London mayoral race: can Zac Goldsmith shake Boris's shadow?

Zac Goldsmith—the Richmond MP and Conservative London mayoral candidate who once topped the men’s list on the parliamentary hot or not site “sexymp.co.uk”—is used to being in the limelight. One of his party’s most high-profile backbenchers, he has been, in his own words, a "pain in the backside" of the government on green policy, democratic reform, and, most recently, in opposing the expansion of Heathrow airport. But at last night’s hustings for Conservative mayoral candidates, hosted by Prospect and the Centre for London, he wasn’t the star. That title arguably went to Andrew Boff, a wide-eyed, bearded firebrand from his party’s most radical wing who drew applause for his uncompromising pronouncements and total sincerity. Sound familiar?

“I hope not,” says Goldsmith after the event, when I suggest the Tory race might spawn a Corbyn of the right. But he is full of admiration for Boff: “he was brilliant!” His willingness to praise a rival might look surprising, but it seemed natural following an understated performance from Goldsmith, who sat cross legged, jotting down notes and smiling benignly throughout the hour and a half debate. A supporter would say his manner was “measured,” someone less kind might have called the Eton-educated MP “louche.”

One reason why Goldsmith, who is the clear favourite to receive the Conservative nomination, doesn’t shock or surprise is his undisguised admiration for the role’s incumbent Boris Johnson, a friend. Throughout the hustings, he quoted or cited policy from the current mayor, whom he calls “one of the most magnetic figures in British politics.” So he is he running on a “continuity Boris” ticket?

“I wouldn’t say that,” he says. “I think that Boris has been a brilliant mayor… but I don’t think any successor to Boris could or should be Boris mark two. It’s a different set of challenges.”

London’s rising population—the number of people living in the city hit a record 8.6m in February—has changed what voters care about, he says. In particular, the issue of housing has become more important: “I remember being selected [for parliament] in 2009… on the basis that I would fight off inappropriate development,” he recalls. “The very same people… were saying [in 2015]: ‘are you the one who’s going to deliver the houses we need?’”

His campaign material promises a “relentless focus on releasing publicly-owned brownfield land for development” and “putting empty homes back on the market”. He also pledges “a London-first bias for new developments”—when challenged last night on the issue of foreign-owned, buy-to-invest housing, he said: “if we start with the position that there are a lot of people overseas and institutions that want to invest in London property, I would suggest we turn that into a good, not a bad.” But even on housing—an issue where Johnson has frequently been criticised—he stops short of slamming the current mayor, whose record he says is “much better than people have given him credit for.”

That’s not to say Goldsmith has no new ideas. During our conversation I asked him about tube strikes. After now-delayed plans for a 24-hour service on the London Underground were met with opposition from workers concerned about health and lifestyle implications, London’s tube staff have conducted several strikes this year. How would Goldsmith keep the unions happy and stop disruption to Londoners?

“I think there is a good case to be made for opening these discussions [between Transport for London and the Unions] up and allowing the public in,” he says. “You have entrenched positions, but it’s much harder to defend an entrenched position if you’re involving much larger numbers [of people].” He hasn’t yet worked out how precisely this would work, but says “if the public are part of that discussion… I think you’d find that the various sides would behave much more reasonably than they otherwise do.” It’s an eye-catching proposition which fits with Goldsmith’s maverick, pro-direct democracy image (he’s known for proposing a much stronger mechanism for voters to sack their MP than the government’s MPs’ recall bill.) That’s assuming, of course, that he can formalise it as a pledge.

He’s also known as a green campaigner—he used to edit The Ecologist, an environmental journal founded by his uncle, and has fought for causes from marine conservation areas to cyclists’ rights. His opposition to Heathrow expansion is partly on environmental grounds. All this could play well in London, where the Green Party took 5 per cent of the vote at the election compared to 3.8 per cent nationally, and where voters are more likely to rate the environment as a top priority. Alongside an existing pledge to help facilitate a “revolution in electric vehicles,” he told me last night that he would like to bring forward and expand Boris’s planned “ultra low emissions zone,” which will charge motorists extra for using environmentally unfriendly vehicles within a predesignated part of central London. But, with typical caution, he stresses there are “a lot of details to look at before making a mayoral commitment.”

Goldsmith needs to up his game at forthcoming hustings. Last night, his support among the audience ebbed between the first show of hands, where he had around 60 supporters, and the second, where this dropped to more like 45. If he gets the nomination—and this remains the likely outcome—he’ll certainly need to put in spirited performances against a seasoned politician such as Tessa Jowell or a bold left-winger like Sadiq Khan (the pair are favourites for the Labour nomination.) But putting Boris on a pedestal has its merits; Johnson has sustained a consistently positive approval rating since at least 2013, a rare feat for a modern politician. If Goldsmith allows his maverick side to emerge without forgetting his predecessor’s achievements, the current bookies’ favourite to replace Johnson could still be on his way to City Hall.