UKIP London mayoral candidate admits: I can't deliver my promises

More confirmation of UKIP as ineffective, this time from their candidate's own mouth, as he admits that many of his promises are things the Mayor of London as no power to implement. Courtesy of Metro: UKIP London mayoral candidate admits: I can't deliver my promises.

The headline says it all really.

Online primaries - how not to do them

The primary election is a rare beast is this country. Even most of the selections the Conservatives brand as "open primaries" are actually closer to US style caucuses with a greater level of involvement required and thus smaller turnouts. The reason for this is obvious - it's near impossible to devise a mechanism whereby all eligible voters are able to choose a candidate for a party without incurring huge costs (the Conservatives did hold some postal ballots and send papers to all voters in a few constituencies but at great cost) or having no security controls to prevent the process from being fraudulently hijacked by the ineligible and/or other parties. Realistically a primary would require state support to work. But every so often a party throws such common sense to the wind.

UKIP are currently engaged in the process of selecting who should be their candidate for Mayor of London. I'll admit upfront that I don't find the actual contest itself to be the most exciting thing going. But one of the ways they're allocating votes is so ridiculously fraud prone that I'm amazed that it wasn't laughed out at first suggestion.

For UKIP have set up a website, UKIP's Mayor for London: Have Your Say, whereby anyone can vote on the six applicants for the candidacy. There are next to no controls on voting whatsoever - you simply select a candidate's box and click "Vote". There is no requirement or provision to:

• Give your name
• Give your address
• Confirm you are a voter in London
• Confirm you are not a partisan for another side/a mischief maker intent on ensuring UKIP is saddled with the most absurd candidate available.

Absolutely anybody anywhere on the planet can vote in this. And what's to stop multiple voting? The site seems to detect second vote attempts, but there's no shortage of technical people who know how to disguise a computer and/or IP address so that they could repeatedly vote to their heart's content.

At stake in all this are large blocks of "bonus votes" that will be counted at the UKIP conference when they make their final choice. So there is a serious potential for mischief making to distort the outcome.

Increasing public involvement in politics is a desirable and necessary aim. But to do so in such a way that the outcome is invariably tainted and discredited is not the way to go about it. Let's hope no serious party follows UKIP's disastrous decision.

By the way wouldn't it be hilarious if Winston "Six Parties" McKenzie won the nomination?

The Öpik History Wars

For many one of the biggest shock results in last year's general election was Conservative Glyn Davies's gain of Montgomeryshire from Lembit Öpik. But for some it wasn't a surprise at all and had been predicted for years.

Now that is standing to be his party's candidate for Mayor of London, there has been a lot of talk about why he lost so dramatically - the biggest anti-Lib Dem swing in a held seat, the most distant Conservative gain and the Lib Dems losing a seat that was supposedly "Liberal forever (so long as they remember to campaign)". And there's some fierce fighting over recent political history.

It's become such an issue that even Öpik's nomination manifesto (warning that's a very BIG file) feels the need to address it, saying the following:

CRITICISMS ANSWERED HEAD ON
Lembit lost his seat in 2010
The failure of the party to retain both the parliamentary and Welsh Assembly seat in 2010 and 2011 in Montgomeryshire is linked to the drunken altercation between Assembly Member Mick Bates and a paramedic which led to his prosecution and to him leaving the party. Many were aware of Lembit's celebrity profile and assumed that this was the cause of the loss. Regrettably the party did worse in 2011 even indicating a common factor for both poor results.

This just does not convince. And it's unsurprising that it's provoked blog post responses from both the Lib Dem Welsh Assembly Member Peter Black (Lembit Öpik and the rewriting of history) and Conservative MP Glyn Davies (Lembit - take it on the chin like a man.).

I've commented myself on the matter - see for instance my comments at Dave Hill's London Blog: London Lib Dems will choose their mayoral candidate from field of four for my trading the statistics - and so for now I'll just confine myself to showing that the defeat was being predicted long before Mick Bates hit the paramedic, even if not everyone picked up on it.

First from a Usenet post I wrote two years ago:

Montgomeryshire isn't quite the "Liberal forever (except when they're too busy planning centenary celebrations to actually campaign to retain it)" bastion of legend but in several ways is very much a personalist constituency. Now sure I have my personal biases but much of what I've heard from there (including from my sister, who until recently lived and worked in Machynlleth at the very west of the seat and is somewhat to the left of me), Lembit Opik's popularity is shrinking faster than an asteroid burning up in the atmosphere because of his clowning around, high profile personal life and lack of any serious political track record.

