London's current mayor is Ken Livingstone (Labour), but he may be soon out of office as three politicians - a Livingstone (a member of Labour), a member of the Tories, and a member of the Liberal Democrats (a homosexual former cop) - battle it out to become the new mayor....
The London mayoral race
Political capital
Jan 10th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The contest to run Europe's biggest city is taking shape
Illustration by David Simonds
Who are the three candidates hoping to become Mayor of London?
Labour candidate - Ken Livingstone
Tory candidate - Boris Johnson
Liberal Democrat candidate - Brian Paddick
LONDONERS eager to prove that their metropolis really is, in Disraeli's words, “a roost for every bird” usually cite ordinary life at ground level: the diversity of races and languages, the yuppies, artists and immigrants juxtaposed in the same east London postcodes. They can now point to their aspiring rulers, too.
The third election for the mayor of London, an office created in 2000 for a city that had lacked its own administration since 1986, comes in May. The principal candidates are as curious as the population they hope to govern: a left-wing iconoclast who often favours globalisation (the Labour incumbent, Ken Livingstone), a shock-headed Old Etonian eccentric (the Conservative Boris Johnson) and a libertarian gay ex-policeman (the Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick), who made his name with a tolerant line on cannabis when he commanded a south London borough.
London: The contest to run Europe's largest city is taking shape
Many Londoners are indifferent as to who their mayor is (voting turnout was only 37% in 2004). Yet the office has come to matter. The mayor controls a budget of £10.6 billion ($20.9 billion)—up from £3.8 billion in 2001-02, and divided mostly between transport and policing (see chart). He also has powers over cultural matters and economic development; in 2006 he acquired more clout over housing, planning, the environment, and learning and skills. The biggest directly elected office in the country is also a bully pulpit.
It is true, says Tony Travers of the London School of Economics, that London's mayor is weaker than his counterparts in New York and Tokyo, and that much power, particularly over schools, remains with the city's 32 boroughs. But he is also relatively unconstrained by his municipal council. The London Assembly does little more than vote on the mayor's annual budget—a pygmy next to the mighty New York City Council.
Mr Livingstone, who won office as an independent in 2000 and retained it for Labour in 2004, has done better than many expected. He introduced a congestion charge in the centre of town (piquing the interest of other cities) and a more efficient ticketing system for public transport, expanding the bus service. He has enjoyed good relations with city financiers while redistributing wealth through planning decisions: developers are allowed to build in return for including affordable housing and other goodies for the poor. He also helped secure the 2012 Olympics for London and cash from the central government for a new cross-city train service.
The mayor has his critics, however. Some attack his policies. The council-tax precept which helps fund the Greater London Authority (GLA), along with central-government grants and public-transport ticket revenues, has risen. Congestion has not dropped hugely. The mayor's enthusiasm for development (he wants a big increase in housebuilding, and a new generation of skyscrapers) alarms many, and he is thought indifferent to the suburbs.
Mr Livingstone's style also draws ire. He is truculent, calling the American ambassador to London a “chiselling little crook” for not making embassy officials pay the congestion charge. He compared a Jewish journalist to a concentration-camp guard, and shared a platform with Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a controversial Muslim cleric. Some resent his grandstanding (he signed a deal to get oil from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez last year) and the public money he spends promoting the GLA and its works. There are also allegations that his London Development Agency made grants to dubious businesses linked to Lee Jasper, a close adviser, a charge that Mr Livingstone dismisses as a smear.
Yet he remains a formidable politician, and the Tories' choice of candidate to run against him is a risky one. Mr Johnson's journalistic career was stellar (he was editor of the Spectator, among other jobs) but punctuated by controversy. He became an MP, but concealing an affair led to his removal from the Tory front bench in 2004 by Michael Howard, the party's leader; David Cameron, Mr Howard's successor, restored him. His sense of fun knows few bounds (Mr Paddick calls him a “clown”), which critics say equips him ill to run a city with dire social problems.
Some Tories fear privately that a heavy defeat would reflect badly on Mr Cameron, who backed his schoolfellow's candidacy; others think a shambolic performance as mayor might be even more damaging. The former, at least, were heartened by a YouGov poll on January 3rd that put support for Mr Livingstone, at 45%, only one percentage point ahead of that for Mr Johnson (Mr Paddick lagged some way behind). Mr Johnson's own polling suggests that Londoners are now less willing to distinguish the mayor from the unpopular national Labour government. Mr Johnson kept a low public profile until the new year but visited every borough and recruited new staff in the meantime.
What would a win by either main candidate mean for London? Transport defined the previous two elections but is declining as a concern among Londoners. The manifesto that Mr Johnson launched on January 7th focuses on violent crime and the housing shortage; he will keep the congestion charge, but tinker with its enforcement. Mr Livingstone emphasises the environment, noting Mr Johnson's lack of greenery. He also wants to consolidate London's 32 boroughs into five but is unlikely to achieve this even if he wins.
