For European parliament and local council candidates alike, the current electoral campaign has been a long hard slog. Making people aware that local and European elections are taking place and justifying the existence of the two levels of government has been the real battle. However, there is one electoral campaign which has not suffered at the hands of media and public apathy. The London mayoral contest has a number of advantages over its electoral cousins. First, unlike the Euro and local elections, the London mayoral ballot paper on 10 June will be populated not by a horde of faceless names but by a familiar set of personalities.
Love them or hate them, the names Ken Livingstone and Steve Norris have become synonymous with the capital. Second, Ken Livingstone, primarily through the implementation of the congestion charge, has inextricably linked electoral results with policy implementation visible on the street. Put another way, unlike the local or European elections, the mayoral race is seen as having noticeable consequences for the electorate. As a democrat, regardless of party affiliation this can only be seen as a good thing.
So who is best suited to run western Europe’s biggest city? With a population of over six million, the new mayor will preside over a community bigger than the majority of states that joined the EU last month. While his or her political power will pale in comparison to their counterparts in New York, they will still carry significant weight in areas such as transport and policing. Ken Livingstone highlighted this with his decision to implement the congestion charge in London. A highly contentious decision at the time, it has now matured into a strong example of the ability of the mayor to create important and beneficial changes to Londoners’ lives.
The upcoming election seems to be far harder to call than the last. Ken’s ‘cheeky chappee’ persona has been somewhat muted by his return to the Labour party. The Iraq factor may also play a part in the election even though Livingstone remains staunchly anti-war. Steve Norris, his closest rival, is sniffing blood. He is staking a large part of his campaign on the idea that Labour is going to be hit hard in the local elections over Iraq and that this will be reciprocated in London.
His second trump card is policing. Much like a growing amount of Conservative campaigning, Norris is trying to play on voters’ fear by arguing London is an increasingly dangerous city to live in and that a stronger approach to policing is needed. In the manifesto, this translates into a Giulianiesque zero tolerance rhetoric with a promise to crack down on everyone from vandals to fare dodgers. However whilst London is no haven of tranquillity, neither is it New York of the 80s. In fact London has seen a fall in street crime and robbery as well as gun-related incidents. There is undoubtedly a lot of work to be done but crime is not as rife as Norris argues and not as critical as to warrant an authoritarian approach to policing like the one seen in New York under Giuliani. By contrast Livingstone is employing a more measured and less alarmist approach with a promise to continue increasing police numbers, coupled with the establishment of dedicated neighbourhood police teams.
On transport policy, Norris is equally reactionary. His main promise is, unsurprisingly, to scrap the congestion charge. It is hard to work out if this is a populist move or not. The pledge will undoubtedly please the Land Rover-driving Chelsea set. There will also be a certain amount of justified support from tradesman who feel hard done by. But for every person in agreement with Norris’ stance over the congestion charge, there are at least as many who have seen its benefits, not least the London residents who now live in a city roughly 30 percent less polluted and visibly less congested. Livingstone also has a clear view on where his transport policy for London is going; Cheaper bus fares, the Crossrail project and Oyster prepay show a coherent and forward-thinking approach to transport even if its one which is not wholly supported by Londoners. Furthermore, with the exception of the abolition of the congestion charge and the pledge to negotiate a no-strike agreement with tube unions, Norris’ transport manifesto looks decidedly weak and devoid of any realistic plan. Norris’ potentially embarrassing links to controversial construction giant Jarvis also prevent him from really challenging Livingstone on his tube policies.
Overall, a pattern has emerged during the campaign. Livingstone is seen as the city mayor and Norris the mayor of the suburbs. While Livingstone has helped the inner city in areas such as urban renewal, policing, and transport he is viewed by some as having neglected London’s suburbs and commuter belt. By contrast, Norris is someone who is seen as capable of giving middle class and affluent Londoners a fair deal whilst running the city in a more business like manner.
Whilst Norris has gone on the offensive, Livingstone has let his achievements of the past four years do the talking. Moreover, Norris makes no apology for being a ‘businessman first and a politician second’, this is arguably reflected in his rather commercial and individualistic approach to mayoral politics as opposed to Livingstone’s preference to see London as a community.
The other main candidate in the race is Simon Hughes. The Liberal Democrat candidate claims to be the only candidate from the major parties to come to the electoral table without any vested interests. He may have no links to interest groups but his near-miss in the last Lib Dem leadership election and his hesitancy to count himself out of any future leadership race may suggest he has a rather unique personal vested interest in the mayoral job himself. A successful tenure as mayor of Britain’s largest city would surely only enhance his future leadership credentials.
Whoever wins on 10 June, they will know the task ahead is not an easy one. Londoners are notoriously demanding and their city is one in dire need of continued infrastructure improvement. It is, however, a sign of political progress that Londoners now have an opportunity through the ballot box to decide who it is that takes on this challenge.