A rather puzzling post over at Iain Dale’s blog. Reacting to the news that Boris Johnson has decided to stand as London Mayor, Iain says:
Steve Norris should stand against Boris but the others should depart the scene
His reason?
Over the last few months I have interviewed most of the other potential candidates on 18 Doughty Street. I’ve been impressed by their commitment and enthusiasm, but none of them stand a chance against Boris, with one exception. The exception is Steve Norris.
The reason I hope Steve still decides to stand is that Boris needs to be tested and Steve is just the man to provide the test. In addition, Steve could actually beat Boris to the nomination or be there to pick up the pieces if for whatever reasons Boris’s candidacy self combusts.
Hmm.
Sometimes I wonder if Iain writes these things just to provoke fierce debate, and not necessarily because he believes them. I agree regarding the desirability of having a strong candidate to test Boris Johnson, but quite why that has to be Norris, I have no idea.
And as for Norris picking up the nomination again, I hope this does not happen. This is a man who saw nothing wrong in holding on to his Jarvis job while expecting to be taken seriously as a friend of the London commuter. One could argue that there was no conflict of interest, but the fact is that, in politics, perception counts for a lot. If Steve Norris truly could not see how bad that looked to the London voter, then he has no business in politics. I voted for him then, but with a lot of misgivings.
More to the point, Steve Norris has already been beaten twice by Ken Livingstone. Surely the logical response to this is not to send him back into the ring to receive a third beating. Certainly not when there are way better options out there. The Conservative Party is most definitely not short of quality candidates.
Steve Norris does not have a God-given right to stand as the Tory candidate. In fact, I would choose any of the other Tory candidates over him. To my mind, wheeling out a twice-defeated candidate shows a careless disregard for the electorate. They have refused him twice already, so what do we do? Offer them the same man that they have twice rejected. For a party that claims to be listening to the public, this would be extremely ill-advised. It is tantamount to saying to the electorate: ‘we know what’s good for you, and we will keep offering it until you accept it’. How foolishly futile. Only an ignorant and stiff-necked political party would act this way. I don’t expect much from the Conservative Party these days, but even I would hope they wouldn’t be that stupid.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Could you substantiate your objections to Boris as a candidate? I’m not being provocative, I’m just wondering what your reasons are.
Thanks.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
To Boris? I have no objections whatsoever to Boris! In fact I am backing him.
It is Norris I cannot support.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Yes, the only result of such a “clash of the conservative titans” would be that both parties end up looking unattractive after tearing strips off each other. Ken would be laughing.
I think Ken will be laughing in any event.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:10 am
I’d love to vote for boris - he says what he things, seems a genuinie honest bloke with a good sence of humour - i love his appearances on the “have i got news for you” quiz. Thing is i reckon the mair has to be able to plot and scheme and manipulate to get things done so i’ll probably still vote for ken, basically boris seems to nice. Now if the job was to be a replacement for the prince of wales or to be the next king , something without real power but the need to make people happy, yes then i’d vote for boris, but to fight the ppp on the tube, to sort out free travel for kids and old folk, well love him or hate him you gotta admit ken gets things done.
As for steve norris - no offence to the gentlman - yawn…
July 17th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Sometimes I wonder if Iain writes these things just to provoke fierce debate, and not necessarily because he believes them. I agree regarding the desirability of having a strong candidate to test Boris Johnson, but quite why that has to be Norris, I have no idea.
I’ve just lifted this paragraph and taken it across to Iain Dale’s, depositing it there.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:48 am
We need Chuck Norris not Steve Norris.
As a Londoner I’m very happy with the idea of Boris running for mayor and I really hope he wins because he’s the best candidate that the conservatives have had to offer since the office was created. I don’t really see why you want someone to compete with him in the party, I think it would look better to the undecided voters of London if just for once the Conservative party didn’t descend into unbecoming in-fighting. Your suggestion worries me because if it is shared by other party members then its back to bickering. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Wolfie, you make a very good point. Let me explain what I was trying to say.
By ‘testing’ Boris, I meant a candidate who would be serious enough to make Boris (to use a cliche) ‘raise his game’. A candidate whose serious views would make Boris ditch the jokey persona long enough to debate seriously. That would make those who dismiss Boris as a ‘buffoon’ to see that he really is no such thing.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I hope Boris wins. He is a great character and a great intellect. London needs a lot of common sense being restored after the diabolical run of the Red Ken fiend.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:12 am
Steve Norris is credible and serious. Boris is a clown and a joke. QED.