I’m intrigued by what you call the ‘Livingstone effect’, and I suspect that it has played a greater role here than you suggest.

My guess is that because Livingstone’s Labour politics are clearly distinct from New Labour, Londoners have slightly different perceptions of Labour from those people outside London have. A substantial section of the London population were Livingstone fans even if they weren’t particularly Labour fans, and Livingstone was hardly trounced when he was voted out.

It would be extremely interesting to see some polling looking at the extent to which Livingstone’s time as mayor was responsible for the relatively less bad results in London this year.

Perhaps the research question should be ‘Do Londoners look at Labour through Red Ken tinted specs?’

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com

On face value yes Labour did vey well in Isilngton across the borough. They are the only party that campaigns in every ward and on free school meals. Parts of the borough are a Lib Dem free zone. Did the Conservatives really come fourth? That must be disappointing for Boris! Do you have the constituency or ward breakdown? That may be more of a predictor for next May when any one ward changing hands could change the council. A general election on the same day could cancel out Labour local success.

I’m not sure I WANT the government doing better in London than elsewhere: it just marginalises the regions still further.

A government composed largely of Labour MP’s from London would naturally benefit those who live there at the expense of those in the North, increasing the impression that the Government are disconnected from us and thereby boosting BNP support.

Pete B – I think you are certainly right that Livingstone has a distinct effect on the perceptions of Labour in the capital, and for the most part that is favorable to Labour. However, even as a Livingstone supporter myself, I have to admit that in certain areas and demographics it represents a drag – this seems to be particularly the case in outer London areas that are predominantly white working class. But the interesting thing that the European results suggests is that were a positive Livingstone effect exists, Labour is able to maintain it in subsequent elections; but where a negative Livingstone effect occurs, Labour is to a degree able to overcome it in non-mayoral elections.

What will be interesting to see is whether the Tories are able to produce a similar effect for Johnson over time – at the moment, there seems to be more of a Johnson ‘drag’ than a Johnson ‘boost’ across London as a whole.

Andrew Freeman – unfortunately I don’t have constituency or ward breakdowns for any of the boroughs. Would having a general election on the same day cancel out Labour’s gains locally in Islington? I’m not sure, given that a general election would probably bring out more Labour voters than just borough elections, particularly in Islington North. Even in ultra-marginal Islington South, the European results must give Emily Thornberry some hope of hanging on. My general feeling is that if the borough elections and the general election coincide, this helps Labour’s chances in a few boroughs – particularly Islington, Camden, Southwark (and to hanging on in Lambeth and Haringey).

Political Animal – I think it might be possible sum up Ken Livingstone’s effect on this year’s election results like this;

Ken Livingstone is clearly identified as Labour, but as distinct from New Labour. In general, Livingstone’s brand of Labour politics has had a greater appeal than New Labour politics. This has led to an enhanced public perception of Labour in London, relative to the UK as a whole. In turn, this has resulted in habitual Labour voters showing greater willingness to turn out to vote, and softened the impact of general ill-will towards Labour among other voters, which might otherwise have led to more protest votes.

However, Livingstone has been a polarising figure who many people were pleased to see voted out. But the people who were most alienated by Livingstone were not likely to be Labour Party identifiers and would be unlikely to vote Labour under any circumstances. These people are likely to have voted for Johnson in the Mayoral election but they may well have been less likely have turned out to vote because ejecting Livingstone was not an option.

In sum, the Livingstone effect softened the blow for Labour among party identifiers and ‘floating voters’ while Johnson supporters may have included a substantial number who simply objected to Livingstone and, without that motivation, did not turn out to vote this time.

I would be genuinely fascinated to see rigorous academic research into Livingstone’s effect on this election. I think I’ll be checking Google Scholar a few months down the line.

London has a large number of middle class humanities gradutaes who work in the media, think tanks and for the government, who consider identity politics one of their priorites. These types do not consider the decline of manufacturing /industry one of their prorities . Labour is largely a party in their image and if it cannot do well in this city, then the prospects are grim in the rest of the country. Part of the problem is that the metropolitan middle class media/quango/civil servant type who does well in London Labour politics is just the sort of person who is political turn off in much of teh former industrial areas of the UK.

