THE ABA CHAMPION

Michael Gove on the Tories' search

for 'Anyone But Archer' to be their candidate for mayor of London

THE BATTLE to become London's mayor is an opportunity for both main par- ties to project an attractive face on the run-up to the next general election, but already there is evidence that the mayoral race could have party leaderships cursing the democracy they have so recently embraced.

When Londoners choose their borough councillors on 7 May next year they will also be invited to vote in a referendum on an elected mayor and strategic authority for the capital. If they say yes, and the polls point to an overwhelming endorse- ment, then elections will follow in the autumn of 1999 or spring of 2000. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics believes the election for mayor gives the Tories their 'best chance to win a significant prize before the general elec- tion'. Tory strategists recognise that the Conservative vote is artificially low in Lon- don and the mayoral campaign could revive a creaking machine. Tory historians remember that it was Sir Desmond Plum- mer's victory in the GLC elections of 1968 and Sir Horace Cutler's in 1977 that pro- vided a springboard for sweeping gains in London and victory at the general election two years later.

, The importance of the election has not been lost on the shadow Cabinet and par- liamentary party, where a new faction has been recruiting to rival the leftist TRG (Tory Reform Group) and Thatcherite CWF (Conservative Way Forward) — it is the high Tory ABA (Anyone But Archer).

Showing greater speed, and skill, than ne ever managed on the cinder track, Lord Archer is well ahead of any other Conser- vative candidate in the race for the nomi- nation. For some senior Tories the risk of an Archer candidacy is unacceptably high and the search is on for a man to stop him.

Labour too needs to stop their own dan- te.rOus populist, the resurgent Red Ken have and the man on whom they "ave lighted is Trevor Phillips, the televi- sion presenter, Independent columnist and, most importantly of all, friend of Peter andelson. But Mr Phillips is still appar- ently idling in the pavilion. He may have the manners of Sydney Poitier but he has

dealt with his nomination so far in the manner of Colin Powell flirting with the American presidential nomination, luxuri- ating in the speculation but politely pooh- poohing it.

The comparison with General Powell has been made, in another context, by one of his champions. The Phillips fan believes a well-spoken black achiever could garner the votes of liberals, professionals and eth- nic minorities in a rainbow coalition from Brixton to Barnet.

Mr Phillips and Mr Mandelson were colleagues at London Weekend Television in the mid-Eighties, along with John Birt, Barry Cox, the millionaire contributor to

the Blair leadership campaign, and Michael Wills, the elegant New Labour MP for North Swindon. Although Mr Phillips has not yet himself taken to the hustings, he has already done some deft politicking with his pen. In August, when Mr Mandelson was running for the Labour NEC, Mr Phillips devoted his Independent column to a detached assessment of his friend's mer- its. Mr Mandelson was portrayed to the reader as part Hugh Grant, part Princess Diana and part Keir Hardie in Armani, a man who, Mr Phillips believed, 'makes dev- astatingly witty speeches at weddings, who is good with kids and whose main political philosophy is a somewhat old-fashioned belief that the Labour party's business in life is to create a more equal society'.

Mr Phillips's propaganda did not get his old chum elected to the NEC but it didn't harm his own chances of selection as Labour's candidate for mayor. Not only would it delight Mr Mandelson, it would also be a perfect way of stopping the creep back to power of Mr Livingstone.

Mr Livingstone, like a salamander in the desert, is manoeuvring to take advantage of a crack. The government's plans to create a London-wide elected authority and directly elected mayor have split Labour, not so much between old and new, but between municipalists and modernisers. According to Tony Travers, there is a division between 'those around Blair in the heart of government and the London Labour party': the Blairites want a strong person- ality as mayor, capable of transcending tra- ditional party affiliations, much as the Prime Minister has done, while the party's grass-roots want the mayor to be a crea- ture of their caucuses. The government Green Paper, 'New Leadership for Lon- don', envisages a powerful mayor and a consultative assembly. Labour activists fear the assembly could be no more than the chain round the mayor's neck, lending him authority but capable itself of no more than slowing him down. The municipalists' concerns would, however, be met if one of their number were mayor, and in a Lon- don Labour party still to the left of the leadership Ken is the candidate.

