2008 June Archive at LondonSays

Archive for June, 2008

Runners & Riders Pt III

Published by Simon on June 30, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

Last week Andrew commented eloquently on the race to be the next Labour candidate for Mayor (a theme which I picked up here).

Appearing on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday, Ken Livingstone spoke on the same topic:

“I won’t make a decision until 2010, once the general election is over. If there was an election now I would run again.”

The interview is certainly worth watching (hosted online here), as Mr Livingstone speaks in length about his love for London, utilising his newly-granted free time, ’shadowing’ Boris, and his views on running again.

Notable is Mr Livingstone’s explanation of his defeat, blaming both poor national Labour ratings and his own failing in not growing his personal vote. He later went on to state that if he were a betting man, Labour would not get his money to defeat the Conservatives at a General Election - it’s this disarming honesty which I believe is his most potent weapon, and a tool which he can use to devastating effect whilst ‘in opposition’.

Perhaps Sir Alan will have a fight on his hands after all?

UPDATE: Dave Hill has an excellent article on Ken’s inaugural radio effort, where he positions himself as an outsider once more.

What’s in a name?

Published by Andrew on June 26, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

I read today that the London Borough of Brent intends to change its name to the London Borough of Wembley, in order to reflect the stadium’s international brand recognition. Unsurprisingly, this has not been well received in some quarters, with Labour opposition figures claiming the borough’s name proudly reflects its history as being on the River Brent. The writers of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs will probably take a dimmer view still, not least as they often refer to the council as ‘Bent’. The views of the National Theatre of Brent and David Brent are as yet unknown.

It’s a little known fact that under law London Boroughs are permitted to change their name under a kind of municipal deed poll. The Queen has the last word on the matter as she issues the Letters Patent required to enact the change. She’s also known for having views on the subject, such as the time she enquired “Where is Merton?” The London Borough of Merton, itself named after a mere incorporated Urban District Council rather than the better known Wimbledon, has long grappled with the anonymity imposed by the 1965 local government settlement in the capital. Lewisham once considered throwing off its Southeast London deprived backwater tag by doing a Brent and renaming itself after its main river, the Ravensbourne (its other river, the Quaggy, didn’t quite sound as respectable as they were intending).

Of course, Brent’s desired name change still has to overcome the usual political hurdles on the council and opponents are already reheating old rivalries and claiming that inhabitants of the former Metropolitan Borough of Willesden will view such a re-rendering of the borough’s identity as akin to a takeover by the former Metropolitan Borough of Wembley. I’m sure the outraged will be brandishing copies of the Herbert Commission’s final report of 1960 at Willesden Green station as soon as word hits the streets of this.

As with a lot of the defects of the 1965 settlement (anonymous boroughs, no community-level governance) we could be stuck with the Tower Hamlets’, Wandsworths and Waltham Forests of this world for some years yet.

Getting Back on Message

Published by Simon on June 26, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

I’ve written extensively before, albeit with a transport slant, for LondonUnlocked on Tim Parker’s appointment as “First Deputy” Mayor. Following his grilling by Assembly members, Dave Hill weighs in over on the Guardian:

“You’re more New Labour than the last administration,” suggested Labour’s mischievous John Biggs. There followed some joshing about train sets and what “New Labour” actually is, before Parker said: “I’m interested fundamentally in making sure we deliver for customers,” which, were I the disrespectful kind, I’d say answered Biggs’s question in the affirmative.

New Labour indeed. The Mayor has spoken of Mr Parker as someone who can fight key battles for him - leading on transport issues in particular, as he takes up the role of Chairman of TfL.

However, one of the principal accountabilities listed in Mr Parker’s job spec jumps out at me, especially given the recent news cycle over the re-orienting of the RISE festival. Mr Parker should:

realise the benefits of London’s diversity by promoting and enabling equality of opportunities and promoting the diverse needs and aspirations of London’s communities.

It would appear that Mr Parker has his work cut out for him.

The re-orientation of RISE, from anti-racism festival to one emphasising cultural diversity, has, to put it delicately, been handled disastrously. Even the usually on-message Evening Standard couldn’t muster a friendly word.

For what was a politically-sensible move from a centre-right Mayor, removing the overtly leftist elements who backed the festival (the unions, Cuban Solidarity etc etc) and tying the event to his wider theme of community cohesion and cultural diversity, his press office appears to have been unprepared for the backlash. BLINK is particularly scathing:

Trade Unions in London announced that they have withdrawn all support from the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson’s Rise Festival.

As a result the cross-party anti-racist consensus in London is breaking up. Previously supported by all political parties the Tory administration is now aligned with the racist BNP on the issue of the Rise anti-racist festival theme. This decision will be a set back the campaign challenging racism in London. The arrogance of the Mayor’s cultural advisor is breathtaking. ‘Misery Mirza’ as she is now known in City Hall attacked Trade Unions, the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, the National Assembly Against Racism along with broad range of Black and Asian community-based organisation. Anti-racists should be worried as this is undoubtedly a sign of things to come. Unison’s press release stated that ‘the organisation of the event has been a fiasco from start to finish’.

