Is it enough to not be the Tories?

This week's spending review is likely to unleash a nasty raft of cuts to government spending. The real effects of this will be felt over the next two to three years as services are gradually withdrawn. The mirror with Geoffrey Howe's deeply unpopular budget of 1981. Despite tax increases and public spending cuts being incredibly unpopular Labour failed to benefit because it wasn't focused on offering a feasible and credible alternative. What makes George Osbourne's spending cuts any different from those of Howe almost 20 years prior? Will an unpopular Tory government automatically propel Labour back into power in five years?

There are many arguments against the Tory plans:

• Osbourne's plans will hurt and I don't expect the cuts to be "fair". The botched cuts to child benefit recently announced show that many of the plans will be ill thought out. 
• The cuts are too hard and too fast not just from the Labour Party. This is my view. Taking so much money out of the economy will stall growth. It is also short-sighted to suggest that £1 spent by the government is £1 gone from the coffers. Much of that £1 will come back in VAT, corporation and income taxes. That won't happen now. Instead the economy will shrink, meaning recovery will become recession.
• The state's finances are not worse than expected. It is disingenuous of ministers like Vince Cable to claim that the current government finances are worse than expected. The state of the public finances are public and widely known. He is simply playing the fall guy for cuts and policies, such as tuition fees, that the Tories wanted to put in place anyway.
• The political problem for Labour is that the cuts will be blamed on the poor state of the nation's finances, which is Labour's fault, according to the Tories. That narrative will ignore the huge investment made to recapitalise the banks and in public spending to keep the economy going. Labour needs to respond that this was unavoidable. 

Significant though these are, none of these counter claims are sufficient for Labour to benefit from the Tories' unpopularity alone. Current polls show Labour edging into a small lead. To build on and sustain this, Labour needs to present a viable and credible alternative.  With a new leader that may take time, but having a leader at all is progress from the previous five months of an "empty chair." The quicker Ed Miliband can start setting out his alternative plan the better.

What does a credible alternative plan look like? It needs to show that both the deficit and growth are important. Cutting the deficit so fast could be a zero sum game, cancelling out growth that will itself increase tax receipts and reduce the deficit.

Labour's plan has to, and will, accept that the deficit needs to be tackled. It also needs to show that the better off would pay more than those in the middle and at the bottom. It needs to be fair and sensible.

If Labour's response is good enough perhaps David Cameron will start looking for a "popularity" war like the Falklands...oh, we can't afford one.

A loss to politics

Like many I am disappointed that David Miliband has relegated himself to the backbenches. I mentioned before his decision was announced that many politicians before him have been defeated in leadership contest then gone on to serve under their conqueror.

In the 1980s Denis Healy lost the Labour leadership election to Michael Foot but became his deputy. Kenneth Clarke lost the Tory contest three times, yet didn't shy away from the front line. In today's Telegraph Peter Oborne argues that there is more vanity in politics today than back in the day. He is partially right. I think the party and cause matters more than anything else.

Perhaps the family dimension makes this case different. I hoped that a commitment to the Labour cause would have won through. The media might get tired of the soap opera allowing MiliD a path back in the future under his brother - also for former leading light James Purnell.

Labour: a family party. Part two (of many?)

As David Miliband prepares to tell the world what he plans to do after losing out to his brother, Ed, in the Labour leadership contest there are a plethora of views about the benefits to the party of him staying or not. 


What is clear after David yesterday rebuked Harriet Harman for applauding Ed's denouncement of the Iraq war (she voted for the war remember) is that were he to hang around he would likely be a focus for the media, keen to spot any division and dissent. Blair versus Brown becomes The Miliband Brothers. The Times ran a poll yesterday suggesting that more people in the country feel that David has leadership qualities than Ed. This reminded me of the poll before the 1992 election that showed voters preferred John Smith to Neil Kinnock. We could do without these distractions. 

The key question is whether Labour can do without its (arguably) biggest hitter on the front bench? I'd argue not as does Mary Riddell, among others; though David himself and many others disagree. If he did stay there would need to be some convincing rubbishing of any split between the Milibands. How to do that? Ed can show that he wants to lead a strong team and to give his brother the profile and portfolio he deserves. The media might continue to show up the differences between the two but Ed can counter that by being a strong leader. This wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time that a heavy hitter has been beaten to a party leadership but has carried on in a significant post. That is what politics is all about. 


And so to Ed. What should he do? He would do well to heed Alistair Darling's advice on tackling the deficit. Darling as Chancellor took the deficit seriously, he wanted to go further than Brown to tackle it, but in order to protect the fragile recovery, understands that the Tories are going too far, too fast. Ed Miliband says he wants to move on from New Labour but he should heed to key lesson of the Blair/Brown years: that to win an election Labour must occupy the centre ground. 

Ed's first leader's speech yesterday shows that he can forge his own agenda. Having overcome the formidable barrier of his brother and the party he now needs to start talking language that will appeal to the country. The early signs are encouraging. His brother is feared by the Tories because he most closely resembled David Cameron but would have faced a divided party from his proximity to Blair. Ed will be more likely to take Labour to the centre ground precisely because of his distance from Blair/Brown which will mean he will lead a united party.

Ed Miliband's opportunity

One of Ed Miliband's undoubted strengths is that he isn't as closely associated by the public with the Blair-Brown years as his brother or Ed Balls. He worked closely with Gordon Brown for a number of years but is seen as a "new man" and his focus on a "new generation" leading Labour is right. He needs to draw a careful line under the previous regime(s) in today's conference speech.

Ed Miliband also needs to be very careful. Several times during the hustings for the leadership other candidates Ed Balls and Andy Burnham were forthright in criticising other candidates for "rubbishing the record" of Labour in government. Miliband needs to tread a careful path between presenting a vision for the future but not trashing New Labour's achievements. If he goes too far in criticising the past I fear he will give credibility to Tory attacks that Labour's years in government were a failure. If that narrative wins then it will be very difficult for him to claw Labour back into power.

He has a tremendous opportunity demonstrated by today's YouGov poll showing that Labour has overtaken the Tories in opinion polls for the first time in over two years. His speech needs to win more gruond on the Tories to ensure that his lead isn't gobbled up by the Tory conference next week. The perfect start? We'll wait and see...

A family party?

David Miliband's speech to Labour Party conference today was excellent and showed why his brother needs him. Ed needs to build a strong team and to let that team share the limelight. Gordon Brown would have been better off letting others take more of the media spotlight and Ed would do well to learn from that mistake, starting with his brother.

