Ken Livingstone’s defeat in the London mayoral election on Thursday was both shocking and unsurprising.
Shocking because, despite the presence of a large number of marginal seats, London remains a ‘Labour city’ as the party’s strong performance in the London assembly elections, and the narrowness of Livingstone’s eventual loss, demonstrated. Shocking, too, because, in Boris Johnson, Livingstone faced an opponent who, despite his undeniable popular appeal, has very little to show for his four years at City Hall.
Nonetheless, far beyond the ranks of those who, like this magazine, would have preferred that Labour had picked an alternative candidate in 2010, there was little surprise at the result.
To his credit, Livingstone’s frequent visits to the outer London suburbs during the campaign suggested an understanding that he could not, as he appeared to believe in 2008, win simply by turning out a huge vote in inner London. However, the former mayor’s offensive remarks about the Jewish community indicated a continuing attachment to the ‘divide and rule’ strategy – pitting one section of London society against another – which he employed so unsuccessfully four years ago.
Livingstone was, indeed, lucky to escape censure or punishment for remarks which, directed against any other race, may well have led to him being stripped of the party’s candidacy. And it was not just in this regard that Livingstone was treated in a way that no other Labour member – let alone candidate – would have been afforded. The former mayor’s appeals to party loyalty rang particularly hollow for those who recalled him campaigning in late 2010 for Lutfur Rahman, the independent mayor of Tower Hamlets, against the Labour candidate.
After Johnson’s victory in 2008, Livingstone’s supporters were quick to trumpet the ‘progressive premium’ – the degree to which he outperformed Labour’s dire vote nationally that year – which appeared to attach to his candidacy. It is undeniable that Livingstone had a broader appeal than Labour four years ago. But this was clearly not the case this year. In short, this was a defeat for Livingstone, not for Labour. Indeed, the party – from its grassroots to its leadership – fought a strong and energetic campaign in London, and, despite the result, will be all the stronger for it when it comes to the European and borough elections in 2014 and the general election the year after.
There are, though, wider lessons that Labour can learn from the former mayor’s defeat.
First, there were three vital tests in the campaign: on policy, competence and vision. On policy, Livingstone was a true reformer during his previous time in office: introducing the congestion charge, transforming planning policy, pioneering neighbourhood policing, and playing a critical role in securing the Olympics in 2005. But this time around, a strong reform message did not figure in Livingstone’s campaign. Yes, he had a perfectly credible pledge to cut fares. But Livingstone had little to say on how he might actually improve London’s transport services, perhaps a reflection of his unwillingness to line up with passengers against the Luddite leadership of the RMT. As in 2008, the former mayor appeared unwilling, beyond a promise to reverse cuts in police numbers, to give the critical issue of tackling crime the prominence it needed.
Johnson’s greatest weakness – his competence – was barely exploited by Livingstone, although the former mayor’s inability to explain or justify his tax affairs will not have commended him to many voters as a competent steward of the city’s finances. Perhaps most curiously for a man who throughout much of his previous time in office appeared able to articulate a sense of London’s place in the world, Livingstone was unable to offer any real positive vision for the future.
While we profoundly disagree with those in Labour’s ranks who, on the eve of the elections, encouraged people not to support the party’s candidate, it was Livingstone’s failure to pass these tests which was the true cause of his defeat.
Second, the process by which Livingstone was selected as Labour’s candidate was seriously flawed. A rushed selection during the leadership election prevented other, potentially stronger candidates, putting themselves forward. The two-college electoral system – representing only party members and the trade unions, and with no place, unlike the college which elects the leader of the UK, Scottish and Welsh parties, for Labour’s elected representatives – effectively put the choice of the candidate in the hands of eight trade union leaders.
Reverting to an electoral college with three equal sections would be preferable to the current system. However, our preference is for a more radical alternative: that the party’s candidate for 2016 should be picked by a primary, open to anyone willing to register as a Labour supporter. The strong performance of independent candidate Siobhan Benita in this year’s campaign shows again the waning utility of outdated appeals to voters’ tribal party loyalties. A more open selection process, which engages those who share Labour’s values, would graphically demonstrate the party’s realisation of this fact.
With some dignity, Livingstone has made clear that he will not seek the party’s selection in 2016. This is the right decision and offers the opportunity for a fresh start. Labour in London should seize it with both hands.
———————————
At Progress annual conference join the debate ‘After 3 May: Where next for Labour in London?’ with David Lammy MP and other speakers. Book your ticket now. Join Progress to attend for free.
oouu you nasty people Leftfutures will be saying your like Militant and trying to impose your candidates on people for dare suggesting tht Ken in trying to appeal to the far left lost the centre ground…
what a vile editorial . and yes indeed the Jewish community are probably more separatist than any other group in London.
please explain the comment?
The popular front of Golder’s green hate the Golder’s green people popular front more than they hate the Tories
Instead of slagging off Trade Unions from inside the Labour Party why not save time and go and join the Tories sooner rather later
great idea like what george brown and reg prentice did in 1979, or david owen in 92, it didn’t matter they left as labour still won those elections……
On that basis, Labour’s result was ‘shocking’ as well, since the difference in total votes achieved by Ken and the Labour Constituency Member candidates was by my calculation about 42,000 or circa 1.94% on average per constituency. One thing is clear to me though, Ken was almost 10% behind Dismore in Barnet and Camden (16k votes), so there may be some traction in the argument that the Labour inclined ‘Jewish vote’ did not turn out there or could it be simply that Brian Coleman was universally disliked (I have spoken with a Conservative MP today who was relieved to see the back of him) and Dismore was the ‘stop Coleman’ candidate? All supposition, I feel.
