London’s mayoral election next May should be Labour’s for the taking. So why is Ken Livingstone finding it such an uphill struggle, asks Dan Hodges
Can Ken Livingstone win in London? Yes. Will Ken Livingstone win in London? No. Next year’s mayoral campaign is not an election but a Hobson’s choice. Since its leadership was last contested, the world’s greatest city has been rocked by the implosion of capitalism, seared by rioters’ flames and locked in a silent but deadly struggle with the perpetrators of international terror. Yet in the intervening period not one of the major political parties has had the maturity or foresight to even come up with a new candidate, never mind a new stratagem for ensuring London stands tall amid the breaking economic storm.
Boris Johnson and the Conservatives at least have the excuse of incumbency. That Livingstone and Brian Paddick are his opposition is a graphic reflection of the way Labour and the Liberal Democrats have proved incapable of coming to terms with the differing challenges posed by political defeat and political success.
But we are where we are. Livingstone is Labour’s candidate and, despite the mutterings, he will remain so until the moment the returning officer ratifies Johnson’s victory next May.
That he will lose is inevitable. But that does not mean it is necessary. The mayor is beatable. In fact, given the current economic and political climate, or, more importantly, the likely climate prevailing in seven months’ time, he is there for the taking.
The most recent YouGov poll, conducted in June, put Labour almost 20 points ahead of the Tories in London, a lead that should make their candidate virtually unassailable. Yet Livingstone actually trails Johnson by seven points. He is not the campaign’s figurehead but its sheet anchor.
There are a number of reasons for this. The first is the nature of the election itself. Mayoral campaigns are not political, but personality contests. If they were not, Labour’s candidate would be walking it. On all the standard criteria, he bests his rival. ‘Sticks to what he believes in’ – Livingstone 41 per cent, Johnson 32 per cent. ‘In touch with ordinary people’ – Livingstone 37 per cent, Johnson 20 per cent. ‘Good in a crisis’ – Livingstone 23 per cent, Johnson 12 per cent. ‘Strong’ – Livingstone 30 per cent, Johnson 22 per cent.
But ask about that X-factor, ‘charisma’, and the tables are decisively turned – Johnson 50 per cent, Livingstone 18 per cent. Johnson is the ringmaster, Livingstone the hot dog vendor. Sadly, that matters.
There is no little irony in this state of affairs. For years Livingstone topped Labour’s political A-list. In fact, he was on a list all of his own. He ran a series of secret, underground gigs; exclusive, countercultural, edgy. Now he looks tired. His conference speech was underpinned by the announcement of a ‘fair’s fare’ policy; a return not to the heyday of his mayoralty, but the bad old days of the Greater London Council.
The Guardian’s Michael White framed the contest perfectly in his conference sketch: Livingstone, ‘now an improbable Labour elder statesman (66)’, versus Johnson, the ‘a £400,000-a-year income’ incumbent with ‘star status’ and ‘too many girlfriends’. Labour’s campaign will be characterised by a pensioner waving his free bus pass; the Tories’ will be all booze, birds and Bo Jo. It is not a fair fight.
But then Livingstone is not really a fighter. The myth of him as a political mastermind is just that. The former mayor is a brilliant fixer, a fiendishly effective schemer. But he is not a scrapper.
Livingstone has not prevailed in a close contest in his entire political life. During his reign at the GLC, London was effectively a one-party state. His election as MP for Brent required scales, not counting agents. During his first two mayoral campaigns he was not running against Frank Dobson or Steve Norris, but a Tony Blair weakened in the first contest by his botched attempt to prevent Livingstone’s candidacy and in the second by post-Iraq unpopularity. Before Livingstone placed a toe on the campaign trail the result of each election had been ordained.
Only once has he been in a real fight. And he lost it. To a man who, when the campaign started, was not a cultural phenomenon but a last-minute replacement for that titan of British politics, Greg Dyke.
That is not to say ‘Red Ken’ does not still have fire in his belly. Simon Fletcher, his chief of staff at the mayoralty and campaign supremo, is a serious and gifted operator. And while his ‘Balkanisation strategy’ ultimately proved no match for Lynton Crosby’s ‘Doughnut strategy’ in 2008, it means he still has some big London battalions to call upon when the real battle is joined, especially among the capital’s influential BME community.
But there is a world of difference between having a campaign on paper and having one on the ground. And Livingstone does not have a natural or, for that matter, pragmatic ability to bind people together in a common cause. Indeed, his entire political ethos has been one of divide and rule.
I worked under the former mayor for a period at Transport for London, and it was not a pleasant experience. That is not because Livingstone himself is a particularly unpleasant individual; indeed, those who are close to him are consistent in their description of a warm, witty and even sentimental man.
But Livingstone does not let that many people get close. And that creates enormous tensions within his own camp. Advisers are constantly unsure of their own position within his internal hierarchy and are constantly jockeying for position. Nor are they afraid to use the whip on those around them. When things are going well it can be destabilising. When they are going badly his operation becomes completely dysfunctional.
