We have entered the fog of war stage of the London Mayoral elections. However, amidst the accusations and counter accusations, the rebuttals and the You tube clips we can, perhaps, see a real difference between the candidates in terms of their vision for London.
Ken Livingstone has had a vision for London. It is one that is characterised by a traditional view of a bureaucratic, state controlled centre dishing out public services to the people, favoring publicly owned mechanisms for managing London's transport infrastructure, and driven by the idea that reducing poverty and improving opportunity in London is one that can be solved by national and devolved government intervention. He has also pragmatically embraced globalisation; a conversion which sits uneasily with his political history. Livingstone's vision is characterised by what one might call a pragmatic municipal socialism. He has also continually stressed the strengths of London's multi-culturalism in a way which seems to emphasise differences between groups rather than what is common between them.
Johnson's vision for London, though not explicitly articulated, is beginning to emerge. In the idea of a Mayoral Fund, which is designed to direct resources to a network of voluntary organisations in an effort to fight poverty and deprivation in London, it is possible to see the outline. It is one that sees London as a diverse, entrepreneurial city and is convinced that the problems the capital faces can be solved, not by beneficent national and local governments, but by the people themselves through their initiative and free association with others and through networks of voluntary groups not constrained by the dead hand of a bureaucratic state.
The role of the Mayor is, therefore, as an enabler; creating the conditions in which London can build on its strengths and where, while celebrating diversity, the Mayor emphasises the common interests of all Londoners in addressing the problems this city faces as a free community in one of the most vibrant city states in the world.
This battle of visions is of pivotal political signficance.
Comments