Can Ken withstand the media barrage?
January 21st, 2008
Is winning a third term starting to look doubtful?
If you want proof that May’s fight for the London Mayoralty might not be the foregone conclusion that the betting markets currently suggest then do what I did last night - go to Google News and input the words “Ken Livingstone”.
The top few results are featured in the screen shot above - and just looking down the list you can see that he might be in some trouble. What’s particularly poignant is that the media references come from a much broader range of sources than just the Evening Standard with whom the Mayor has been involved in a long war of attrition.
Yesterday the normally Labour-friendly Observer ran a leader under the heading “Face your critics, Mr Livingstone”. It said: “He and his policy advisers have been accused of using taxpayers’ money to rubbish the mayor’s enemies; of failing to scrutinise the spending of hundreds of thousands of pounds of money earmarked for regeneration and of using City Hall staff and offices for political fundraising, a breach of electoral guidelines. The mayor’s response has been to issue denials and to claim he is the victim of a smear campaign. But this defence seems clumsy, given the evidence in the public domain that indicates a serious examination of many of the allegations is merited.”
Tonight there’s a Channel 4 programme in the Dispatches series which, amongst other things - “….accuses Mr Livingstone of “astonishing and shocking” drinking habits and being “a law unto himself”.
The electoral challenge he’s got is that even in Labour’s good times he has to rely for victory on supporters of other parties. Looking at how the capital voted in 2004 for the mayor and the London Authority it’s clear that one in four Lib Dems and one in six Tory supporters split their ticket in the Mayoral ballot. Will that happen to the same extent in May? I doubt it particularly as the manner in which he operates is becoming THE issue.
This will be the UK’s biggest political betting market of 2008 and last week I suggested that at the then nearly 2-1 that Boris Johnson was the value bet. If the media barrage does not stop then the next poll might have Livingstone behind. That’s what I’m betting on. I think that there’s an increasing chance that Ken won’t do it.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Ladbrokes night shift has panicked and cut Johnson from 7/4 to 6/4. Interestingly, they are ducking the LibDems, being shorterst at 12/1 against Brian Paddick.
There is currently an advertising campaign encouraging Londoners to register to vote in the Mayoral election.
Clock test
Ken must love Jacqui Smith after the Home Secretary announced she is scared to walk around London at night. Nonetheless, since Ken has increase police numbers by 7,000 (more than 25 per cent) this issue is not a gimme for Boris.
Is attacking KL as a boozer, degenerate, etc really a credible electoral gambit against the Mayor in light of past experience. Seems that Londoners take some pride in the “Jimmy Walker” aspects of Red Ken’s personality. Though must say that yer man is nowhere in the same league as Beau James.
Wouldn’t an oppostion focused on ISSUES in particular various policy misdeeds (including missed opportunities) during the Livingstone Administration?
And isn’t that a bit of a sticky wicket for Team Tory, seeing as how in Boris they’ve got a candidate who could give any village’s idiot a run for their money BUT who is not exactly what you’d call a policy wonk.
5 SSI . I think that you completely underestimate Johnson. To liken him to the “village idiot” is simply rubbish. He has a razor sharp brain and used to edit the Spectator. He’s also immensely popular as we saw when YouGov published their weekly BrandIndex ratings last year.
Paddick, as well, is a credible candidate and I wonder what will happen if the polls start to show that Ken could get beaten. Will anti-Tories get behind Paddick as the only way of stopping Boris? That’s a possibility.
Forecast: Livingstone will remain Mayor of London for as long as he wants the job….
Mike, I’m coming round to the opinion that PB.C may be trying to move the markets, not just gauge them….
IF Boris Johnson proves capable of harnassing his considerable charisma and star power for his own electoral good (and the Tory Party’s) THEN Ken Livingstone could be in trouble due to voter vatigue with the regime and/or Red Ken.
BEST WAY for Boris to do this, in my humble opinion, would be to come out with a set of pithy yet substantive policy positions targeted to the true needs of London AND to the voters who will decide the race. Something similar in tone & feel & impact to Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America.
Real trick would be for Boris to convice journos, politicos, pundits and likely voters that he’s not doing another one of this funny little skits.