By contrast the Conservative candidate is Glyn Davies is widely respected across the political spectrum - I've heard many Plaid members openly say a lot of good things about him (and even that they'd vote for him) - and if anything has increased his appeal by losing his list seat in the last Assembly elections only because the Conservatives gained two constituencies. Whilst the Assembly list results aren't a 100% guide to what will happen in a Westminster election, it's notable the Conservatives topped the poll there.

Furthermore with the Liberal Democrats under pressure in the neighbouring seats of Brecon & Radnorshire and Ceredigion they simply can't target all their energy in Mid & West Wales on Montgomeryshire even if they wanted to - and from comments by Lib Dem activists I get the feeling that many would not want to anyway and are certainly not going to haul themselves great distances to allow Lembit to carry on as Mr Celebrity.

(Message from discussion Opinion poll in Wales on uk.politics.electoral at Jun 16 2009, 11:08 am

Next there's UK Polling Report's specific discussion on Montgomeryshire. Many amateur (and not so amateur) psephologists comment there and unrealistic predictions are easily shot down. People were predicting the Lib Dems were in Öpik-specific difficulties as early as February 2007, with the earliest outright prediction of a loss in July 2008.

Finally there's the Vote UK discussion thread on Montgomeryshire. The earliest outright defeat prediction was in September 2007.

One other point has emerged - Öpik neither wrote his own manifesto nor checked it before it was submitted - see his comments in WalesOnline: Peter Black launches furious attack on 'self-obsessive' Lib Dem colleague Lembit Opik. If he's not even in control of his own campaign, how could he ever hope to be in control of London?

The fall of Lembit Öpik

Iain Dale's Diary has this wonderful cartoon up of an AV ballot paper:

(Hattip to If Lembit were on fire...)

But when did Lembit have such a fall?

There was a time when Lembit was just a figure of fun, one of those wacky characters who enliven the fringes of politics more for their antics rather than their contribution to policy. Such figures have existed in all ages. Yet somewhere along the line Lembit has turned into an object of derison if not pure hate, even within his own party. (And this started before the Liberals had their first losing campaign in his seat since the days of Disraeli.)

Maybe it's because Lembit has stopped being funny and his efforts are now just irritating. Take for example this video for his campaign to be Mayor of London:

Citizen Lem from Mancha Productions on Vimeo.

Hideous isn't it?

Even Wolfie Smith's dreams of power were more credible than this!

London Mayoral selection - an asteroid in the works

Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor of the Evening Standard, has reported the following on Twitter:

Lib Dems suspend their London mayoral selection for a year..cos not enough approved candidates. Boris n Ken must be pleased

Roughly translated:

No credible "stop Lembit" candidate has come forward and the Liberal Democrats are scared he'll get the nomination

It's also a blow for Duwayne Brooks, a councillor in Lewisham who has emerged as the only other name in contention for the nomination. I guess he's just not big enough to be trusted to stop Lembit Öpik.

So the Liberal Democrat leadership has now got an extra year to sort this out - could they possibly be hoping that by then there will be a former minister in contention?

A quick round up

Over the past week I've been tied up with both work and a university alumni reunion event and so I've not had much time to comment on several big stories this week. So here are my quick thoughts on each of them, in chronological order:

* Tom Elliott has been elected leader of the Ulster Unionists in their first ever One Member One Vote election, albeit with votes cast at a meeting instead of by post. It speaks volumes about the Ulster Unionists' collapse over recent years that Elliott's election has gone unnoticed by many. I can't say that he strikes me as someone who is going to reverse the trend but then I've made several mispredictions in the past so who knows?

* Ken Livingstone has won the Labour nomination to be Mayor of London. So for 2012 Labour will be offering a candidate who doesn't give a toss about huge parts of London and who will instead spend much time patronising select groups who don't want to be patronised, filling up City Hall with corrupt cronies, and not giving a toss about huge parts of London. Is Labour even serious?

