It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry over Jeffrey Archer's humiliating withdrawal as Conservative candidate for the mayoralty of London, following the revelation that he lied in a libel case. Despite having warned the party that he was no saint he was allowed to proceed without further vetting, notwithstanding the Conservatives' elevation of sexual morality and family values to key touchstones of political integrity. This puts Mr William Hague's judgment once more into question as party leader.
The £500,000 damages Lord Archer was awarded against the Daily Star may now be appealed by that newspaper, with potentially grave financial and personal consequences for him. While it all makes for a measure of entertainment it also coarsens political life at a time when Britain is undergoing constitutional change requiring optimal public engagement, of which the London mayoralty is an important part. Cynics may say that at least Londoners have a choice to vote against a party that makes such a shambles of its selection procedures.
That charge was levelled for most of last week against the Labour Party, which could not make up its mind whether to accept Mr Ken Livingstone as a candidate. In the event it was decided he could go forward to confront the various party hurdles, in competition with three others. But he will have to adhere to the party manifesto, which supports semi-privatisation of the London Underground. He has opposed a plan to bring in private management and finance for building and construction work.
This issue has come to symbolise deep differences between him and the prime minister, Mr Blair, who suspects Mr Livingstone would use the mayoral office to confront and oppose New Labour policies, of which he is a longstanding critic. This has emerged as a key test of Mr Blair's willingness to tolerate policy opposition, amid a growing public perception that he is obsessed with controlling dissident voices within his party and all too ready to use autocratic means to get his way. The campaign brings that issue usefully into the open. The outcome will have significant implications for Labour's reputation and performance as the next general elections come more clearly into focus.
The London mayoral contest may also set precedents for governing other large cities in England. Despite devolution of political authority to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there has been little clarity from Mr Blair's government as to whether regional assemblies in England should follow. Strong mayoralties may offer an alternative course and could be more in keeping with the centralist streak in New Labour's approach to government. Although these various constitutional changes have not attracted compelling public attention their accumulated effects will be radical and potentially far-reaching in the medium term. Lord Archer's antics should not divert attention from that fact.