London mayor

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK, I read that to date Ken Livingstone is actually the ONLY mayor of London, the position was only created in 2000, when he was first elected. So how was the city ran for all that time prior to the creation of the position? Was there an unelected mayor selected by the city council like some cities or what?

[minionofmidas]

There wasn't a city council either...

The official "City of London" is just the medieval city, has 6000 inhabitants or something, but many many more working there. It's got an effectively unelected and effectively powerless "Lord Mayor".
The remainder of the city is technically suburbs. From the late 19th century (1886?) there was a "London Metropolitan County" including all the, roughly speaking, Inner London areas. It had a council (county councils were established at around that time in England), must've had a council leader who was sort of a de facto mayor but didn't have the title.
In 1965 London was massively enlarged (area wise) to the current boundaries, so now it includes genuinely suburban areas. (Although these spread far beyond the city as well.) The leader of the Greater London Council was still called just that, but yeah he was basically the mayor (and in the 80s he was called Ken Livingstone.)
Margaret Thatcher then abolished it. Its powers were distributed between the boroughs and the central government. For about a decade London really had no effective city government...
Since 1999(or whenever), London once again has had a central council, and also a directly elected Mayor.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Livingstone is the first directly elected Mayor in London's history, yes.

London (as a city rather than London as the tiny City of London; which is basically the CBD) didn't have *any* form of City-wide government until 1854, with the formation of the (IIRC) unelected Metropolitan Board of Works. This was replaced in 1887 by the London County Council (LCC) which was o/c elected. In 1900 the London Boroughs were created to govern individual parts of the city (although the LCC wasn't abolished). Essentially London then got a two-tier system of local government.
The electoral history of the LCC involves decades of fighting between the "Progressives" (read: Liberals) and "Moderates" (later called "Municipal Reformers" IIRC) (read: Tories) until the eventual victory of Labour in 1934. Demographic changes and the popularity of Herbert Morrison (a relative of Peter Mandelson interesting enough) resulted in the LCC becoming a Labour fortress and the party never lost control of it, until it was replaced by the Greater London Council in the '60's.
The GLC covered most, but not all (although it was originally intended to) of the built up London area and was accompanied by a radical shakeup the boundaries of the London Boroughs (in fact if Battersea hadn't been abolished the demographics of that area would be very different). Greater London is an electorally volatile area and control swung from Labour to the Tories pretty consistently over a period of about two decades. There were several landslides.
Eventually the leftwing Labour administration of a certain Ken Livingstone came into open conflict with central Government (Tory at the time o/c) and dear old Maggie demonstrated her usual love for democracy by promply abolishing the GLC (transferring most of it's powers to various Quango's) and did the same to the Metropolitan County Councils in the rest of the country as well (Greater Manchester was beginning to cause almost as much trouble (read: had a different outlook on urban problems) as the GLC). So from 1986 until 2000 London had no city-wide government again, resulting in all sorts of predictable problems...
In 2000 the Labour government decided to return city-wide government to London, and created the post of a directly elected Mayor and also the Greater London Assembly (a mix of FPTP (from stupidly large constituencies IMO) and PR. It doesn't have many members and is basically for scrutiny purposes). Livingstone was elected as an Independent Labour Mayor (after losing the Labour nomination to Frank Dobson is some fairly dubious circumstances) and was re-elected (as the Labour candidate) in 2004.
The Tories ran Steve "Shagger" Norris again and the LibDems ran the M.P for North Southwark & Bermondsey... a certain Simon Hughes...

Here's a map of the 2004 election by ward:



Livingstone, being Livingstone, over-performed in some areas (like the Southwest and inner North London) and under-performed in others (like the bits of London that used to be in Essex). Simon Hughes did worse than expected () in NSB and only "won" his own constituency by a handful of votes; and that's not including postal votes. Include them and he might actually have lost it, and did very badly in areas with strong LibDem presences (especially the Southwest). Spitalfields & Banglatown ward voted for the Respect candidate.

[Peter]

Its interesting to see that Livingstone did so well in the Lib Dem belt in the SW of the city, especially Kingston of all places. I would have thought that the LDs of the area were of a more "Orange" shade, thus turned off by Hughes and more attracted to Norris.

[Serenity Now]

I would have thought that the LDs of the area were of a more "Orange" shade, thus turned off by Hughes and more attracted to Norris.

I believe they probably are of a more "Orange" shade, but in the area the race was probably seen as more of a two-way race between Livingstone and Norris, where their ideology was not all that imprtant in the face of smaller local issues (such as transport?) that may have helped Livingstone.

Such a sentiment may not have been so prevalent in the wards in Hughes constituency, where Hughes being an incumbent MP had the advantage of winning a small plurality in some wards.

