowledging that such things existed - was enough to bring the full fury of the conservative press to bear on the ‘loony left.'
Today, things are very different: reactionaries like Boris Johnson must present themselves as rascally rebels against a new orthodoxy, while opposition to racism, sexism and homophobia is the norm. Such conservative forces have never forgiven Livingstone for beating them in the long war over cultural mores. To this day, they remain furious that Livingstone - a traitor to the white, male, straight cause - has forced them to share with others the cultural authority that they once claimed as all their own.
At the same time, Livingstone's wider ability to combine socialist and radically democratic aspirations with intelligent political pragmatism has made him a threat both to the Labour leadership and to the Right many times during the course of his career. In every one of these instances, Livingstone has ultimately represented one thing: the real - and really dangerous - possibilities inherent in democratic politics. Inheriting the determination of the New Left to expand the democratic revolution of modernity beyond the ballot-box and the welfare state, Livingstone has always embodied the possibility that elected politicians might actually use their positions to break down concentrations of institutional, economic and cultural power, empowering new constituencies and enacting as far as possible the wishes of their electorates. It's no wonder that the political class hate him.
As London mayor, Ken has not been error-free, but he has broadly done what the electorate wanted him to do. He has improved public transport and made life more difficult for motorists: something which the government has spectacularly and consistently failed to do for over a decade. He has done much to promote the idea of London as a city which is proud of its cosmopolitanism rather than afraid of it. He has done a great deal to promote better pay and living conditions for the poorest Londoners, embedding the most ambitious development programme in the history of the games into London's Olympic bid. If he loses on Thursday, both London and democracy will be the poorer for it.
Jeremy Gilbert's Anti-Capitalism and Culture will be published by Berg in July.
The case for Siân
Rupert Read (Norwich, The Green Party)
The first reason to vote for Siân tomorrow is that she represents a genuine, progressive voice for London. Campaigning for a living wage, to cut fuel bills with free insulation, to cut bus and tube fares, she has an eye to problem-solving through basic social justice improvements - a win-win approach that gets to the heart of why we have a democracy.
Democracy is there so that we can elect people who will make our lives better and easier, thinking about our long term needs. We use it to choose representatives who think beyond acting as a self-serving elite or as dry administrators, and to chuck them out if they do so act.
That is the second big reason to vote for Siân. Boris would undoubtedly be self-serving and run London for a narrow business elite, with bursts of disturbing and irresponsible populism, while Ken has already shown tendencies toward complacency, and is also more business-friendly-at-any-cost than we Greens are comfortable with. While Siân will surely not win the Mayoral race tomorrow, a vote for her is a clear signal that Ken ain't doing good enough, while your second preference vote for Ken will at least guarantee that we don't end up with Boris in charge of London, which would be a truly dismal prospect.
Siân has campaigned for greater powers for the Assembly, which are badly needed. If elected to the Assembly - the more realistic objective - she will be a voice that is practical and will get heard. We will see her extend the Greens' already extensive achievements - the millions of well-invested pounds that are the biggest single reason why a vote for the Assembly tomorrow must be a Green vote - into new territory. She will be the sort of politician who will hold Ken in check when needed. Policies like 60% targets for affordable housing or cutting fuel and transport costs will be the backbone of her work. Finally, consider Sian's strong and active commitment to Open Source Software as a technological democracy in the making.
To return to where I began: the whole 'Keynesian' nature of Siân's policies would create bottom-side wealth and higher employment (a 'trickle-up' effect). There is no true democracy without true social justice. Every Green vote tomorrow will be a resounding vote for both.
