Comments on: Random points about the London elections http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/05/07/random-points-about-the-london-elections/ “ferocity with a purpose” Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:30:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/05/07/random-points-about-the-london-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-179073 James Graham Thu, 08 May 2008 09:05:26 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/05/07/random-points-about-the-london-elections/#comment-179073 Damian, thanks for your comments. All I would add is that I do think The Right collectively (not just you or One London) really should have got their act together in terms of uniting behind a common candidate or list. Even under a PR election there simply wasn't room for yourselves, UKIP and the English Democrats on the ballot paper (just as having UFPS, The Left List, Respect and the Greens representing the left was equally self-defeating). Regarding the BNP, I think there is a significant difference between warning against the threat of the BNP gaining an Assembly seat (which was well founded given 2004's result) and presenting them - as I think was effectively done by the main parties - as the only "rightwing" alternative to the establishment (and yes, I know The Right doesn't like people calling the BNP rightwing but particularly in this election which was not really about economic policy they had more in common with The Right than The Left). I think the latter, ably assisted by the media, was a bigger factor than campaigns like Hope not Hate which, anecdotally at least, appeared to encourage turnout amongst BME voters. Damian, thanks for your comments. All I would add is that I do think The Right collectively (not just you or One London) really should have got their act together in terms of uniting behind a common candidate or list. Even under a PR election there simply wasn’t room for yourselves, UKIP and the English Democrats on the ballot paper (just as having UFPS, The Left List, Respect and the Greens representing the left was equally self-defeating).

Regarding the BNP, I think there is a significant difference between warning against the threat of the BNP gaining an Assembly seat (which was well founded given 2004’s result) and presenting them – as I think was effectively done by the main parties – as the only “rightwing” alternative to the establishment (and yes, I know The Right doesn’t like people calling the BNP rightwing but particularly in this election which was not really about economic policy they had more in common with The Right than The Left). I think the latter, ably assisted by the media, was a bigger factor than campaigns like Hope not Hate which, anecdotally at least, appeared to encourage turnout amongst BME voters.

]]> By: Damian Hockney http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/05/07/random-points-about-the-london-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-178929 Damian Hockney Thu, 08 May 2008 01:40:37 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/05/07/random-points-about-the-london-elections/#comment-178929 Your piece is very perceptive, as our One London group tried indeed to pitch ourselves, in the run-up, in exactly the way you have described. Right down to causing uproar at the People's Question Time in Richmond at the outset of the campaign with strident support for airport expansion ...I needed a guard when I left:) Only in moderate jest, I sent a note to my colleagues that week saying: "Unless Ken rounds on me as 'that wicked Damian Hockney and the mad and bad One London', then it is not worth us standing in the Mayor election". Effectively barred from every hustings, banned from mailing the 5 million+ electorate (by spending rules) and with very dodgy state radio and tv guidelines on coverage, there was no logic in taking part. Only the Mayor could have made a difference to that, and you are right - we would have stayed in the race if even just one of the positives for taking part were present. It seemed totally logical to us that the Mayor would do this and we were surprised that he didn't. I've written elsewhere on the mayorwatch site about the fact that the 'main' parties and the media won the BNP's seat for them - the constant demonisation and coverage. The other 'minor' parties lost out for its mirror opposite - complete lack of coverage. The Greens were treated as an honorary 'main' candidate by the Standard, but not by the broadcast media (because of those 'guidelines')...I also wrote an article on mayorwatch in January predicting the hustings bans and mentioned what had happened in 2000 when I stood as UKIP's candidate - the best line was "it wouldn't be democratic for you to be there"...this year's was "well you can come and sit at the back but you mustn't speak or you'll confuse the audience and they'll think we haven't got all the candidates on the platform"...glorious. Quite right on the issue of 'policy' as well in the opening para. Your piece is very perceptive, as our One London group tried indeed to pitch ourselves, in the run-up, in exactly the way you have described. Right down to causing uproar at the People’s Question Time in Richmond at the outset of the campaign with strident support for airport expansion …I needed a guard when I left:)

Only in moderate jest, I sent a note to my colleagues that week saying: “Unless Ken rounds on me as ‘that wicked Damian Hockney and the mad and bad One London’, then it is not worth us standing in the Mayor election”. Effectively barred from every hustings, banned from mailing the 5 million+ electorate (by spending rules) and with very dodgy state radio and tv guidelines on coverage, there was no logic in taking part. Only the Mayor could have made a difference to that, and you are right – we would have stayed in the race if even just one of the positives for taking part were present. It seemed totally logical to us that the Mayor would do this and we were surprised that he didn’t.

I’ve written elsewhere on the mayorwatch site about the fact that the ‘main’ parties and the media won the BNP’s seat for them – the constant demonisation and coverage. The other ‘minor’ parties lost out for its mirror opposite – complete lack of coverage. The Greens were treated as an honorary ‘main’ candidate by the Standard, but not by the broadcast media (because of those ‘guidelines’)…I also wrote an article on mayorwatch in January predicting the hustings bans and mentioned what had happened in 2000 when I stood as UKIP’s candidate – the best line was “it wouldn’t be democratic for you to be there”…this year’s was “well you can come and sit at the back but you mustn’t speak or you’ll confuse the audience and they’ll think we haven’t got all the candidates on the platform”…glorious.

Quite right on the issue of ‘policy’ as well in the opening para.

]]>