* Ed Miliband for Labour leader? I've never been able to take Miliband the Younger seriously at all. But now the trade unions have spoken and imposed "Red Ed" upon the Labour Party in an election where some people were hundreds of times more equal than others. I'm sure over the years to come Ed Miliband is going to give us a lot to laugh about as Labour continues to be a non-serious party that doesn't want to win elections.

Ironically when the Miliband election was being announced I was attending a lecture by David Starkey talking about another younger brother who unexpectedly came to power in place of the elder brother whom everyone had expected to be the one. It was a very enlightening talk about Henry VIII.

Asteroids and Segways for London?

Lembit Öpik hasn't gone away you know. Now he thinks he's the man to be Mayor of London.

Just one moment while I finish my shock.

This one has been floated before - see Is London doomed? - but Öpik declared "The only issue is my constituency is 205 miles away", a potential killer. Now that the voters of Montgomeryshire have relieved themselves of Öpik he is of course free of that drawback.

Opinion on Liberal Democrat Voice is heavily negative - see Should Lembit Opik be the Liberal Democrat candidate for London Mayor?, especially for comments like "He can stand for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party" - from a peer of the realm. But who knows if Liberal Democrat Voice commenters speak for the London membership?

So far the Liberal Democrats have run for Mayor the Invisible Woman, Simon "Straight Choice" Hughes and the Cannabis Commander. In that line-up is an Öpik candidature really that out of the ordinary?

His policies will no doubt be as follows:

1. Install an anti-asteroid shield for London.
2. Make conditions much better for Segway users.
3. Erm...
4. That's it.

So will Labour try to take London backwards?

Ken Livingstone has announced what's been an open secret for ages now - he's going to run for Mayor in 2012. And if he can't get the Labour nomination he's going to run as an Independent. (BBC News: Livingstone seeks return as mayor)

Just imagine what the return of Livingstone would mean for London. It would mean London would no longer be run for the benefit of all Londoners but instead for a coalition of clientalist groups leeching funds whilst pretending to be representing sections of the community, in harness with a handful of select inner London boroughs. It would mean ever greater taxes on using a car, with no serious attempt to provide alternatives in outer London boroughs. It would mean directly insulting communities and countries. It will mean deals with dodgy dictators. It would mean proliferate waste at City Hall. It would mean a return to corruption investigations. It would mean taxes going up. It would mean needless fights with central government purely for the point of it. It would mean endless tokenism. It would mean promoting community division, not unity. It would mean disaster for London.

Last May Londoners voted to put an end to all that. To their credit the Labour Party leadership got the hint and are doing their best to stop it. (Evening Standard: Labour heavyweights plan mayoral bids to 'stop Ken') But will the London Labour Party members realise get the hint as well? And can't Livingstone get it?

Boris didn't win because of the BNP

In the last few weeks there's been some rather high profile discussion within the Labour Party about their London mayoral candidate for 2012, with invariably a focus on why they lost the 2008 election. I don't wish to intrude on a private war, but one point I feel cannot go unaddressed is the claim being thrown around by some Labour members that Boris Johnson won the Mayoralty in part because the British National Party called for its voters to give him a second preference over Ken Livingstone. (Under the Supplementary Vote system used, these were the only two realistic options.) It is unfortunately standard "damn by association" stuff. Whilst there are many in the Labour Party who are honourable and above such behaviour, in my experience there is an element who will all too freely fling around accusations of racism as a means to get votes, not giving a damn about either truth or the polarising effect this can have on the electorate. The argument goes that Johnson's final majority over Livingstone was 139,772 and as the BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook got 69,710 first preferences then more than half that majority came from the BNP.

As is often the case in politics claims are made with only partial reference to the actual results and the truth requires a greater deal of detail to explain and will often have trouble competing with simplistic assertions made frequently and aggressively. To explain things fully it's necessary to go through the details on this.

Now the Mayoral election results are frequently badly announced and reported, because of the way the vote is counted and the second preference reported. Consequently most tables will list three figures for a candidate - their total number of ballot papers with a first preference, the total number with a second preference and (if applicable) the final result. However as that second figure includes people who gave preferences for both of the top two candidates the figures don't always add up.

For instance the figures for Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone usually appear as follows:

Johnson 1,043,761 - 257,792 - 1,168,738
Livingstone 893,877 - 303,198 - 1,028,966

In actual fact the more relevant figures for the second column are 124,977 and 135,089 - these are total second preferences cast for Johnson and Livingstone respectively by voters who voted for neither for their first preference.

