Making the Mayoral Elections count

The elections on the 1st of May will determine not only the Mayor of London, but also the members of the London Assembly. The London Assembly is an elected body of 25 members, part of the Greater London Authority, that scrutinises the activities of the Mayor of London and has the power, with a two-thirds majority, to amend the Mayor's annual budget. So along with making an informed decision about who you want to vote in as Mayor, it's just as important to pick the right candidate for the London Assembly from your particular constituency, as they will also have a direct influence on London.

There are nine candidates standing for mayor, but Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are without doubt the two leading contenders. As with a lot of politics these days, it seems to be a battle on personality. My worry about BJ is that he is capturing voter interest simply because he is Not-Ken. Whilst some little fringe elements are off talking about his views on Palestine or Iraq, I think as Londoners, we need to ask ourselves questions about BJ, and about Ken and the other candidates about what can they really DO for our city.

On the ultra-macro level do they have the vision to create a world-leading city that celebrates the multicultural and diverse nature of the city? Do they have the wherewithal to position us as a global player as power shifts slowly from the West to China and India? Do they lead on environmental issues which affect us on the global level, but also in our own day to day experiences of living in this city? On the realities of day to day, how will they make life better? What services will they offer, introduce and change? Really important, and I think seriously overlooked by even leading journalists, is the candidate capable of working with the system and making change? Can they actually deliver on the blurb they spout? On closer analysis, do they have the skills and commitment?

Alas, I share the view with many that the choice before us is very poor. But if we don't vote, then we are simply casting a vote for whoever ends up being elected. Anyone who says that not voting is not supporting the system is so utterly wrong. Not voting is actually totally supporting the system. So in order to make a choice, here are some interesting facts I found:

Commitment to exercising the duties of an elected official:
- Boris Johnson MP has only voted in 48% of Parliamentary votes
This is very low, and doesn't appear to have any excuse. A very half-hearted approach to exercising public responsibility - doesn't show respect or commitment to the people who elected him

Leading the fight against racism and gender discrimination by example?
- "Black people have lower IQs", a statement published under his watch as the editor of The Spectator
- "The chicks in the GQ expenses department – and if you can't call them chicks, then what the hell, I ask you, is the point of writing for GQ." (Life in the Fast Lane p57)
Whether you take the words at face-value, or buy into Boris' excuse that they are 'ironic', it certainly shows a strong lack of respect. If nothing else, in an age of soundbites, a leader has to show common-sense and political sensitivity in ensuring their words do not fuel hatred or encourage discrimination.

A sympathy and understanding for fighting inequality and poverty:
- 'We seem to have forgotten that societies need rich people, even sickeningly rich people, and not just to provide jobs for those who clean swimming pools and resurface tennis courts'

Respect and neighbourliness
- 'There seems no reason to behave respectfully towards that little old woman coming out of the Post Office if you feel that she belongs to a culture that is alien from your own' (Lend Me Your Ears p207).
Nice to see a leader advocating a breakdown of respect, especially towards the elderly. Surely good manners is something our city and its leaders should aspire to?

Respect for Muslims
- After the July bombings he said 'Islam is the problem' and "Having given due warning, we would dispatch an American-built ground-assault helicopter and blow the place to bits. Then we would send in bulldozers to scrape over the remains, and we would do the same to all the other houses in the area thought to have been the temporary or permanent addresses of the suicide bombers and their families"
Not much respect going on for people, faith, and most importantly for democratic process here. Whatever you make of the bombings, surely our leaders should respect the law?

Finally, I thought you might like this little piece of irony. Boris claims he is not in fact Islamophobic, and bases this claim on the fact that his great-grandfather knew the Qur'an off-by-heart. (which is like saying black or Asian people cannot be racist, it simply doesn't follow). His ancestor was a minister in the Turkish government after the caliphate fell and "when the British occupied Constantinople for four years at the end of the first world war, he collaborated with them". Nice.

Happy voting.

******************************************************
A bit of background on the process:

How the Mayor is elected in this year's scenario of more than 3 candidates:
Voters cast a vote for their First Choice candidate and have the option of casting another vote for their Second Choice candidate. Any candidate who receives more than 50% of First Choice votes will be declared the winner. If no candidate gets more than 50% of First Choice votes, the top two candidates with the most First Choice votes go through to the second round. The remaining candidates are eliminated but the second choice votes on their ballot papers will be counted. The candidate with the highest total of First and Second Choice votes is elected.