Naw. What’ll happen is, Boris will keep everyone is stitches right up to Polling Day . . . with Ken having the last laugh.
6 Didn’t say Boris wasn’t popular. What I AM saying is, that’s part of his problem. And just because he’s a very smart guy doesn’t change the equation.
Must confess the guy rubs me the wrong way, so I’m definitely biased against him.
Also think that the charm o’Borish is VERY British and hence incomprehensible to outlanders. I understand this. What I do NOT understand is how the Great Brit Public’s fondness for Boris translates into votes in the box on Polling Day.
SSI is right and Mike Smithson is wrong. Boris is not an idiot but he plays one on TV.
And that is Brian Paddick’s only hope of garnering the anti-Ken votes.
I think people overestimate the supposed damage a Mayor of London can do.
Admin: my post containing links to the official campaign sites is blocked in the spam trap. I’m not sure which of the candidates it finds objectionable.
If we cannot post the links, might they be added to those on the right?
It’s not such a wide variety of media sources. The Observer piece was trailing tonight’s Despatches programme. The Observer also had a piece by Nick Cohen about how Ken used to be a extreme lefty, but Nick doesn’t explain how this criticism can’t also be levelled at Alan Milburn, John Reid etc.
Londoners will vote on whether or not they think London is working, and I think they will give Ken the credit for the improvements that have come about.
13 Disagree Nick Cohen didn’t have a piece on how Ken used to be an old lefty - his piece was more about how Ken & his coteries are still the same unreformed group they were. Venezuela has replaced Nicaragua, Muslims replaced gay rights but use of public funds for Ken’s “struggle” is just as it was in the 80’s.
13 - The difference between Livingstone and other former hard-leftists like Reid, Milburn and Darling is that he’s never really given it up. Cohen’s point is that - like history, according to Marx - Livingstone’s past ideology repeats itself but the second time as farce. He now mixes with City suits and rubber-stamps the first skyscraper blueprint to cross his desk, but his political tactics are those learned among the London Labour Briefing Trots.
The cold leftovers of his ideology emerge as populist anti-Americanism exemplified in his groupying for Hugo Chávez, picking on the US embassy alone among the many - and, per-head, far worse -German and Nigerian ambassadorial congestion-charge non-payers.
His nauseating love affair with reactionary imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi and his play fight with Oliver Finegold were classic Eighties Livingstone. That is to say, they were intended to motivate London’s muslim lobbies - rather than London’s muslims.
This is what he does. He knows election turnout will be below 40%, and this will naturally favour civically minded middle-class voters. So it is crucial to get out the welfare rollcall vote. Hence the appeal to the MCB’s ‘organised islam’ and the targetting of LDA funding on ‘organised blacks’.
Ken could be seen as evil, or just nuts. His record speaks volumes.
London fares are the most expensive in the world. The next most expensive in the world is Tokyo which is half the price of London.
How this tallies with Ken’s supposed left wing view which presumably wishes to help the poorer sections of society defeats me.
He wastes money on an industrial scale, allows his cronies to milk the budget, and resorts to accusations of racism against anyone who stands in his way. He occasionally declares himself a friend of the gay community - and yet cosies up with the most homophobic, racist people known to man.
Nothing hangs together. He’s a dangerous fantasist who has cost London and Londoners billions.
Boris has an ability to make good decisions, does not waste money and avoids corrupt practices.
If Londoners put Ken back in as Mayor, they would literally be mad.
Maybe in the past before people realised what Ken was really like, there was some kind of excuse - when money seemed to grow on trees in the 1990s, and Ken seemed a little amusing. But now there can be no doubt that he is a threat to the stability of London, He cosies up with terrorists and dictators, with fraudsters and conmen. He needs removing and Boris should be given a chance to sort the mess out.
I suspect “Despatches” may be on to something in respect of Uncle Ken’s drinking.
