London Mayoral Election 2012

[Sbane]

So can anyone explain why Boris won while Labour took over the assembly. Livingstones appeal to Muslims?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So can anyone explain why Boris won while Labour took over the assembly.

Roughly half this thread has been taken over by the question of Livingstone's likely underperformance.

But, basically, Johnson is personally popular (not because of anything he's done as Mayor, but because of his carefully crafted media image that made him a celebrity ages ago), which is about half of it. The other half is Livingstone's personal failings combining with certain political miscalculations and the usual issues that come with a career stretching back four decades. Given the narrow margin, we can be fairly sure that it was the tax thing that did him in.

[You kip if you want to...]

So can anyone explain why Boris won while Labour took over the assembly. Livingstones appeal to Muslims?

Because the mayoral election's a personality contest and the majority of Londoners prefer Boris. And Ken was a crap candidate. Labour did well in the assembly totally in spite of Ken.

[Leftbehind]

Sibboleth has it right. To re-emphasise Boris is far and away more popular than the Conservatives, and as such, if it were Boris x26 Labour would struggle taking over the assembly.

[Sbane]

Thanks a lot guys. I will go back and read the entire thread at some point.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

From the Grauniad Diary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[You kip if you want to...]

Wonder who'll run for Labour in 2016...

[Phony Moderate]

Wonder who'll run for Labour in 2016...

Some people are seriously suggesting that it should be Alan Sugar....

[You kip if you want to...]

Wonder who'll run for Labour in 2016...

Some people are seriously suggesting that it should be Alan Sugar....

Oh crap.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

By which point he'll be 69 and will (still) have never run for office in his life. Don't see it.

[Leftbehind]

Hopefully there'd be a vote Labour, but not Alan Sugar campaign if so.

[joevsimp]

Wonder who'll run for Labour in 2016...

Some people are seriously suggesting that it should be Alan Sugar....

I can't think of anyone really, some said Alan Johnson should've gone for it this time, some people will inevitably start throwing Chukka Umana's name about, but I think he's after bigger fish.

Claude Moraes MEP is a name that comes up now and then, but hes a bit of an unknown

[© tweed]

if it is a multibillionaire entrepreneur then you should seriously consider stop calling yourselves the Labour Party.

[You kip if you want to...]

if it is a multibillionaire entrepreneur then you should seriously consider stop calling yourselves the Labour Party.

To be fair to him, you could argue he's a case of "social mobility" or something.

[freefair]

Labour needs some people like Sugar (who is a former Tory donor) to be in the party for them to be credible, representative and prove that the party isn't just about aiding the least successful.

[You kip if you want to...]

Labour needs people like Sugar (who is a former Tory donor) to be in the party for them to be credible, representative and prove that the party isn't just about aiding the least successful.

I agree with this as well

[© tweed]

Labour needs people like Sugar (who is a former Tory donor) to be in the party for them to be credible, representative and prove that the party isn't just about aiding the least successful.

I agree with this as well

lol

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know if Sugar actually ever gave money to the Tories; he was generally listed as supportive in the 1980s and endorsed Major in 1992 (but only after praising some elements of Labour's economic policies (!) IIRC) but he doesn't seem to have been an especially political animal until Blair. Odd man, but not actually any kind of politician.

[Leftbehind]

if it is a multibillionaire entrepreneur then you should seriously consider stop calling yourselves the Labour Party.

Pretty much.

Even if he is a case of 'social mobility' that's just liberal nonsense that justifies wide inequality between classes on the basis that some leave it. The man ranks among Digby Jones as people who should never have been employed by the Labour party.

[Smid]

if it is a multibillionaire entrepreneur then you should seriously consider stop calling yourselves the Labour Party.

To be fair to him, you could argue he's a case of "social mobility" or something.

"Socially mobile" when it goes one way, "class traitor" when it goes the other... Mind you, I've always thought that phrase particularly hateful when bandied about by Labor (Labour? I don't know if they use it but it sounds more British than Australian, so I'd assume that's where it originated).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There has pretty much always been a small number of very rich people* who have supported (both in the normal sense, and also sometimes financially) the Labour Party. There's a tendency for them to see themselves as outsiders in some sense, which often translates as being from a minority group or a working class background (Julian Hodge is a particularly good example of the latter). I'm not sure what that says about the right of the Party to call itself Labour, especially given the 'interesting' financial affairs of many of the various small left-of-Labour parties over the decades...

*Even in the late 1930s there was a small group of City financiers who would discretely meet Labour Party economists on a regular basis.

[minionofmidas]

a small group

George Strauss and Sir Stafford Cripps make a "group"? (No, I suppose there were more. )

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Labour needs people like Sugar (who is a former Tory donor) to be in the party for them to be credible, representative and prove that the party isn't just about aiding the least successful.

I agree with this as well

Not that I agree with the idea that rich people should be unwelcome in the Labour Party (provided they genuinely support what it stands for, including recognition that it may not be personally short-term beneficial for them), but 'aiding the least successful' is hardly a bad thing for a party to be about, considering that 'successful' typically translates into 'fortunate'.

[Peter the Lefty]

Sugar supported scrapping the 50p tax rate, fyi.  I also really hope it's not David Lammy.  Or the Blairite warmonger Oona King.  I've also heard a bit about Stella Creasy, but I think she should keep rising in the house of commons (she seems just as bright as Chuka and Rachel Reeves, if not more so). 
Some other names that are mentioned:

Jon Cruddas (good compromise if they want someone left-wing but also honest)

Sadiq Khan-Could loose his seat after the boundary changes if he ends up loosing Labour's selection to Chuka Umunna (something in my gut tells me the latter will win). 

Steve Reed-Has implemented huge budget cuts as Lambeth Council leader, though his decentralization model has been talked up as a left-wing alternative to the Big Society.  Meh. 

And Eddie Izzard is also being talked about.  Dunno exactly what his views are besides being a Labour supporter, or whether Londoners will think he has the experience to do it. 

Harriet Harman and Rushanara Ali also seem like good candidates.  Of course, I'd like it if someone like Jeremy Corbyn ran and won just to force the Labour leadership to shift left, but that won't happen in a million years. 
Memo to London Labour: PLEASE don't pick some Blairite idiot just because you're afraid of shooting yourself in the foot with someone like Livingstone again!  Aka No to Sugar, Lammy, King, or Reed.

Boardbashi edits: careful now.

[stepney]

I hope they release ward data again this time, last time I created a map, assigning wards based on the total vote by borough and giving smaller parties their best wards, I never uploaded it here though and hard disk failures mean I've lost it

Ward data now available on the London Elects website (I'm too much a newbie to post links).