But there is one hurdle Labour’s candidate faces that is greater than all the others. And it is insurmountable: Johnson enters the 2012 mayoral election campaign as the insurgent; Livingstone the establishment man. This is the staggering, yet decisive, role reversal that cost Livingstone the 2008 campaign. And it will cost him dearly again next year.
Johnson has shamelessly, transparently and disloyally cut his leader and his party adrift in his efforts to define himself as the Tory party’s rebel with a cause. If David Cameron were to fall under one of Boris’ buses, London’s mayor has made no secret he would be happy to be the guy driving it. Indeed, at times, the distance between Team Boris and Conservative Central Office appears farcical. While writing this piece I phoned CCO for a contact number for the Johnson campaign: ‘Er … hang on,’ said the press officer. ‘Actually I don’t have it. I think you can find it on their website.’
Livingstone, in contrast, is now the loyalist’s loyalist. No pronouncement of Labour’s leader passes unpraised – he has even taken to striking cloying poses with Tessa Jowell. The independence of the past has been crushed beneath the heel of party conformity. And it is Livingstone himself sporting the Flamenco boots.
Obviously, there are no certainties in life. National politics could rudely cut across the best-laid plans of mice and mayors. Londoners could finally come to see ‘Bo Jo’ as ‘Blue Jo’. Some unspeakable Bullingdon indiscretion could reach across the decades.
Perhaps Livingstone himself could throw off the shackles, and charge triumphantly down the Mall, Hugo Chavez and Lee Jasper at his side, comrades united for one final glorious revolutionary charge. All these things could happen. But they won’t. It will ultimately be closer than people expect. But Livingstone is fighting his last campaign.
—————————————————————————————
Dan Hodges writes for The Daily Telegraph. He formerly worked for the Labour party and the GMB
—————————————————————————————
The most interesting thing about this tired and unoriginal piece, not in the same league as Dan’s best, is that Progress chose not only to publish it at all in the run up to what David Lammy calls “the biggest test for the Government before the next election”, but that it gave it such prominence and reinforced it by re-cycling Peter Kellner’s two month old article.
What a contrast with Progress’s failure to give similar prominence to a discussion about the damage Tony Blair was doing to Labour’s national prospects back in 2005 and beyond.
It’s true that Ken is no longer ahead of his party like he was for so long, but in large part that is because of the deliberate and conscious attacks on him from his own party – from people associated with Progress in fact. And Dan Hodges still harping on about Labour lacking “the maturity or foresight to even come up with a new candidate” is yet more of the same. Don’t think no-one will notice the disloyalty that underlies the pretence of Progress acceptance of Labour’s change of direction.
You seem all for winning back for Labour in the south-east, but not in seems in London.
I was feeling similalry pessimistic til I went canvassing on a deprived estate in my ward. Everyone was solidly Labour (unlike in the run-up to local and Westminster elections 2010) and furious with Boris for cutting police and putting up their bus fares by more than 50% – if we hammer those issues to death between now and May and make this between Labour and Tory we can win this.
I’ll take that bet.
Full marks for a n excellent article. Fact Ken has alienated almost everybody including those who previously supported him. Fact Ken was ‘chosen’ in an undemocratic process where he was the only candidate. Labour had ages in which to prepare other candidates but chose Ken . Why ? Because he was a ‘good bloke’.
Now the only people who support Ken are people who have never known him or worked with him. He cannot win and a good thing too.
Ken did nothing for London where the quality of life has deteriorated substantially for most. But all Ken could offer were more slogans about how ‘vibrant’ London was.
It is quite unacceptable that someone like Lee Jasper can wield unaccountable power by being the mayor’s adviser.
Many Labour voters will not be able to stomach Ken or Labour’s arrogance in choosing him. I abstained last time and will do so again.
The sad fact is that Labour is marching to its doom.
For me, that sums up the problem. Of course, if you go canvassing on a deprived estate in your ward, then people will be solidly Labour. In other shock news, the Pope is a Catholic. But I would point out that deprived estates in Wandsworth were solidly Labour throughout the 1980s. It didn’t stop the Conservatives capturing Battersea in 1987.
And for the same reason, I’m suspicious of your claim now. If you go canvassing in the rich areas, say Kensington, and the areas of ambitious middle-class people looking to improve their lot and believe they can do it by their own efforts, say Putney or Hampstead, they will likely be equally solidly for Johnson. He’s the man with name recognition, a face, the sort of lifestyle they want and moreover, he’s a bit of a rebel against a Coalition government many of them dislike so they can vote for him with a clear conscience.
Now the paradox. If you take London as a whole, I’m sure there are more poor people who support Labour than rich/wannabee rich people who support the Conservatives/Johnson (as the case may be). But on the day, which ones are actually going to turn out and vote? Because that’s what will decide the election. And I’ll lay heavy odds that large numbers of poor people will simply stay at home, sick of the whole damn system that traps them where they are, and the rich vote will overwhelm those that do turn out.