The official results don't go into enough detail to tell us how every individual voter gave their first and second preferences, although it's relatively easy to use the totals given to calculate the number of Boris Johnson 1, Ken Livingstone 2 votes at 168,109, and Ken Livingstone 1, Boris Johnson 2 at 132,815 (see this forum post by David Boothroyd).

But for other candidates it's much harder to work out results. We'll come back to this later, but first lets look at the impact of the voting system on the result. Or rather the non-impact.

Advocates of preferential voting frequently argue that it breaks the "problem" of vote-splitting and can often deliver a different outcome to whoever would have won on first preferences alone. Now the Supplementary Vote is a limited model, and the voting system doesn't get much coverage, but it's notable that here the only difference to the outcome it made was to narrow Johnson's lead over Livingstone by just over 10,000 votes. This is far from unusual - in many preferential vote elections I have seen the transfers frequently make no difference to the order of elimination or who is elected, instead just dividing up in similar proportions to the first preferences. Outside of co-ordinated voting at conference, only when two strong candidates are chasing the same block of votes and both campaigns are savvy enough to appeal for second preferences and their main rival candidate has more homogenous support have there been significant changes to the outcome. (This is not to say that in a closely fought race the distribution of preferences doesn't sometimes tip the balance but it's rare. The only Mayoral election to date where this has happened was North Tyneside in 2005 when a 1400 Conservative lead on first preferences was converted into a 1002 Labour lead on transfers.)

It's true that some parties called for their voters to use their second preference a particular way, but how many voters actually follow such an instruction? Remember the UK is not Australia where use the "How-to-vote card" is perfected to a fine art (although even there vote leakage can and does occur). The Greens' candidate Sian Berry and Livingstone made a reciprocal transfer call, but how many Green voters followed through? Similarly how many BNP voters followed the party's call for a second preference for Johnson?

Well apparently Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby's book "Boris v. Ken" has some figures in this area. I don't have the book myself, but this post and this one gives the figures for transfers from the eliminated candidates:

Brian Paddick: Total votes 236,685. Livingstone 73,612, Johnson 70,157, someone else or blank 92,916.
Sian Berry: Total votes 77,374. Livingstone 36,365, Johnson 10,984, someone else or blank 30,025.
Richard Barnbrook: Total votes 69,710. Johnson 22,200, Livingstone 4,353, someone else or blank 43,157.
Alan Craig: Total votes 39,249. Livingstone 10,352, Johnson 10,328, someone else or blank 18,569.
Gerard Batten: Total votes 22,422. Johnson 6,671, Livingstone 1,681, someone else or blank 14,070.
Lindsey German: Total votes 16,796. Livingstone 6,661, Johnson 1,327, someone else or blank 8,808.
Matt O'Connor: Total votes 10,695. Johnson 2,485, Livingstone, 1,120, someone else or blank 7,090.
Winston McKenzie: Total votes 5,389. Livingstone 945, Johnson 825, someone else or blank 3,619.

Redone as percentages:

Brian Paddick: Livingstone 31.1%, Johnson 29.6%, someone else or blank 39.3%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 47.0%, Johnson 14.2%, someone else or blank 38.8%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 31.8%, Livingstone 6.2%, someone else or blank 61.9%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 26.4%, Johnson 26.3%, someone else or blank 47.3%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 29.8%, Livingstone 7.5%, someone else or blank 62.8%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 39.7%, Johnson 7.9%, someone else or blank 52.4%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 23.2%, Livingstone 10.5%, someone else or blank 66.3%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 17.5%, Johnson 15.3%, someone else or blank 67.2%.

Or taking just the active second preferences:

Brian Paddick: Livingstone 51.2%, Johnson 48.8%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 76.8%, Johnson 23.2%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 83.6%, Livingstone 16.4%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 50.1%, Johnson 49.9%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 79.9%, Livingstone 20.1%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 83.4%, Johnson 16.6%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 68.9%, Livingstone 31.1%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 53.4%, Johnson 46.6%.

Unsurprisingly a lot of votes transferred in line with ideology but there were some very significant leakages. Less than half the people who voted Green followed the call for a Livingstone second preference. Less than a third who voted BNP followed the call for a Johnson second preference.

