LondonSays

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.