MY BAD MAYOR DAY

Kim Levine observes Lord Archer observing the mayor of New York New York `THAT GUY Jeremy, he wrote a book, didn't he?' Bill, the limo-driver, was inquiring about his current charge. Actual- ly, Jeffrey Archer is not in Manhattan to sell books, but to become mayor of Lon- don. He is in New York to learn from arguably the most successful civic leader in recent years, the Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

`It's a learning process, it's a listening process, it's a watching process,' Lord Archer explained to me in the lobby of the Marriott hotel, mere blocks from City Hall. He was spending three days 'watch- ing the great man in action', as he put it. It was 9.15 a.m. and Giuliani's City Hall speech was scheduled to start in 45 min- utes. Lord Archer very kindly said I could go with him.

But he insisted: 'You really must disap- pear into the background . . . I don't want to cause trouble . . . If anyone says "Who's that blonde with?" [that is, me], then we've lost that battle. . . . ' Sounding, as it did, like dialogue from an Archer novel, this clandestinity was necessary because (a) a female feature writer from the London Times was also going with him, was unaware of my presence and was under the impression that she had exclusive access to the would-be mayor, and (b) the real mayor's regard for The Spectator had been somewhat modified by Taki's observations about New York's Puerto Ricans, who tend to have votes in the forthcoming may- oral election.

The Times representative underwent a severe facial transformation on my intro- duction. It culminated in an impressive lip- curl. As seven of us, including the former state senator Phil Robertson, piled into the town car, I sat almost on top of my broadsheet nemesis, creating an intimacy belying the fact that she was about to smack me.

We drew towards City Hall and a cop peered in and shouted, 'Whadya doin' here?' to which Archer replied in fantasti- cally clipped imperialist tones, 'I'm English. I've come to see the mayor.' I expected David Lean to shout 'Cut!' but instead, the gates opened. And here my day with Rudy abruptly ended.

Sadly, I was never to meet the mayor, though I'm sure we'd have got on famous- ly. The truth is, an 'unnamed source' had informed the mayor's office of this 'Specta- tor girl', and a grim-faced woman approached Lord Archer's aide: 'I under- stand someone from The Spectator is here.' I could not now witness the 4.30 p.m. wed- ding of Police Officer Patty McVeigh or the 6.45 Centre for Educational Innova- tion reception at Gracie Mansion, the mayoral residence.

Later, Lord Archer explained to me that he had always favoured an elected mayor for London. 'I backed it from the begin- ning — but then I sat on the GLC.'

`As did Tony Banks,' I pointed out.

`As did Tony Banks,' he echoed curtly.

I continued, 'Richard Branson has . . . ' `He's not running,' Lord Archer insisted.

What was he learning from the real mayor he had come to watch? Giuliani's `zero tolerance' regime was 'a classic example of why we're here'.

On what qualities he could bring from his background: 'I think it's a question which can't be answered two and a half years before [the referendum of London- ers on whether they want an elected mayor].'

Similarly, when I asked him what sort of reception he had had in London to the idea of his becoming mayor, Lord Archer replied he knew quite a lot of people, had lived there for over 30 years, and reiterat- ed that he had, 'in fact . . . served on the GLC'.

He supports the idea of a body checking the mayor's decisions — 'We have to have an authority' — but was quick to empha- sise the dangers of an overly powerful body eroding the mayor's executive role. It would, after all, probably be Labour- controlled. 'The people who know London best are probably the leaders of the coun- cils in the 32 boroughs; advising and brief- ing the mayor rather than a new tier.'

Will there be primaries along the lines of the American system? 'I would be in favour of a primary . . . whoever wants to be mayor getting out on the streets and winning the votes from their own people. The American system is good in that way — it's genuinely democratic.'

This may explain why Lord Archer appears so comfortable on American tele- vision discussing subjects with consummate ease where others would squirm. On secur- ing another broadcast appearance on Tues- day night on MSNBC, a cable news channel, Lord Archer sought maximum air time for the subject of his mayoral ambi- tions. However, commercial considerations dictated that the main topic for the night was Diana and the royal family, the two subjects becoming strangely and perversely intertwined.

He was also delighted to be recognised by New Yorkers, a consequence of his ubiquitous appearances in the post-Diana network frenzy. It was recounted to me how, at a Giuliani reception at Gracie Mansion, Lord Archer had won over 150 orthodox Jewish women, whose heads were craning to see, in the words of NBC's Tom Brokaw, 'one of the few mourners allowed inside Westminster Abbey'.

Before his meeting with the mayor, Lord Archer had exhibited a constant fascination with Giuliani's charismatic authority over both the media and New York in general. He inquired assiduously into the extent of his cross-party support and was particularly intrigued by Giuliani's hold over the New York Times, a liberal stronghold.

I explained that the paper has constantly denounced the Democratic party con- tenders for Giuliani's job. In fact, an article in the Village Voice just days ago declared, `Giuliani has so identified himself with the revival of New York that the lords of the city, including the press lords, have come to believe that his re-election is indispensable to the international marketing of New York.'

This level of power visibly intoxicated Archer: 'Fascinating, remarkable,' he repeated again and again, suddenly animat- ed. He seemed genuinely excited by its implications for his own campaign.

Perhaps most interesting of all is the question of whether Lord Archer would stand as an independent should he not become the official Tory candidate. `Democracy shouldn't be about voting along party lines all the time,' he said, but added, 'I, of course, am very confident that I will win the Conservative nomination.' A veiled threat, perhaps?

I wondered whether he intended to be the Giuliani-equivalent, arse-kicking mayor of London: 'I want the job because I want to do the job. It would be foolish of me to pretend I would be a sunflower.' (Or possi- bly wallflower?) 'I will be up there fighting for the people of London every day . . . If that means kicking the odd arse . . . then kick it I will.'

At which point I thought it time to remove my own.

The author is a Briton working for CBS News in New York