Why Did Ken Livingstone Lose?

[agricola]

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.

I have grave problems with believing that anyone at all voted against Ken just because he has a couple of babymothers, and while the LDA / Jasper thing is still under investigation it did raise serious questions that did need to be raised.

As for Boris and the lack of antics-coverage, thats probably because there was either an effort to reign him in, or (more likely imho) he decided to drop the act for a bit. Combine that with the generally useless media effort to stop him and its not surprising that the negative coverage dwindled to the utter bollocks Grauniad of election day.

 

[Balbi]

Browns dream, Britains nightmare.

*gets on the phone to the Tory election office ref: large royalties to be owed*

It's the swing. People who don't know nuffink about politics know that if you stick to the same job for too long, you go loopy

18 years of Tories, 11 years of Labour - same result. Lot's of initial bombast and an apparent improvement when really they're just riding the economic wave and fannying about trying to put a stop to the prior administrations programmes for the first four years in office. Then it's all down to what Labour could do - and they spun the 'REMEMBER THE TORIES' line for their second four years in office, and then again two years ago!

Except now it's all going to shit and the theoretical statute of limitations is gone, so it'll be the Tories again next year.

Ken would do well to get out of the public eye for a few years (which he can't, cos he runs on the sound of his own voice on the media spectrum) and go and do some learning about large city management around the world - big organisation and such.

Then he'll win in 4 years time when the mayoral comes round, cos by then Johnson will have either a) cocked the city up or b) done well but pays for the three years the Tories have had in government by the old national/local connection in voting.

So Johnson gets the Tory bandwagon rolling towards the election, and then'll get kicked off the job because the Tories win in 2009

 

[nino_savatte]

I have grave problems with believing that anyone at all voted against Ken just because he has a couple of babymothers, and while the LDA / Jasper thing is still under investigation it did raise serious questions that did need to be raised.

As for Boris and the lack of antics-coverage, thats probably because there was either an effort to reign him in, or (more likely imho) he decided to drop the act for a bit. Combine that with the generally useless media effort to stop him and its not surprising that the negative coverage dwindled to the utter bollocks Grauniad of election day.

And yet, the "babymothers" story was sold as though it was a serious exposé into a man's alleged personal and sexual dishonesty. It was rubbish, given the fact that Johnson has had numerous extra-marital affairs behind his wife's back.

It is true that the Labour Party's campaign was lacklustre and a little late in coming.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

And yet, the "babymothers" story was sold as though it was a serious exposé into a man's alleged personal and sexual dishonesty. It was rubbish, given the fact that Johnson has had numerous extra-marital affairs behind his wife's back.

It is true that the Labour Party's campaign was lacklustre and a little late in coming.

Which is why Boris had the political nous not to run with it.

 

[scifisam]

And yet, the "babymothers" story was sold as though it was a serious exposé into a man's alleged personal and sexual dishonesty. It was rubbish, given the fact that Johnson has had numerous extra-marital affairs behind his wife's back.

It is true that the Labour Party's campaign was lacklustre and a little late in coming.

Yup. I thought your point was not that people were persuaded by Ken having kids (though I did see, online, people referring disparagingly to his 'secret' family, so maybe some people were), but that said journalist tried to persuade people with it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yup. I thought your point was not that people were persuaded by Ken having kids (though I did see, online, people referring disparagingly to his 'secret' family, so maybe some people were), but that said journalist tried to persuade people with it.

Aye, that was the intended effect of the story but it was a complete waste of ink, imv.

 

[scifisam]

Which is why Boris had the political nous not to run with it.

It really doesn't take a lot of political nous to decide not to run with a smear campaign that would so obviously backfire.

You'd be a lot more credible if you stopped trying to say how wonderful Boris is, you know. You reckon you only voted for him to keep Ken out, yet you act as if Boris is the second coming.

 

[nino_savatte]

Which is why Boris had the political nous not to run with it.