The BNP transfer contributed only about 18,000 of Johnson's final majority of 139,772 - hardly a decisive factor. It was the strong campaigning by Johnson and outreach to the whole of London, as opposed the Livingstone strategy of just being a Mayor for certain inner London boroughs, that produced the massive increase in votes that won him the Mayoralty.

Further thoughts on another "British Obama"

Further to my past post on British Obamas? Yes we've had a few, a few other thoughts on the matter, this time on the problems in the US.

What is perhaps not realised so well is that the key barrier that had to be overcome to having a black President wasn't the Presidential election itself but in getting black politicians to credible elected positions - usually a Governor or Senator - from which they could then make a credible bid for the Presidency. FiveThirtyEight.com: Why Are There No Black Senators? and the resulting discussion thread looks at this problem in the US, with the conclusion that successive measures aimed to protect black voters have resulted at Congressional level in them being ghettoised into gerrymandered safely Democratic urban seats, with the result that black US politicians appear too left-wing for moderate swing voters and few Republicans have to make any appeal to black voters because there aren't many in their own seats. This in turn reduces the pool of potential Senate and Gubernatorial candidates who in turn could run for President. Obama got lucky in missing out a period in the House of Representatives (and it's easy to forget how during his Senate race practically everyone inside - and outside - the Illinois Republican Party seemed to falling over to remove any credible challenger to him) but it's going to take more to get a more permanent grouping of black mainstream politicians in both parties and enable black conservatism to gain a stronger voice. (And yes there have been black Republicans in Congress - the last was J.C. Watts who rose to the number four position in the House Republicans.)

The British system is very different and so far there is no route to the premiership other than service in the Commons. I can see London electing a black Mayor in the future (how about James Cleverly when Boris retires?) but I don't think we've yet reached the point where it's possible for a high flier in another political sphere to jump directly into front line politics in the Commons, unlike in Canada where provincial politicians and even private citizens often get chosen as party leaders. So it is going to come down to those who have worked their way up through the benches in the House and are sufficiently moderate to win the leadership. To take the first four BME MPs elected back in 1987 as examples, the likes of Diane Abbott and the late Bernie Grant would never make it, both being too far on the left of the party. Keith Vaz had a promising ministerial career but was derailed by sleaze. However I believe that if he had not become High Commissioner to South Africa, Paul Boateng would currently be one of the most senior members of the Cabinet and given Gordon Brown's succession of local difficulties Boateng would have been a credible potential candidate in all the leadership speculation and a darn sight more serious one than David Miliband and his banana.

Devolved power - or half power?

The news of Sir Ian Blair's departure has provoked a political row over who can "hire and fire" the head of the Metropolitan Police. I don't want to rehash the arguments both ways about Blair himself but there are some wider problems.

The biggest problem is that a lot of political power has been devolved (and yes, the Greater London Authority is a form of devolved power even though it is a metropolitan wide authority and not a "regional assembly" of the type devised as a sop to the English question) in a bad manner, with the result that in many areas power is now wielded by a hydra of national and devolved politicians. It's also a poorly kept secret that when the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Authority were set up the widespread expectation was that they would almost permanently be controlled by Labour politicians and that Westminster-devolved conflicts would be between non-Labour Westminster governments and Labour devolved ones, not the other way round. The result is that the executives have quite significant powers in their own right and are not so vulnerable to the problems of minorities in the assemblies or even an opposition majority as on the London Assembly.

But they are also probe to following a different path from Westminster. Now this is a natural consequence of devolving power and localism (although I wish the UK media would more accurately report the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rather than just focusing on the supposed benefits of spending, stoking English jealousy). However when there are both local and national concerns - and the Metropolitan Police is not exclusively a police force for London but has various national duties as well. So it's not terribly easy to carve up accountability between the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary. It can work if they're cut from the same political cloth, but when they're not (and this applied as much to Ken Livingstone as to Boris Johnson) then clashes and divided confidence are inevitable. It's not a terribly workable arrangement in the long run.