It is also vital for Labour that David doesn't become a spurned thorn in his brother's side. Labour doesn't need a replay of the rivalry and bitterness the beset Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Playing a central role might be difficult for David to stomach right now. The party needs him. He can still be a star. His family could also do with staying united I'm sure.

If David walks away that would be understandable but would make life very difficult for Ed. It would keep the story of the 'wrong' Miliband running in the background.

I expect David to stay on and show us all that we haven't missed out on much at all after this weekend's knife-edge vote.

Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband beat his brother by the narrowest of margins. If you read the early comments of some this means that Labour is lurching to the left with "Red Ed" at the vanguard. I admit that I didn't vote for him as I felt David might present himself better to the media and to the country. I would have been happy had any other candidates won with the exception of Diane Abbott. Interestingly he is Labour's first English born full time leader since Michael Foot.

I watched the new leader's interview with Andrew Marr this morning and was impressed. He came across better than many have given him credit for and also showed that he understands the pressures faced by many in the country. He also has decent credentials and will contrast sharply with David Cameron, whose actions in government are likely to be unpopular. Perhaps the Tories should stop gloating and take him seriously. To have got this far and beaten the favourite shows that this he is no fluke.

What is clear is that Ed will face questions unlikely to have been asked of his brother, had the result been slightly different. Gaining victory through the trade union section was unfortunate, making it easy for detractors to claim that he is some sort of 1970s Jack Jones. Ed was right to point out that he was voted for my more individuals than any other candidate. The union block vote was abolished almost 20 years ago.

Ed also has as much experience as Tony Blair or David Cameron did when taking their respective leaderships. What he now needs to do is show that he can talk centre-ground policy to ensure that he broadens Labour's appeal. I hope this starts immediately, with Tuesday's leader's speech to conference. He had the guts to talk about Labour's lost votes repeatedly during his leadership campaign. I hope this conference shows he knows where to find them.

The early signs are that he does. He chose to begin his leadership by writing for the Sunday Telegraph, with a hostile Tory audience. He used that article to stake a claim for the centre of British politics, the right move. I'm impressed and suprised by him so far, though he will face a hostile media and will need to convince many more people than just myself to make a difference.

This blog is going on holiday

I'm off to catch some sun in Cyprus for a couple of weeks. In between watching turtles hatching, seeing wild donkeys and former Leyton Orient 'legend' Jason Demetriou play I'll try to keep up to date with Labour politics. I can't promise though.

Blair book breaks records in first week

Tony Blair's A Journey sold almost 100,000 copies in its first week making it one of the fastest selling autobiographies since records began.

Over £1.2m was spent on the book in four days, the profits of which Blair is donating to an army charity. The Bookseller reports that four pence of every pound spent in UK bookshops last week went on his book. I have mentioned before that this book has brought Blair back into the public eye and shows what a big drawer he still is. I'm currently reading both his and Peter Mandelson's books and shows that the doubters were wrong to suggest his book wouldn't be of interest.

Whatever your view on Blair, the British public seemingly still haven't had enough of Tony.

My Labour Party ballot papers have finally arrived

Just two days before I am off on holiday my Labour Party ballot payers have finally arrived.

I joined Labour in 1996. This is the first time in those 14 years that I will have voted for the leader. I'm looking forward to it. I will also be voting for the London mayoral candidate,NEC and NPF.

If you are not a Labour member you have today and tomorrow to join at a very cheap rate and will get to cast your vote. Go to Labour.org. This is the chance for all those who have commented from outside the party to influence it by taking part. I heartedly encourage you.

Tony Blair's Richard Bacon interview

I've been following the media reaction to the launch of Tony Blair's book with interest and some incredulity. According to today's Telegraph the "revelations" in his book have caused a "war" in the Labour Party. I'm sure the Telegraph would like there to be a war, though I've not seen any evidence of it (this story is no longer on the Telegraph site otherwise I'd link to it).

Blair is still big news and the book has been selling fast. I'm looking forward to receiving my own copy shortly. Not because I expect to learn anything new from it, most of the highlights have been heavily covered in the media already or have appeared in other books, such as those by Andrew Rawnsley, Chris Mullin and Peter Mandelson. I'm looking forward to understanding more about Blair and to remind myself, for sentimental reasons, what Labour in power achieved.

I listened to his interview today with Five Live's Richard Bacon. The focus was predictable: Iraq, Northern Ireland and Gordon Brown. On Iraq Blair expressed a human regret for the bloodshed but stood by his decision to go to war. Nobody could expect anything else. He also reminded us of how dreadful Iraq was when Saddam was in power. That is often overlooked in the revisionist analysis of the chaos in the aftermath. Listening also took me back to 9-11 and 7-7. When thinking about Afghanistan is is also often forgotten about the context and terrifying events that led to that war. Northern Ireland is undoubtedly Blair's biggest and most lasting achievement domestically. Iraq often buries it as the focus of this interview showed.

Much of the media coverage has focused on Gordon Brown. Today Blair said:

• "Gordon could be extremely difficult"
• "He was also somebody who made an enormous contribution to government" 
• "He is also brilliant" 
• "His personality is out of line with 21st century politics" 

The media has focused on the negatives, but in the book and in his interviews Blair should be credited for admitting his troubles on working with Brown but also for painting a balanced picture. He was careful to meet every negative with a positive.

What I thought was very telling and quite revealing was that he strongly felt that Brown and his team didn't have the right answers to govern. He said to Bacon that he had no problem with people who think their plans are the right thing for the country to seek power. He had a problem with these ideas in the first place. I find that a little harsh because to suggest that Brown added nothing of value when PM would be wrong. The criticism that there was no clear agenda for reforming public services is valid.

Rather than focus on the negatives, which should be left to the media to fight over, Labour needs to remember how much progress was made with Blair as leader. While it is wrong to apply the same tactics and arguments that were successful in 1997 to 2010, it would also be wrong to forget what worked too. Listening to Blair and reading his book should provide support and guidance. He shouldn't be forgotten.

What does this mean for his legacy? It should serve as a reminder, as Alistair Campbell said today far better than I ever could:

How do you think that history will judge him? More kindly than most of the commentary in the UK. He was a winner, serving longer in office than any Labour leader by far … he presided over a decade of growth and prosperity, turned round investment in public services, got crime down, delivered on a major programme of devolution, the minimum wage … I could go on and on … and whilst many people like to pretend Iraq is his only legacy, don’t forget Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the leadership he showed after 9/11, Northern Ireland. He was without doubt one of the major reforming Prime Ministers in our history.

