In twenty days, London elects its new Mayor. They'll set our taxes, run our police, coordinate our transport and greet the world at the start of the Olympics. And, knowing London, we'll elect the wrong candidate.
There is a serious risk that <Candidate A> will win the Mayoral Election. And that would be awful. I cannot believe that so many Londoners are willing to give their vote to this charlatan. He's nothing but an idiot, a slimy self-interested caricature, out of touch with the wider world. His views on the major issues of the day are little short of laughable, and yet somehow he commands the devotion of millions. Whenever you see his face on the TV you want to cringe, whenever you hear him speak you want to scream, and whenever you read his policies you want to argue with every word. The amount of tax he pays makes my eyes water, and my blood boil. His staff are nothing but lickspittle cronies, using public money to further their perverse agendas. He'll do nothing for the Londoners who really matter, preferring instead to prioritise his own kind at the expense of the rest of us. Imagine four years with this bloke at the helm of the capital - the damage they could do doesn't bear thinking about. And yet people are sleepwalking into voting for this madman because they're fixated on personality rather than policies. Transport, crime, employment - these are the battlegrounds on which the election should be fought, not who has the best soundbite and who last swore at who. Surely it's obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about the issues how dangerous his victory would be. His past record speaks for itself, but does London really have so short a collective memory? If this is the best hope that the Mayoral election can throw up, God help us all.
But there is a serious risk that <Candidate B> won't win the Mayoral Election. And that would be awful. I cannot believe that so few Londoners are planning to give their vote to this gentleman. He's a master politician, a charismatic but humble statesman, completely in touch with the wider world. His views on the major issues of the day are little short of laudable, and yet somehow he fails to command the devotion of millions. Whenever you see his face on the TV you want to smile, whenever you hear him speak you want to cheer, and whenever you read his policies you want to agree with every word. The amount of tax he pays is only fair, given his personal circumstances. His staff are a talented bunch, allocating our taxes to maximise value for money. He'll work tirelessly for the Londoners who really matter, rather than narrowing his focus to prioritise minorities and vested interests. Imagine four years with this bloke at the helm of the capital - the changes they could bring about would be inspirational. And yet people are sleepwalking into voting for the other bloke because they're fixated on personality rather than policies. Transport, crime, employment - these are the battlegrounds on which the election should be fought, not who has the best soundbite and who last swore at who. Surely it's obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about the issues how progressive his victory would be. His opponent's past record speaks for itself, but does London really have so short a collective memory? If this is the best hope that the Mayoral election can throw up, God help us all.
Then there's <Candidate C>, who's proving something of an also ran. They have plenty of good policies, some even that the main candidates have tried to steal, but with a nagging sense of all-round incompleteness underneath. I think everyone sees them as a one-issue politician, whereas London's Mayor requires commanding leadership across the entire spectrum of local government. When there's a debate they're always on the sidelines trying to interrupt and get a word in, and generally failing. They don't have sufficient gravitas, or charisma, so it's hard to imagine them standing up for London as our representative in the wider world. I mean they seem nice enough, and you could probably imagine going out for a drink with them, but that's not really good enough is it? Come May 3rd they'll be sidelined, same as usual, and it'll be their second preference votes that decide the election.
Then there's <Candidate D>, who's proving something of an also ran. They have plenty of good policies, some even that the main candidates have tried to steal, but with a nagging sense of all-round incompleteness underneath. I think everyone sees them as a one-issue politician, whereas London's Mayor requires commanding leadership across the entire spectrum of local government. When there's a debate they're always on the sidelines trying to interrupt and get a word in, and generally failing. They don't have sufficient gravitas, or charisma, so it's hard to imagine them standing up for London as our representative in the wider world. I mean they seem nice enough, and you could probably imagine going out for a drink with them, but that's not really good enough is it? Come May 3rd they'll be sidelined, same as usual, and it'll be their second preference votes that decide the election.
As for <Candidate E>, is anyone quite sure what they stand for? What little we've heard might be enticing, at least on the surface, but there's no visibility, no scrutiny, to bring their campaign values to life. That's the problem with being so far down the pecking order - nobody gives them the time of day, and they're doomed to be the "who's that?" name on the ballot paper. This candidacy will always be overshadowed, alas, so any votes here are truly wasted.
As for <Candidate F>, it's not entirely clear why they're standing. What little we've heard has been diffuse, almost irrelevant, with no coherent message to bring their campaign values to life. That's the result of being a long way down the pecking order, of interest only to the disaffected few, meaning they're doomed to be the "I protest!" name on the ballot paper. This candidacy will always be overshadowed, it seems, and any votes here are truly wasted.
As for <Candidate G>, can anyone be in any doubt what they stand for? Thank goodness we've heard so little, at least in the media, so there's no visibility, no publicity, to bring their so-called values to life. That's the good thing about being so far down the pecking order - nobody gives them the time of day, so they're doomed to be the "hell no!" name on the ballot paper. This candidacy will always be overshadowed, thank God, ensuring any votes here are truly wasted.
Only one candidate has the policies, the charisma and the moral high ground. Only one candidate has the proven track record to be entrusted with your vote. The rest of the candidates are at best sideshows and at worst a recipe for social and financial disaster. Your choice on May 3rd is clear. Please vote wisely, else the wrong one'll get in again, and we all know how bad that'll be.