As to his “coteries”, I don’t dissent: it’s worth noting however that the system of an elected Mayor and PR-elected Assembly pretty well guarantees that the Mayor won’t have a majority there (in fact, that’s the idea) so I fully expect, down the road, “Despatches” will be able to make a programme about Boris’s dodgy sidekicks…
If I were Boris I’d make the centrepiece of my campaign a promise to introduce a variable precept (inner/outer London) - there’s no point in his looking for votes in inner London, he wins by winning big in the blue suburbs or not at all. Of course, he needs a Cameron government to play ball with him on that, I’d be interested to know if the Tories here think the idea’s got any legs…
[7] Of course pb.com moves markets, and doesn’t soley ‘gauge’ them. All punters on here (especially our host) is very aware of that. Sometimes too aware—we have zero clout in the US, despite the tone of some posts.
All politicians have cronies, who are ‘wedged up’ by their sponsor: Ken more than most, though his favourites have changed more than many. Partly because of that, and partly because its unclear what Ken (or anyone) can achieve in years 9–12 that hasn’t been tried in years 0–8, there must be an appetite for a new mayor.
What makes this election harder to predict is that a lot of noise comes from people who have no vote in the election. Both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson inspire a lot of love and hate as national figures. Indeed, I find it very difficult to be detached, because I loathe Ken Livingstone with every fibre of my being and want the entertainment factor of Mayor Boris.
Obviously, the current media coverage is unhelpful to Ken Livingstone. However, the Evening Standard and Ken Livingstone have a long history between them, and that is presumably already factored into the prices. The London election is not going to be determined on Channel 4 or in the Observer. I am doubtful whether it is going to determine the election campaign unless it develops a head of steam and starts getting a lot of coverage in the tabloids.
This is still Kens election to lose.
If the Tories and LDs are clever they will ask all their voters to put their second preferences for each other.
Ken only really got in 4 years ago because of the second pref votes going to him.
(A pedant writes…) Methinks that should be a war of “attrition” rather than “attribution” at the end of the second paragraph.
I am certain that Londoners will make a hard headed decision irrespective of party considerations or the tiile tattle you have managed to dig up on google.
As for the usually poorly researched sensationalist ‘Dispatches’ programme you can be sure they are already well into one on Boris the first hour of which could be spent on Darius Guppy before getting anywhere near the merely prurient against which Ken’s drinking would pale into insignificance.
22, do I detect the slightest hint of bias?:p
O/T why on earth is Clinton at 4.8 in South Carolina? The polls have her a few percent behind Obama - surely her chances are better warranted than 4.8?
Maybe Ploddick will come through the middle, the only one not sullied by press stories….
re 21 Methinks you are right. It’s what the spell-checker came up with in the middle of the night.
re 7. Come on Rod - here we have a mass of coverage and a critical TV programme coming up on what will be the biggest UK political betting market of the year. What do you expect me to to do - ignore it?
All my thinking until now on the Mayoralty is that Ken would just hang on. With this onslaught I am less sure.
My big guess and personal gamble is that the next poll will have Boris ahead.
25 “Maybe Ploddick will come through the middle, the only one not sullied by press stories…” yet?
The standard’s coverage of ken is so one sided that i think many londoners will switch off. Having Andrew Gilligan attack you in the most personal way every day can only be a good thing in the long run. When you read him it’s as if the most vile, geeeky, dungeons and dragons playing , never had a girlfriend right wing blogger has for some unearthly reason been given a column in a quality newspaper - he doesn;t have the charm, humour or charisma to persuade. i agree that having a series of punchy common sense policies is the way to beat ken but that approach simply doesn’t work when no-one believes boris will have the technical ability or frankly the inclination to see policies through.
As for the election I really can’t think Boris has a chance. Apart from some outer London boroughs where people have nothing much to do with London I can’t see many of sound mind voting for Boris. I don’t hear good things about him from anyone unless ‘buffoon’ is a compliment?
I suspect his popularity- is not from those living in London few of whom see him as a Londoner-unlike Ken- and if it exists at all it’ll be from those without a vote.
22 - The programme will be rather more than that (www.newstatesman.com/200801170010) and is the work of a centre-left journalist. This is less surprising than you might think. As Neil Kinnock once said: “Everyone likes Ken Livingstone except the people who know him”.
My own view on the election is that unless Johnson implodes (a very real possibility), it will all be about turnout and second-choice votes. For this reason, I think Johnson still underpriced.