A contest between two strong and controversial personalities could, for the first time since the office of mayor was created, make for a gripping election. Whoever Londoners choose to rule their roost will be a curious bird indeed.
economist.com
The London mayoral race
Political capital
Jan 10th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The contest to run Europe's biggest city is taking shape
Illustration by David Simonds
Who are the three candidates hoping to become Mayor of London?
Labour candidate - Ken Livingstone
Tory candidate - Boris Johnson
Liberal Democrat candidate - Brian Paddick
LONDONERS eager to prove that their metropolis really is, in Disraeli's words, “a roost for every bird” usually cite ordinary life at ground level: the diversity of races and languages, the yuppies, artists and immigrants juxtaposed in the same east London postcodes. They can now point to their aspiring rulers, too.
The third election for the mayor of London, an office created in 2000 for a city that had lacked its own administration since 1986, comes in May. The principal candidates are as curious as the population they hope to govern: a left-wing iconoclast who often favours globalisation (the Labour incumbent, Ken Livingstone), a shock-headed Old Etonian eccentric (the Conservative Boris Johnson) and a libertarian gay ex-policeman (the Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick), who made his name with a tolerant line on cannabis when he commanded a south London borough.
London: The contest to run Europe's largest city is taking shape
Many Londoners are indifferent as to who their mayor is (voting turnout was only 37% in 2004). Yet the office has come to matter. The mayor controls a budget of £10.6 billion ($20.9 billion)—up from £3.8 billion in 2001-02, and divided mostly between transport and policing (see chart). He also has powers over cultural matters and economic development; in 2006 he acquired more clout over housing, planning, the environment, and learning and skills. The biggest directly elected office in the country is also a bully pulpit.
It is true, says Tony Travers of the London School of Economics, that London's mayor is weaker than his counterparts in New York and Tokyo, and that much power, particularly over schools, remains with the city's 32 boroughs. But he is also relatively unconstrained by his municipal council. The London Assembly does little more than vote on the mayor's annual budget—a pygmy next to the mighty New York City Council.
Mr Livingstone, who won office as an independent in 2000 and retained it for Labour in 2004, has done better than many expected. He introduced a congestion charge in the centre of town (piquing the interest of other cities) and a more efficient ticketing system for public transport, expanding the bus service. He has enjoyed good relations with city financiers while redistributing wealth through planning decisions: developers are allowed to build in return for including affordable housing and other goodies for the poor. He also helped secure the 2012 Olympics for London and cash from the central government for a new cross-city train service.
The mayor has his critics, however. Some attack his policies. The council-tax precept which helps fund the Greater London Authority (GLA), along with central-government grants and public-transport ticket revenues, has risen. Congestion has not dropped hugely. The mayor's enthusiasm for development (he wants a big increase in housebuilding, and a new generation of skyscrapers) alarms many, and he is thought indifferent to the suburbs.
Mr Livingstone's style also draws ire. He is truculent, calling the American ambassador to London a “chiselling little crook” for not making embassy officials pay the congestion charge. He compared a Jewish journalist to a concentration-camp guard, and shared a platform with Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a controversial Muslim cleric. Some resent his grandstanding (he signed a deal to get oil from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez last year) and the public money he spends promoting the GLA and its works. There are also allegations that his London Development Agency made grants to dubious businesses linked to Lee Jasper, a close adviser, a charge that Mr Livingstone dismisses as a smear.
Yet he remains a formidable politician, and the Tories' choice of candidate to run against him is a risky one. Mr Johnson's journalistic career was stellar (he was editor of the Spectator, among other jobs) but punctuated by controversy. He became an MP, but concealing an affair led to his removal from the Tory front bench in 2004 by Michael Howard, the party's leader; David Cameron, Mr Howard's successor, restored him. His sense of fun knows few bounds (Mr Paddick calls him a “clown”), which critics say equips him ill to run a city with dire social problems.
Some Tories fear privately that a heavy defeat would reflect badly on Mr Cameron, who backed his schoolfellow's candidacy; others think a shambolic performance as mayor might be even more damaging. The former, at least, were heartened by a YouGov poll on January 3rd that put support for Mr Livingstone, at 45%, only one percentage point ahead of that for Mr Johnson (Mr Paddick lagged some way behind). Mr Johnson's own polling suggests that Londoners are now less willing to distinguish the mayor from the unpopular national Labour government. Mr Johnson kept a low public profile until the new year but visited every borough and recruited new staff in the meantime.
What would a win by either main candidate mean for London? Transport defined the previous two elections but is declining as a concern among Londoners. The manifesto that Mr Johnson launched on January 7th focuses on violent crime and the housing shortage; he will keep the congestion charge, but tinker with its enforcement. Mr Livingstone emphasises the environment, noting Mr Johnson's lack of greenery. He also wants to consolidate London's 32 boroughs into five but is unlikely to achieve this even if he wins.
A contest between two strong and controversial personalities could, for the first time since the office of mayor was created, make for a gripping election. Whoever Londoners choose to rule their roost will be a curious bird indeed.
economist.com