And for every poor person who will be motivated on account of the fact that s/he hates/fears/despises Johnson and his policies, there’s a rich one who hates/fears/despises Livingstone and his – well, policies is perhaps stretching it, Ken’s always been a bit ad hoc, lets go with “ideas” of how to run London. So negativity is likely to cancel itself out.
Yes, Labour can win. Livingstone can’t. And the sooner he and you realize that, the better for all of you. You will not realize it however, if you only talk to like-minded people.
DECLARATION: I am a floating voter aligned to no party, and will not be living in London next year so have no vote either way.
I agree its sad that the Labour Party has failed to develop candidates with enough style, charisma and bloody mindedness to get to the top and appeal across party boundaries. Ken is still the only show in town for Labour, he is the only one who has any chance of challenging Boris.
And whatever Ken’s faults (and you make every effort to highlight them here) he is infinitely better than the Progress endorsed Oona King who would be much further behind at this stage as she another has been chracterless yes woman. It was embarassing at the Vauxhall CLP meeting that I attended and which endorsed Ken that Progress got so soundly defeated as across the rest of London Labour world.
And who else could Progress put forward? Steve Reed and the like whilst being excellent low level council leaders just do not have the style and ‘pzazz’ to appeal and create news across London.
Progress have nothing to add here – please leave the contest to real Londonders.
Ah, Red Ken, the mate of that venezuelan dictator Chavez. You socialists really have lost the plot. Go and get real jobs, pay real tax and taste the real whiff of a Europe totally screwed by the leftwing EU.
Chavez isn’t a dictator, he has won 3 elections…
Implosion of capitalism? WHAT capitalism? We live in a corporatist state. We need more capitalism but we get more and more corporatism instead!
Another blog with pale grey typeface on a white background, rendering it virtually unreadable to anyone over 60. There’s a reason books are printed in black and white you know – I will leave it to the blog owner to work it out. Meanwhile, please change the blog title to
Progress for the Under 670s online.
The other deciding factor is that many Tories and floaters who haven’t really been that impressed with Boris will turn out for him if Ken runs but might not if someone halfway palatable like Alan Johnson was Labour’s candidate. It would be the same thing in the US next year if Sarah Palin became the Republican candidate. Johnson has done little of any note as mayor but the thought of Livingstone striding smugly back in is too stomach-turning to contemplate.
You’re wrong about the CCHQ (not CCO any more, btw) point – you’ve based that on one person answering a phone not knowing a phone number. Boris’s re-election is critical, and everyone in CCHQ knows it.
Socialists are the poison slowly killing Europe.
And what makes this slow motion car crash of Ken losing in London again all the more delightful is that although the more thoughful lefties at the top of the Labour Party and in the blogs and media can see exactly what is happening, because Ken has stitched up the London Labour Party there isn’t anything at all that you socialists can do to rescue yourselves from this disaster of your own creating
Livingstone recently said that Tory Councillors in Hammersmith who have secured the redevelopment of two run down estates and their replacement with a five-fold increase in the number of homes, including more social homes and a guarantee of re-housing in the local area for all those displaced, should have their skin flayed in the fires of hell for all eternity for what he described as their “crimes”. That would be similar to the “crime” being perpetrated by Hackney council at Woodberry Down or Greenwich at the Ferrier estate, perhaps? Maybe not, they are Labour councils after all….
Livingstone typifies those socialists who hate Tories at a deep personal level. I have never once met a Tory who feel similarly about socialists. Socialism, yes. We hate socialism because it kills people, impoverishes them, traps them in their little boxes so they can be patronised and pandered to suit the socialists wishes. That we hate. Socialists, however, we just pity them.
What a devastating critique of Ken’s political future! Unfortunately, I fear it bears the hallmarks of truth. Even I, as a staunch supporter of Labour, am ambivalent about putting my cross against his name next year. Why does it appear inevitable that politically inept Buffoon Boris will win in 2012? What can Ken do to defeat Johnson?
He has to ‘repent his foolish ways’ and reject his past allegiances with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Lee Jasper. He has to change from ‘staid’ to ‘dynamic’ – Londoners will demand that their leader (and spokesman) has a strong and thrusting personality (sadly, a quality that may rank above policy competence!).
Assuming Ken is incapable of the above transformation, his only hope of success lies in an all-encompassing, dynamic and media-savvy support team backed by generous millionaires! Good luck!
oh,there’s a plot is there !
and RP I have job & pay Tax (and Europe robbed and raped ,but not by anyone ‘ Red ‘ )
This is supposed to be a Labour website. Why get Dan Hodges who writes for a right wing Tory supporting newspaper to write this propaganda. Ken has got charisma. People are not stupid. They vote for the person who has the best policies. It is up to Ken to explain what Labour would do.
“During his reign at the GLC, London was effectively a one-party state.”
That rather ignores the fact that the GLC was once run by the Tories under Horace Cutler.