He didn't have to, ya divvy! That was the job of his supporters in the press. He no doubt didn't disapprove of it - did he? Otherwise he'd have said something...but he didn't.

 

[agricola]

And yet, the "babymothers" story was sold as though it was a serious exposé into a man's alleged personal and sexual dishonesty. It was rubbish, given the fact that Johnson has had numerous extra-marital affairs behind his wife's back.

It is true that the Labour Party's campaign was lacklustre and a little late in coming.

The babymothers thing may well have been a pre-emptive one in order to remind people that Livingstone was not a saint when / if his campaign referred to Boris's affairs, and in any case, I doubt that anyone really cares about politicians and their foibles unless they are preaching about morality and the evils of adultery while having bits on the side themselves, which neither candidate has done (indeed in both cases it probably humanized them).

As for Labour, my views on the wholly damaging effect it and its "leader" had on Ken's chances for re-election should by now be well known. If he does stand again I am sure it will be as an independent (either because he has left, or because the party no longer exists after the next election).

 

[Fisher_Gate]

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.

No it's not a great increase, but it still is an increase. So when you and other posters say things like

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.

it's rubbish isn't it?

 

[nino_savatte]

Aye, Bexley was one of the councils that rejected Fares Fair back in the 80's and I would imagine that there was solid support for Johnson down there.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

So did Ken get more, or the same number of votes this time than last time?

 

[becky p]

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.

The reason I say 'mainstream party' is so that it can get a presence in the media and get the party name out there so it has a recognition factor (how many people in Wales have heard of Plaid Cymru, or even how many people in Scotland have heard of the SSP), the policy programme can still be radical as long as the campaigning priorities are sensible. Most people aren't that interested in the Lebanon conflict but are very interested in affordable housing. It would still be essential to be on the Lebanon demonstrations but the front page of your newspaper should carry national issues instead- if you choose to have a paper that is, I personally think they are a waste of money and the cash should be spent leafleting entire estates.
You need to get to a point where people in the workplace will describe themselves as 'i'm PARTY NAME i am', how many people can identify with 'the Left List' or even 'Respect', certainly not enough to have an influence on a national level.

Within this mainstream party i'll concede that some would be reformists or social democrats on the right of the party, but there would also be a place for revolutionary positions on the left of the party (even as an eventual aim of the party).

If the left retreats from the mainstream into bickering far-left factions then the playing field will be abandoned for the likes of the BNP to walk into the London Assembly.

You could easily dispute my point and carry on with your left lists and what not, but the point remains that England/the UK needs a party to the left of Labour (even to the left of Old Labour) that is capable of winning elections and having councillors, MP's and Assembly members. That is the only way of making sure a left voice is heard in the UK political sphere. Eventually they will stop inviting the leftists onto the political tv programmes and debates because the popular demand for them is disappearing.

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

The Green Party are the only party to the left of Labour. Perhaps more people should join and support them. But perhaps your right a new party is needed. But how exactly do you see that coming about?

 

[Harold Hill]

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?

What do you think of yougov polls compared to this time last week?

 

[kidtripod]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...the-standard-wot-won-it-for-boris-821013.html

Gilligan's response, and I have to agree with him wrt the pitiful and embarrassing smear campaign the Grauniad have been running. If anyone wants to demonstrate the intellectual vacuum at the heart of nu-labourites that now notorious G2 column is going to be proving their point for years to come, especially some of it's contents demonstrating a clear contempt for democracy.

 

[scifisam]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...the-standard-wot-won-it-for-boris-821013.html

Gilligan's response, and I have to agree with him wrt the pitiful and embarrassing smear campaign the Grauniad have been running. If anyone wants to demonstrate the intellectual vacuum at the heart of nu-labourites that now notorious G2 column is going to be proving their point for years to come, especially some of it's contents demonstrating a clear contempt for democracy.

WTF? You defend the Standard's smear campaign, while having a go at the Guardian for a much milder campaign? You reckon it's the Guardian with a contempt for democracy? What the Hell are you on?

