The row over Ken

| | | | | | | |

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Had a coffee with Martin Bright this morning. He is very angry with me for signing the Compass letter in support of Livingstone and made his feelings known in his blog. Meanwhile Sunder Katwala who heads up the Fabians has written his, longer version, of why I signed, like me he rejects the letter's Compass statement's criticism of journalists on the left (aka in this instance Martin Bright) who criticise Ken. I've put my case. We also talked about the drink issue and my distinction between politicians taking whatever they need to stiffen their nerves - but not to tolerate drug use that incapacitates them or makes them feel sorry for themselves. More important, perhaps, Martin and I agree that even if elected Ken may not last the course of another four years. Who should replace him? Not an ex-Cabinet minister. Please! The political establishment (and I include media reporters in this) still do not understand what is happening with devolution. London demands a different kind of politics. It is an executive post not a ministerial one. A point I've made before. It should be a stepping stone to national politics not a consolation prize. Livingstone has made the impact he has, not because he was an MP or is a "maverick" as Sunder describes him, but because he was formed by running the GLC. It was there that he came to the view that in executive terms one looks for "the best person for the job anywhere in the world and pay them accordingly". Eyebrows have been raised at my suggestion that a better left candidate would have been Neal Lawson. Should Sunder be drafted? The position needs someone with executive abilities and a political will to mobilise a wide range of constituencies outside the usual party routines.

| | | | | | | |