I can’t think of any positive reasons why anyone would vote for Boris Johnson for London Mayor. What concerns me, though, is the distinct possibility that Compass – who have launched a ‘dossier’ (PDF) about the Johnson threat – will find one by mistake.
Compass, and everyone else in the Labour Party, ought to be offering positive reasons why Ken Livingstone should be re-elected, as well as impressing on Ken the need to avoid needlessly alienating many of his party’s supporters by (for one thing) chumming-up with foreign dictators – part of the reason why he isn’t a shoo-in (a mere 7-4 on) right now. We really must avoid insulting the electorate’s intelligence by claiming, as Doreen Lawrence (why?) has, that Johnson they mustn’t even think of standing voting for Johnson because cities have a ‘unity’ (perhaps in the same way that cities can be offended, as Liverpool’s spokesmen once claimed it to be) that would be damaged by the election of someone with divergent views. Sorry, but can such sentimental tripe possibly convince anyone over the legal voting age? Adults conduct politics based upon policy (OK, fine, but they should), not identity, and we need to prepare for the day when the Conservatives decide to stand a proper politician as candidate for Mayor. Or PM, for that matter.
Via Tom. Tyger is somewhat in agreement.
Update: fixed an error; added a link.
as well as impressing on Ken the need to avoid needlessly alienating many of his party’s supporters by (for one thing) chumming-up with foreign dictators
Okay, evidence please: which foreign dictators has Ken being chumming up to?
Also, as regards popular support, can you cite any polling evidence that Ken’s foreign policy has any real impact on his electoral chances? I bet you can’t. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Ken’s foreign policy, I think he’s made the calculation that many in London are not particularly bothered about that.
So when you say “alienating many of his party’s supporters”, I presume you mean you and a small group of Decents. Is Ken bovvered? Don’t think so.
It’s pretty odd how you can manage to misconstrue and misrepresent Doreen Lawrence’s comments. Is it deliberate?
According to the Guardian:
“Ms Lawrence, who does not normally become involved in party politics, said she had been moved to make the criticisms by her anger at Mr Johnson’s attitude to the Macpherson inquiry in 1999 into the Metropolitan police’s failure to bring her son’s killers to justice 14 years ago…
Ms Lawrence said: “Boris Johnson is not an appropriate person to run a multi-cultural city like London. Think of London, the richness of London, and having someone like him as mayor would destroy the city’s unity. He is definitely not the right person to even be thinking to put his name forward.
“Those people that think he is a lovable rogue need to take a good look at themselves, and look at him. I just find his remarks very offensive. I think once people read his views, there is no way he is going to get the support of any people in the black community.”
Bloggers4Labour, the issue is about racism actually, because her comments are rooted in the original Stephen Lawrence case and subsequent inquiry which certainly was about race. Its about how racism affects black people.
Bloggers4Labour can feel free to stick his head in the sand if he so chooses, but racism is an issue that affects black people and Doreen Lawrence’s comments are based on her and her family’s experience of racism and also her view that Johnson is not capable of dealing with these issues properly, threatening the unity that is crucial in confronting racism.
Bloggers4Labour is either engaging in a deliberate misrepresentation of what Doreen Lawrence said, or he is simply ignorant of the issues. Why should black people raising the legitimate issue of racism simply be described as illegitimately playing identity politics?
It’s interesting to note that Bloggers4Labour actually italicised the phrase “mustn’t even think” (of voting for Johnson) when of course Doreen Lawrence never said that. She was simply stating that in her view Johnson is not up to the job for the reasons she gave.
(a) ‘”mustn’t even think” (of voting for Johnson)’ is indeed wrong, and I notice I didn’t even link to the original Guardian article. Will amend that shortly.
(b) I still don’t like this ‘unity’ idea: as if it isn’t already a legal requirement to treat people equally regardless of race, or indeed an individual moral imperative, but instead something that belongs to, and can be enforced by, the community/majority.
I don’t think, in general, that the majority can justifiably enforce moral views on individuals that aren’t enshrined in law.
As for whether BJ is generally a racist, I don’t want to be drawn either way, though it’s highly unlikely that he is, even though he’s clearly made some extraordinarily crass and demeaning remarks in the past. Until such time as the law forbids him from standing for election on such grounds, it’s up to him whether he does, and takes his chance with the electorate.