ON SATURDAY this newspaper reported that the residents of Lyme Regis had been forced to abandon a traditional event that involved knocking each other down with a 5ft conger eel after protests from animal rights activists that the practice was “disrespectful” to the deceased creature. By this Friday there could be another use for that conger eel, namely to serve as the next Tory candidate for mayor of London.

The deadline for nominations for mayor expires on Friday — a mere 21 months before polling day. The declared candidates so far consist of two worthy but obscure councillors. There is the understandable suspicion that Ken Livingstone would eat either of them for breakfast. Hence the increasingly frantic search for an even faintly famous individual who might enter the frame on behalf of the Tories.

Some of the names floated include Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Jeremy Clarkson, Nick Ferrari, a radio broadcaster in London, Carol Thatcher and, apparently, Sir Alan Sugar (even though he appears in party political broadcasts for the Labour Party). None of them seems to appreciate the offer.

All hope is not lost, however. According to one newspaper report yesterday, Sir Christopher Meyer, our former Ambassador in Washington, is regarded as a “charismatic” possibility (which stretches the definition of charisma somewhat, but never mind), although he seems unlikely to rise to the bait.

If all else fails, Steve Norris, the Conservative champion in 2000 and 2004 is said to be willing to make another bid for office. Mr Norris is a talented man who does not lack the requisite personality. The notion does, though, have echoes of William Jennings Bryan who, after being put forward by the Democrats for the presidency three times and beaten every time, ruefully conceded to voters: “All right, I get the message.”

This contest has come to resemble a badly organised Celebrity Big Brother. The metaphor is disturbingly accurate. For the Tory nominee is to be chosen not by the party membership in the capital but in an American-style “open primary” in which anyone on the electoral register can participate, regardless of partisan preferences. This has led to concerns that the vote might be manipulated by mischievous outsiders. Labour activists have already established a website to encourage fellow sympathisers to take part and “pick the person who will make for the most entertaining contest”. As the Conservatives once managed to pick Jeffrey Archer for this post all by themselves, outside intervention in the pursuit of an “entertaining contest” is unnecessary.

This would be harmless summer fun if the mayor of London was also a joke portfolio. It is not. The mayor has the largest direct mandate east of New York and west of Moscow, bar the president of France. The Government has recently published plans that would greatly expand his or her authority. They will be in place when the make-or-break decisions are made that will determine whether the 2012 Olympic Games are a triumph or a national embarrassment.

Mr Livingstone is certain to seek a third term and quite fancies a fourth, at which point it might be more straightforward to dub him “Mayor-for-Life” and save on the cost and the hassle of holding elections. Yet he has a reckless mouth and an undisciplined streak, and traffic in London is returning to levels associated with Calcutta, despite his efforts to raise the congestion charge to penal rates and extend it west towards Bristol.

The Tories should, therefore, want to provide him with a run for his money (well, Londoners’ money). As it is, their best hope of evicting him is that he might rupture himself laughing at what his supposed opponents are doing and retire on medical grounds. The Conservative Party has only itself to blame. Why on earth did nominations have to open and shut so ludicrously early? Potential rivals to Mr Livingstone are being asked to make an assessment now as to how popular he will be, and the state of the government under a different Labour prime minister, months and months before election day. It is not surprising that serious characters have declined the opportunity to stand. If Democrats and Republicans in the United States were to adopt the Tory timetable then their White House challengers for November 2008 would have to be endorsed by April 2007. It is utter madness.

It could also be a humiliation. Unless some even slightly well-known contender can be cajoled into standing in the next 100 hours, then the Conservative Party will be inviting seven million citizens to plump between two Kensington and Chelsea councillors of whom the overwhelming majority have never heard. It will be a minor miracle if 70,000 people can be bothered to make the effort — a turnout of 1 per cent of voters. This is not a platform on which to build for ultimate victory.

Conservatives should be willing to recognise a mistake when one becomes apparent. They would be better served by admitting that the experiment of seeking a candidate so early had failed, rather than press on with an anaemic field and allow the Mayor-for-Life to record another undeserved effortless triumph in London.

If the process were put back by 12 months there would be more chance of heavyweights coming forward. If not, the the Tories might as well nominate a dead conger eel. Then again, in the circumstances, it might be judged disrespectful to that creature.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone