Given the events in the Labour Party that led to the mayoral election I cannot but comment on these. But first must come the governmental aspect - the relations between the administration of London and the national government.
People have asked whether as Mayor I intend to collaborate with the government. The answer is a simple "yes". I am equally convinced that the government wants to collaborate with the Mayor and administration of London.
First, because they respect the democratic wishes of the people of London. Second, because the job of government is to ensure the best possible life for the citizens of the country, and in my case for the citizens of London.
I take the statements made by ministers of their decision to collaborate with London at face value, and look forward to working with them. Indeed within hours of moving into the Mayor's offices, consultations with government ministers had already begun.
My attitude to this Labour government remains what it has always been. Mrs Thatcher represented everything I oppose and detest - the damage she did to London, the culture she created of indifference to the most disadvantaged in society, and the way she rode roughshod over democratically expressed opposition. I believe her government did deep and lasting damage to London, which it is part of the Greater London Assembly's task to undo. I approached her government in that light.
This government is entirely different. I believe it is trying to strongly improve the lives of the citizens of our country. On some issues I have differences on how to achieve this. But we share common goals. This precludes any confrontational attitude.
To take London, it is sufficient merely to note that Mrs Thatcher abolished the democratically elected GLC, because Londoners dared to vote for candidates who disagreed with her, whereas Tony Blair's government recreated a strategic local authority for London, and devolved power to Scotland and Wales. It thereby gave them the right to elect representatives either to agree or disagree with the government. Despite all his criticism of me, it was Tony Blair's government that gave Londoners the right to elect either me or anyone else. It is impossible to take even a remotely similar approach to two such fundamentally different governments.
That determines my approach as Mayor. It does not mean that I will not, on occasion, disagree with the government if it affects London's interests. David Blunket's statement on television, implying that collaboration means abandoning the expression of disagreement with the government if disagreement exists, is not correct. How can the mayor not say that he believes that an overvalued exchange rate is deeply damaging to Ford's plant at Dagenham, which is crucial for the economy of London? A Mayor has no option but to comment on matters which deeply affect London. Indeed, devolution requires that central government adjust to the fact that regionally elected politicians will represent the wishes of their voters. In the case of London, this is clearly the case with transport policy and the London Underground.
I made clear at the beginning of my campaign that the election would be a referendum on the partial privatisation of the Tube. The great majority of Londoners cast their votes for candidates who rejected privatisation. They expect those views to be taken into account by government.
As regard issues that relate to the Labour Party, as opposed to government, it is obvious to all that the party suffered an electoral disaster in London on Thursday. The Labour candidate for Mayor was beaten into third place. The Conservatives out-polled Labour in the capital. Tragically, this was an entirely self-inflicted wound. If its selection ballot had not been outrageously manipulated, to the point where it was rigged, Labour would have won a victory in London that would have lifted its morale.
For the third time in succession, in Scotland, Wales and now London, those with a narrow sectarian conception of Labour have inflicted severe damage on the party. There are no policies that I expressed in my career in politics that are not part of the broad church of the Labour Party. This was proved by the fact that the prime minister was explicit that if I had overcome even the rigged ballot in London I would have been endorsed as Labour candidate and I was considered fit to represent the Labour Party in parliament. Such a broad church approach is indispensable. Actions such as those in London and Wales narrowed the basis of the party and imposed a defeat on it.
Some Labour MPs warned that a dirty election campaign would simply compound the damage. They were ignored. I want to put what was said in the election campaign behind us. But one thing went so far beyond the limits of acceptable debate that I cannot but put it on record and express my attitude on it. This was the attempt by the Labour campaign in a public advertisement to associate me with the desecration of the cenotaph. I have nothing but contempt for those who defiled the monument to those gave their lives for our liberty. That advertisment represented a low point in British political campaigning. It is clear that this negative campaigning approach inflicted huge damage on the Labour party in London.
London has voted. I am overwhelmed to have been given a mandate against the three most powerful party machines in Britain. But I would rather have become the mayor fighting alongside the many friends with whom I have spent thirty years in the Labour movement. I was forced to chose between accepting a selection mechanism that removed any democratic choice from London, and Labour in London, or allowing the electorate to judge.
But it was Labour's self-inflicted wound. Regardless of what anyone else does, I am going to conduct myself towards the Labour Party in such a way as to heal this wound, not deepen it.
