Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Did Ken Livingstone Lose?

I was active in the labour party at the time thatcher was giving us a good thumping .the opinion comes from all directions .the left needs be led by one person with a vision and people around who will advise him/her properly.Neil kinnock took that role wether he wanted the full blown nu labour i don't know ,but thats what we got and now it as come of the rails
 
Udo Erasmus said:
...
Meanwhile, Respect Renewal supporters seem to be arguing that Livingstone's vote went up, just the Tories' went up more...
Click to expand...

That's not an argument - that's just a fact: Livingstone's vote went up - more people voted for Livingstone in 2008 than in 2004, both in absolute and percentage terms.

Any analysis of the election outcome has to explain that basic fact.
 
Livingstone always attracted an anti-Blair vote from some voters-even a few second preference Tory votes. This time B.J. got the anti-Brown vote and attracted first time Tory voters to the GLA elections.
 
It's politics.. People vote for who they think they should vote for.. swing the balance away from the current... Paddick was a possible.. but it was only Londoners that were voting.. I and many others ain't londoners

This is urban75.. There's no answers here.. really..
 
lewislewis said:
I think there are many factors but the general right-wing bias in the UK media has a huge influence on the UK's political culture and the orientation of the average person. Left-wing politics could counter this but is still refracted mainly through the Labour party in most parts of the UK.

There needs to be a mainstream political party sited to the left of Labour in England. It needs to have a consistent programme of policies, an activist base (and be based on these activists not on personalities at the top of the party like the SWP and both Respect projects have been) and a proper branding and professional organisation.

....

I would love a full debate to open up on this because I think I have more points to make.
Click to expand...

Ok I agree, now how do we get there?
 
El Jefe said:
Keyboard Jockey will be along to explain that Ken lost because he consorted with satanists and donkey rapers,
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Ken lost because he made errors of judgement, began to get the whiff of corruption around him, didn't listen to Londoners, became remote, and re attached himself to the failed New Labour project amongst other reasons.

Its a shame that there wasn't a decent independent candidate for the anti Livingstone votes to go to.

I bet theres some of Livingstones political appointees in the GLA who are looking at the jobs page this morning. I believe also that there are probably some GLA/TFL employees who have fed pro Ken propaganda to the media, the web and to KL's campaign who are going to get a knock on the door tomorrow.
 
jim70 said:
Livingstone always attracted an anti-Blair vote from some voters-even a few second preference Tory votes. This time B.J. got the anti-Brown vote and attracted first time Tory voters to the GLA elections.
Click to expand...

Good point. In the past Livingstone has been able to pick up votes from many different sectors. This time he didn't. Previously he was able to get a coalition of voters now he cannot due mostly to his own actions.

I saw on another site (although I need to check it) that white working class voters in boroughs like Brent and Enfield overwhelmingly voted against Livingstone.
 
KeyboardJockey said:
Not necessarily.

Ken lost because he made errors of judgement, began to get the whiff of corruption around him, didn't listen to Londoners, became remote, and re attached himself to the failed New Labour project amongst other reasons.

Its a shame that there wasn't a decent independent candidate for the anti Livingstone votes to go to.

I bet theres some of Livingstones political appointees in the GLA who are looking at the jobs page this morning. I believe also that there are probably some GLA/TFL employees who have fed pro Ken propaganda to the media, the web and to KL's campaign who are going to get a knock on the door tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No, Ken lost because of the reinvigorated smear campaign that had been instigated by Johnson's pals in the Harmsworth press. Perhaps you missed that?

You're not very good when it comes to looking at the facts - are you?
 
KeyboardJockey said:
Good point. In the past Livingstone has been able to pick up votes from many different sectors. This time he didn't. Previously he was able to get a coalition of voters now he cannot due mostly to his own actions.

I saw on another site (although I need to check it) that white working class voters in boroughs like Brent and Enfield overwhelmingly voted against Livingstone.
Click to expand...

None of this makes sense. Let's get it straight - Livingstone's vote went UP, in percentage terms as well as due to the higher turnout. That increase in vote must have come from somewhere? Maybe it wasn't the white working class of Brent and Enfield, maybe it was the asian working class of East London. We don't know for sure yet, but it is a fact that Livingstone did not lose votes - he gained them.

What happened was that people who voted for other parties last time (particularly UKIP - remember the Mayoral was the same election as the Euros, but also the LibDems) voted for Johnson this time and that's why he won.

Please read this table before responding.

http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/CombinedMayoralResults.aspx
 
Fisher_Gate said:
None of this makes sense. Let's get it straight - Livingstone's vote went UP, in percentage terms as well as due to the higher turnout. That increase in vote must have come from somewhere? Maybe it wasn't the white working class of Brent and Enfield, maybe it was the asian working class of East London. We don't know for sure yet, but it is a fact that Livingstone did not lose votes - he gained them.

What happened was that people who voted for other parties last time (particularly UKIP - remember the Mayoral was the same election as the Euros, but also the LibDems) voted for Johnson this time and that's why he won.

Please read this table before responding.

http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/CombinedMayoralResults.aspx
Click to expand...

Apparantly forgive me if I'm wrong but that table shows that the super popular KL only gained 0.69% first choice votes when compared to the last election. Hardly a great leap in support is it when compared to Boris's vote gain of 14.24% when compared to 2004.

Granted that UKIP dropped but the table still shows that there were labour voters who changed to Boris. It wasn't just Tories voting for Boris it looks like Lib Dems and Labour voters did as well.
 
To keep their members motivated, and to try to attract new ones.
Click to expand...

But in the long run it actually demoralises people more than facing the truth that we've got a long, hard slog in front of us. People aren't muppets and they can handle the fact that maybe the revolution won't be next week.