Mr Livingstone's defeat of Mr Mandel- son in the elections for the NEC confirms his persistent appeal. If Ken isn't to win another popularity poll of members then the Blairites may have to finesse the selec- tion procedure — and who would be a bet- ter beneficiary of any fast-track nomination than a black candidate? If rules can be bent to promote women in Parliament, surely the Labour party will allow its leadership to guarantee that a tal- ented figure from an even more grotesque- ly under-represented minority becomes the candidate for London. When the GLC did so much to promote multiculturalism Ken cannot have realised he was feasting with panthers. . . .

Ticklish as the Labour leadership's prob- lems are, however, they are as nothing compared to those of the Tory high com- mand. William Hague's commitment to internal democracy has led the Conserva- tives to propose that their candidate be chosen in a primary, with every party member in London entitled to vote. Mr Archer's opponents believe this is a gift to the flamboyant peer, the political equiva- lent of handing over £2,000 in a brown envelope — a generous gesture prompted by noble motives which could end in tears.

Lord Archer has devoted his life to fund-raising fork buffets with activists and now believes all those rubber chickens are coming home to roost. He has recently recruited a gifted aide in Stephan Shake- speare, the teacher who was the Tory can- didate in Colchester at the last election. The two met on Peter Lilley's leadership campaign when they provided the shadow Chancellor with political edge and rhetori- cal oomph. A trip earlier this month to shadow New York's populist republican mayor Rudi Giuliani has secured welcome television and press coverage.

The unhappy publicity surrounding a misunderstanding over share dealing a couple of years ago tempted Lord Archer into a period cultivating his own garden rather than tending to the party's grass- roots. But, like Cincinnatus, he has left his plough. A gloriously shameless perfor- mance at the party conference, where he slammed MPs for disloyalty and aligned himself with the betrayed foot-soldiers, infuriated the party's old guard but delight- ed the activists. One MP, disgusted by his attack on the establishment and obeisance before the groundlings, styled him dismis- sively 'the Tory party's Earl Spencer'.

Since the conference the People's Jef- frey has been indefatigable, taking on the presidency of the World Professional Bil- liards and Snooker Association, appearing in a new British Telecom ad and agreeing to cheerlead for the Tory candidate in the Winchester by-election. A friend of Lord Archer believes the peer feels he has not been rewarded properly by his party. Elec- tion as London's mayor would make him the most powerful Tory in Britain — no more, he believes, than Britain's most popular Tory deserves.

The skill with which Lord Archer can garner publicity might seem to recom- mend him. One MP on the Lilley leader- ship team recalls with genuine admiration the warmth with which Archer was met, even in socialist Scotland. In polls for a future mayor support for him personally seems to outstrip support for his party. And yet, and yet. . . .

Many senior Tories fear Lord Archer's talent for scrapes goes beyond the bad luck of the accident-prone and points to a deep- er defect of character. Can the Tory party afford, they say, to have someone admit- tedly talented but unloved by the gods car- rying the Conservative banner in such a crucial election?

Personal antipathy plays a part as well as prudence. The shadow minister who secured Tory support for an elected mayor, Sir Norman Fowler, is no fan of Lord Archer. When Sir Norman was Tory chair- man he did not enjoy an easy relationship with Jeffrey. Sir Norman's reservations are shared by Hague aides, who despair private- ly of finding an alternative candidate who can appeal more effectively to activists.

Some Tories believe the party might be better off supporting a popular indepen- dent such as Richard Branson. Those Con- servatives who know the bearded buccaneer doubt, however, that he will run for a post which would mean abandoning his business interests and risking his popu- larity. They believe the publicity master- mind only encourages speculation to keep his name, and his brand, in the papers.

Getting entangled with a Virgin, as Piers Merchant found out, is no answer for the Conservatives. There is another option, first floated in the Times by Peter Riddell. One man who has experience of running a vast cosmopolitan city currently languishes without a job. Chris Patten could match Lord Archer's appeal to Conservatives and reach out to the uncommitted. The former governor of Hong Kong has the ability and charm. If Trevor is the clever choice for Blair, might Hague learn to love the Guy?

The author writes for the Times.