Of course, BLINK has form on this kind of thing, with the Standard finding evidence during the election that Lee Jasper used the organisation as a front for publicly-funded attacks on Trevor Phillips. Notable also is the fact that many of the groups mentioned as attacking the Mayor over the move have links to Jasper (though I hate to link to such a source, Jasper’s Wikipedia page is a good start for such information).

All this is really an aside to the main thrust of this article, however. Perhaps this is a one-off score-settling excercise over Lee Jasper’s use as a cypher for the “tired and corrupt” message which Johnson’s campaign unrelentingly pushed during the election? Perhaps it is something more? What is clear however, is that Johnson’s administration has lost control of the message for the first time since taking power.

Allied with “watermellon-gate” and the sacking of James McGrath, a dangerous image is being formed about the new Mayor, that he is casual about racism. I, for one, do not believe for second that this is true. But if the allegations are allowed to stick and be built upon, this will be destructive for Mr Johnson, and for London’s communities as a whole.

London needs an effective Mayor advocating community cohesion. Mr Johnson clearly sees this need, and his passion for fighting knife-crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour are but one strand of this greater message. However, if his agenda gets hijacked and his effectiveness diminishes, all of London will suffer.

State of London Debate

Published by Simon on June 25, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

A reminder that tonight sees the State of London Debate.

Every year, the State of London Debate brings Londoners together to discuss key concerns affecting them. This event is your chance to talk to the Mayor, senior figures in London government and opinion formers about the big issues in your city.

This year’s debate, with new Mayor, Boris Johnson, will focus on the most important issue for the capital - increasing opportunities for young Londoners and helping young people share in the city’s success.

Panellists this year include: Boris Johnson; TV’s Ross Kemp; Deputy Mayor for Young People, Ray Lewis; Munira Mirza, Director of Policy for Arts, Culture and the Creative Industries, and Jennette Arnold AM, Chair of the LA.

7-9pm, Central Hall, Westminster.

Neither a City nor a Hall

Published by Andrew on June 24, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

If you’re after some respite after all the posts on London governance and thoughts of mayors etc. do check out Iain Sinclair’s lyrical essay in the London Review of Books, which takes a sideways look at the regeneration (or gentrification, depending on your p.o.v) of East London. Worth reading alone for his suggestion that Bob Hoskins’ character in The Long Good Friday would be running for mayor today.

(related: ‘How the Thames has shaped London’ (PDF).

Payback for Suburbia

Published by Andrew on June 24, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

On the spot analysis of London Development Agency chief exec Peter Rogers’ appearance before the London Assembly’s economic development committee earlier today. Do less and do it better is the plan, by all accounts. The author naturally ponders whether the new ‘outcomes rather than outputs’ of ‘rationed’ funds will lead to the mayor’s economic development arm shifting its focus to the outer London boroughs, at the expense of deprived inner London. For what it’s worth, there are places on the edge of the capital that could barely be described as ‘thriving’ or affluent (random example: Erith in Bexley). The balanced portfolio approach, conspicuously absent throughout the past eight years, is what’s needed now, with any overnight geographic shift rendering the whole thing as ‘grants for votes’ almost. According to Rogers however, they will avoid ’spreading the jam too thinly’.

Monitoring Boris Johnson

Published by Simon on June 24, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

It’s worth mentioning that City Mayors is carrying a rolling assessment of Boris Johnson’s performance in office.

From the site:

Over time, Mayor Monitor will provide a valuable track record of mayors’ successes and failures as well as their popularity among residents and a wider public. The results will be published on the City Mayors website and updated monthly.

This is a valuable service, and I’d urge as many of our readers as possible to pop over and contribute.

Re: Sir Alan will see you now, Boris

Published by Simon on June 24, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

Andrew beat me to the punch in writing about the prospects for Labour at the next mayoral election. He did, however, miss the excellent profile piece on Ken Livingstone by Carole Cadwalladr in The Observer.

Typically, the former Mayor gives nothing up when discussing his future and seems to be enjoying his period of opposition:

‘I think Sean Connery had it right: never say never again. Nobody thought he would come back and do another film. What I said when I was asked this during the election is still valid - I’m not going to think about that until it comes to 2010 and the Labour party calls for nominations.’

It is clear that in between nominations for the mayoralty, Mr Livingstone is building a platform for opposition through an erratic but effective series of media interventions. After clashing with the Mayor on BBC Radio 4 and signing to present on LBC there is no doubt that this is part of a wider and sustained campaign by Livingstone, described by Dave Hill as like being “assailed by nasal irony’s answer to Cato Fong.“

Speaking of which, Mr Hill also mentions the other runners and riders for the nomination:

Tony Travers has written of Tessa Jowell, Trevor Phillips and Nick Raynsford as plausible runners, though I can’t see any of those beating Johnson, assuming he’d be the Tory opponent (and that could be quite a large assumption). Jon Cruddas has been spoken of too. He’d have a lot to offer, but does he want the job?

