There’s something a little bit distasteful about an unelected House of Lords (which recently rejected every option for the inclusion of directly elected members in their chamber) seeking to impose a term limit on the office of Mayor of London.
Just as with the threatened suspension of the Mayor last year it’s not for unelected and unaccountable appointees to determine who should hold public office. As Damian Hockney, Leader of the One London Party asked yesterday, “Why should a good mayor be thrown out after eight years (or even a bad one if there is no better alternative)?”
Baroness Hanham told the Lords “There is very little that can stop the mayor doing what he wants to do.” – the Baroness is wrong, what stops the Mayor “doing what he wants” is the need to be re-elected which, under the current preference system, requires the broadest coalition of voters to achieve.
This amendment may not be on the same scale as Conservative’s abolition of the GLC or Tony Blair’s botched attempts to block Livingstone’s candidacy in 2000 but it’s a political gift which allows him to perpetuate the idea of a politician so feared by his opponents that they’re prepared to legislate him out of the democratic process.
Mayor Livingstone’s claim that the move suggests the Tories “have decided they can’t win next year’s mayoral election through fair means so now they have resorted to changing the law to prevent a fair choice” should serve as a warning to David Cameron not to support the amendment when the bill returns to the Commons.
Anonymous says
Its not as if the Mayor can call a state of emergency and abolish elections. There are PR elections held every 4 years. This is one of the most democratic systems in the UK if not Europe. If there should be a balance to the Mayor’s power then change the laws to strengthen the Assembly. There is no logic to disallowing electors a choice.
Helen says
I disagree. The Mayor is elected but by a very small proportion of London’s population. That wouldn’t matter but even elected officials must have some system of checks and balances around them. He does not. The Assembly has no power to control him. In effect the Mayor of London is an elected dictator who can stay in that position indefinitely, creating numerous positions and organizations that depend on his good will. In the circumstances a limit on the number of terms – not, as it happens, a particularly undemocratic political move – would be the only control.
Pete says
Perhaps if Cameron hadn’t scared off all the credible Mayoral candidates he wouldn’t need to amend the bill in this way?
Anon says
There’s a dicussion about this on conservative home – seems many members are no more happy about the amendment than the author is here.
Andy, Dulwich says
Livingstone’s biggest electoral asset in 2000 was the myth of Thatcher abolishing the GLC because of him rather the truth of it being a wasteful, bloated and extreme body.
Blair’s attempts to stop him standing as Labour candidate further ensured his election but the truth is his status as “King over the water” was already secure thanks to the Tories.
This amendment threatens/promises to top up that status.
What the Tories seen incapable of understanding is that all politicians have a natural ‘best before’ date – we’ve seen that with Blair’s collapsing popularity in the past 12-18 months.
The best think with Ken Livingstone is to let him stay until the electorate get bored of him and kick him out.
To prevent him standing again would hand him with the legacy of never having lost an election – surely not what the Tories want?