Both Brown and Livingstone have been subject to organised campaigns of vilification. Their unpopularity is not spontaneous. Replacing them does not necessarily resolve the problem because their replacements are likely to be subject to the same vilification. Any effective left-wing Mayor of London will step on the toes of the outer-London Tories (who want the advantages of being in London without the disadvantages), will annoy the Evening Standard and will implement transport policies that worry the used-car dealers. Any effective left-wing Mayor of London will be attacked over real or imaginary character defects. They will be attacked because of what they’ve done right, not because of what they’ve done wrong: it comes with the territory.

Michael Gray: “Voters moved against Ken during the last election because they throught he was tired, lacked ideas and was polarising. There is no reason to assume that those who voted against him previously will come back.”

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is it just gut instinct?

I have problems with Ken but overall he was a good mayor and he did well in the 2008 election when considering how appalling Labour was performing nationally. He shouldn’t be written off: especially when thus far the suggested alternatives have not been especially impressive.

Mid term elections are usually extremely bad for the party in government – 1999 was appalling for Labour, 1981 was very bad for the Tories, 1968 was one of Labour’s worst ever election results. This happened even though the leaders of the opposition in these cases were William Hague, Michael Foot and Edward Heath.

In 2012, a greater percentage of Labour voters will go out and vote, and a smaller percentage of Tory voters will go out and vote. That’s your 3% swing right there, even if the Tories are reasonably popular – which they probably won’t be. If someone was generally unhappy and wanted to protest in 2008, they would have voted for Boris. There will be very few people in 2012 who register a protest vote by voting for an incumbent Tory mayor while the Tories are in power nationally.

“I’ve said this before – if Ken is the only person the left can come up with then we’re fucked.”

No, not really. If Ken stands, he’ll win and be a much better Mayor than Boris. How is that bad for the left?

The argument that ‘Ken can’t win’ doesn’t stack up. What anti-Ken lefties need to do is demonstrate:

1. that Labour (or an independent or a Lib Dem or whatever) can beat Boris even if Ken doesn’t stand.
2. that there is someone who could get the nomination who would be a better Mayor than Ken.

David Lammy meets neither of these criteria.

I was unaware that mobilizing the London MC vote was so critical to the prospects of a candidate for Mayor.

I obviously lack an understanding of how GLA politics work in London.

The recession has definitely NOT favoured the Labour party in poll numbers, so I think it’s naive to assume that it will in the future when the Conservatives come in. People now mostly blame Labour for the economic crisis – so it’s not going to help Ken. And the Tories are unlikely to impose deep and painful cuts immediately. They will also have their eyes on the elections.

Don:
Partly. But look at the results in, say, South West London. In Sutton, Labour got 8,000 votes for the London wide list, and Ken got 14,000 votes.

That doesn’t mean anything. Ken has name recognition and he managed to get a better percentage than Labour across the nation. That’s great but London is more liberal-left than the rest of the country anyway.

Besides, that doesn’t tell me how Ken will suddenly attract a higher percentage of votes than Boris in 3 years time.

1. Absence makes the heart grow fonder – particularly since it is just before the Olympics (people who Boris has annoyed will think better of Ken).

What? No, they’ll simply see him as someone who refuses to go away despite losing… Ken was a maverick candidate ten years ago but not now.

2. Evening Standard won’t be as virulently anti-Ken.

But all those who voted against Ken and for Boris aren’t likely to change their votes. They have no real reason to yet.

3. Demographic change is good for Ken.

Those demographics are not being converted to registered voters.

Boris has been a pretty ineffective Mayor even before his chums take power nationally – a mid term election in London is almost bound to see a big swing to the main opposition party.

That is not entirely predictable given that Ken himself also bucked the national trend. Boris may have been ineffective but we know that in the Westminster class. Outside the chatterati this isn’t a wide-spread meme yet. And that accusation needs to come from someone new and fresh.

I’ve said this before – if Ken is the only person the left can come up with then we’re fucked.

“That was the inner London vote that doesn’t usually go out to vote to support Labour.”

Partly. But look at the results in, say, South West London. In Sutton, Labour got 8,000 votes for the London wide list, and Ken got 14,000 votes.

“But I’ve had a look at some of the Ipsos-Mori polling too and not sure why people would suddenly start liking Ken and shift towards him.”

1. Absence makes the heart grow fonder – particularly since it is just before the Olympics (people who Boris has annoyed will think better of Ken).

