Recent discussions on the subject of potential Conservative Mayoral candidates have drawn comments from a small number who believe that what they see as an absence of a ‘serious’ candidate allows them to instead contest the 2008 election on the basis of a referendum on the position itself.
Conservative Home reports that in answer to this suggestion comes the candidacy of Dr Lee Rotherham. According to CH Rotherham “will fight on a campaign of binning Labour’s extra tier of London government.”
It seems a safe bet that the selection panel who are to vet and interview the hopefuls will not put Dr Lee on the final list of candidates Londoners are to be asked to vote on. However let’s for a moment imagine that a Conservative candidate opposed to the continued existence was somehow selected.
He or she is likely to be a lone voice, Labour’s support for a Mayor can be taken for granted and there’s no evidence that the Liberal Democrats or Greens are likely to campaign for abolition. The prospect of a cross party coalition against a Conservative proposal to abolish London Government has a certain historical resonance, Londoners could safely expect a revival of the ‘Say no to no say’ campaign which opposed abolition of the GLC.
Much as some Conservative voters may wish otherwise, there is no widespread dislike of the current Mayor or the Greater London Authority. The Congestion Charge, or the “Ken tax” as some Tory hopefuls insist on calling it, has not suffered the widespread civil disobedience which opponents predicted.
Supporters of certain potential Mayoral candidates insist that the Congestion Charge lacks public support, however in the real world all the evidence points the other way. In 2004 Steve Norris promised to “scrap the congestion charge scheme on Day One of becoming mayor” – offering a real choice to Londoners. A clear majority voted to retain Ken and the charge.
Unlike the 1980’s version, the public’s views on ‘Say no to no say part 2’ would be heard at the ballot box. In a race where second preference votes are the decider, isolation on such a major issue offers little prospect for Conservative electoral success.
Martin says
Tarian
Your citing of the figure 24% is slightly disengenuos in that it ignores the percentage of people who voted in the Mayoral and Assembly elections.
At the last set of elections turnout for those electing a Mayor was was 36.95, an increase of over 2% on the 2000 turnout.
Votes in 2004 for the Assembly were slightly higher than those for the Mayor: 36.97%, again an increase of 2.63% on the 2000 figures.
(source: London Elects).
I’d be interested in seeing your evidence that “A candidate who offered to do less, much less could tap into a huge reservoir of latent support.”
Tarian says
It is very presumptious to assume that the majority of people in Greater London want or approve of the Mayor and Greater London Authority.
Only 24% of all electors actually voted for this monstrosity.
Outer Londoners in particular do not identify with the Zone 1 policies.
Transport for London is widely seen as trampling over local sensibilities by dumping unwanted bus-stops outside people’s houses, abolishing “hail-and-ride” services that are popular with older people and wasting money resurfacing main roads while side-streets crumble.
A candidate who offered to do less, much less could tap into a huge reservoir of latent support.