Monday 30 April 2012

Mayoral election is Hobson's choice

This Thursday sees elections in London for both the Mayoralty and the London Assembly (not that most people have the faintest idea who sits on that body, nor its powers). It does, as is often the way in British politics, appear to be a fight between red and blue, with the other candidates some distance back.

I freely admit that, last time round, I voted for Livingstone as my way of hoping Boris J wouldn't get in. It left a slightly sour taste in my mouth, but I viewed him as the lesser of two evils. It's all very well being a likeable buffoon, but it should be remembered that the position of Mayor of London carries considerable power and influence and should perhaps not therefore be given to such an individual. I suspect that his election was, in part, a reflection of how unpopular Livingstone was (and is).

The fact is, though, that this time round, given the lengths Ken seems to have gone to to make himself appear even more the bumptious git, it feels impossible to vote for him. He's moved his opponent to screaming apoplexy with supposed 'lies' about his financial affairs and generally behaved in the worst traditions of smear politicians everywhere. I simply don't know whether I'll have it in me to vote for him when I come to stand in the booth on May 3rd.

What, then of the others? Boris? No chance – like I said, the fact that his old-school affable idiocy makes for good telly does not make him a viable option as a candidate. The best that can be said about his period in office is that he doesn't appear to have done much long-term damage. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

That leaves Paddick. For personal reason, I can't and won't vote Lib Dem. Those of you who know me will probably know why. So he's out.

Green? No - she has absolutely no chance of winning, and no clear statement on policies for anything. Their candidate's only election strategy seems to be to utter the word 'sustainable' as many times as possible, without actually having to outline any actions that may be taken, or ruling out any that may not.

BNP? Christ no. They should be congratulated for managing to persuade an immigrant to stand for them, but you've got to wonder whether the bloke's actually got a grasp of their own policies. The BNP may have a chance of an Assembly member with the voting patterns of certain deprived parts of London, but if they ever have a London Mayor, I'm off to Spain.

UKIP? More dangerous than the BNP in their way, because they're not known as racists and have, unlike Griffin's lot, the ability to speak faintly articulately. The evil which presents a public face of harmlessness is the most worrisome of all. I'd sooner vote Raving Loony. (Where is the Raving Loony candidate, by the way? I sincerely hope they're not disappearing from our election screens - they're the only ones who truly show up politics for what it is).

Then there's the half-dozen independents, of whom Siobhan Benita seems to have garnered the most attention. They really do have no chance, and I worry about any independent's lack of political experience. Have they the connections to grease the wheels? It's also difficult to garner any real appreciation of their policies when they're so excluded from the mainstream media.

Where, then, does that leave me? This is probably the first time in my adult life than I'll enter a voting booth with a genuine desire to write 'none of the above' on the damn slip. I'm not going to abstain from voting, I've always railed against doing such a thing, but part of me thinks that 'no winner', given the likely terrible turn-out, should be declared. If no candidate can be considered to have a mandate from the voters, perhaps the role should be mothballed and the powers handed to the Assembly until a candidate people actually feel able to vote for emerges.

No comments:

Post a Comment