Some blurb about how the London Assembly is elected:
The London Assembly is made up of 25 members: 14 Constituency Members who represent different areas in London and 11 London-wide Members who represent the city as a whole
The First Past the Post system is used to elect the Constituency Assembly Members - the candidate with the most votes in each constituency is elected. A form of proportional representation is used to elect the London-wide Assembly Members. Votes across London are added together regardless of constituency boundaries.

The Art of Conversation - Britons, Britain, Muslims and Islam

Readers of a sensitive disposition should be advised that this article contains words of a difficult nature. What you are about to read may cause a temporary shut down in common sense and a brief outburst of hysteria.

Shariah.

Are you still there? I have smelling salts if you need them. Beware, here are a few more: fatwa, hijab, apostasy, niqab, cousin-marriage, Imam, Muslim women.

We can take a short breather now, and collect ourselves. Phew. I apologise if my outburst has reduced some readers to gibbering ranting Alf Garnett type creatures.

When the Archbishop mentioned the scary S-word, all rational debate - even if it be to score a resounding knock-out in the first three minutes for the secular corner - was suspended. What on earth have we just experienced in the last few days? Rowan Williams barely mentioned the word 'shariah' and the country was in an Armageddon-style-end-of-the-world frenzy. It wasn't even possible to get a word in edgeways to say that he was not in fact advocating shariah law. Instead, the media was awash with images of floggings from Somalia to the rings of Saturn and all the way in between.

Now that we are in the post-MTV, post-spin sound-bite century, we have lost the ability for discussion and debate. Sophistication and subtlety are a thing of the past. What I rue most is the lost art of conversation. Mention a word, and its caricature will be whipped up in front of you. Muslim woman in hijab? Poor, oppressed woman, one of four wives forced into marriage to her cousin, barely speaks English, wishes she could wear a mini-skirt... Muslim Imam? Mad ranting mullah burning a flag... Fatwa? Sentence to death for parking on a double yellow line.

It is completely impossible to have any kind of conversation about these issues without tantrums and hysteria. If British culture, values and laws are robust, then they will stand the test of discussion about these concepts, and vanquish anything that turns out to be barbaric or medaeival, or simply just not suited to the stiff upper lip and rugged British constitution. The knee-jerk ranting that surrounds us belies a lack of confidence and an unfounded sense of mistrust in the historic institutions that have made this country great.

We must ditch the cartoon (pun entirely intended) responses to any Muslim-sounding word that decorate our front pages week in week out. If we could get away from the unhelpful and misleading stereotypes that have lodged themselves into the public psyche, then maybe we could work our way through these minefields that seem to explode every few weeks. We might find our national debate engaging in that elusive thing - progress. Instead, the conversations that we need to have are being de-railed by the inability to communicate on the same wavelength. How can Muslims be part of the national conversation, if their terminology is at best unheard and misunderstood, or worse is misrepresented and the object of scaremongering?

P.S. To reduce the burden on some 'opinionated' readers, I have prepared some comments in advance that you might like to make. If you still feel het up, you can register your vote for your preferred tantrum. (1) What on earth is this Muslim complaining about? If she doesn't like it here she can go home (2) Stop blowing us up if you don't want us to react with hysteria every time you mention a foreign word (3) All Muslim women are oppressed. This is a fact. Thus Muslims are wrong on every possible count and we are right about everything (4) The sooner Muslims get it into their thick heads that this is Britain and we do things the British way, the happier we will all be

Refusing to shake hands - the latest crime?

Whilst the delightful squeaky clean tabloids are busy throwing stones in Jade Goody's glass house, they are also running a story about a female Muslim police officer who has refused to shake hands with Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It is, once again, the end of the known world.

She has completed her training, engaging with both men and women as required in a professional capacity of being a police officer. However, according to this story she states: "There is a standard between personal and professional life. A passing-out parade is a personal event. You are not fulfilling a professional duty there."

Once again, it seems that the media wishes to blow the tiniest most insignificant incident into a full scale national security issue. I can't currently find any information to cross reference this against, but even in the story itself, the woman in question comes across as quite balanced. She shows that full engagement in her role as on officer is what is required, but once outside that domain, why should she have to do something that she doesn't want to? Last time I checked, it wasn't a crime to not shake hands with someone. Think of shaking hands for a Muslim woman like a full face snog with your boss might feel like for someone else. It's a case of re-calibrating the sensitivity scale.

"It's ridiculous!" you may cry. "We should all be identical! And I am the person who should determine how people should feel and what they should do!"