London Mayoral Election 2012

[Leftbehind]

Is it too late to find some way of replacing Livingstone with Lammy? Not that I have much trust in ComRes or even really in polls of London elections, but if over 10% of 2010 Labour voters are thinking about voting for Johnson... er... no, that is not good.

Hopefully! Boris, a well-known figure as the loveable buffoon (with the ensuing significant personal vote) who makes sure to appear a maverick, willing to rail against his party's policies to protect London (social cleansing comment etc) was always going to attract a minority of Labour voters...well that is until David Lammy's his match(!)

[Leftbehind]

See, I really don't see Livingstone as the electoral poison you clearly regard him as. Boris is a formidable opponent, which any old Labour 'brick' would easily lose against imo. Labour needs someone as charismatic and equal to Boris in stature if they're to win - which limits their pool down to Ken, as far as I can see (Lammy's nowhere near applicable in this regard).

I think in full electoral drive it's not beyond Ken to win back what will be ultimately shallow reasons for departure in that tenth, reminding them of what Boris' complicity in the government's policies and what they mean (with a few quotes of him in full banker-loving mode).

[Leftbehind]

The recent Ashcroft polling of Feltham and Heston included a question RE the Mayoral election, with the figures being

45% Johnson (+3.7%)
44% Livingstone (+6.5%)
7% Paddick (-3.6)

An improvement upon 2008, but little comfort when it still has Boris ahead in a Labour-favourable seat, and alongside these figures has Labour winning the upcoming by-election by 22% lead over the Tories.

[Leftbehind]

Seems Ken's promised a London Living Rent and to "actually intervene" in the market; the Tories seem to be contesting that this is outside the remit of Mayor. Who's talking sh**te? It's gotta be a vote winner, in either case.

[Leftbehind]

Almost want Ken to lose now so he can contest the next Labour leadership election.

[Leftbehind]

Worth mentioning there was a ComRes released on Monday adding weight to Yougov's swing to Ken:

Livingstone 46%(+6)
Johnson 44%(-4)
Paddick 5%(-2)
Others 5%

Run-off:
Livingstone 51%(+5)
Johnson 49%(-5)

[Leftbehind]

Ken's appeal is he's a man of the people and a socialist. Private healthcare and tax avoidance are pretty effective weapons against him, and his image. Boris is undoubtedly guilty of both of these to a greater extent and much more, but people don't vote for him to abolish such practices (and he never says he will).

Although, the likes of Alan Sugar shouldn't have even been in the Labour party as far as I'm concerned - why his opinions should carry any weight, I'm not sure. There's not many candidates in the UK that could rival Boris, and the main reasons Ken's losing are things that've only come to light - after an extensive media campaign against him dug them up - so I think it's perfectly clear why Labour would nominate him.  

[Leftbehind]

I completely disagree. Ken's defeat is down to Boris' unique popularity factor - one of the few politicians out there more popular than his party, and can win votes from other parties on personality alone. Ken's already won two elections in recent times, so I don't see how he can be classed as "too left-wing" - he's moderated a great deal from when he was an unstoppable force via GLC, and I've never bought the idea that a more centrist Labour poltician would stand any chance against Boris unless they had a similar amount of charisma, in what is increasingly becoming a personality contest. I'd accept that Ken's less popular than his party, but I wouldn't put it down to his left-wing views - more the fact that he's
1) already been tried and tested for the best part of the decade so doesn't have the benefit of a fresh change (and the downside that he'll have made, however limited, himself unpopular because of long-term incumbency), whereas a party vote you're voting for a collective which can be led by a radically different team.
2) suffered several damaging attacks on his character in the run up to the election, with Boris recieving nothing like them.

Actually, I don't completely disagree, because Labour's national leads are undoubtedly to do with government unpopularity rather than any inspiring efforts from Labour, but again, "too left-wing" is more recieved wisdom in a time with a united-left for the first time in thirty years, which regularly seen to the election of far more left-wing Labour PMs, a more than ever disunited right - that even if united would trail Labour, and a period in which there's dissatisfaction with the current neoliberal model - without even mentioning there seems to be little from Miliband to prove he is even left-wing in the first place!

Populus has Boris 12 points ahead

Well, doesn't Populus has the Tories back by only 6, while other pollsters are in the 10-15 range, at the national level?

They seem to have quite a lean.

The other pollsters have Labour up 3, 6, 7, 8 nationally IIRC. It's only YouGov that have Labour up over 10 points with the Tories polling at 1997 levels. It's just that YouGov give us their tracker poll every day.

Don't forget Angus Reid's 12 point lead. (lol)

Poor Angus Reid.

But many of those, for instance the coalition-supporters-friendly ICM, initially show a 12% lead or there abouts and then add their adjustments to their figures (weight by turnout - some more strictly than others, reallocate 50% of don't knows to their former party, which is obviously contentious in today's environment) and end up with a dramatically reduced lead for Labour.  

The other pollsters have Labour up 3, 6, 7, 8 nationally IIRC. It's only YouGov that have Labour up over 10 points with the Tories polling at 1997 levels. It's just that YouGov give us their tracker poll every day.

yougov is down to 7% too today

After an 11% the day before, and back up to 9% tonight - AKA, Margin of Error territory.

I wouldn't be surprised if Boris wins.  I would think the olympics if all goes well should help him.  As for the Tories federally, I actually think the odds of Cameron winning in 2015 are greater than even since despite his unpopularity now, most politicians who make big spending cuts do it early in their term and I think people understand they are needed.  If I am not mistaken, I believe Margaret Thatcher trailed in the polls quite often while in power yet won three times.  Sure the Falklands war helped no doubt, but she won her third term without that benefit.

Thatcher wasn't consistently behind in '87 - only '82, where a military victory and a divided opposition helped her overcome her percieved certain ousting. She was unpopular post that victory, but was removed and the policy causing much of the unpopularity disowned.

[Leftbehind]

God, that's harsh. My condolences.

[Leftbehind]

No, Sibb's graphs are being used by a (popular) disgusting right-wing vermin's blog.

[Leftbehind]

Yeah that'd be fantastic.

[Leftbehind]

Justice.

[Leftbehind]

There was a power-cut caused by nearby builders where the building counting the remaining constituencies.

[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.

[Leftbehind]

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

[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.