Big day for Labour

Being in opposition means Labour has no power other than to influence political debate. That means today is the start of Labour being important for a few weeks. Tony Blair's book id out today, the leadership ballot papers are being sent out with those to choose Labour's next candidate for London Mayor.

I'm excited about reading Blair's book. The first extracts were released on the book's website last night. These have been pored over in this morning's breakfast shows and newspapers. Is any of it surprising? Probably not, we all know Blair and Brown didn't get on. The heavy media coverage shows that Blair is still big news. it also shows that with a good leader Labour can be important again.

One week on crutches

I have now reached seven days on crutches. I've been pleasantly surprised by the attitude of Joe Public in letting me sit down on public transport and giving me a wide berth when I have needed it.

I've found some daily tasks almost impossible. Getting food or drink for myself doesn't happen. carrying a plate of food with crutches? I've been horrified when I've been set up for work then lose my pen in the couch. That requires me to move and that isn't good.

I've made some progress. I'm not in acute pain and much of the swelling has gone, though much of the feeling in my foot is yet to return.

Bring on two months time, though I hope to be able to walk again before then.

Torn ankle ligaments

I have torn my ankle ligaments. This leaves me immobile and reliant on crutches and the generosity of others to get around. It is very frustrating. The few trips I have made since this problem afflicted me has opened up a world that is often all too easy for most of us to ignore.

The life of someone who is mobility impaired isn't one that offers the same opportunity that able bodied people enjoy. Access to transport is difficult. My nearest bus stop doesn't take me anywhere of use like work. That makes it difficult to get anywhere. I had to travel back from Hampton to North London by public transport after the injury. What would normally take an hour took three. The stairs. Oh the stairs. So much effort.

That one of do nothing mayor Boris Johnson's first moves in power was to cancel projects to improve accessibility of our transport network (including to my local station Finsbury Park) shows that he doesn't get it. It also shows he doesn't care about opportunities for disabled people. Fortunately my predicament is temporary and I can access my office remotely. Some people aren't so lucky and will be excluded from opportunity and employment. This is unacceptable and highlights the difference a politician and political party that is aware of these issues can make. Or not.

100 days later: Labour would win & death of the Lib Dems update

I'm a big fan of Channel 4's "fact checker" which independently vets political claims. I was also interested to read this morning that a Channel 4 "poll of polls" suggests that Labour would be the largest party in a hung parliament if an election were held today.

Unfortunately an election won't be held today and I don't expect there to be one for several years as Clegg is so close to the Tories it feels almost inevitable that he will be absorbed into them at some point. These polls could suggest that the public is starting to wake up to the reality of a pre-meditated Tory cuts agenda. What is clear though is that the Lib Dems are the biggest losers. This is just the latest in a series of damaging polls for the Lib Dems. What will they do for people to start liking them again?

Charles Kennedy apparently doesn't see much hope of that happening and is planning to join the Labour Party with a few other Lib Dem MPs. I'd welcome him to the party. I never thought I'd write that.

Labour mayoral candidate

There has been a great deal of comment following yesterday's post among email subscribers about the "feeling" among London's Labour Party members about whether Oona, Ken or someone else should be the candidate.

One point, made previously is that the selection is taking place too soon. There is plenty of time to select a candidate with the next mayoral elections taking place in almost two years time. If we waited I doubt we'd find new candidates. I don't expect that a new, high profile candidate would "emerge" when many suggested names, such as Alan Johnson, ruled themselves out. There are almost two years for whichever candidate to build a campaign, oppose the Tories, gain media profile and propose their own programme.

Ken Livingstone is a formidable opponent with three decades behind him at the top of the London Labour Party. That King has forced him to not only work hard for his support but has also shown that London Labour might also want a change is a significant achievement. There is no doubt that support for Ken remains strong, but the same is true for Oona. My experience of her campaign is quite different from that suggested in Paul Sagar's blog. I wasn't at the event on Tuesday. The real proof of this, whichever way it goes will be in the result in September.

I also find it unfortunate and unhelpful to both candidates when the "old Labour" and "new Labour" terms are bandied about. One could easily argue that Ken is both old and new, being on the left of the party but having stayed close to Sir Ian Blair or having worked with many private companies to secure investment in London when mayor. Oona is younger and supported many of new Labour's policies but has a firm background as a trade unionist when I thought new Labour was meant to be weak on unions? There is balance to both sides. Both are Labour and that is all that matters.

Oona and Ken

The race between Oona King and Ken Livingstone to be selected as Labour's candidate for London mayor is running into its final weeks.

I was interested to read the comments after Andy Newman's post at Socialist Unity on the contest. Newman, as one would expect from a blogger of the left, feels that King is out of the race. My experience from talking to London Labour members is that the reality is very different. London Labour members are quite split. There are those who will back Ken and have done for several decades. There are many more who want to see a new candidate, like myself. My rudimentary polling would suggest the contest is far closer than posts such as Newman's might suggest.

The comments also suggest this. Even if it is hard to accept it has to be pointed out that Labour and Ken lost in 2008. He does also have many enemies and many voters simply will not back him. The RMT London Taxi Branch are supporting Oona's nomination after opposing Ken's proposal to allow minicabs into bus lanes.

I firmly believe that if she were to win the candidacy that Oona King could beat Boris Johnson. The reason for having the selection so early is to give the winning candidate as much time as possible to both build profile and to attack the woeful record of the Tories in London. Ken has his profile. Oona has hers. Whoever wins the candidacy has enough time to build a powerful campaign and win for Labour.

Alan Milburn?

Alan Milburn has tried to push himself back into the political limelight a few times since he left the cabinet. There was his "rallying call" with Charles Clarke and his role in a failed coup to get rid of Gordon Brown. Now he is to work with the Tories as a social mobility tsar many in the Labour Party feel let down.

The Guardian's Gaby Hinsliff suggests that the backlash Miburn is now feeling highlights divisions within Labour. Cameron is clearly trying to hive off some Blairite individuals to leave Labour looking more extreme. It also gives us more reasons to argue. Back to Milburn though. The point is he has chosen to support a Tory government. He should leave them to it and let Tories and Lib Dems do the dirty work.

