If it survives the next two years – a big if, given the emerging unhappiness of some Liberal Democrat MPs – the most important test of the new government’s popularity will be the election for London mayor in 2012. Two years ago, Ken Livingstone’s defeat in his bid to be re-elected to the country’s most powerful directly elected office accurately foreshadowed the general election results: a stinging defeat for Labour, although a performance in the capital rather better than that which occurred elsewhere in the country.
For both legitimate (the high concentration of marginal seats in the capital) and less valid reasons (the media’s metropolitan bias), whether Labour can succeed in ejecting Boris Johnson from City Hall will be a crucial milestone on the road to the next general election. For that reason, we ask for the forbearance of our readers who do not live and work in London and who find discussion of this topic another example of the warping effect of the Westminster bubble on our national political conversation.
Given the wider importance that will inevitably be attached to the outcome of the mayoral election, Labour must choose its candidate with care. Indeed, if the party succeeds in winning the election, the mayor (as Boris was for the Tories until David Cameron’s arrival in Downing Street) will not simply be one of Labour’s highest profile figures, his or her administration will be viewed as a model for the conduct of a future Labour government.
It is, therefore, extremely unfortunate that, without explanation or adequate justification, the contest to choose Labour’s mayoral candidate has been brought forward to run concurrently with the leadership election. Party members in London deserved the opportunity – which could easily have been provided in the autumn – to debate and make their choice without the justifiable distraction that the leadership election will cause.
But more than this, the mayoral selection process is a massive missed opportunity. Over the past year, Progress has been at the forefront of the campaign to introduce open primaries. Labour should, and could, have taken the brave and radical step of choosing its mayoral candidate through an open primary. Indeed, an open primary would have been particularly suited to this particular election. The Supplementary Vote system by which London elects its mayor requires candidates to attract the second preference votes of supporters of other candidates. An open primary would have allowed those putting themselves forward for the Labour nomination to demonstrate the breadth of their appeal beyond the party, while providing the party itself with an opportunity to register new supporters. It would, moreover, have been an early demonstration of Labour’s commitment to the new politics which the party’s leadership contenders are pledging themselves to foster.
Thus far, however, the selection process bears all the hallmarks of the old politics. As the former London minister Jim Fitzpatrick has detailed in a long and disturbing letter to Labour’s general secretary, Ray Collins, the selection ‘doesn’t meet the fairness and openness tests’. As Fitzpatrick notes, the process being used is based not on party rules which have been adopted by conference, but on ‘guidance’ rushed through the National Executive Committee. The procedures are unlike any used for other party contests: neither the OMOV employed for other local government mayoral selections (which, short of an open primary, would be our preference) nor the tripartite electoral college adopted for the leadership election and Welsh and Scottish elections. And, charges Fitzpatrick, it appears that one of the candidates, Oona King (of whom he is a supporter), is being ‘deliberately kept in the dark about the process’.
As in 2000 when Ken Livingstone was denied the nomination, a selection process which is perceived to be unfair is deeply damaging to the eventual winner. Given the manner in which he suffered in that contest, we expect that Ken will soon add his voice to those which are expressing their concerns about the manner in which this year’s selection is being conducted.
Most importantly of all, this disputed process is a distraction from the real issue: which candidate has the best chance to lead Labour to victory in two year’s time. We retain an open mind, but believe that the criteria are clear.
First, given the pasting it took in the outer London suburbs in the last mayoral election (and indeed the general election), Labour needs a candidate who can bring London together and demonstrate an appeal which goes beyond the party’s inner London heartlands.
Second, Labour needs a candidate who can show that they will make this a contest about the future. That requires a candidate willing to demonstrate that he or she has learned the lessons of why Labour lost last time, is willing to be open and honest about them, and does not view the election simply as an opportunity to settle unresolved scores from two years ago.
Finally, Labour needs a candidate who will use the prominence that will be afforded to them if they win back City Hall, to broaden and enhance the party’s appeal nationally in the run-up to the next general election.
Like party members throughout London, Progress will be watching this contest closely. We’ll make our preference clear in the next issue.