High Noon at City Hall. Well – more to do with the boys in the playground again – but sadly the topic was serious.
Mayor Ken got in an absolute stew over a question from Green member Darren Johnson about his ‘support’ for Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, according to Darren, supports and encourages the death sentence for homosexuals. Ken says this is not the case and that he is a moderate and a progressive community leader.
He had been publicly welcomed to City Hall last year by Mayor Livingstone and there had been a bit of a row then. The Assembly had debated the rights and wrongs of this invitation and had, in its wisdom, stood up for the rights of free speech – even when one disagrees.
It seemed to me, listening at the time, that al-Qaradawi’s remarks could be interpreted in a wide range of different ways. Even as a minimum, it was regrettable that he didn’t feel the need to avoid such ambiguities in his comments. But his views aren’t easily pigeon-holed. For example he’s been quoted as both supporting suicide bombings and criticising attacks on civilians.
There is though a real difficulty if, on ground of free speech, you listen to controversial people such as him but do not accord a similar opportunity to those of differing views.
So for me there is a question over who Ken does choose to give a publicity platform to at City Hall and who he doesn’t. A wiser Mayor would ensure a clearer sense of balance on issues as sensitive as those surrounding the Middle East. Whilst the Mayor has had meetings with the Board of Jewish Deputies and others – those have been in private, unlike the very public event involving the al-Qaradawi.
Sadly the City Hall pantomime didn’t really deal with this issue. Ken’s view was that Darren was distorting a particular quotation from al- Qaradawi to suit his argument and called Darren ‘Islamophobic’ and then, as the argument between them built up, ‘dishonest’.
At this point, Chair of the Assembly and my co-columnist, Brian Coleman banged his gavel and demanded that the Mayor withdraw his remarks. Ken, being Ken, stuck out his petulant lower lip and said ‘I won’t!’
I don’t want to bore you with the ensuing ‘Oh yes you will’, ‘Oh no I won’t’. Suffice to say – the Assembly was adjourned and when returned the legal advice was that this was a matter for the Standards Board if Darren wished to pursue it – which I believe he is so doing.
There may be another, unintended consequence of this distinct cooling of relations between the Mayor and the Green Party. In order for the Assembly to over-turn the Mayor’s budget proposals, a two-thirds majority is needed. If the Greens vote with Labour, a budget will get through but if they join all the other parties and vote against a budget it won’t.
Now, there probably won’t be the usual arguments over how high Ken wants to increase his share of Council Tax. That’s because it’s an election year and – surprise! – he’s already said he will not be wanting an increase of more than 5% (or 20-30p per week for the average London resident).
Instead, the debate will be much more about priorities within the overall budget. What I would like to see is for curbs on Ken’s astronomical spending on his own publicity machine. That money would be better spent on improving road safety – which doesn’t get enough attention or funding considering how many of London’s citizens die each year. I was very struck by a BBC report last year that at the time more people die on the roads in London than are murdered.
Could the Greens and other parties be tempted to vote for this over Ken’s publicity budget? Interesting times ahead!