All of which leads me to make an announcement: Ken Livingstone has agreed to write a “one year on” piece for LondonSays. Viva la opposition!

Sir Alan will see you now, Boris

Published by Andrew on June 23, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

With most online commentary about the office of London Mayor concentrating on race, with another row to follow the last one, it’s actually refreshing that it has since emerged Labour is now shifting its attention beyond opposing/scrutinising the current mayor but contemplating who to put up against him at the next election (which we already started to count down to).

Of course, who the Labour Party fields as its candidate in 2012 is its own business, and while voters are precluded from that process, who they are most likely to opt for will weigh heavily on the minds of the selectorate. Also, the governance system under which that candidate emerges is definitely a matter for debate.

This all began earlier today with a Guardian opinion piece by historian Tristram Hunt, which ostensibly engaged in a kite-flying exercise for a post-Ken Labour mayoralty. In it, the TV historian turned putative MP urges his fellow party members to look beyond Ken and contemplate another candidate for 2012, rather than retreat to the the comfort zone of the electorally familiar Brand Ken. He goes on to suggest that his party should instead turn to the next generation of Labour figures in the capital but manages to name only three potential post-Livingstone Labour mayoral candidates (and current or relatively obscure aspiring MPs at that):

“There is a wealth of political talent in London’s progressive circles - from MPs (such as Jon Cruddas in Dagenham) to council leaders, assembly members and parliamentary candidates such as Rushanara Ali and Chuka Umunna - but these voices could all be suffocated by the lingering Livingstone machine.”

If this talent exists then it would surely be self-evident and Hunt would not have to go before the media to argue that Ken is a spent force? Unfortunately for those seeking to finish off Livingstone’s remaining mayoral aspirations, it seems that three and a bit years to go before the next contest, Labour has no brand capable of matching the two-term mayor for doorstep recognition. Yet herein lies the paradox of Labour’s decision. Devolution means going beyond policy and considering the effects on political culture, something the party didn’t have to do while Ken remained a cuddly cheeky chappy capable of reaching beyond Labour’s core vote in the capital. Under the old municipalist GLC, Labour was content to put forward worthy but dull local public servants like Bill Fiske and Reg Goodwin to lead, but the challenge of directly elected politics calls for more than that.

Anyhow, the Standard are claiming Alan Sugar will step up to the plate. As brands go, they don’t come any stronger than that. Elsewhere in the paper, Johann Hari joins in the ‘move on’ chorus with an endorsement of Oona King. Of the names floated so far, it’s the only one with credible bite.

More Mayoral Mandates

Published by Andrew on June 20, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

What does the future hold for the new London mayor’s relations with the boroughs? As we noted recently, dialogue has hugely improved between the Mayor’s office and London Councils, thanks to the small matter of the mayoral elections and them sharing a common political party. While the two have since agreed a grandly-titled City Charter (as called for by Tony Travers in the Million Vote Mandate), things remain up for negotiation and very much backroom. Naturally we’ll be watching with interest as this unfolds.

However, this week’s Local Government Chronicle, very much the house magazine of that backroom, features the first interview with Ian Clement, formerly of London Councils and now Deputy Mayor for Government Relations in the Johnson administration. The interview’s subscription only sadly but here’s a sneaky glimpse of how he sees himself vis-a-vis that relationship:

“Boris has always said he wanted to work with the boroughs, but there will be times when we do disagree. I would be a fool if I thought otherwise,” says Mr Clement. “But it’s about a spirit of trust and how we manage those disagreements.”

On the City Charter itself, as the cornerstone of the relationship, he does suggest that the new mayor is reserving the right to be pragmatic:

“It will be a starting point of our working with the boroughs, but it won’t be set in stone forever. It will be renewable every year and we will see how it goes.”

Finally, with the advent of the forthcoming local government white paper and its mooted pro-mayoral content (a reheating of earlier government enthusiasm for the posts which withered on the vine with every reshuffle) and various think tanks helping make ministers’ minds up, can we expect more of them in London and how would this alter the dynamic between City Hall and the town halls if mandates clash? Currently there are just three of the 32 London Boroughs operating under the elected mayoral model, all in East London and all Labour.

Curiously the Commission on Local Democracy, chaired by Simon Jenkins in the mid-1990s, which was responsible for Tony Blair’s enthusiasm for elected mayors (both for the new GLA and elsewhere in England), actually recommended mayors across the board in all 32 London Boroughs but that these executive mayors would in turn elect the London-wide mayor. But as we’ve also seen recently, this has pretty much come full circle, with the 32 borough chiefs being envisaged as scrutineers of the mayor, rather than his electorate. Directly elected mandates could assist hugely here, were a future government to consider elevating this from thinktankdom to actual policy.

LondonSays