I guess though if you see your main base of support as excitable students then this can have an impact on how you go about things.
 
Ken got squeezed between three forces: anti-Brown sentiment, the perception of his own corruption and the blame for all the things that are going wrong in London, some of which are and some of which aren't in his control.

The last one is just about forgiveable, although it makes me laugh when a taxi-driver blames Ken for a parking ticket issued by Westminster. The first makes my blood boil, people on the TV asking "what does the result in Trumpton mean for Brown/Cameron" when they should be asking "what does it mean for Trumpton"?

As for Ken's record: he's clearly past his sell-by date, but there's no way he would have lost against the sort of opposition the other parties put up without Gordon's problems. Hopefully next time Boris will face off against some decent opposition (Vince Cable? Jack Straw?) and we can have a proper election.
 
nino_savatte said:
No, Ken lost because of the reinvigorated smear campaign that had been instigated by Johnson's pals in the Harmsworth press. Perhaps you missed that?

You're not very good when it comes to looking at the facts - are you?
Click to expand...

You and Labour can keep trotting that out, but the point is that (unlike previously) Gilligan actually found some real, genuine and deeply concerning evidence and published it (as of course he did previously, and got fired for) which I doubt anyone who thinks this is what journalists should be doing could possibly argue with.

That of course is part of the reason he lost, the other part is that he aligned himself with a cretin at the depths (for now) of his popularity - a cretin who thinks (according to todays Grauniad - that the way to improve his chances in the polls is to promise to ditch a bin tax.
 
agricola said:
You and Labour can keep trotting that out, but the point is that (unlike previously) Gilligan actually found some real, genuine and deeply concerning evidence and published it (as of course he did previously, and got fired for) which I doubt anyone who thinks this is what journalists should be doing could possibly argue with.

That of course is part of the reason he lost, the other part is that he aligned himself with a cretin at the depths (for now) of his popularity - a cretin who thinks (according to todays Grauniad - that the way to improve his chances in the polls is to promise to ditch a bin tax.
Click to expand...

Say what? Do you really expect me to take this seriously?
 
agricola said:
I would hope so. After all, smearing someone is generally something done with fibs, not the truth.
Click to expand...

So, praytell, what was the point of producing a story about Ken "fathering several children to different mothers" when Johnson actually embarked on extra-marital affairs behind his wife's back? Where was Ken's alleged dishonesty in all of this?
 
Ken lost by his own hand nino. I'd be more inclined to listen to you if you would accept that. In fact I'll be more magnanimous than that. If you accept that KL made errors of judgement which contributed to his downfall. Even easier.

Or do will you still insist that your hero KL is some sort of saint?

If you cant' treat the situation with some sort of realism then you can fuck right off to ignoreland.
 
KeyboardJockey said:
Ken lost by his own hand nino. I'd be more inclined to listen to you if you would accept that. In fact I'll be more magnanimous than that. If you accept that KL made errors of judgement which contributed to his downfall. Even easier.

Or do will you still insist that your hero KL is some sort of saint?

If you cant' treat the situation with some sort of realism then you can fuck right off to ignoreland.
Click to expand...

Well, you're more ignorant than I first thought, in that case. Because you quite obviously missed all the Evening Standard front pages but we all know that isn't true - is it?

I'm not like you, I don't hero-worship anyone. Stop projecting.

Putting me on ignore is nothing more than you running away. You're a gutless wonder.
 
nino_savatte said:
So, praytell, what was the point of producing a story about Ken "fathering several children to different mothers" when Johnson actually embarked on extra-marital affairs behind his wife's back? Where was Ken's alleged dishonesty in all of this?
Click to expand...

Was that in any way an influence on the way people voted? I doubt it. Were the revelations about the missing money in the LDA and Jasper's antics an influence? Probably.
 
mysterybadger said:
As for Ken's record: he's clearly past his sell-by date, but there's no way he would have lost against the sort of opposition the other parties put up without Gordon's problems. Hopefully next time Boris will face off against some decent opposition (Vince Cable? Jack Straw?) and we can have a proper election.
Click to expand...

Dunno where Cable's from but I fail to see how Jack Straw would be a decent candidate given his complete lack of connection with London. A bit like Boris.
 
JTG said:
Dunno where Cable's from but I fail to see how Jack Straw would be a decent candidate given his complete lack of connection with London. A bit like Boris.
Click to expand...

Cable would be a great candidate but he is more needed in Parliament. Straw would be the next election's Frank Dobson.
 
agricola said:
Was that in any way an influence on the way people voted? I doubt it. Were the revelations about the missing money in the LDA and Jasper's antics an influence? Probably.
Click to expand...

I think that as well. If KL had dumped lJ much much earlier he might have done better. The fact that he hung on to him for so long was what fucked KL amongst other things.
 
agricola said:
Was that in any way an influence on the way people voted? I doubt it. Were the revelations about the missing money in the LDA and Jasper's antics an influence? Probably.
Click to expand...

I think it was and the stories found their way from the Rothermere papers into the rest of the media. I think the Jasper stories were a handy way in for Johnson . As for his culpability, that has yet to be proven. As for KL's alleged culpability, that is pure speculation. Oddly enough, none of BoJo the Clown's antics were published quite as vigorously in recent weeks...though that will all change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
  • Poll Poll
Who will replace Keir Starmer as Prime Minister and Labour leader?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
6K
Elpenor
Elpenor
L
Oops - How did the Government not see that this was going to happen? (ID cards)
Replies
4
Views
262
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
cupid_stunt
Why the Observer is going down the pan! (no longer part of the Guardian)
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
mentalchik
Why does Football have such a problem with homophobia ?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
HeAthen
LNER data breach
Replies
3
Views
144
HeAthen
HeAthen
Back
Top Bottom