Notes
When Ken Livingstone first used the parapet of County Hall as a poster site, even he can scarcely have guessed how successful the tease would be. Tory MPs taking tea on the terrace had to look at the London unemployment figures blazon- ed on the other side of the river. As a result, the desire to get rid of Mr Livingstone seems to have become an obsession with many of them. It is this obsession which has unhorsed the Government over the aboli- tion of the GLC and the Metropolitan Counties. The case for abolishing these ex- pensive but virtually functionless bodies is as strong as ever. If the abolition could not be managed before 1986, the simplest thing to do with the elections due in 1985 would have been to cancel them and allow the ex- isting Labour majorities to remain in power for an extra year. There was no case at all for substituting representatives nominated by the boroughs for the final year, especial- ly as in London this would mean a change of political control. It looked like sharp practice, not sound administration. And the House of Lords had a perfect right to throw it out. Mrs Thatcher's original in- stinct was correct. Mr Livingstone should be allowed to have his extra year. Outside London the whole business has had an un- derwhelming effect on public opinion, which in general tends to the view that the less local government there is, the better. Inside London, from the start, there has been a definite feeling that this ought not to be the only capital city without a representative voice. But although it may be un- fashionable to say so, even the old LCC never quite sounded right in that role, since it was sundered from the historic legitimacy which was hoarded in the Guildhall and Mansion House. If there really does need to be a 'voice for London', the London boroughs ought to link up with the City and Corporation. A congress of London mayors — rather on the lines of the Gover- nors' conference in the United States would make an impressive chain gang.
Previous page