24: What polls are you talking about? Real Clear Politics have Obama an average of 10.5% ahead - has there been something post-Nevada that they haven’t got yet?
http://tinyurl.com/37fnwj
28 - Gilligan is on the left. With the exception of his most recent, misguided attack op-ed, his investigative work into the “Jasper Network” has been outstanding metropolitan gumshoe reporting in the US tradition. It is worthy of an award. And I say this as someone who never liked Gilligan.
As for the election I really can’t think Ken has a chance. Apart from some inner London boroughs where people have nothing much to do with paying taxes I can’t see many of sound mind voting for Ken. I don’t hear good things about him from anyone unless ‘newt-fancying anti-semite’ is a compliment?
I suspect his popularity- is from those living outside the UK few of whom see him as a Englishman-unlike Boris- and if it exists at all it’ll be from those without a vote.
The reason why Ken is hated by the press is he’s always survived their attacks. The press Livingstone is getting today is nothing compared to the press he was getting during his ‘Red Ken’ period.
If the Tories had managed to produce a decent candidate, with a proven record, then Ken would be in trouble. Unfortunately for them and perhaps for London, they are running a candidate, who is viewed as nothing more than an ‘act’ and a morally dubious one at that.
What no Northern Rock thread when Darling has committed us to spending billions per year on interest payments on Brown’s bonds? Perhaps the usual suspects can tell us that these extra billions are all uncosted promises - after all they were jumping up and down when the Tories were promising a few hundred million in tax cuts.
“28 - Gilligan is on the left”
Are you being ironic?
35, or we could debate the wisdom of denying the police £30m of wages and then giving £50m to the Chinese and £825m to the Indians.
There is a clear differnce this time around - Tories are much less likely to vote for Ken - there is genuine enthusaism amongst Tories for Boris and a new - or renewed dislike of Ken if you go back to the GLC days when he was public enemy number one - For Boris to win it is not necessary to convince Roger et al to vote for Boris -
Boris just has to get the Tory vote out and to reduce second preferences going to Ken . By my reading of the situation from an outer Borough it looks like the Tories will be out in droves to get rid of Ken - Is there such confidence amongst the labour voting inner boroughs that they will vote entusiastically for Ken ? I would guess the labour vote is softer - look at the polls and the weaker situation on the ground with far fewer councillors / activists there to work on the core vote
re 35. There will be a Northern rock thread later after the statement.
27 It’s a fair cop, Witan!
36 Roger, I am sure that Gilligan said that he had been a Labour voter.
33. You are metamorphosing in front of my eyes Aaron from a shrewd poster on the finer points of gambling to a blue rinse cheer leader. Where did it all go wrong?
41. In that case Augustus I can only think he’s followed the path of Melanie Phillips who at one time also voted Labour!
[38] Morgan - yes, Boris really only needs to get the Tory vote out in suburbia to win, even if second preferences go say 5:4 against him (as I expect they will). OTOH, if anyone can get lapsed Labour activists off their sit-upons to knock on doors these days, Ken is the one who can.
Who after a year of Boris being mayor, would have the bigger grin, Cameron or Brown?
36 - No, do some checking. Gilligan is politically on the left.
Ditto Martin Bright, author of tonight’s hatchet job on Livingstone.
For this election people will see themselves as Londoners first and party loyalties a long way behind. Just get in a cab and ask the driver which way he’s going to vote in the mayoral election ‘Tory or labour’ and he wont know what you’re talking about.
I would have hoped that using taxpayers money to fund a campaign is not only against any sense of morality but is also a criminal offence - or am I being too optimistic?
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
49 The Labour Party cannot break their own laws - I thought that was obvious!
David Niven said of Errol Flynn, ‘There was only one thing you could be sure with Errol, he’d always let you down’ When Cameron writes his memoirs, that’s what he’ll be writing about Boris.
There are some people, you just know are born pre-packaged disaster areas, they come in all sorts, sizes, and backgrounds, Boris is a fully paid up member of that club.
Livingstone’s big mistake was returning to the Labour party, he should have remained what he really is an independent. If Livingstone were to lose, the Labour Party brass would not be broken hearted, Cameron might be!
46. Martin Bright seems to have taken the same journey as Melanie Phillips and seems to share the same concerns. Islam seems to distort other political allegiances like nothing else and is a possible explanation for Bright’s hatchet job on Livingstone..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1833395,00.html
51, obviously a defeat for Labour’s candidate for mayor of London is *really* defeat for the Conservatives!