Milburn doesn't have a great deal of credit left with the Labour Party. Many won't be surprised that he is helping the Tories and if he is kicked out of the party I doubt many will miss him.

It is naive to suggest, as his move does, that the Labour Party doesn't offer him any means of influencing future government policy. We are selecting a new leader and there is every chance that with a good leader we'll be able to fight back, highlighting the nastiness of the Tory government. Milburn just lost his right to complain.

I love a graph

I love graphs, especially those that show data I approve of. In this instance I disapprove of the UK's coalition government and YouGov's latest poll shows that almost as many of my fellow citizens disapprove of the coalition as approve. Given that government's approval ratings tend to start high, then decline slowly, is this an ominous sign?

"Hi it's Ken Livingstone"

I was feeling a little undervalued by both the Labour leadership and mayoral candidates as none had courted by votes by phone. I tend to ignore emails and papers that come in the post. You can blame the bank and my many online lottery wins for that. I don't ignore text messages. Yet.

That all changed last week when "Ed Milliband" texted me to court my vote. I said I wouldn't support him and was promised a call back within five days. That was five days ago, so I'm looking forward to tonight's call with his team.

The texting now never stops. "Ken Livingstone" has just texted seemingly everyone I know in the London Labour Party asking for their vote. Again, I said no and have been promised a call from his team. Lets see whether who, if anyone, calls me first?

I think connecting with members through a range of channels is commendable. I'd like to know how much this costs. Can we get the same from Oona King? I certainly hope so, as Ed Milliband's claim to have recruited over a thousand campaign volunteers this way would be valuable. 

Ed Balls has balls we need

After last week's Radio Five Live Labour leadership hustings I wrote of how I was impressed by contender Ed Balls. He has been written off by most commentators as not having a chance behind the Millibands. Those two are certainly the front runners. However I feel that Balls has a lot to offer Labour, perhaps just not as leader.

He has been almost the only senior member of the shadow cabinet to land regular blows on the Tory coalition. He is a great attack-dog and that is sorely missing from Labour at the moment. We are suffering from an empty chair crisis and the sooner the leadership is decided the better.

I thought The Economist's profile of Balls was spot on too. Sometimes he is characterised as a brute but there is more substance to him than that. colleagues in the Labour Party should be careful before they dismiss him. He has a role to play and the leadership contest has been good in raising the profile of all the candidates. It will be interesting to see how he fares in the shadow cabinet elections. I hope the PLP sees his value.

Re-open the race for London mayor candidate?

Today Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian argues that Labour should re-open the short-list for candidates to become Labour's next mayoral candidate. He cites the Tory example when Boris Johnson came into the race late as evidence as to why Labour should wait.

Why does Labour need to find someone other than Ken Livingstone and Oona King? Freedland argues that Livingstone is tarnished by having been Labour's London head for three decades and has made too many enemies. That could be true. He argues that Oona is damaged by her vote for the Iraq war. I'd argue that not to be relevant to the London mayor though I suspect that some will.

Freedland goes on to say: "If Labour bided its time, other candidates might emerge". I don't think that is likely. He mentions Alans Sugar and Johnson. Johnson ruled himself out and Sugar has shown little interest. I'm sure that the Labour Party would have explored these possibilities before setting the timetable. 


With an empty chair at the top of the party and a new Tory government getting away with far too much Labour needs to make some appointments quickly. The sooner an a Labour candidate can start holding Boris Johnson's rather pointless mayoralty to account the better. London Labour members have a clear choice too. That is between the same man who has won and lost for Labour in the last thirty years and a new candidate. Regular readers will know that I'm opting for the new. 

Tony Blair's journey: Labour's journey

The website for Tony Blair's forthcoming book, A Journey, launched yesterday. The book is released on 1 September. Watching the video on his site where he previews the book reminded me of how easily, too easily, we have forgotten his achievements as Prime Minister.

Many of the leadership contenders have made much of attempting to distance themselves from New Labour, saying we need to move on. They are of course correct to say that Labour needs new policies and solutions as the world today is very different to that of the mid-1990s.

At the same time I am concerned that we need to heed the same lessons that Labour was harshly taught in the 1990s. A lurch to the left isn't wanted by the country when they have just voted to the right. If Labour takes that path the party will end up shouting to an empty room. Labour needs to talk to the whole country, not just the heartlands. That was Tony Blair's greatest gift to the Labour Party and one that must not be surrendered.

Hi it's Ed Milliband

At a wedding for a Labour party friend on Saturday I received a text from "Ed Milliband" canvassing my vote for the Labour leadership election. I replied with "N" though according to his official page 45% of respondents wet the other way and voted "yes". I suspect that might be because those who responded were more inclined to show their support than those who didn't bother at all - because they were not backing his campaign.

Text messaging members was dubbed groundbreaking by Ed's campaign. That it may beand any further means of easily communicating with party members is a good thing. It doesn't give me a reason to vote for him. I worry that he is playing to the Labour Party gallery to gain favour in the leadership election. I don't believe he is strong enough to stand up to the party and ensure that Labour takes back the centre ground, without which no party can win power in the UK.

"Ed" replied to my "no" asking for my support as a second preference. "He" asked if there was anything he could do to convince me. I replied with my worry that he won't be able to stop Labour lurching to the left, keeping us in opposition. I have been promised that his team will be in touch with me in the next five days. I'm looking forward to engaging with his team, even though I doubt there is much they, or "Ed", can do to make me change my mind.

I praise Ed's campaign for engaging me in this way, one of several text message canvasses by his campaign according to Labour List. Now is the time to see if he has the balls to do the right thing for Labour.

UPDATE: I have also been informed by someone who replied "yes" that their follow up text from "Ed" asked if they were willing to volunteer for his campaign. This is likely to be the source of the large number of additional volunteers his campaign has announced.

It will be all about the second preferences

The race to be the next Labour leader will be decided by the second preferences votes of candidates falling out of the contest. Milliband and Milliband will have to fight over the second preferences of Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott.

Gordon Brown apparently thinks Ed Milliband will win. The Sun's YouGov poll suggests that David will nudge him out slightly. The strong union support for Ed puts him in the chair to win. To win any candidate doesn't need the majority support of the membership but needs to win the electoral college. There are several unanswered questions as Peter Kellner points out.