 

[kidtripod]

The Standard's stuff is based on that which is verifiable, whilst the Guardian's one did unfortunately resort to a mix of unverifiable rumour to outright nonsense based on the prejudices of it's own readership.

That and the idea that the Standard are capable of causing such a swing is laughable in London's media climate.

Seriously, read http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/01/boris.livingstone

It's utter nonsense. Especially stuff like "Once you've been to public school, then you are from postcode POSH" - like no one on their staff ever went to public school! Frankly it's an absolute embarrassment, even next to the Standard. Even the list of quotes does nothing except to demonstrate the author is desperately trying to take them out of context, but they still fail, unless you're already decided before you're reading it.

Things like ""The whole county of Hampshire was lying back and opening her well-bred legs to be ravished by the Italian stallion."· GQ, while in a Ferrari"

What exactly is wrong with that? Isn't it merely slightly humourous? Or are we supposed to be outraged that a mayoral candidate once was in a Ferrari?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Yeah, it's not as if the Evening "Suicide bomb backer runs Ken's campaign" Standard would ever run a smear campaign is it? And remind me - how many of the Standards allegations about the misuse of public money have actually been proven?

Gilligan = a poisonous little shit.

 

[yield]

Campaigning journalism! As scifisam said "contempt for democracy"?

Will Andrew Gilligan fall on his sword as penance for "sexing up"?

 

[kidtripod]

There is a curious irony in Andrew Gilligan being accused of sexing up something.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Things like ""The whole county of Hampshire was lying back and opening her well-bred legs to be ravished by the Italian stallion."· GQ, while in a Ferrari"

What exactly is wrong with that? Isn't it merely slightly humourous? Or are we supposed to be outraged that a mayoral candidate once was in a Ferrari?

Johnson is a fucking testosterone idiot when it comes to his car "journalism" e.g:

‘She was blonde. She was beautiful. She was driving some poxy little Citroen or Peugeot thing... And she had just overtaken me... And let me tell you, I wasn’t having it.

‘Because if there is one thing calculated to make the testosterone slosh in your ears like the echoing sea and the red mist of war descend over your eyes, its being treated as though you were an old woman by a young woman... the whole endocrine orchestra said: “Go. Take.” You can’t be dissed by some blonde in a 305."

'That is why it was such a huge moment when two of the biggest cheeses in the Lotus group came in to my office to hand over the swishest, fastest, most chick-pulling Lotus ever devised.'

Clearly sexist, demeaning language. Do you have any daughters Kid? Do you want them growing up in a London run by someone who makes such remarks?

 

[kidtripod]

I don't, but if I did I'd accept that's par for the course. Ken is the one with the string of ex's and actual children he's not really bringing up.

That stuff happens, people think that, and oppressing it just leads to sexy emails being sent to directors of community projects, whom later received suspiciously large amounts of funding.

 

[Harold Hill]

Yeah, it's not as if the Evening "Suicide bomb backer runs Ken's campaign" Standard would ever run a smear campaign is it? And remind me - how many of the Standards allegations about the misuse of public money have actually been proven?

Gilligan = a poisonous little shit.

What was he when he wrote the 'BNP member/rape/feminist myth' story?

kidtripod has a point, nothing in the Standard came close to the G2 article.

 

[scifisam]

I don't, but if I did I'd accept that's par for the course. Ken is the one with the string of ex's and actual children he's not really bringing up.

That stuff happens, people think that, and oppressing it just leads to sexy emails being sent to directors of community projects, whom later received suspiciously large amounts of funding.

So now you think that his 'secret' kids (that aren't actually secret) led to him being blackmailed and funding projects because of that.

Hey! Those of you who thought the attempted smears about Ken's 'secret children' had no effect? You were wrong! I was wrong too, because I didn't think anyone would be so stupid as to fall for that one. Ridiculous.

The Standard campaign was way, way bigger and more impassioned than the Guardian one. Even Gilligan doesn't deny that in his article. He even admits that Ken's absence leaves the Standard with a gaping hole because they've been pursuing stories on him for so long.