Additional point – aside from close alignment with the vote achieved by Labour Constituency Members, Ken actually improved on his share of the vote since 2004 (when he won, let’s not forget). This does not lead in any way to a clear conclusion that the fault was Ken’s. I do agree that the London Mayoral election is a very different contest to the London constituency contests and demands a new approach. Primaries may well be the way forward or perhaps we should stick all of the candidates in the Big Brother House and take a public vote?
His vote went up from 880,000 in 2004 to 1.03m in 2008 then it’s fallen to 992,000 this time, Technically it went up But Ifeel it’s due to all the work we put in ,in 2008 and that he should have realsed that he was demaged goods and not stood, it’s no good him saying that as he got more now than 8 years ago he was an asset and it wasn’t his fault, He was and He knew it.
I really don’t see that Oona King would have won. The problem was not just the Ken suffered from some weaknesses but also that Boris is a bullet proof candidate for the Tories: I spoke to so many people who said they were going to vote Boris because they “just were” because he “was funny” etc etc…
Add to that that Ken was probably the one candidate who could muster a significant campaign team (because although some and especially Progress hates him, many in the Labour party do not) and I really question whether it was all Ken’s fault as this editiorial declares.
A fairly lazy article, with little in the way of facts to back it up. Here are a few facts:
Proportion of London votes for Labour on the party list for the assembly: 41.1%
Proportion of London first preference votes for Ken Livingstone: 40.3%
Proportion of London votes for Conservatives on the party list for assembly: 32%
Proportion of London first preference votes for Boris Johnson: 44%
That gap between Ken’s vote and the party’s was only a third of Johnson’s majority.
Labour’s problem was primarily a Boris problem, not a Ken one. In 4 GLA constituencies (Croydon & Sutton, North East London, South West London and my own Lambeth & Southwark), Ken actually out-polled the party list. It is dangerous indeed to think that all we needed to do was put up a non-Ken candidate and we would have walked it, not least seeing the Lynton Crosby dog-whistle stuff that the Tories put out which would have been targeted at who ever we stood. We need to work out how to beat the Tory machine Johnson has put in place rather than just obsessing on the candidate.
I’m quite happy with the idea of an open primary next time around, but reverting to the dodgy electoral college that gave a third of the votes to MPs on the grounds that party and TU members are not to be trusted would be an extremely retrograde step in my opinion.
Oh, and your strong performance by Siobhan Benita amounted to a whole 3.8% of the vote. From what I heard from Tories at the count who encountered Benita voters, they tended to be civil servants who believe that civil servants are better at running things than politicians!
Well Ken was all we had right from the moment in 2008 when Johnson was elected- there was no-one else who could have taken on Boris with Livingstone around.
The situation would not have been any better I feel (indeed would have been worse) if Oona King had beaten Livingstone in 2010. There is no one in front-line Labour politics who has the style, charisma and cross party appeal of Johnson.
We as a Labour Party must think about how we are going to tackle this problem for the 2015-16 London campaign – we need to develop or more likely attract a significant dynamic figure to take on the Tories.
I feel current potential candidates just dont cut it – either borough council leaders like Steve Reed in Lambeth or for that matter any other London borough (perfectly confident technocrats but plodding with no sparkle, no pzazz, no name recognition, no appeal to anyone outside Labour), or former government Ministers such as David Lammy or David Miliband (both spoken off but both too dull, lacking charisma, no appeal beyond a core group and having failed to get the government re-elected). And save us from the Progress writers’ panel – anyone like Luke Akehurst just doesnt cut the mustard – and also people from the wider Labour Party; London wants a proper Londoner not a blow in from Yorkshire, Tyneside or Scotland however dedicated they may be to the party.
I hope that the next Labour Mayoral candidate is someone who will emerge in the next few years and take the party and London by storm appealing to as wide a public as possible, not just one section of the Labour Party.
Agree – pretty poor and thin article. One reason is that Ken’s time has gone – he’s been around forever and it was time to move on. Many politicians are like boxers, they don’t know when it’s time to retire.
Ken lost in large part because he pissed off large numbers of Jewish people, gays, atheists, secularists, and people who consider themselves to be progressive, or even left wing, but couldn’t stand any more a man who promsed to make London “a beacon for Islam”, a man who invited a bigoted Muslim cleric to share a platform with him in London, a man who seems to consider everything through a racial prism, a man who campaigned for the opponent of a Labour candidate in Tower Hamlets, one with rather dodgy links to a local mosque with medieval views.
Personally, i am delighted that communalist politics as espoused by Livingstone and the awful George Galloway was rejected in London. It gives hope for a genuinely progressive Left to regain power.
This is a foul and worthless article. In my view it is an editorial display of schadenfreude
Jimi Adefiranye
what does “progressive left” MEAN ? Rob ? how would it modulate Capitalism ? it can’t get rid of it can it.
Clearly, more people preferred an amusing buffoon devoid of policies to a tired Marxist with positive policies.