A right mayor of a problem

Now that the dust has settled in the round of elections, referendums and general psephological mayhem, it's time to look at one of the apparent contradictions of the Morning Star's position.

This paper has gone on record as opposing even the concept of directly elected mayors and yet it supported Ken Livingstone in his ultimately unsuccessful contest against London clown prince Boris Johnson.

So why did this paper oppose directly elected mayors in the first place?

The answer's easy enough.

The concept was introduced into this country by our old bete noir Tony Blair at the turn of the millennium.

The Labour government led by Tony Blair passed the Local Government Act 2000, which introduced the option of directly elected mayors, of which there are now 16 functioning in England and Wales, with the highest profile going to Mr Johnson in London.

As far as we can tell, Blair imported the concept from the US, as a typical product of his fascination with all things Atlanticist.

As a grafted-on import, it had and still has no currency within the structures of British democracy and no relevance to the efficient running of the great cities of the land except inasmuch as it impedes the effective functioning of local democracy.

As can be seen with the London mayoral elections, contests end up being between personalities rather than about policies.

Who in their right senses, for example, would elect Boris Johnson with his track record of fare rises, rather than Livingstone, whose Fares Fair policies are a matter of record?

Only an electorate bemused by personality and publicity stunts, seduced by a larger-than-life buffoon, a posh boy who has managed to live down, or rather to exploit, his privileged background to somehow build a sympathetic public persona out of it.

His ineffective clown exterior has been ultimately successful in masking a Tory blue in tooth and claw.

Perhaps the best example of the vulnerability of the system was, however, in Hartlepool, where Stuart Drummond won the mayoralty in 2002 dressed as H'Angus, the local football team's mascot, in a monkey suit and pledging to provide free bananas for schoolchildren - a pledge that he unfortunately never fulfilled.

This was much to the evident displeasure of then Hartlepool MP Peter Mandelson, who attempted to forbid Drummond ever again to wear the monkey suit.

He hasn't worn the suit again, but has managed to get re-elected for a second and third term - which tells you something about the system of elected mayors.

On a more serious level, the concept acts to destroy the democratic system which sees governing groups in local councils elect a leader of their group who then becomes council leader.

This destruction acts as a serious obstacle to councils effectively opposing privatisations and central government cuts, which may well have figured in Blair's original reasoning, since "old Labour" groups on local authorities were far and away the most effective check on his new Labour excesses.

And direct election serves to allow the leadership of the party to intervene far more effectively to select and to parachute in its own candidates - something that Blair and his new Labour minions were always notorious for.

David Cameron, true Blair clone with a Tory face that he is, was firmly in favour of the scheme.

But his ambition of a "Boris in every city" was, thank goodness, overwhelmingly dumped last week when voters in nine English cities rejected the idea in referendums.

Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield, Wakefield, Coventry and Bradford voted No, and only Bristol bucked the trend.

In Birmingham, voters were against by 57.8 per cent to 42.2 per cent, Manchester by 53.24 per cent to 46.76 per cent and Nottingham by 57.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent. Coventry saw 63.58 per cent opposing it and just 36.42 per cent in favour.

In Bradford the vote was 44.87 per cent for and 55.13 per cent against while in Leeds a hefty 63.35 per cent opposed the plan.

So why did the Morning Star back Livingstone for London mayor?

Well, quite simply because the contest was unavoidable and the prospect of a Tory mayor was something to be fought against at all costs.

Boycotting such elections is a far different matter to opposing their foundation and, on all counts, a Livingstone mayoralty was infinitely preferable to a Johnson one.

It shold be noted that Livingstone himself was by no means an enthusiastic proponent of the mayoral system, going on record in the Observer immediately before the election as saying that he infinitely preferred the "cabinet" system in which the Labour group selected their leader.

But, like this paper, Mr Livingstone accepted the reality that Londoners deserved to be defended against a predatory Tory administration.

Regrettably, Livingstone failed by just a percentage point or two on the second preference votes and so the population of London will have to suffer under a mayor who poses as more progressive than his national masters, but is in essence as right wing as the worst of them.

The 67-year-old veteran announced his retirement from electoral politics immediately following the result and may have felt a sense of inner relief. But London will be the poorer for it, with the swingeing rises in transport and housing costs that can now be expected under a Johnson administration.

And the capital will be poorer as well in the loss of a radical voice for working people, a man who kept Londoners at the centre of his political vision throughout a long and effective political career.

Given some political misjudgements which put him at odds with unions during his two terms in office, he will be remembered with a mixture of affection and irritation.

But it is to be hoped that history deals kindly with him.