Comment
Ken Gives Tories Wake Up Call
Ken Livingstone’s claims that comments by Roger Evans on his personal website represent Conservative policy are somewhat disingenuous.
Anyone reading the full comment can see that Evans speaking in a personal capacity, wasn’t articulating a formal policy and certainly wasn’t speaking in his capacity as Deputy Chair of the London Assembly’s transport committee.
However the Mayor’s response and decision to launch an entire media operation over the comments should serve as a wake up call to those Tory members who repeatedly claim Livingstone can be beaten by far less media savvy candidates.
On sites such as Conservative Home hitherto unknown candidates are put forward by a small but regular contingent of people who underestimate the challenge of unseating the incumbent.
But for the electoral deficit a weak Tory contender would cause the claims made for certain candidates would be as laughable as the recent magazine poll claiming David Cameron was setting the agenda in London.
This episode should serve as a stark warning as to the naivety of those beliefs. The time for debating the merits of an abolitionist candidate or which Kensington Councillor would make the better sacrificial lamb really has passed, the Tories need to bring out a big beast and do it soon.
In-depth: 
Comments RSSRecent Items
Categories
Tel: 020 7060 1986
Fax: 020 7060 3787
Email: feedback@mayorwatch.co.uk
I agree that Ken’s PR people are masters, they have to be to make him seem normal.
I’ve noticed that Roger Evans has written a strong rebuttal here:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/londonmayor/2006/12/roger_evans_am_.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/roger_evans/2006/12/on_the_buses_a_reply_to_ken.html
Quite amusingly you’re being accused of being a Tory. :D
Alex,
It’s not the first time we’ve been accused of being Tories.
During the Bromley by-election our questioning of the LibDem’s comments over Bob Neill’s ‘three jobs’ when at least two of their Assembly Members have second jobs led to one senior LibDem suggesting we needed their help in achieving “greater accuracy and balance”.
The implication in the rest of their email was that our comments were skewed by an non-existant affiliation with the Tories.
In the case of the comment on CiF the person posting it seems to be simply misunderstanding our motives in calling for a strong candidate which is simply a belief that the public deserve a real choice between the current Mayor and another credible contender.
Not because we think the Mayor has done a bad job but simply because all post holders should face a realistic challenge in order to secure a real mandate for the policies.
Ken had serious competition in 2000 and 2004, the campaigns and debates were all the better for it. Sadly it seems that unless you have an obvious party affiliation people will simply foist one on you.