MPs have the most individual power in the college as they make up their own third and the second preferences of those nominating Abbott, Balls and Burnham are unclear. My hunch is that the most of the votes will go to David as he is the more publicly credible candidate and MPs will want a leader that is most likely to deliver power. MPs would be foolish not to pick the most popular candidate.

Again I'm reminded that Labour loses out significantly by Alan Johnson's absence from the contest. He was rated as Labour's biggest vote winner. He is such an asset whoever wins needs to keep Johnson close. It saddens me that he has held himself back from both this and the London mayoral candidacy race. It doesn't matter who his second preference is - he is backing David Milliband.

UPDATE: I've just spotted Luke Akehurst's analysis of the MP/MEP part of the electoral college. That puts David in the lead.

Five Live Labour leadership hustings

This morning I listened intently to Five Live's Labour leadership debate. I've not yet been to any hustings so this was my first opportunity to see all the candidates together. Otherwise I've had emails from the candidates, David Milliband leaflets in the post and various friends trying to encourage me to support David Milliband but mostly Ed Milliband.

All through I heard a great deal from Ed Balls and Andy Burnham and not much from David and Ed Milliband or Diane Abbott.

I was surprised and impressed by Balls. He was bullish about Labour's record in government, where many of the other candidates wanted to mention where Labour had gone wrong. He came across well from a Labour Party perspective though I'm not sure that his style would appeal to floating voters. I think he should be given a central role in the shadow cabinet but perhaps wouldn't give Labour the widest appeal as leader.

Andy Burnham spoke well about wanting the Labour Party to trust its members and suggested that the cost of membership, at £39 per year, was too much. He pointed out when asked about the public deficit that under Labour public spending grew less than economic growth. I was pleased when he dubbed the ConDem cuts "public sector vandalism." He also stated when asked that he thought he had more chance of becoming Labour leader than Everton of winning the championship. I doubt either will happen but I really like his personable style and his frankness.

David Milliband talked about wanting to ensure Labour was embedding in communities - something we do in Islington. He was one of several candidates to jibe Abbott, stating: "why trash (Labour's) record?". He admitted he (like many others) was wrong about there being WMDs in Iraq though he thought Iraq not to be an issue in 2010. Sounds most like a leader though we heard little of him for a frontrunner.

Diane Abbott isn't worth much of a mention. Her interjections were rare and predictable. She speaks for a section of the Labour Party and has a rightful role to play in that, just not my section of the party. The country has just voted for more Tories than Labour so I don't agree that moving to the left will help at all.

Ed Milliband disagreed with David. He was right to suggest that Labour kept losing voters over the noughties, through issues like tuition fees and Iraq.However, I heard so little of him that I remain thoroughly unconvinced that he is leadership material.

I suspect that the election will produce a Milliband versus Milliband run-off. If that were the case I'd opt for David. However on today's showing I'm going for Andy Burnham then Ed Balls.

Electoral reformers should feel cheated

I'm not surprised that the Labour shadow cabinet today announced its opposition to the bill proposing a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote (AV) to UK parliamentary elections. The bill proposes reform to a voting system that would do little to make our elections results fairer. It is also packaged in with boundary changes that while seeking to balance the size of constituencies would have an imbalanced effect on the state of the parties. 


Leftfootforward give a multitude of reasons why the proposals don't create a fairer election system. These proposals seem rushed through at best. At worst it is a botched job from a coalition that is far from committed to electoral reform. The Tories don't want it, while Nick Clegg himself dubbed AV a "miserable little compromise." Funny how he is prepared to accept this for a sniff of power.


Labour is right to oppose this bill. Lib Dems should follow because this isn't the sort of reform they want either. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to engage voters by creating a political system that values every vote. AV won't do that. Cutting the number of constituencies won't do that. I think the Tories really couldn't care less.

Remember where the Olympics came from

As London starts to get excited about the 2012 Olympics it reminded me of how political the event is. That a huge swathe of previously derelict London is being regenerated is purely because London had a Labour mayor. Though I won't vote for Ken Livingstone to be Labour's next mayoral candidate I think all Londoners should be incredibly grateful for his vision that brought the Olympics to London.

The fanfare and sport of the Olympics will provide a wonderful spectacle for London and the world. However the main benefit to London should be felt for many decades after 2012. East London will benefit from better transport, new homes, parks and by bringing contaminated land back into use.

While we are all subjected to seeing Boris Johnson all over reports about the Olympics we should be reminded that were he or anyone else from his Tory party in power the Olympics wouldn't be coming to London. As the "do nothing" mayor, Johnson hasn't put in place any of his own ideas. As I've mentioned previously, the much lauded cyclye hire scheme wasn't even his idea - though one he is keen to snatch the image of himself as a cycling mayor.

Four more Tory years in London and the improvements to London will dry up altogether.

Death of the Lib Dems? Cracks start to form

How many more Lib Dems will break ranks with their rather smug colleagues in coalition? Barnsley councillor Sharron Brooke has been a thorn in the side of Clegg's cost deal with the Tories more than once. She has now released a leaflet in the Lib Dem party name denouncing the coalition, which makes her, like me, "ashamed." 


This isn't the first time Brooke has broken ranks. Straight after the coalition was formed she said to BBC Radio Sheffield, which was then relayed to Clegg: 


"It's stupid (the coalition). If they think this little bit of power will keep them there forever, it's a load of rubbish because we'll be gone, at the next election, whenever it is, because we cannot sustain this. Our policies are miles apart from the Tories, WE are miles apart from the Tories."

What about the coalition? I realise one councillor won't break it by itself. Jonathan Reynolds argues well that the next year is make or break. It will take some time before we can really judge if the coalition will survive the full five years. There is definitely enough of a bond to keep the ConDems together for the foreseeable future. 


What will test them is when something they couldn't plan for in the coalition agreement occurs. What will they do then? That is the true test of government, how you deal with what you didn't see coming. How will the Lib Dems deal with a major European Union or defence issue that arises? There are not that many Lib Dem MPs so it wouldn't take a large number to cause a split. The threat of a split in the Lib Dems is real but may not prove fatal to the coalition, but is likely to be so to the future prospects of the Lib Dems. 


Clegg as the next Ramsay MacDonald anyone?

Move to the left?

I don't often agree with right wing columnists from the Evening Standard but was struck by the potency of Anne McElvoy's column yesterday on the way home from work. She spoke of the dangers for Labour of turning left just at the time when the country has elected, if only just, a right wing government.

