So Boris Johnson seems to have won a second term on the basis that he's slightly less unpopular than Ken Livingstone. It was a close run thing with the big two miles clear of everybody else. From the point of view of the mayoral elections, probably more interesting was the fact that in the rest of the country, where major cities were voting on the principal of actually having an elected mayor, all but one rejected the idea. You have to wonder if the experience of Londoners, and the unedifying sight of the major players yelling at each other, had anything to do with how those votes went.
On local councils, the usual mid-governmental term took effect, with whoever's in opposition kicking the governing party's arse, as is often the case. (Or arses in this case, as it's the Lib Dems, beginning to reap what they sowed, whose rear end has been most comprehensively reddened this time round.) It's difficult to know if this represents a genuine rejection of the policy of cuts that are biting so deeply or is merely the standard response to an unpopular government. As all governments seem to be unpopular mid-term, we'll probably have to wait for a general election to see this play itself out to a conclusion. Or at least, the conclusion of a single rotation of this political wheel.
In the meantime, the best we London residents can hope for is that Boris continues to not do too much damage. Livingstone suggested that, in winning the mayoral election, Johnson has also settled the next Tory leadership battle. But with his four-year term certain to run beyond the next general election, I'm not sure how that's possible. Livingstone, just as he did with the tone of his campaign, got that one wrong I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment