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.

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

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?

“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.

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.

Interesting post – thanks!

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.

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).

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.

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