In the 1980s Labour made the mistake of reinforcing its left wing credentials at a time when the country wasn't interested. One of the problems of holding a leadership election is that it is all too easy for the candidates to woo the party to win that contest only to face the prospect of having to offer a very different proposition to the country.

The Labour leadership candidates need to be honest with party members about this. It is only right that the offer to the party and the country is the same thing. It is only right and honest that the offer to the party takes into account what the country will accept even if it is what the party might not want to hear. It would be incredibly brave of the contenders to do so, but right.

As the front-runner I'm looking to David Milliband to do this though I'm also interested to see how Andy Burnham behaves in the lead up to the vote. He is unlikely to win the contest but looks to be positioning himself for a high profile position once a new leader is elected. He has warned the party not to be self indulgent in defeat.

At the moment I'm erring on the side of David, though I'm still to be convinced that he can offer a decisive and distinctly Labour alternative to the Con-Dem government and most importantly, one that is attractive to voters. A self satisfied but unelected Labour Party is the worst of all worlds because it delivers nothing.

London Mayor

I find the comments on Dave Hill's post yesterday detailing Oona King's proposed transport policies quite interesting though I feel many are missing the point. The policies of Labour's candidate matter only as much as their potential to win the election. My feeling is that King could win for Labour and my worry is that Ken Livingstone might not.

In 2008 I desperately wanted Livingstone to win the mayoral election. If he was Labour's candidate in 2012 I would want him to win. Above it all though I want Labour to win. If there was a re-run of 2008, Ken versus Boris, I fear Labour would lose. The same old mud-slinging could be brought up again. 

For Labour to win any election when the Tory vote has re-awakened after going dormant between means bucking the national trend. In the recent general election Labour managed to achieve that, also taking several councils from the Tories, such as Enfield. I would be interested is seeing London opinion polling showing the potential voting if we were faced with another Ken versus Boris contest. The key questions would be: whether a drab and rather pointless term in office from Boris Johnson will put Tories off enough to vote for him again; and whether this would be enough for voters to back Ken again? Has he simply made too many enemies of voters? I don't know, but it is an important question and one that needs to be answered before the London Labour Party makes its decision on the candidate for 2012. 

Anyone but Boris. I'm sure of that.

Support for Ken Livingstone and Oona King grows

Both Ken Livingstone and Oona King, Labour's two contenders to be Labour's next candidate for London, mayor have received increased backing.

Livingstone today received more union backing,  with Unison joining GMB, Unite and TSSA in support of the former mayor. With unions making up a significant portion of the electoral college that selects the candidate this support could be crucial.

King received the backing of TV historian Simon Schama, to go with that of Neil Kinnock and Alan Johnson. None of these will deliver votes in the selection though Kinnock's support could be influential given the high regard with which he is held in the party.

I encourage all Labour members in London to go to a hustings event and ask the candidates the questions that matter to you. If you do, you might find, like I did last week, that both candidates are purporting to offer the same policies. More investment in infrastructure, more housing and a fairer London. Only one, King, offers a new start. For all his previous achievements, and there are many, London needs a fresh face and one that will take the challenges the city faces seriously.

Mandelson book fuss?

What is all the fuss about? Really I can't see it. Other than newspapers trying to make a storm in a teacup. Or, as Roy Greenslade suggests, are newspapers turning on Peter Mandelson for selling exclusive rights to his book to one of their rivals, The Times?

Mandelson's forthcoming book about his inside view of New Labour has attracted criticism as "treacherous" - but from who? Tories like Peter Oborne. It seems to me that much of the criticism has come from those who didn't like Labour and/or Mandelson anyway.

There will be many books about New Labour and it is unsurprising that this one has come out now. I'm relaxed about criticism of Gordon Brown appearing now, he is no longer on the scene and I don't expect Mandelson's book to confirm anything that we didn't already know.

The death of the Liberal Democrats?

Former Lib Dem leader of Liverpool council Warren Bradley has said what we all suspect to be true: that in adding their name to the vicious ideological cuts of the Tory government, the Lib Dems have signed their own suicide note. It is not often that I agree with a Lib Dem but I agree with Bradley. There is now no reason for a Lib Dem vote.

Bradley himself said in a letter to the Liverpool Daily Post: "we’re in a weak coalition, that will deliver nothing to the Lib-Dems except total electoral decimation. I give you that absolute guarantee, we will be wiped out by Labour in the North and the Tories in the South, and at last the media will have that two-party system that they have always craved.”

The cancelling of Building Schools for the Future programme was just the sort of once in a lifetime investment that shows Labour was serious about changing the fabric of the country. Bradley says Gove's pre-meditated decision to scrap is made him feel "physically sick". Again we've seen from the Tories that they put short termism first, ideology first and don't care about fairness or planning for the future.

What next for the Lib Dems? Why bother voting for them when they are little more than collaborators in the nastiest government in memory?

Report on London Labour mayoral hustings

Last night I attended a London Labour Party mayoral hustings. Chaired by Mayor of Hackney Jules Pipe, candidates Oona King and Ken Livingstone took questions from party members and pitched for their support to become Labour's candidate. Both had fans in the audience but I went into the session willing a strong performance from King because I feel it is time that Labour puts forward a new candidate after several decades of Ken. I'm not a natural bed-fellow of Ken but I've campaigned for him, shared a radio show with him and am a supporter of the many visionary changes he brought to London.

I asked the candidates how they would ensure the campaign was fought on forward thinking plans for the next four years in London. We heard a great deal about the past. Listening to Ken reminded me of his many achievements over several decades in London. This is his strongest suit and is why I think it likely that London Labour members will pick him as their candidate. Despite his achievements I feel that it is time for Labour in London to move on.

Ken is gearing up for a replay of the 1980s when he battled Margaret Thatcher's Tory government. She was perhaps the most name-checked politician last night, almost all from Ken. This isn't useful. Though we face a similarly vicious and right wing Tory government I want a mayor who will focus on fighting London's problems and not try to score political points against the government.

King was no less forthright in positioning the mayor as a buttress to help protect the poor from government cuts. "We need to win the war" she said. This was fighting talk. It was also clear that King had her eyes on the bigger prize: just as the Tories used winning the mayoralty as a stepping stone back into government, she was clear that this was also a great opportunity for Labour to do the same. Only by having a Labour government can we properly protect the poor - I agree, as there is only so much power the mayor has.

