Voting in the Mayoral election
A litter of Labour’s known online commentators have decided not to put Ken as their first option in the mayoral elections today, one deciding to vote Green with a tactical eye on granting Livingstone his second preference, while the other this morning decided to accept a blue rosette given to him and do Boris’ counting with activists.
Various Lords have given Ken the snub, MPs are not actively out campaigning for him and some well-known journalists such as Jonathan Freedland long ago decided that Livingstone and the Jewish question was a touch too far.
I agree this should be near the top of our heads when voting for a mayor. After all the Mayor of London engages with international figures and therefore has to have a rigorous internal conversation about how to conduct oneself on matters of world political issues.
The meeting, therefore, with Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi plays havoc. Further, Ken’s present failure to recognise a problem here gives us reason never to trust him again, let alone trust him with political office.
But also the recent “beacon of Islam” political theatre, along with dalliances with PressTV, under rule of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s clan of autocratic criminals, doesn’t sit well alongside his comments that Jews are “rich” and “wouldn’t vote for him anyway.”
Why does he feel the need to say he’ll make London a “beacon of Islam” anyway? At best that was the foulest form of political posturing; at worst it is divide and rule politics.
All these things should give us reason to kick up a fuss – but as Ken is “our man” we should keep Mum, lest we tread on our own supposedly tribal instincts.
The Economist in their recent editorial, supporting Boris, said that the Blonde blue candidate is the right candidate for the wrong job, and that the role of mayor should cover far more important ground.
I agree, but obviously not for Boris. But, then, not for Ken either.
Peter Hain, in his recent autobiography, said:
…I wanted to be effective, to be able to make a real difference. And that meant learning what not to do from Ken Livingstone … he seemed to go out of his way to make enemies…
And this holds true today. A London mayor should not be one whose sole aim it is to make enemies, in fact the opposite is true.
If Ken becomes mayor again, which he very much could do tomorrow, then he is more likely to stand next time. Even more, if he wins, the Labour party will find it nearly impossible to throw him out – and I think it’s time they did.
Ken isn’t simply a renegade who cannot be tamed, but his politics and demeanor have become embarrassing and offensive. And we haven’t even raised the tax situation, yet.
There is also something in what Andrew Gilligan, another ex-PressTV partner in crime with links to the Father of Syria’s President Assad, said recently, on what would happen if Ken lost:
If Ken loses again this week, in a city where Labour is currently 19 per cent ahead in the polls, Labour will have no option but to face all these realities.
Boris on the other hand will use a mayoral reelection to further boost his designs on Conservative party leader.
(Could we foresee a lightbulb fight between Yvette Cooper and Boris Johnson yet?)
Boris is clearly not in this for the right reasons, whereas Ken thinks he is doing the right thing, really means it, and is often left looking foolish as a result.
Dan Hodges probably has this right: it is a fight between Ken and Boris. That seems obvious. But he is wrong to support the latter.
I can’t say anything other than vote Ken. I’m not tribal, it’s just I don’t want to see Boris back as Mayor. But I’ll be honest nor do I want to see Ken back either. Sadly, there is no other way. Vote Ken, then insist he is sacked immediately. This inharmonious position seems to be all we have in the sensible camp. I blame politics.