If Boris is the answer, what was the question?

It’s hard for those of us who don’t live in London to understand why Londoners chose Boris Johnson for their new Mayor – and I write from the place which is run by Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Are the bendy buses really that bad? But every politician should be as generous as Johnson in their victory speech, and it was particularly appropriate for him to acknowledge Livingstone’s leadership after the bombings on 7th July 2005.

It appears that a number of issues contributed to the result. There was an inner/ outer London divide, with the outer areas going for Boris. Personally I find outer London utterly depressing, but there’s no doubt many of the run-down suburbs need more public investment. Do voters really think they’ll get that from the Tories?

There may also have been a racist element, and it’s also alarming that the BNP gained a London Assembly seat. Perhaps some voters genuinely felt that Livingstone was too close to Islamic extremists, but despite the overall success of London’s multiethnic society there is still a small-minded element around who were able to attach themselves to Johnson, without his approval I’m sure.

Other London-based issues which could have been influential include the slight hint of patronage around Livingstone’s administration, and the old ‘time for a change’ argument put forward by the politically illiterate. Well, be careful what you wish for. More seriously, crime and anti-social behaviour are obviously of concern and perhaps people thought Johnson would be able to run the police better than Ken. But in that case why didn’t they vote for Brian Paddick?

There is of course the possibility that there was a protest vote based on the Government’s record, and in particular on the abolition of the 10p tax rate. But it was the more affluent boroughs that won it for Boris, and in any case it must have been widely known that Ken didn’t support the change and has been a maverick both inside and outside the Labour party for his entire political career. Also, there was a low turnout and so if it was a protest vote it was not very effective. The abysmal 45% turnout, albeit higher than London’s previous two Mayoral elections, shows there was little confidence in any of the candidates. That less than half the voters should bother to turn out says more than anything else about the state of democracy in one of the world’s greatest cities.

P.S. Keep an eye on Boris with BozzaWatch...