Don! – this Labour party has had the most poisonous effect on the families and vulnerable people that you describe above. You fall into the ‘Labour’s bad, but the Tories are worse’ trap when you write as you have above.

The 2006 local elections were classic – you are right to point them out. I was a union activist at Hammersmith and Fulham then – in a council with a Labour administration – and probably one of the errant lefties you refer to, although I wasn’t part of any active movement to thwart Labour – wasn’t aware there was such a thing.

People in the borough and the staff at Hammersmith – who were often also local voters – had turned their backs on Labour in disgust – because of the Iraq war, foundation hospitals, the privatisation agenda – you name it. The council itself was deeply unpopular – it was trying to cut advice centres and housing centres, push all IT staff into a joint venture initiative with a private company, wash its hands of a monstrous funding gap that had appeared in its already unpopular Almo, etc. Our union members felt utterly betrayed by Labour and were climbing the goddamn walls.

When the Labour administration came to us, as the branch officials, to demand our support in the coming election, we simply couldn’t give it to them – not least because our members would have taken us out. Do you really think they would have gone out and voted for the massively unpopular administration that was threatening their jobs and public services just because we told them to? Would they hell. You’re dreaming. We had been recruiting more and more members BECAUSE of our opposition to New Labour’s unpopular policies, not because we supported Labour. We supported the people who traditionally voted Labour.

I can’t say this loudly enough – the reason Labour lost so many councils in 2006 – and has lost some four million voters and 200,000 members, last time I looked – was because its local and national policy programmes were and are so goddamned unpopular with its support base. The party must take responsibility for the fallout from its approach – not keep trying to blame a handful of hairy activists who actually had and have little influence.

The reason the Tories get in is not because people like me actively jeer the Labour party for its betrayal of its voting base – who the hell am I, after all – but because that voting base can’t be bothered turning out to vote Labour anymore. A few swingers vote Tory, and there you have it.

What we need here in my view is more in the way of proportional representation, certainly on the national scene. We will not get that sort of change by sitting back quietly and trying to tell people that they ought to stick with our side simply because the other side is worse. Nobody was ever inspired by that kind of rhetoric – ie ‘our psychopath is slightly less psychopathic than their psychopath, so choose ours.’

I agree with you that the Tories will have a devastating effect on the lives of most of us – I spent much of last year writing about the awful effect that the new administration at Hammersmith has had there. You are absolutely right about that.

The problem is, the Labour party has alienated its natural voting base and seems hell-bent on continuing to do so. Anyone can see that Brown’s administration is doomed – doesn’t matter how Toynbee or Kettle et al try to style it. That administration simply refuses to take a leftwing stance on any topic – so utterly has it bought into this horrible battle for the middle ground and the halfwits who populate it. At the very least, we should continue to agitate so that Labour does not continue to take our vote by default for granted.

I agree, though, that Ken has had some positive effects – you’ll note above that I applaud the bendy buses and congestion charge. I’m not a complete idiot. I’m interested in hearing what Paddick has to say, though. He might be a dolt as someone above suggests, but I’d like to hear from him myself.

I would expect him to announce some reasonably serious advisors/cabinet members – whatever they are called – before the election to assuage some of those concerns. Though we’ll have to see.

(Hopefully more serious than Ken’s Socialist Action crowd anyway!)

Kate/Alan – I am just totally baffled by your views on this. Livingstone is on our side on civil liberties, environmental issues, the need for a living wage, social housing, affordable transport and a whole range of other issues that matter to working-class Londoners and ought to matter to lefties. Boris Johnson is on the other side on all of these issues.

In 2006, lots of lefties decided to have a protest against Labour and helped let the Tories in to running a whole load of councils, including many in London, some in alliance with the Lib Dems. Kate’s written about some of the effects of this, the cuts in services to the most vulnerable, privatisation, closing down organisations which work for social justice and obstruction to new housing which would help families living three or four in one room. If lefties in London don’t vote Labour, then the Tories will get to use the Mayor’s considerable powers to do more of all of this.