King spoke of the "opportunity cost" of having, in Boris Johnson, a mayor who had done nothing with power. She repeatedly used this term, highlighting the wasted opportunity that has now been lost.

When one strips away the history that inevitably comes with Ken and evaluates what he and King offer to London the offerings look quite similar. They both want to build more council housing. They both strongly support trade unions. They both want to invest in more and better transport infrastructure for a growing city. Unfortunately Ken doesn't demonstrate to me that he has learnt why he lost in 2008. I worry that with him as candidate Labour could lose next time because the media and his opponents will be able to tread over old ground. Ken's attitude last night was symptomatic of someone who thinks the office of mayor is in "stasis" and is waiting for him.

King offers the chance for a new discussion and an election based on the future and not the past. She also shows a detailed understanding of the issues facing the young in London, especially about crime and employment opportunities. I feel she is best placed to win votes for Labour in outer London especially in the places where Ken lost support or is simply unpalatable to those who remember the battles of the 1980s. Time for a change. Time for Oona.

London Labour mayoral hustings

Tonight's London Labour Party mayoral hustings.I'm looking forward to hearing from Ken Livingstone and Oona King how they will ensure the election is fought about the next four years for London - and not previous elections or Iraq.


Livingstone clearly has lots of ideas about how to improve London. Many of his ideas have been adopted by Tory mayor Boris Johnson such as the cycle hire scheme. I'm worried that the press and Tories will make it a re-run of 2008. Then he didn't have either the energy or ability to fight it off. Can he really do this four years on?


Oona King has a great opportunity to usurp Ken as a new Labour candidate for the first time in three decades. Tonight I want her to show me that she is more than just a different candidate and has a positive agenda for London - and one that will beat the Tories.

Oona King for London

Oona King has started to add flesh to the bones of her mayoral bid. Importantly she is focusing on fairness.

In her Progress interview she is clearly trying to fill the gaps in Labour's unsuccessful campaign in 2008, when incumbent mayor Ken Livingstone lost to Boris Johnson. She is right that living in zone 6 London is very different to life in inner London. Regular readers will know that I'm angry that at a basic level access to regular transport and the Oyster card is sporadic at best out on London's edge.

To successfully wrest the candidacy from Ken Livingstone she needs to offer more that just a fresh start. This is important but not enough. I agree that it would be foolhardy to attempt to replay the 2008 election. King needs to start to presenting some big ideas to enable her to topple Livingstone. I hope she does because I fear that a re-run of the last election would end in defeat.

Boris' war on roadworks

Yesterday's Evening Standard carried my comments on Monday's article about Boris Johnson's failed 'war on roadworks.' I said: 

Before he was elected Boris Johnson made much of blaming previous mayor Ken Livingstone for congestion and scoffed at his rival's claims that Thames Water were largely responsible for the huge increase in London roadworks. He now cites this as an excuse for the increase of roadworks under his own watch.

 

It was politically naive of Johnson to try to fight and win an a war on roadworks when if it was that easy Livingstone would have done it first. The affect of the additional congestion hits hard the poorest who rely on buses and those doing shift work, and Johnson's lack of action, combined with the huge increases in bus fares he has imposed, show that his priorities do not lie with them.

A summer of Boris

I'm back from a rainy South of France and pleased that I've found the sun in London. Spending my Sunday morning at London Fields Lido was very pleasant, my weekend only ruined by the England football team. Back onto politics...

I note that the Evening Standard audited Boris Johnson's two years as London mayor. I feel that the marks they awarded him are generous in the extreme:

• Crime - causing turmoil by sacking Ian Blair, chairing the Met Police Authority then quitting shows Boris want to talk the talk but not walk the walk on crime
• Environment - cutting bus funding, failing to extend the low emission zone and worsening air quality show a lack of concern for London's biggest issue
• Transport - wasting money scrapping bendy buses while increasing fares by 50% show a lack of concern for the public transport using public, especially the poor who rely on buses
• Housing - scrapping the requirement for developments to have a minimum percentage of affordable homes shows he doesn't care about London being affordable
• Accountability - constant shirking of questions at Mayor's Question Time in the assembly and ducking difficult questions from journalists show that Boris is not prepared to stand up for his own administration
• Value for money - Boris promised to give Londoners more bang for their buck - the millions wasted on his new bus for London shows he hasn't got a grip on the purse strings in the way he promised

All of the above are Boris' responses to the policy positions he inherited from Ken Livingstone. Johnson has no clear strategy and sought the mayoralty for the sake of power, not because he wanted to change London. The lack of clarity and lack of a theme running through his administration demonstrates this.

We are now past the half way mark in Boris' administration and I am yet to establish the point of it all.

This blog is on holiday

This blogger is presently on holiday in Languedoc,France. So far I've spent a few days in Montpellier,travelled on their pretty trams and eaten some lovely food. I bought myself a copy of France Football magazine's world cup special and note that it makes not a single mention of Thierry Henry's handball. I'll be back in the UK in a week.

Ministers take the train while their papers take the car

David Cameron's edict that ministers should travel on public transport might be a well intentioned move to save public money but it won't do that. It won't save any money.

Just as he used to cycle to work from Notting Hill while a car followed with his papers, ministers will be expected to take the train, without their confidential papers, which will be taken by car to their homes. So the car travels anyway. Worse still, ministers won't be able to do any work while travelling as their papers will be elsewhere and ministers are not allowed to accompany them. You couldn't make it up!

I know that ministers have found the time spent in their ministerial cars travelling between meetings as valuable time in which to get through their red boxes. Now this time has been taken away to provide cheap publicity will Cameron expect his ministers to stop sleeping every night or will they just do less work?

This will cost more money, lead to less effective government and will not do what is purports to. Just bonkers.

Labour for London Mayor, but who?

Alan Johnson isn't running for London mayor, therefore it looks like a battle between Oona King and Ken Livingstone to be Labour's candidate. If King is to prevent Livingstone winning she will need to show she has the ideas and vision to change London. I'm convinced that Labour needs a new candidate to stand a chance of winning.

Comment among friends and colleagues in the Labour Party tallies with my feeling that it is time for Livingstone to move on. Labour needs a new candidate to convince the electorate that Labour is forward looking and has new people and ideas for London, and the country. A Livingstone - BJ fight would risk a re-hash of 2008.

King's pitch is focused on community engagement and young people. I agree with her that Boris Johnson has done very little with his role. It is still too early to compare King's plans for London with Livingstone's as neither has set these out in detail yet.