Otherwise it would merit questioning why areas with many not-so-"orange" liberals didn't produce pluralities for Hughes (in Islington, say, or anywhere in the "Museli belt".

This is pretty much all guessing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

- Nice suprise to see the part of Bromley (Penge, bordering Lambeth) I lived in after I was born is fairly Labour, didn't think anywhere in Bromley would be.

Yes; I'd expected a few Livingstone wards there, but not as many as turned out. I think there must be quite a bit of council housing there (I've not looked at the stats for Bromley yet, so I don't know).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes he did; IIRC he did much better than the GLA or Euro candidates (I can't check for sure as I somehow managed to delete the spreadsheet with the ward data on it) although in a way he probably underperformed in Tottenham.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably the best thing to do, yes. Especially in Islington.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While that one ward is in Romford, it's not in the Romford constituency. It's on the Harold Hill estate, which is (stupidly) in the Upminster constituency. The boundary commision did think about adding the Harold Hill estate to Romford (which would have flipped it red; the "Hon" member for Romford only wins by large margins because Labour voters can't be bothered to turn out. He does not have a very large personal vote, he's just excellent at pushing all the hot buttons) but the Tories squawked enough to stop them. Before 1974 all of Romford was in one seat and that seat was usually Labour.
Now Livingstone *did* come close to winning a ward in the Romford constituency; Romford Town.
As for Hornchurch... for some reason Livingstone is just very unpopular out there (and is as unpopular in the working class Labour (in national elections) wards as the middle class Tory wards). I think he came fairly close to winning Rainham though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This guy should tell us how he really feels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1118-01.htm

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And here are the 2002 borough elections...



A few things to bear in mind:

1. This map shows the % of the vote for the party that polled the highest average vote (all London boroughs have three-member wards) in a given ward. A % majority map could be made if one is wanted...
2. All Politics Is Local. Remember that these were local elections and local issues dominated in some boroughs; every set of local elections in London several unpopular administrations get kicked out very, very hard; as examples, Labour did appallingly in most of Enfield, while the LibDems got slaughtered in Richmond and the Tories somehow managed to lose Bexley.
3. Most wards in Harrow only had a Labour candidate and a Tory candidate. This is because the LibDem agent f***ed up badly over nomination dates. A decade ago Harrow was one of the best boroughs in London for the LibDems.
4. New elections will happen this year and a lot will change in a lot of boroughs; Labour expect to do very badly in the middle class lefty wards that they won in '02 for example.
5. I can explain most of the voting patterns on the map (not *all* though), so feel free to ask questions.

[minionofmidas]

Black = Independents? Black = BNP?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Black = Independents? Black = BNP?

Black/Grey = Independents or small parties. In Havering and also Barking & Dagenham the colour stands for the various Residents Associations (which I'm told are on the verge of collapse in most of Havering; IIRC they lost a Rainham seat to Labour a few years ago), in Lewisham it stands for some Trot group, in Merton it's a group of local Indies (I think they're left of centre) and it's another local party in Hounslow (who I know nowt about).
The BNP (if they win anywhere) will be brown and Respect a sickly green. The Greenies will get a nicer green.

[Serenity Now]

Yes; I'd expected a few Livingstone wards there, but not as many as turned out. I think there must be quite a bit of council housing there (I've not looked at the stats for Bromley yet, so I don't know).

I think there is, it's more "inner city", like Lewisham or Lambeth in the part north of crystal palace, and there is a significant ethnic minority population.

The boundary commision did think about adding the Harold Hill estate to Romford (which would have flipped it red; the "Hon" member for Romford only wins by large margins because Labour voters can't be bothered to turn out. He does not have a very large personal vote, he's just excellent at pushing all the hot buttons) but the Tories squawked enough to stop them.

Andrew Rosindell disgusts me, but I'm glad to hear what you've said, as I assumed that he might've be an indication that a campaign of irresponsible right-wing "populism" can be disturbingly effective (think Enoch Powell and his Wolverhampton seat).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think there is, it's more "inner city", like Lewisham or Lambeth in the part north of crystal palace, and there is a significant ethnic minority population.

Could be that.
Two of the wards in the area do have a lot of council housing, btw (by outer-London or national standards that is. Obviously nothing on the sort of numbers seen in, say, inner South London, where you have a sort of belt of *extremely* high numbers, stretching from North Battersea to Deptford, or of the Paddington-to North Hammersmith area...).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I understand you completely... Rossindell is a scary bastard, but he's no Enoch Powell... here's the Tory vote in Romford (raw figures)...

1997: 17,538
2001: 18,931
2005: 21,560

Nothing especially remarkable about those figures bearing in mind the demographics of the seat (which is actually rather middle class; the working class bits of Romford are outside the seat), although they do look a lot more like Essex than London (which shouldn't be a suprise)... Rossindell's majority is as large as it is because the large Labour minority vote in the seat is demoralised and can't be bothered to go out and vote. If they did, he'd still win, but with a majority about half the size it is now, maybe even smaller.

Interestingly Wolverhampton SW is very like Romford (with the exception of the inner city area with it's large ethnic populations)...

[afleitch]

London 2009/19 according to Wells

I used your ward map Al. So apologies in advance



And a swing to the Tories of 5%

[minionofmidas]

Acton a prognosticated Tory gain? Really?

[afleitch]

Acton a prognosticated Tory gain? Really?

According to Anthony Wells at least. The old Hammersmith and Fulham seat looses Fulham with Fulham joining with Chelsea, (giving the Tories a majority of over 10,000) but Hammersmith becomes a safe Labour seat as a result as it absorbs Shepherds Bush from the old Acton seat. This would, according to Wells give Acton a conservative Majority of 56. But with figures that small all that can be said is that it should be marginal, though to who's advantage is anyones guess.

Coincidently, changes in Croydon Cnetral would give it a Lab majority of 317 flipping from Conservative to Labour

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/newseatguide2.pdf

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Acton a prognosticated Tory gain? Really?

No one is quite sure how Acton would have voted; local politics in the area is rather messed up...
Anyways, before the seat was abolished and largely merged into Hammersmith in '97, Acton had been Tory since boundary changes in 1970 which added some affluent and strongly Tory wards (largely from the abolished Ealing South). As you can see, those areas will be in the new seat. Before the boundary changes Acton was a close, but usually Labour, marginal. The post-1970 Ealing didn't even go Labour in the GLC landslide of 1973. But the demographics of the area have changed rather a lot since the '70's.
Anyways, I wouldn't take the current crop of guestimated results to be worth much; they are based on the GLA elections in 2004. And voting patterns in London have changed rather a lot since then already.

In general I don't like a lot of the new seats... Inner London is a mess as always... I do find it interesting that they've brought back some old seats, even if under new names (Acton, Harrow Central (which I think they're calling West), Kensington (but with better boundaries for the Tories), Stepney & Poplar (but without all of Stepney)... etc). One mistake they made was not putting the Harold Hill estate back into Romford...

[afleitch]

One mistake they made was not putting the Harold Hill estate back into Romford...

Thats what happens when the Conservatives get their act together at last during the boundary reviews Besides Labour get thrown Croydon Central and Hammersmith. Funilly enough, I got a feel for those areas when I was in London in January. We stayed in Chiswick (though we were  really in Acton) and trudged through Hammersmith. Chris lived in Chiswick (good to see the town have Tory councillors ) for a long time and was suprised at how more 'upmarket' it seemed to be. The population must be increasing to result in a new seat in the West End.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thats what happens when the Conservatives get their act together at last during the boundary reviews

In London anyway; they got a kicking in some places (Derbyshire and Northants are the obvious ones but there are others). Tory optimism over the new boundaries is as misplaced as it always is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labour held the core of the old (and now new) Hammersmith seat anyway (the "Hammersmith & Fulham seat is basically Fulham & South Hammersmith. Or Fulham & Barons Court, to use an old name) and Croydon Central is as up in the air as it was before...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chiswick is in Brentford & Isleworth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chiswick has moved upmarket a lot in recent years; IIRC the area used to be quite swingy in local elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it has been after years of decline. Yuppies and all that.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it has been after years of decline. Yuppies and all that.

We were staying on the wrong side of the tube tracks to be in Brentford and Isleworth On closer inspection alot of London is like that, walk in and out a constituency as you walk down a few streets. It's something we are not used to, even in Glasgow.

One interesting result is the new Poplar and Limehouse seat- a projected Labour majority of under 4000. It seems curiously tight.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We were staying on the wrong side of the tube tracks to be in Brentford and Isleworth On closer inspection alot of London is like that, walk in and out a constituency as you walk down a few streets. It's something we are not used to, even in Glasgow.

You should try working out how often you cross 1950's boundaries

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seat is basically Poplar & Canning Town with Canning Town taken away and replaced with Wapping (and maybe some other areas?). Notional results for anything remotely to do with Tower Hamlets are not to be trusted as Labour did shockingly badly there in 2004 (Mayoral, GLA, Euros... everything), so badly as to mask patterns of support. 2005 (despite the loss of, what was it? About 5,000 voters to Respect in each Tower Hamlets seat) was actually a sharp recovery for Labour in the borough, suprisingly enough...
Wait for this year's borough elections before making any guesses about that seat... (other than it being Labour).