Is there an obvious solution? It's a lot harder to separate out overlap services than is often thought (a problem that also comes up with Welsh devolution because of large numbers in the borders) or to arrange things so that the same party always controls all the relevant posts (and, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated and Boris Johnson will soon do as well, just being from the same party as the Westminster government does not guarantee unity), especially when so many elections are contested as a chance to make a mid-term protest against the Westminster government. It is often forgotten that the 2004 Mayoral election was the only time a London authority election was won by the party in power at Westminster since 1949. And even that was down to Livingstone returning to Labour rather than running again as an Independent. Whether this pattern will change remains to be seen, but it is not an encouraging precedent. So what is the solution?

Outrage! backs Boris's move!

In an interesting follow-up to the news that Boris abolishes a do-nothing advisory panel, the move has been backed by none other than OutRage! (PinkNews: OutRage! backs Boris over abolition of gay advisory panel)

Brett Lock of direct action LGBT rights group OutRage! said that Mayor Boris Johnson was "quite right" to scrap it.

"It was elitist, unelected, unaccountable and anti-democratic," he said.

"No one elected the panel. They were hand-picked by Ken and were not necessarily representative of the LGBT community.

"Instead of negatively sniping at the Mayor, LGBT groups should concentrate on presenting Boris with practical and constructive policy ideas for the benefit of LGBT Londoners," he said.

Note also Brett Lock's comments about LGBT Labour activists being more concerned with LGBT for Labour than Labour for LGBT:

"Instead of petty party-political point-scoring, gay Labour activists should concentrate on pressing their own party to stop mistreating LGBT asylum seekers and end the ban on same-sex marriage," said Mr Lock.

Unfortunately it seems some are determined to make party matters of the personal.

Boris abolishes a do-nothing advisory panel

This shouldn't need to be a story should it? Ever since Boris Johnson was elected Mayor of London a new broom has been sweeping through the Greater London Authority and many of the wasteful and tokenistic initiatives of the Livingstone era have been abolished. However the decision to abolish a Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Advisory Panel that had only been formed a few months ago and had just a preliminary meeting has provoked some criticism. (PinkNews: Boris team rejects criticism over LGB advisory panel) But surprise surprise the first person to speak out about this is a Labour Party councillor - the reaction of many Labour members to Boris's victory struck me as one of outrage that the voters had dared to deny Labour its supposed God-Given-Right to rule. On close inspection the panel membership is also suggestive:

...the panel which was chaired by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, included Linda Bellos of Black Lesbians UK, Jackie Lewis of trade union UNISON, Lynsey River of Polari, the older people's LGBT network, Brenda Ellis of REGARD, a disabled LGBT group and Mr [Pav] Akhtar in his role as Chair of Imaan, a Muslim LGBT group.

This sounds suspiciously like a mainly Labour mates show that did very little but ticked a few boxes, of the kind all too common under the Livingstone regime. For another example see PinkNews's interview with Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes where he talks of a disability adviser who similarly served to tick boxes. (PinkNews: INTERVIEW: A heartbeat away from the Mayor of London)

I remained to be convinced that this advisory panel that only ever had a preliminary meeting was actually doing anything to the benefit of Lesbian & Gay (and I deliberate use just those words) Londoners and that their lives were in any way enhanced by its existence. Maybe the timing of the announcement wasn't the best but I don't want Labour style gesture politics that creates positions and throws around money for appearances' sake, I want results and substance. And I believe many Londoners want the same.

So I hope Boris Johnson will carry on getting rid of wasteful tokenistic bodies that just serve to tick boxes and get one with delivering real results for all Londoners.

Do we want lame duck Mayors?

I've not blogged about the Ray Lewis affair, partially due to lack of time, partially due to the wide range of contradictory information (for example I've seen lengthy posts on just when someone becomes a magistrate with a suggestion that even the Ministry of Justice isn't 100% consistent). But there's an interesting suggestion made by Gulf Stream Blues: The Ray Lewis Fiasco and echoed by Liberal Burblings: The Boris/Lewis train wreck - an American perspective about the basic problem in the system:

In a larger sense this is partly to blame on a problem that has nothing to do with the Conservatives, as the new position of London mayor still gets the kinks worked out. The position of mayor is essentially an American system that was shoehorned into British politics in 2000, but in some aspects they seem to have not grasped it properly. An American-style complete change in administration takes time to work out. That’s why the US has its elections in early November, and the winner doesn’t take office until January. That gives them several months to put together an administration and ensure an orderly transition. Here, Johnson took office just days after the election, and had to hurriedly select administration professionals and advisors without proper background checks.