I don't think there is a danger of Livingstone running as an independent should he lose the selection. Nothing is ever certain with him but in 2000 he was prevented from standing as Labour's candidate. Losing a fair and open selection would be different. It would also be wrong of Livingstone to hold the threat of running as an independent over the Labour Party to force a result in the selection. There is no evidence this is the case, though scarred by the split in 2000, many in the London Labour Party fear a repeat.

King's appeal, as detailed by Dave Hill, is toward the younger members in the Labour Party. It is unclear as yet whether this enthusiasm is shared by Londoners in general and, importantly, those living in outer London boroughs.

There isn't too long to go and this race will run parallel to that for Labour leader, though the winner is (perhaps) likely to taste power sooner than the victor of the leadership election if the hype of the Con-Dem coalition can carry it through for a full five years.

Oona King for Mayor?

With Oona King joining the list of potential candidates for Labour's London mayoral candidate this particular race could be deemed more interesting than that for the Labour leadership. Alan Johnson is rumoured to be standing and previous mayor Ken Livingstone also plans to run. Is this race looking to be more heavyweight than the race to be Labour leader?

I've not yet decided who I will support for leader as I don't feel there is much choice - perhaps this is because I wanted Johnson. If Johnson runs for mayor, together with a female candidate in King, does Livingstone stand a chance? I feel that any of these three candidates gives Labour a good chance of beating incumbent Tory Boris Johnson. If Labour wins the mayoral election that will give the party a springboard for the next general election. Victory will mean that Labour is a credible option for power nationally.

Having been mayor for eight years, having made many major improvements to London but also looking to have run out of steam I don't think Ken Livingstone would be the best candidate. He would risk focusing the campaign on the past when what Labour needs is fresh ideas and a fresh candidate. I'm a big fan of (Alan) Johnson, but King could provide the freshness Labour in London needs.

Did social media revolutionise the UK's general election campaign?

This post first appeared on Metrica's blog, Measurement Matters. 

I have been looking at what other commentators have had to say on whether we had an internet election. Did social media revolutionise our election campaign or merely show an evolution towards digital media?

There were victims who committed their “crimes” in social media, though very few. The spoofing of election posters at MyDavidCameron were the most memorable social media aspect of the campaign. Tech Radar argues that social media has “diluted the power of political posters…and it’s done the same with newspapers”. This is certainly true. Was this a revolution? Not really. This election will be remembered as the television election. It was the first in the UK with televised debates between the main party leaders. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown will likely also be remembered for criticising a voter when he thought his TV microphone had been turned off.

In a detailed account of the internet election Mark Pack points out that internet polling was widely used for the first time. This enabled polling companies to deliver almost real time poll results after the leaders’ debates. The internet has certainly fed mainstream media outlets with faster access to voters’ views, either through polling or raw comments on Twitter. Social media and the internet has helped parties and candidates organise their campaigns and volunteers. Whether it really changed how anyone voted is unclear. The resources available online make it easier for voters to find out about their candidates, as Left Foot Forward suggested. 

Echoing the findings of Metrica and Fishburn Hedges’ Mood-O-Meter, Tweetminster concluded that “there is a strong correlation between online buzz and party performance.” Our Mood-0-Meter showed positive buzz for the party leaders in line with party performance at the polls. Whilst it wouldn’t be right to say that social media provides an online opinion poll, people talk about what matters. The huge increase in buzz for Nick Clegg after the first leaders’ debate reflected public opinion and polling surveys.  

The BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones asked if politicians and voters are likely to be more inclined to use social media in the future. I think so, with many new MPs elected, many of them much younger than those they replaced, the appetite for social media will grow and is likely to become an integral part of future elections.  

The revolution hasn’t happened yet though. So far social media has played a role without taking centre stage, far more evolution than revolution.

House of Comments podcast

On Tuesday I took part in my first House of Comments podcast. This is a weekly political podcast run by Lib Dem blogger Mark Thompson of Mark Reckons and Stuart Sharpe of Sharpe's Opinion. Alongside me the final guest was Allen Green, Jack of Kent. You can listen to it free through iTunes. I recommend that you don't just listen but in fact subscribe. Each week a different group of bloggers from across the political spectrum discuss the issues of the day. I hope to be back on there again soon.

We discussed the ongoing Labour leadership election, the Con-Dem coalition and its prospects and the libel trial of left wing blogger Dave Osler.

Taking each issue in turn. I'm undecided about who to support for the Labour leadership. I would have supported Alan Johnson, but he isn't standing. Interestingly both Mark and Stuart thought he would be Labour's best choice. He has a great Labour story of a working class upbringing. He is from the south and Labour needs to win seats in the south if it is to regain power. He comes across naturally on TV. Without him in the race I am waiting for the other candidates to convince me that they are worthy of my vote. Though I've not decided if I'll vote for him yet I'll include a picture of one of my election campaign highlights: straightening David Milliband's tie at a fund-raiser for Edmonton MP Andy Love.

The Con-Dem coalition deal has now been set out in more detail. I think this could well last the distance though I expect there to be casualties. In the short term Vince Cable looks like a strong contender for early victim having been given little real power as Business Secretary and the responsibility for privatising Royal Mail. John Major's Tories failed to do it. Gordon Brown's Labour failed to do it. Now it looks like it is the Lib Dem's turn to get embroiled in an unpopular mess. It couldn't happen to nicer people. In the longer term the Lib Dems may well suffer electorally as a result of working with the Tories. Their seats in Scotland where the Tories are widely despised look increasingly vulnerable.

Finally, Dave Osler's libel case. He was sued for libel after linking to someone else's blog post. After two years the case was thrown out of court. Jack of Kent gives a far better account than I ever could so I suggest you read that. There In closing I'd like to congratulate Jack of Kent for being short-listed for the Orwell Prize, a great honour for some great blogging.

Johnson versus Johnson for Mayor?

Last week The Guardian's Dave Hill speculated that Alan Johnson may have withdrawn from the Labour leadership race to instead focus his attention on fighting Boris Johnson for London mayor in 2012. The Evening Standard and New Statesman has now picked up on this.

I would have voted for him in a leadership contest and would certainly back him for Mayor. He is a person first and a politician second, someone who comes across as having humility and the style to work on TV - while coming across as genuine.

I think Johnson versus Johnson would be a great fight.