Why Did Ken Livingstone Lose?

[kidtripod]

That clearly says that 'oppressing' the news about Ken's children

I was talking about oppressing testosterone and it's related stuff. If that wasn't clear I apologise for that.

Not that anyone can really defend such testosterone fueled behaviour, but denying it's near universal existence amongst half the population doesn't strike me as a route to a healthy society either.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I think he lost mostly because he was up against a celebrity and people wanted to give labour a bloody nose.

 

[Harold Hill]

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



.

Well I'm not a supporter but being the Tory candidate, thereby the only other person capable of winning, is the only thing really.

 

[scifisam]

I was talking about oppressing testosterone and it's related stuff. If that wasn't clear I apologise for that.

Not that anyone can really defend such testosterone fueled behaviour, but denying it's near universal existence amongst half the population doesn't strike me as a route to a healthy society either.

Er, you are aware that Boris Johnson is famous for having loads of affairs, yes? This is one area where it's pretty hard to try to claim one is 'worse' than the other.

Anyway, so now you think funding was given because Ken was attracted to people in those organisations. You think this because he's had so many (well, at least *gasp* three) girlfriends, and so was oppressing his testosterone.

 

[kidtripod]

Er, you are aware that Boris Johnson is famous for having loads of affairs, yes? This is one area where it's pretty hard to try to claim one is 'worse' than the other.

Anyway, so now you think funding was given because Ken was attracted to people in those organisations. You think this because he's had so many (well, at least *gasp* three) girlfriends, and so was oppressing his testosterone.

We were discussing the quote about the ferrari. The funding was about Lee Jasper and his sexy emails.

The fact is Boris' testosterone levels appear to have hurt no one but perhaps himself and his wife, whilst Ken does actually have these kids around.

As I said, if on reading that G2 article it doesn't strike you as utterly ridiculous and overblown then you've clearly made your mind up before reading it. That so much of it is mere implication and conjecture makes it even worse.

I'm no fan of Gilligan by any measure at all, but this is exactly right:

Over Boris v Ken, seldom has a serious newspaper embarrassed itself more thoroughly than The Guardian.

 

[scifisam]

We were discussing the quote about the ferrari. The funding was about Lee Jasper and his sexy emails.

I think you were mixing up several subjects together there, then.

The fact is Boris' testosterone levels appear to have hurt no one but perhaps himself and his wife, whilst Ken does actually have these kids around.

How has that hurt anyone? And do you think the affairs don't affect the kids and other partners? Personally, I don't think it's an issue, as long as the wife is prepared to live with it and Boris isn't preaching family values - but you can't really claim he's without sin, and Ken is sinful, not on this particular issue.

As I said, if on reading that G2 article it doesn't strike you as utterly ridiculous and overblown then you've clearly made your mind up before reading it. That so much of it is mere implication and conjecture makes it even worse.

I think it was one columnist writing one article from an impassioned point of view. That does not compare to all the front pages that the Standard gave to their 'stories.'

 

[kidtripod]

I think you were mixing up several subjects together there, then.

Yeah, I was trying to be too clever!

I think it was one columnist writing one article from an impassioned point of view. That does not compare to all the front pages that the Standard gave to their 'stories.'

That seems like a slight stretch imo. Let's be straight here, I think both papers behaved disgracefully, but the Grauniad pipped the post for me.

I think we've soundly established that we both have very different perspectives on the matter!

 

[ymu]

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.

So do I. Sadly, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, eg this from one of the pre-election threads:

to me this is now just another lie spread by ken and his groupies, I believed it until the 5 children by 3 women story came out.

This must have been an open secret that the press didn't report.

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

He got almost exactly the same proportion of votes (+0.69%), but this translates to a lot more actual votes because the overall turnout was higher. The Tories gained both in # votes and % share of the vote. The only parties that lost a large % of their vote were the Lib Dems and UKIP (both losing ~5% each). It's therefore not accurate to claim that Ken's vote collapsed when it obviously didn't - Ken's vote increased proportionately with the numbers voting. It was the right-wing vote uniting, not the left-wing one collapsing.

