Oh dear. I think Dobson has lost it. The constituency he has to appeal to right now is the one inside the Labour Party in London and this sort of talk is not going to get him anywhere. Dobson was making points (whether true or not is hardly relevant in the PR atmosphere we are in now) about tax rates & waste of money, which at least have some bearing on the issue (*) and AT THE SAME TIME he made his absurd "Red Ken is Red Scum" remark which will get all the press attention and just rile up London Labour Party members, many of whose main objection to Dobson is the very fact that he seems to have been parachuted in.
Support for Livingstone is now stronger than it was before. I know that's not the first time I've said that but it carries on being true. The only way that Livingstone can lose the Party's nomination, short of a scandal (and no Kevin, Gerry Healey is not a big enough one even if it ought to - it would have to be something the punters have heard of or care about - "Three in Bed With Beckham in Peckham" might just do it) is if the central party fix it.
So what's the betting on Glenda then? If Mandelson brings out the thumbscrews to keep Livingstone out, all the disgruntled members might just get pissed off enough not to vote for Dobson & so go to Jackson. I think I heard somewhere that she is already second place favourite in the constituency vote. (And whichever trade union it was that polled its members yesterday). And she would probably be a good mayor. (**)
You even get footnotes:
* OK - only a little - the new mayor will have very little power to direct significant sums of money to projects without Westminster approval & almost no power to raise money. But there are, perhaps, arguments to be made about common sense and probity.
** In so far as you can be a good mayor of London under these rules. If you think about what people in London actually want done by a mayor, most of it isn't on the cards. Looking at what people in inner London might want from a mayor, that is those issues on which they might have different experiences or needs from the rest of the country:
- A lot of people are worried about housing - that has to be the number two political issue in conversation round here after transport - but that's nothing to do with the new mayor. Decent public housing in London is almost dead. And there is no fix to the crisis in private housing - half the population want house prices to fall (so they can get one) and the other half want them to rise (because they've got one).
- There is a great fear of crime and vague worry about "drugs" and "youth". (Though maybe not as much as in other urban areas). And Black people in particular are really, really pissed off with the police. But again, there isn't much the new mayor can do about that other than to put moral pressure on the police. The real practical improvements, if any, that could be brought about by local government would have to be infrastructural - housing, schools, transport - two of which the mayor has nothing to do with.
- Folk in London are really pissed off with the lower quality of education here than in the rest of the country - but again nothing to do with the mayor, it is the boroughs (or to be honest central government using them as its agents). And, of course, housing is important here again, this time for teachers (Have any of you ever tried to recruit experienced teachers in inner London?)
- - the health service is seen as worse here than the rest of the country. That isn't strictly true - the bits that are failing badly are the A&E at hospitals (***) and the GP service (****) But they are the bits that people see. And when they blame the government (they do, they do) who do they think of first? I don't think it is Glenda Jackson.
So we are left with two things that the mayor can make a difference to.
- transport. Everyone knows this, which is why it is just about the only actual issue discussed in connection with the election. And what do inner Londoners want? They want serious traffic calming (which any mayor would give them if the government let them - remember most people don't have cars) and they want someone (preferably someone else) to pay billions of squids for lots of shiny new tube trains and lines. And they wouldn't mind the Routemaster busses back. All that depends on money - which depends on central government, not the mayor. Any likely mayor of London will gladly spend every penny government lets them have (& a few billion more, if they want to get re-elected) on public transport. Oh, and Londoners overwhelmingly don't want the tube privatised. Whoops - another one in the eye for Dobson.
- and finally, the only issue that counts in the election, because the only one that the candidates themselves have any power to affect, the mayor is supposed to give London an identity. A focus. Maybe even a "vision" (Oh, that is so 20th century!).
Rightly or wrongly, most Londoners seem happy with the focus they get from Livingstone. They think of him as colourful, friendly, not afraid of a bit of media attention, willing to stand up for them, for what it's worth he's a Londoner (most Londoners aren't of course :-) - the "cheeky chappie" image, although about 2 decades out of date (he's looking pretty middle-aged these days) does him no harm at all.
Dobson? He is perceived as boring, as a northerner (probably not very important but its there) and as not very clever. This is almost certainly WRONG but it is the feeling people have. The health ministry didn't help. People love to hate health & education ministers. They blame them for all sorts of things they have no power over. I think he did a competent and efficient job as honestly as he could - but that doesn't stop the voters blaming him.
Jackson? Well, another northerner. But, in public perception, a different kind of northerner. To the party hacks (what's left of them) there is the image of Barbara Castle their somewhere. And to the majority who know nothing of that, there is the Oscar. She's had nothing like as much government (small-g) experience as the other two, but people don't blame her for transport. Again, fairly or unfairly, it is seen as a money issue - and she had no control over the money. And if she turned up in Paris or New York at some sort of International Mega-Mayor Do would they put her on TV? You bet they would.
All unfair, all very little to do with "real" politics. The only two things that count are transport and charisma. On transport most voters would order them Ken 1st by some lengths, Glenda & Frank equal second. And on charisma, Glenda in front of Ken by a photo-finish, one other horse did not start.
*** I've had a 3 hour wait in A&E to be seen, twice. Once I was covered in blood - they were quite correct to keep me waiting - there were people dying in there, frantic mothers of sick babies who couldn't speak English, and police bringing in OD cases - a couple of broken ribs a bruised face & a cut in the scalp were low priority. If you ever have a potentially fatal accident try to arrange for it to happen as near Whitechapel as possible. But if it is not fatal, get in the first taxi you see and travel in any direction at all for as long as you can afford. And don't even think about MRSA.
**** I've never even seen my GP in 10 years. Or either of the other full-time permanent members of the practice. Every time I go there I get a long wait & a 5-minute rushed talk to a new locum.