Why Labour should not run Alan Sugar for London mayor

Posted on Friday 27 February, 2009
Filed Under New Labour

 


IF NEW Labour really does see celebrity status as the only requisite qualification for running the greatest city in the world, it might as well just cut to the chase and check out whether or not any or all of Girls Aloud would be up for the job. Better that than a man whose background and value system are antithetical to every last damn thing for which the labour movement used to stand.

Yet it seems that senior Labour figures have approached Alan Sugar to ask if he would consider standing against Boris Johnson as the party’s candidate for London mayor in 2012. Andrew Gilligan reports in today’s Evening Lebedev:

Ken Clark, Labour’s London director, has telephoned Sir Alan for what Labour sources said was an “exploratory conversation” about him standing.

“Ken Clark described the application process,” said one source. “The conversation was brief and pleasant.”

Sir Alan did not commit himself. However, he is considered by some in the Labour Party to be the only potential candidate in the field so far with the combination of experience and name recognition to take on the Tory Mayor …

and now for the real reason, of course

… and prevent another election attempt by Mr Livingstone.

That’s right, the same Alan Sugar who – in explaining his decision to back Tony Blair in 1997 – admitted: ‘I did very well out of the Tory years. I was proud to be considered one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite businessmen’. And although I can’t source the quote, didn’t he once admit that he would have no qualms about selling briefcase-sized nuclear bombs, provided only that the trade was legal? Nice.

Poor Livingstone. Look at how he is being treated, after everything he tried to do from 2000 onwards to distance himself from his radical past and ingratiate himself with New Labour and City big shots. Nevertheless, he still enjoys critical support from some sections of the left, and I was on balance happy to back him critically in 2008.

Yet one of the most striking features of last year’s election was the way that it was pitched in terms of a choice between ‘Ken’ and ‘Boris’. Substantive policy differences on anything other than the desirability of bendy buses were minimal. It was almost as if the electorate was being asked to decide which of the two might make more congenial company for an evening in the pub.

Don’t forget, either, the attempt to talk up Greg Dyke as a joint Conservative/Liberal candidate. Even a couple of small beer DJs saw the contest was a chance to boost their flagging careers, with Mike Read seeking the Tory nomination, and some minor league talk radio shock jock whose name I forget also in the running in the early stages. Doesn’t anyone take these elections seriously?

Now, given the figurehead nature of the role, strong candidates must necessarily evince a certain degree of charisma. City Hall is not the place for some timeserving dullard who actually bothers to read subcommittee background papers.

But I have to question the wisdom of Labour opting for a hardline Thatcherite best known for his propensity to sack people on the spot. Voters are going to be losing their jobs in sufficient numbers of the next few years to make that trait seem unattractive indeed.

If this mad plan to run Sir Alan comes off, Londoners will be reduced to a run-off between two de facto Tories, with Boris the slightly less rightwing pick. Londoners deserve better than a lab test of the old maxim that politics is simply showbiz for ugly people.


<<Go back

Comments

23 Responses to “Why Labour should not run Alan Sugar for London mayor”

  1. Mr Fox
    on February 27th, 2009 at 14:31

    Maybe it’s all a cunning plan to force Livingstone to run as an independent again. This could restore his anti-Blairite cred and giving him the extra push needed to win.

  2. tim f
    on February 27th, 2009 at 14:51

    I agree about the showbiz thing. It was exactly the same on Skins last night with Cook beating Naomi.

  3. Toodle Noodle
    on February 27th, 2009 at 16:56

    Right-wing parties put up right-wing candidates for election. This is hardly rocket science.

  4. Phil
    on February 27th, 2009 at 17:14

    some minor league talk radio shock jock whose name I forget

    Don’t be bitter, Dave. I’m sure you’d be welcome to join RESPECT if you asked nicely.

  5. Obnoxio The Clown
    on February 27th, 2009 at 17:15

    It speaks volumes for the intellectual vacuum in the Labour Party that they want a TV “personality” to run London.

  6. Lobby Ludd
    on February 27th, 2009 at 20:18

    “Why Labour should not run Alan Sugar for London mayor”

    That is so bizarre. No need to explain ‘why’. That Alan S should not ever be a Labour candidate should not need explanation.

    Sad days.