We've already seen this to an extent with candidate selection - the British system generally expects politicians to work their way through the benches, not jump straight in to a high profile position from outside politics, Arnold Schwarzenegger style. For borough councils an elected Mayor just about works because it's a natural extension of the role of a councillor, although there have been many independent Mayors from outside politics. However for London it becomes hard to attract candidates in all parties as it's a diversion from a parliamentary career (and indeed takes one out of the House) but candidates from outside the regular political classes are hard to recruit.

And we see it again with the lack of a transition period. This is a relatively new thing in British politics - in past decades the outgoing government often took a few days to resign and the incoming one had more time to put together an administration. But nowadays a new government has to be put together by the new Prime Minister within hours of the election result. Because virtually all the ministers will be experienced MPs and peers it's often relatively simple to do this. However as Gulf Stream Blues has noted, the Mayoral administration has to recruit for the most part from outside the political mainstream and has very little time to do so. During the election Boris Johnson refused to list who would he appoint as he was the candidate standing not them, but it left little time to do the appointment checks.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to have a gap between the election and taking office. But this would mean the incumbent Mayor would remain in post for the time being, empowered to take decisions despite potentially having been rejected by the voters - not a good recipe for decisive decision making in a country not used to lame duck politicians. Just what is the solution here?

From Leaving Soon to Coming Back?!

I've just seen the scary news that Ken Livingstone is contemplating another run for the London Mayoralty in 2012. (New Statesman: Ken to run in 2012) One has to wonder who he's fooling - the murk surrounding his personal office and associates has if anything increased since he left office and more damaging revelations could come soon. The voting public indicated they were tired of him last month and the Labour Party will want a new candidate rather than running Yesterday's Man. An independent bid wouldn't have the fire or issue that it did in 2000.

So why is Livingstone still hopeful? Well my best guess is this. One of the worst kept secrets in British politics is that Livingstone's office was dominated by a group called Socialist Action. (Those who've been involved in student politics may have encountered one of their front groups, the Student Broad Left.) When Ken Livingstone lost his job so did many Socialist Action members and the organisation will be seeking a new source of funds. Is the talk of a Livingstone comeback motivated by a desire to try to get the old supply back?

The future's bright! The future's blue!

What a week!

Manchester United.

Liverpool.

Livingstone.

Truly this is the season to be blue!

I don't think I need say any more.

The end of Ken?

The Evening Standard have commissioned another poll about the forthcoming Mayoral election and it's not looking good for Ken Livingstone. (Evening Standard: Boris races ahead in mayor poll) And it never looked good for Brian Paddick, whilst Siân Berry's attempts to pretend she's a serious challenger have been met not by not even placing in the results! So with further adieu, here are the figures:

London Mayor: Neck-Neck-Toe

I missed this the other day but YouGov have done a comprehensive poll for the London Mayoral election, with the results showing that the race is very close. (Evening Standard: Mayor race: Livingstone and Boris too close to call) And it also shows how time and votes can be wasted - Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat, is nowhere.

So for all those Liberal Democrats out there, here's a special one just for you. I don't know much about how to create images, but here are the figures in one of those bar charts your leaflets usually use:

As you can see:

*IT'S A TWO HORSE RACE!
*LIB DEMS CAN'T WIN HERE!
*A VOTE FOR PADDICK IS A VOTE FOR LIVINGSTONE!

...and all the other usual slogans.

Now I know what some of you are going to say - the Mayoral election is by Supplementary Vote. But this only gives the voter two options. So if the Liberal Democrats go chasing second preferences, particularly from people planning to vote Green or any other smaller party, they will merely be wasting votes and giving the election to Livingstone.

Only Boris can beat Livingstone.

For Mayor of London this blog will be backing...

As the battle for the Conservative nomination for Mayor of London gets going, I'm just dashing this quick note to announce that this blog will be backing:

Andrew Boff
Andrew recently set out his stand in, amongst other places, PinkNews.co.uk- Interview: The Tory who wants to boff Boris.

And I am encouraged by comments on ConservativeHome: Andrew Boff sets out themes for his primary campaign.

See also Andrew Boff: "To give London's voters the power to propose binding propositions on the executive or to recall the Mayor" in which he details a radical proposal to restore power to voters.

London is safe

BBC News: Öpik 'won't run for London mayor'

Need I say anything more?