2. Evening Standard won’t be as virulently anti-Ken.

3. Demographic change is good for Ken.

4. Fed up public sector workers who decided not to bother because they were fed up with Labour/10p tax/whatever being confronted by a Tory government which is trying to sack them and/or take away their pensions.

5. Lower propensity to turn out of Boris / Tory supporters – e.g. white working class anti-Ken voters not bothering or voting for minor parties and people in Bromley voting UKIP or Liberal Democrat to protest against David Cameron.

Remember, two years after Labour gained power in 1997, they lost the mid term Euro elections to **William Hague**. Boris has been a pretty ineffective Mayor even before his chums take power nationally – a mid term election in London is almost bound to see a big swing to the main opposition party.

People will be on the dole in very large numbers. The deep and vicious cuts that the Tories will impose will be very unpopular. Cameron’s people won’t be expecting or be too bothered about the lack of (what they will view as) midterm popularity, which will be terminal end of term unpopularity for Bozza and off he will go back to the pavilion as collateral damage.

If that were the case then surely Boris would have lost?

Ken lost to Boris 53-47 on a day when Labour were 20% behind the Tories nationally – Ken got a lot of votes from people who didn’t support Labour.

That was the inner London vote that doesn’t usually go out to vote to support Labour.

But I’ve had a look at some of the Ipsos-Mori polling too and not sure why people would suddenly start liking Ken and shift towards him.

Hmm.

In 2008, Boris got 53% with a policy platform which included an amnesty for illegal immigrants (not exactly a sign that London has a natural or overwhelming centre-right majority, given the massively favourable political backdrop). 2008-2012 will see a substantial growth in the proportion of London’s electorate who are BME, and increased motivation for lower income voters and public sector workers to turn out in protest against spending cuts.

And yet in your scenario, the support for the Right and Centre Right is going to increase substantially at the expense of the Left and Centre Left?!

In somewhere like Yorkshire, I could imagine a populist Right wing candidate taking a large chunk of Labour’s support and becoming the main challengers to the Tories.

In London, not so much.

More likely that two years into the economic collapse of the country, with London in the grip of food riots and the Olympics only months away, Prime Minister Cameron announces that the Mayoral elections are cancelled with Boris (who has taken to wearing the uniform of his new paramilitary police force at the office) to take on emergency powers until further notice.

It’s 2012. Having been elected with just over 40% of the vote nationally, Cameron’s Tories still lead in the polls. They are getting about 30-35% – Labour sometimes reach 30% but the polls are extremely volatile and they also fall back into the low twenties. “Others” continue to poll well, varying between 20% and 25%.

UKIP decide they don’t have a good candidate and when Jeremy Clarkson decides to run, they fall in behind him. The BNP call on their supporters to give Clarkson their second vote.

The polls show that Clarkson breathes down Bozza’s neck with the Labour candidate (whoever, although Ken does better than anyone else) struggling in third…

This is total and utter rubbish (there are other reasons not to support Ken, but this is not one of them).

Ken lost to Boris 53-47 on a day when Labour were 20% behind the Tories nationally – Ken got a lot of votes from people who didn’t support Labour.

If Ken stands in 2012 as the Labour candidate, then he needs a 3% swing from 2008 to beat Boris (if Boris even stands again). Since mid term elections usually involve protest voting against the party in power, he would be the massive favourite to win.

David Lammy would also be a terrible candidate because he is an extremely weak campaigner who is on record as supporting a whole range of unpopular policies.

I’m all for an open primary, though. Either Ken would walk it, which would be good, or someone else would manage to beat Ken, and anyone who can beat Ken in a Labour open primary in London would destroy Boris.

It’s quite laughable to see utterly discredited New Labour hacks posing as trade unionists and trying to pinch the mantle “left”. New Labour needs a candidate, but in this, as in so many other things, it is about to be so over. The idea that New Labour can hide behind a cipher such as Lammy proves that you can’t teach a bunch of sorry old hacks new tricks. He would struggle to outpoll Frank Dobson. Why don’t you try Lord Sugar? Oh, whoops, he’ll have scarpered by then,

“There is no reason to assume that those who voted against him previously will come back.”

More rubbish. We will be two years into a real economy depression with a vicious programme of Tory cuts aimed at making ordinary people pay for the bailout of Cameron’s mates in the City. Ken has cleverly tacked to the left, and has won the grudging respect of currently non-Ken Londoners by going into active opposition and not just disappearing, which can be the basis of a winning coalition for a third time.

Boris ran with near-identical policies to Ken.