*hides*

Was Brian invited to stand by party high ups? Probably.

Does that actually matter? No way. Of the three, he’s the closest to having real life non-career politician experience, and he’s also a proper real gut liberal with an attachment to online geekery (odds are good he’ll read this thread BTW, he’s got a link to it).

I need to seriously rethink the thrust of my “why you should vote for Brian” post as it was meant as the “stop Ken” plan but now appears to need to be “stop Boris”, which is harder to actually write. I do know that if I were in London I’d be voting Brian first, Ken 2nd—you have the chance of real change, but aren’t risking bumbler in.

I’d love to see Boris in a liberal coalition Govt, but not actually in charge of something in his own right with a mandate to make decisions, that’d be too scary.

Hands up anyone who’s surprised? … Anyone?

… but then again, I’d totally go for Charles Kennedy if he ran, for the simple reason that he’s such a laugh. I totally love him.

Does that make me cheap and nasty?

DON’T ANSWER THAT, YOU BUGGERS

I once commented on a Tory blog (shame on me) about why I think BJ-the-Mayor-Bear is not fit to run London. I said he was thoroughly nice chap, but utterly ill-equipped – as his experience is merely journalistic – to be mayor. I was attacked on the grounds that Boris should be mayor because he’s a thoroughly nice chap. *sigh*

I see the role as being executive in nature.

This is why a career politician such as Livingstone is utterly unfit. [personally I think being a career politician should disqualify someone from pretty much everything by its very nature, but hey, one must be positive!]

I see Paddick as being a calculated choice – being an ex copper. I expected more of the Lib Dems (why, I don’t know).

Each and every mainstream candidate is an insult to the people of London.

BTW. When does Mike Bloomberg’s tenure expire?

Although I am alone on that it would appear. Sadly.

The congestion charge has been pretty good, too. Much more pleasant walking round London minus some of the cars & saving the planet as well, etc. Very nice.

The point about the bendy buses being a relevant issue as one of the few things under the mayor’s direct control is right, but we all know that the things outside the mayor’s control will have at least as much bearing. Striking Ken out will be seen as a a good hit on the Labour party, and rightly so. I personally dislike this Labour party so much – and feel that it has betrayed its membership & core vote so badly – that there’s no way I can vote for Ken. I don’t want Boris, but I don’t want the Labour party to feel that it can rely on my vote, either, just coz I don’t want Boris. They rely on that already.

Why are they a big issue?
Well, it is something which is completely in the mayor’s control – unlike crime or the economy or housing, no matter how much credit Ken tries to claim for whatever improvements may or may not have occurred in the latter.
They also remind everyone that Ken lied when he promised not to ditch the routemaster!

No, it’s just an institutional prejudice against Liberal Democrats. That’s why the argument is so insistently being framed in terms of the false choice of Ken v Boris.

I find it a complete joke that Greens don’t have their policies (environmental or otherwise) put under the microscope in the same way as all the others, but then if they will continue behaving like an overgrown, overblown and flatulent pressure group why should anyone take them seriously and take the time to pick over their weaknesses?

It’s just not a surprise that the Greens have agreed to accept a role as a willing accomplice to an alliance with criminal Ken in order to get their snouts in the trough and thereby make their supposed aspirations a hostage to electoral fortune – I can’t believe anyone is so foolish!

On Paddick, I can’t get my head round the fact that his record as a top copper is dismissed so lightly – is there still some institutional prejudice against an openly gay politician holding the reins of responsibility, rather than being forced to accept being confined to No2?

Before I make my mind up I’ll live in hope that I see some party propaganda which doesn’t push the emotional buttons of wish fulfilment and instead addresses consensus issues in practical and reasoned terms.

We can but dream!

Insert a “motor” into that before “cyclist” and you have my answer…

And no, I don’t like bendy buses. I don’t live in London so my opinion doesn’t count anyway, but as a cyclist I think they’re too bloody dangerous; I know I wouldn’t want one of them trying to overtake me on a bend……