It's the height of delusion to call the Standard's campaign fair, and the Guardian's unfair. Psychiatric help may be advisable, seriously.

 

[Crispy]

Well that would be enough to lose my vote tbh. If only I'd known, I wouldn't have put him down as my 2nd choice


I think he lost cos people who don't normally vote labour, or who didn't want to vote for them now, put ken down as 2nd to try and keep boris out, when they would have been better going the whole hog and putting ken down as first to keep boris out.

Nope, that would have made no difference whatsoever.

EDIT: woah, I'm late to the thread and that's old ground now. Oops!

 

[Harold Hill]

So now you think that his 'secret' kids (that aren't actually secret) led to him being blackmailed and funding projects because of that.

Hey! Those of you who thought the attempted smears about Ken's 'secret children' had no effect? You were wrong! I was wrong too, because I didn't think anyone would be so stupid as to fall for that one. Ridiculous.

The Standard campaign was way, way bigger and more impassioned than the Guardian one. Even Gilligan doesn't deny that in his article. He even admits that Ken's absence leaves the Standard with a gaping hole because they've been pursuing stories on him for so long.

It's the height of delusion to call the Standard's campaign fair, and the Guardian's unfair. Psychiatric help may be advisable, seriously.

Why was it unfair? They're not obliged to treat the Mayor fairly.

If people are seriously trying to argue it's the Standard wot won it, then I'm bemused (but not altogether suprised) at the arrogance. As if Ken hasn't done plenty in the last 4 years to lose the election himself.

 

[kidtripod]

So now you think that his 'secret' kids (that aren't actually secret) led to him being blackmailed and funding projects because of that.

No, that would be Lee Jasper, who was a bit too close for comfort, then defended, then fired in highly suspicious circumstances.

As it happens I reckon KL is probably going to be blackmailed by the new boys into doing the nasty part of the job for the next couple of years.

Really, if you fail to see the tragic desperate straw clinging going on in the G2 article then you're probably never going to see it.

Let's ask Vivian Westwood (as G2 did)

Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable.

Yes, democracy, clearly the wrong approach. Why they thought publishing that would be a good idea is anyone's guess. And there's loads of this stuff on one page.

As it happens the only sensible one appears to be Will Self, but quite why celebrity endorsement should mean anything to anyone is the question.

 

[Harold Hill]

As it happens the only sensible one appears to be Will Self, but quite why celebrity endorsement should mean anything to anyone is the question.

Quite. I never known anyone to change their politics off the back of a celebrity but an awful lot who have changed their mind over a celebrity off the back of their politics.

 

[scifisam]

Um, so if you meant Lee Jasper, then why did you post:

I don't, but if I did I'd accept that's par for the course. Ken is the one with the string of ex's and actual children he's not really bringing up.

That stuff happens, people think that, and oppressing it just leads to sexy emails being sent to directors of community projects, whom later received suspiciously large amounts of funding.

That clearly says that 'oppressing' the news about Ken's children leads to suspiciously large amounts of funding being given to certain charities. Now, unless you're suggesting that Lee Jasper is one of Ken's kids, he's got nothing to do with that comment.

Vivenne Westwood never said that democracy is a bad thing. She said that a win for Boris would expose democracy as a sham, presumably because people are voting for a comedian rather than a politician.

And that was one article from G2. The Evening Standard had much more serious articles, verging on libel, on their front pages almost every day. Do you really think there's any comparison?

 

[yield]

As if Ken hasn't done plenty in the last 4 years to lose the election himself.

And BoJo has done precisely what in the last four years that makes him suitable to be Mayor?

Really, if you fail to see the tragic desperate straw clinging going on in the G2 article then you're probably never going to see it.

I disagree. In volume of column inches and the Daily Mail starting stories that were covered by other media outlets, no comparison. Lots of hoardings outside newsagents. Saw tonnes of it and I don't get a daily paper.