To state the bleedin’ obvious, it looks as though left-ish voters in some of those outer boroughs are turning to the Greens rather than to Labour – RuT being the most noticeable case (I grew up in Richmond, and Labour has always been a tough sell there).

Interesting post – thanks!

“Do voters in London look at Labour through Red Ken-tinted spectacles?” The only way that you can research that question is through asking quite a large sample of people some questions about their political attitudes and reasons for voting. If you try to research it through polling results you will be making a lot of assumptions. I voted for Livingstone last year. I looked at the Labour election material last week and thought “I know nothing about who these people are and the leaflet says nothing about what Labour stands for” so I voted Green. However possibly some people voted Labour last week because they think that Labour is on the whole like Livingstone, or maybe they voted Labour because they think that Labour is on the whole like Blair. There’s no way of knowing that without asking quite a large number of people some open-ended questions about their political attitudes.

Livingstone has a polarising effect because he talks about issues openly. I like him because he talks about climate change and because he has done things to reduce the amount of traffic. The mere fact that he puts these issues on the table sends some people into a complete tizz.

@Guano

“The only way that you can research that question is through asking quite a large sample of people some questions about their political attitudes and reasons for voting. If you try to research it through polling results you will be making a lot of assumptions.”

Precisely, all my second post really constitutes is a set of hypotheses for why Labour might be doing better in London than in the rest of the country – and I should really have made that clear. To test this out, you would need a large sample (1100 ought to be sufficient for a statistically significant result i.e. one you’re 95% certain isn’t down to chance), you’d need a carefully designed survey to test a set of clear hypotheses and you’d have to put a lot of effort into avoiding selection bias. In other words, it would be fairly difficult. Nevertheless, I’m hoping that someone in some university somewhere has gone to the trouble because it would be really interesting to see if the notion holds up.

Pete B: Thanks for the clarification. I am concerned about a tendency to extrapolate too much from voting patters, usually making assumptions that fit in with pre-existing prejudices.

In the case of voting patterns in London, it would be fascinating (if soeone had the money) to explore why people voted the way they did. It would also be fascinating to understand more about people’s attitudes to the underlying issues. What really do different groups of people think about Livingstone’s transport policies? Do some groups think that they have been abandoned by Labour, and why?

Livingstone affect? No.

What you have in London is a huge concentration of middle class art grads and a boat load of the cancerous monstrosities AKA, council estates.

If labour don’t hold on here, they are finished. Forever.

Last point, in para 7, you suggest the BNP would expect to benefit from a drop in tory votes. For a site that obsessed about the BNP it is amazing how strong the denial is with regard to where there vote comes from. They are mostly labour voters who are so conditioned to hate Tory or LD, they protest by voting BNP. the BNP are not only labour’s problem, they are of labour’s making.

CHT
Peckham

Posted from iPhone, apols for errors.

While there was clearly a direct Livingstone effect which improved Labour’s fortunes in London in 2008, compared to the rest of the country, I think the more significant factor here is an indirect Livingstone effect. Having Livingstone as the de facto leader of Labour in London from 2004, as a clear departure from New Labour, gave party members a solid reason for staying in or re-joining the party. Labour in London doesn’t have quite the same dearth of activists as it does in the rest of the country, and the activists it does have aren’t as depressed about the direction and state of the party because of the (albeit mostly tokenistic) alternative Livingstone represented. It has more people willing and able to campaign door-to-door, sell Labour on a personal level and get the vote out.

Blair was (belatedly) aware of the effect left-wing figures had on propping-up the membership numbers and wider support from traditional Labour voters, which dwindled so badly under his leadership (and now under Brown). That’s why he never moved to expel the serial rebels in the PLP, and why he brought Livingstone back into the party in 2004. If Blair had driven out the Campaign Group after 2001, as some of the more cavalier members of his circle wanted, Labour would have lost in 2005.