The Ambitions of Mayors

We all know that every soldier has a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, and that every MP wants to be PM.  Theoretically.  If it were to be handed to them on a plate.

But there are degrees of ambition; and not every MP has the kind of relentless Julius-Caesar ambition that stops at nothing.  Those that do, while they do, think of little else, every waking moment.  Asleep, they dream about it.  To the extent you can identify those ones (steam issuing from the ears is usually a sign), whenever something big goes down it's always fun to watch and to speculate how they see it; how the event impacts on them; how they try to turn it to their advantage.  

It's pretty clear that the advent of elected mayors in the UK provided a form of outdoor relief for the Truly Ambitious to essay the Caesar-in-Gaul trick.  First out of the blocks was Ken Livingstone, a man of boundless self-confidence and chutzpah - but the timing didn't work for him: he never stood a chance of nipping in ahead of Gordon Brown.  By the time of the 2010 Labour leadership vacancy, he was pretty vacant himself, a busted flush shouting at people in the street.

Boris, by contrast, worked it all to his advantage and a couple of lucky breaks later, here we all are.

Which brings us to the current difficulties of Sir K.Starmer.  Who'll be figuring out the next phase of their strategies now?  

By some accounts, none other than Angela Rayner (41) works permanently and purposefully to advance her own cause.  She certainly showed infinitely more fight in her own crisis than Rebecca Long Bailey in either of hers (x divided by 0 being infinity), with a gaggle of outriders in the field to cover her flanks with the meeja.  (RLB had an army ready to do her bidding: but she never blew on the horn.)

But Exhibit A is Sadiq Khan.  I probably don't need to convince you that he is firmly set on the Top Job.  Those mayoral roles, of course, come with the perils of fixed-term schedules, but Boris finessed that by re-entering the Commons a year before his London term ended.  We may confidently assume Khan expected to do the same, probably in 2023.  But will he now feel that's too late?   Starmer looks like he might implode before that; and in any event, Boris may pull the GE trigger before then, too.  Can Khan be sure Starmer's successor will be equally short-lived in post?  He's 50 now; how strong a challenge could he mount at 60, say?   Logically, he has to be in Parliament no later than at the time of the next GE.

I don't think we should be surprised if he seeks a "dual mandate" (as it's known) at the first opportunity: a nice, diverse Zone 2 parliamentary seat.  He's sufficiently transactional, he might even force that opportunity by getting someone to resign for him; though I'm not sure Labour Party rules would give him any certainty of being put on a by-election ballot paper, whatever the locals might want, if the Starmer machine retains executive power ...  Decisions, decisions.  One thing's certain: he'll be on manoeuvres at all times, and (for anyone even vaguely amused by this stuff) his public utterances should be monitored with interest.  As a minimum, watch him claim titular championship of the supposed new Labour bedrock of metro-bedsits and diversities.

This all tends to make us look in the direction of Manchester to that other mayoral paragon, lovable little Andy Burnham (51).  In principle, all the same structural considerations apply to him.  But ... does he strike us as in the same league, ambition-wise?  My best guess is that he wouldn't force the pace proactively, and is more in the "if it fell in my lap ..." category.

Any other foaming-at-the-mouth candidates we can spot in the ranks of the People's Party?  And what will they be up to next?

ND

Another fine mess you got me into, Gordon:

So it comes to pass that Ken of this parish has managed to get his own way in the end. The official Labour Mayor of London has triumphed over the Labour Government.

Ken never wanted the PFI deal for the underground network. in his defence he threw millions, hundreds of millions (Other People's Money of course, taxpayers OPM) actually in the way of Gordon Brown's Treasury team. Oh what joy this brought to the poor families of the lawyers and consultants of London.

Now thought Metronet is certain to enter administration. From which it will not likely recover as its backers have had enough and are giving the keys back; A sad end for their shareholders too.

So who has one out of this PFI mess? Repairs have been completed in London, but are behind what was a heroic schedule. More money will be spent on a new group to take-over and now TFL will inherit more control over the network.

This may be a welcome development to many, but the cost to administer this mess is well over £1 billion.

Also key questions remain unanswered, Iain points out how much Mr Brown has to explain of his role. Why does PFI seem to do such a bad job at delivering services?

It seems to me that socialists are incapable of making rational choices and instead seek to complicate and regulate to such an extent that creativity is driven from any process. Profit too is so hated that they try to eradicate any potential. In doing this an unsustainable administrative burden is created, on purpose by the likes of Ken.

Many of the Conservative outright privatisations worked, look at BT and British Airways for example. Even the much derided water companies are doing a better job than the state managed too. Yet the railways were a disaster, even worse than British Rail, that have cost taxpayers more money (£20 billion and counting for Railtrack and its descendants) and this latest tube fiasco adds to that.

Would the railways be better is state hands? Or is it just terrible execution of the privatisation plan as Wat Tyler says?

My gut feeling tells me it is the latter. An example in today's Telegraph speaks volumes. Metronet was required to repaint Lancaster gate grey 3 times by TFL; socialist sabotage by the Newt King.