Apparently, according to those in the know, this is the likely answer to who the average Londoner thinks the next elected Mayor will be. The loveable rogue, the man who tells us how things really are. The man who is elected to serve and govern London but still manages to pontificate on international affairs. More accurately, on international affairs of his own choice. The man who vociferously attacks George Bush at any opportunity, but has little to say publicly about the human rights record of the Chinese on a recent visit to Beijing. The man who likened the massacre in Tiananmen Square of 1989 to the ‘Poll Tax’ riots of 1990: the first killed an estimated 3000 people, the second killed none. The first led to a further crackdown on individual freedoms, the second led to reform of local taxation in Britain. Similar? Or could it be that the true ‘leftie’ is following the Chinese billions? Mr Principle, I presume?

The London Mayoralty is a position of real political power. It has a very important role in the government of arguably the greatest city on Earth. It sets the budget for the Greater London Authority and oversees or controls policy areas as diverse as transport, policing, health (tackling inequalities), environment and culture. The Mayor has a remarkable degree of independence. This is a political position that every serious political party should aim to gain. That is why the Conservatives should take their time over the selection of their candidate.

Although I understand Darren Caplan’s frustration at the apparent delay in selection of the Conservative Mayoral candidate, his article does eloquently and passionately highlight the political weaknesses of the incumbent Mayor. The Conservative Party needs a positive candidate, a candidate who can express the hopes as well as concerns of average Londoners. A candidate who can positively address the quality of life issues – environment, crime, public transport – that David Cameron will seek to address on the national stage. The Conservative Party also needs their candidate to reach out to all of London’s communities. Not in the often crude way of the incumbent Mayor, but rather to forge links and foster integration between the city’s established communities.

The London I know is already a fantastic city. It deserves a fantastic Conservative candidate who can lead it confidently and successfully into the next decade. With the right candidate in place, the Conservatives are in a strong position to take over the government of the world’s premier city.

Congratulations to Jane Ellison on her selection for Battersea last night. Apparently there are some Conservatives ‘activists’ who were unhappy with her success and fear her ‘centrist’ and ‘left wing’ views. Where exactly do these critics think the votes we need for General Election success reside? Further to the right?

An interesting article has been posted here on Conservative Home this evening. Clearly there is positive discrimination at play in the selection of candidates to the Priority List of Candidates. Before commenting further, I must declare I am one of the 62 men. As someone who stood in Blaenau Gwent in the 2005 General Election, I need no reminding of an electorate’s potential for voting strongly against candidates selected by positive discrimination. Consequently, I believe the Conservative Party is right to be against the imposition of ‘all women short lists’. However, what is it to do when confronted by such an obvious lack of female representation within its Parliamentary party? The Priority List has been its answer. I, like many, am uncomfortable about any process that is not strictly meritocratic, however, the present system appears a compromise worth making in the short term in order to rectify such an embarrassing representational imbalance.

Brian Jenner’s article, though mildly entertaining, appears to follow that perennial approach of cynicism towards politics (and politicians). I have political ambitions. These are based on a sense duty, of wanting to make a difference, and above all, to make peoples’ lives better. By the way, I am state-educated and my mum is not best pleased about my political aspirations. I am reminded of that question at medical school interviews that no school leaver wanted to answer – why do you want to be a doctor? Candidates would squirm and mumble something about “wanting to help people” to which the interviewer would curtly reply “why not become a plumber then?” A ‘good’ candidate responded by reaffirming the same goal. The point was (and is) that it is an admirable aspiration to want to help people, however tough that undertaking might be. Ironically, cynicism is often the easiest option.