KBJ confuddled his maths in his search for a response, I think.

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

Not sure what polls you mean, but the YouGov/ES polls pre-election were way out of whack with the rest - even the other YouGov polls. I posted a graph on another thread.

I was utterly convinced that they were majorly over-estimating Boris's support, because it didn't seem plausible that YouGov/ES was the only competent polling organisation, whilst Mori, ICM and the rest - including YouGov when not commissioned by the ES - were consistently getting it wrong but agreeing with each other*.

Somehow, YG/ES came up with a new and very accurate algorithm for predicting voter turnout - either by design (they did some damn good research and got it right) - or accident (they deliberately biased their polls and this happened to mirror the rise in turnout from the 'burbs) - or because the poll results themselves managed to influence turnout in a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of way. Or a bit of all three, or any two, or summat else.





*The red dotted line on the plot (see link) shows the average (pooled) result of the polls. There is only one poll on the "wrong" side of that line (given the group it belongs to - ES or not ES). There's a complete and utter disjunction between the results.

 

[Stoat Boy]

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.

I think it was the gals that lost it for him. Anybody who can garner the support of Polly Toynbee, Yasmin Ali-Brown and Zoe Williams has to be a wrong'un.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

He got almost exactly the same proportion of votes (+0.69%), but this translates to a lot more actual votes because the overall turnout was higher. The Tories gained both in # votes and % share of the vote. The only parties that lost a large % of their vote were the Lib Dems and UKIP (both losing ~5% each). It's therefore not accurate to claim that Ken's vote collapsed when it obviously didn't - Ken's vote increased proportionately with the numbers voting. It was the right-wing vote uniting, not the left-wing one collapsing.
.....

The central point of the election analysis! ... that a lot of people have missed.

Ken's votes and % were as follows:

2000 667,877 39.0%
2004 685,541 35.7%
2008 893,877 36.4%

Ken's personal vote rose in every election and the proportion rose from 2004 (when he stood as Labour) to 2008 (when he also stood as Labour). It wasn't Ken that lost it by losing key voters - it was Johnson that won it by uniting the right wing votes.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

it was Johnson that won it by uniting the right wing votes.

Also he won the anti Brown/New Labour votes and the votes of those who don't normally turn out at elections.

So many people wanted to see the back of Livingstone and his regime that they turned out for Boris even more so when it was known that Livingstones supporters were going hell for leather to get his vote out. More people who would otherwise not have bothered voting did vote to block Livingstone.

 

[Spion]

The Evening Standard mostly

 

[ymu]

Also he won the anti Brown/New Labour votes and the votes of those who don't normally turn out at elections.

You just haven't even looked at the figures have you? Saying it does not make it true.

Try taking it in really simple steps:

1. There were a lot of people who voted in 2008 but did not in 2004.
2. Ken's % of the vote rose a tiny bit, it certainly did not fall.
3. Therefore Ken attracted the votes of proportionally at least as many "new" voters as he did "old". He didn't lose votes to Boris - UKIP and the LibDems did.

So many people wanted to see the back of Livingstone and his regime that they turned out for Boris even more so when it was known that Livingstones supporters were going hell for leather to get his vote out. More people who would otherwise not have bothered voting did vote to block Livingstone.

Obviously. That's why there was such a high turnout. That's nothing to do with what you've been arguing (which is that Livingstone's vote has collapsed, when it hasn't).

For someone who claims not to support the Tories but to have been driven to voting for them via a rational and logical thought process, you don't half get your knickers in an insanely illogical twist about this stuff.

 

[nino_savatte]

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

What factors do you think influenced those respondents?

 

[brasicritique]

Why Did Ken Livingstone Lose?

cos nino voted for him

 

[nino_savatte]

Simpleton.