  7. Chris Baldwin
    on February 27th, 2009 at 23:40

    I say we pick Murdoch. Anyone that rich must be qualified to run a city.

  8. Ogg Oggilby
    on February 27th, 2009 at 23:58

    What about you, Dave?

    You’re a working journalist so you know about communication, and you’ve been on the telly I believe. You already have a high profile within an important demographic in North London, you know about transport with your family being connected to the railways, and your history as a pop fiend shows you can be down with the kids. I am sure that you are not a timeserving dullard. I think you should definitely gove it some thought.

    Osler for Mayor!!! It sounds good. You stand in front of the mirror and try it out for size.

  9. Chris Paul
    on February 28th, 2009 at 00:48

    Don’t think Sugar would do it. And last time I looked some “Draper” from regional office does not choose who is shortlisted or selected for the post.

    If Livingstone is not available it should obviously be Bash, and if Bash declines, possibly McDonnell.

    There may be a case for the by then penniless middle-of-the-road candidate Fred Goodwin.

  10. Robert
    on February 28th, 2009 at 09:47

    I mean why not ask Thacher, her and Dennis would do well, Brown would love to see her back in power he’s copied her enough. I know Dennis is dead but of course Thatcher does not know this.

    Would be fun to see her talking to an empty chair and telling Dennis the miners will be defeated.

  11. Andrew Coates
    on February 28th, 2009 at 11:15

    Sugar is surely a wise choice: nostalgia (as Robert says) for when capitalism seemed to work. He’ll promise a free Amstrad for all the good boys and girls who do well on workfare, to invade the Isle of Grain, and to break the grip of the tube workers’ unions by closing the Underground.

  12. David
    on February 28th, 2009 at 13:12

    Sensible Labour people like Lord Toby Harris are not buying this at all.

    See: http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/if-sir-alan-sugar-is-the-answer-then-someones-asking-the-wrong-question/

  13. James
    on February 28th, 2009 at 15:56

    Surely Oona King would be a good choice? If she can be persuaded of course. Good speaker, clever, but also fun and from London…

  14. E10 Rifle
    on February 28th, 2009 at 16:11

    Oona King isn’t very clever at all – she’s substance-less on policy, vain and self-regarding.

    And having managed to lose one of Labour’s safest seats last time, she’s hardly an election-winner.

  15. Jako
    on February 28th, 2009 at 16:16

    Not at all comfortable with the Sugar idea. I think Ken has had his chance and should let someone else have a go now. Oona King is an interesting idea. I wonder if Jon Cruddas is thinking about it.

  16. modernityblog
    on February 28th, 2009 at 19:14

    what a sorry state Labour is in, their radical alternative is to choose a Thatcherite, Alan Sugar?

    You might think they would have learnt a lesson after appointing Digby Jones?

    what next?

    will New Labourites be turning to Norman Tibbet for advice on unemployment policy? or digging up Anthony Eden and asking for Foreign policy guidance?

    you couldn’t make it up :(

  17. Renegade Eye
    on March 1st, 2009 at 02:08

    In this period, when you can say nationalize the banks, and beconsidered sane, why a Tory lite?

    Girls Alive could share duties.

  18. jock mctrousers
    on March 2nd, 2009 at 08:12

    What about Frank Bruno? He’s a likeable sort of lad.

  19. Darren
    on March 2nd, 2009 at 11:32

    “Girls Alive could share duties.”

    Are you a High Court judge?

    Is Sugar really considered a popular figure back in Britain? I’ve been away too long.

  20. jock mctrousers
    on March 2nd, 2009 at 13:20

    By the way – Oona King? War criminal! And so is the repellent Billy Bragg who campaigned for her. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bragg ends up as mayor someday – he’s already been appointed the acceptable face of leftism, and the ‘big man’ of British folk music, without any evidence of left sympathies but having read about the Chartists at school, and, needless to say, without a shred of musical talent. Or the next leader of the Labour Party? That would be an even bigger slap in the face than Tony Blair, and I bet the unions would keep paying.

  21. defender of bragg
    on March 3rd, 2009 at 11:27

    Jock McWhingepot – you are not worthy to lick Billy’s boots.

  22. Lawrie Coombs
    on March 3rd, 2009 at 14:05

    Girls Aloud are fab!