There are 2 major issues for politics in London. One is transport, and the other is housing. Now, Boris is switching funding to outer London (those who need it much less than those in the inner cities, but I'm used to seeing this with his support for corporate welfare, especially for the countryside where he belongs as he knows NOTHING about London), we need a candidate who can speak up for the inner cities.

There are two: Oona and Ken. Ken has already tackled one of London's issues, which is Transport. Luckily, even though I thought Boris would reverse the transport revolution, the government has very quietly re-regulated the buses to preserve the bussing revolution.

But you mention housing in Oona's presence, and she'll give you a whole range of statistics about the state of council housing. That is why I love her. The same goes for Ken, and anyone who thinks he is an apologist for Islamism, should here him barrage you with statistics about domestic abuse shelters targeting Muslim women.

Oona represents everything that Boris isn't. Boris represents an aristocracy that is slowly dying (this government has wounded it with the removal of hereditary peers and Scottish land reform, now I wish they would suffocate it with a pillow). Oona understands that multiculturalism, like the monoculturalism espoused by the Tebbitite right, can homogenise blocks, and so we must look out for the white working class.

But this modernity is important. Her father was a civil rights activist from Georgia in the US south, with a twinge of Native American heritage, and her mum was a Jewish geordie, with Hungarian, Scottish and Italian heritage. To top this off, she espouses the great liberalisation of Britain, by having an adopted child.

She was a government loyalist, but chose her role to speak out on policies that can appeal to the right and left of the party. She fought on behalf of contract cleaners, and told the house of flats in her constituency with as much as 20 people living in them.

She initially supported the Iraq war yes, but did it for the right reasosn. She opposed the bombing in 1998, but her reluctant support in 2003 was based on seeing Iraqi asylum seekers slumping through her constituency office.

This goes hand in hand with an absolute hatred of tyranny, and this should be an important thread in the Labour party. She was the main voice in Parliament calling for action on the civil war in Congo, humerously, but sadly accurately describing it as a 'Playstation war'.

She is also consistant on being against environmental exploitation, and tells us that we can't dismiss problems in other countries. She accurately points out that in the Congo, it is directly linked to us, due to our need for technology, and that the slaughtering of rainforests there directy contributes to climate change.

If we want a candidate who reflects London, then lets pick Oona. Like I say, her background represent the eclectic mix of nationalities that embody East London. That isn't essential. But it helps her understand the world, and London better. It is this background that shapes her political views.

Like Ken, parliament wasn't right for her. In 'House Music', you sniggered with her as she felt rediculous as the Tories looked at her like she was entering THEIR club. I recently pointed out that Dawn Butler was given similar looks by Tories, who were wondering whether they should call security.

She talked about the state of speech and language provision in parliament, and the state of her local comps.
But, since coming out of parliament, her clever, talanted abilities are being more accurately presented. She talks about Bush's incompetence over Iraq, about racism, and how economic equality is the best way to tackle it. She talks about wanting to introduce Scandanavian style universal childcare, and supports abolishing faith schools.

Ken and Boris have made the office an office for mavericks. A role in which politicians can shout, and strut, and present radical ideas, that permeate traditional politics. It is an office that provides freedom for many politicians.

I feel London owes her. She was subjected to a horrible election campaign. It was about fascism versus social democracy. Her maverick abilities were conveyed by her individual personality. She sacrificed her career by refusing to criticise Ken, and some have suggested by criticising Israel.

She felt saddened that she didn't speak out about detention without trial or the treatment of asylum seekers (the East End has a history of hosting new immigrants, and those facing abuse). She clearly didn't want to be an MP anymore, and being called "Jewish bitch" by Islamo-leninists clearly doesn't help. Because she didn't mind wearing crop-tops and bellybutton rings, she was accused of leading a 'double life', and RESPECT disgracefully started circulating pictures of her in low-cut tops to shock the ultra-conservative elements of the Muslim demographic.

But this is the role, where she can finally publically speak her mind. She is back to being a commited human rights activist and trade unionist, and this role will allow her to express these views. She'll probably be a great antedote fo Boris after 4 years.

So come on Oona, get back into political life, and show us the red politics running through your veins. You need to be the one to kick Boris out.