29. Bet the farm on Boris.
49 I’m afraid you are being much too optimistic. Local Government in particular is used to peddle the propaganda of the ruling parties. And don’t forget the so-called “Communications Allowance” for MPs.
36: I am not a londoner, so the only thing I know about Gilligan is his Anti-Iraq war stuff, the subject of the Hutton report. Surely therefore he is plainly a leftie, demonstrably to the left of the Labour government.
53
Yep!
Every Saturday evening, the chairman of the Conservative Party will be sitting at home, terrified as to what the early editions of the Sunday tabloids will be saying about you know who! When the phone rings, he/she will know it will be party HQ, and the news won’t be good.
The magic word “incumbency” seems absent from Mike’s analysis, and if an incumbent does well then he’s just about unbeatable. On the big issues, he’s got it right - more people are using public transport, the congestion charge has worked (I never thought it would), policing is working better, etc.
I don’t live in London so my only contact with Ken is via listening to a couple of speeches he’s made at the labour party conf recently - once where he shared a platform with Seb Coe, promoting the Olympic bid, and another time where he spoke with the mayor of Los Angeles and others in favour of the greener cities initiative.
What made most impact on me was when he appeared on telly after the 7/7 bombings and I thought his statement condemning the bombers was highly effective and quite moving.
Now I now some of you guys will say - ah but this is all an ingenious disguise and he’s actually further to the left than Trotsky, but all I can say is, he’s making a damn good job of concealing it.
27 Maybe that is what “Ploddick” needs / wants - a bit of fancy coverage! We all know he has a (relatively, for a policeman) colourful past. And yet most coverage of his campaign so far focuses on the boring!
re 58. Until now I have taken the view that Ken’s incumbency would be helpful and in November was urging people to get on him while his price was at the then 0.58-1. See
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
I sense that the mood is in danger of changing - not amongst Labour voters but amongst the Tories and Lib Dems without whom Ken would not have been re-elected four years ago. The one in four Lib Dems and one in six Tories who switched to Ken for the Mayoralty are the key groups of voters. My guess is that this mass of media coverage might make them less inclined to do the same again.
Does anybody want a private wager on the next YouGov poll on Londoners? The last one had Ken 1% ahead - I am very happy to bet that Ken will not be in the lead in the next one.
Any takers? A straight evens bet.
54 If I had a farm to bet, I would take you on, Harry.
60
I think your right, Londoners will move towards Boris, then at the last minute shy away.
16 - Public transport fares have gone down under Ken, in marked contrast to the bus systems in other cities (average of 10% pa in Exeter for the last five years for example), or the national rail network. All at the same time as introducing the new technology of Oyster, again in marked contrast with the cock-ups when new technology is used by central government (whether under the Tories or Labour).
If you are somehow claiming that fares would be lower under the Tories than they would under Ken, you will only succeed in fooling yourself.
Ken might be an annoying prat at the best of times, but at least he isn’t a Tory prat.
28 “When you read him [Gilligan] it’s as if the most vile, geeeky, dungeons and dragons playing , never had a girlfriend right wing blogger has for some unearthly reason been given a column in a quality newspaper - he doesn;t have the charm, humour or charisma to persuade.”
This is as ugly a thing as I have ever read on pb.com (or in the tabloids for that matter). Incidentally, Jonathan, have you any idea how YOU come across?
35. I agree - NRK could be the big story for the next GE and therefore betting on.
63 - the Oyster card is a huge intrusion into privacy, allowing TfL to track all card users’ movements on a named basis. For that reason, I do not have one. If you do not have an Oyster card, the public transport system in London is monstrously expensive - £4 for a single zone 1 tube journey, which is, I believe, the highest in Europe.
36 Roger, a number of people have already posted that Gilligan was a member of the Labour Party, following Jonathan’s nasty attack.
They are correct — Gilligan is on record as having been a Labour party member (not voter, but fully paid up member) before Iraq.
re 66. You don’t have to give your name to get an Oyster card. Buy a prepaid one at any tube station.
I think that this has been the biggest innovation of Ken’s period in office and he deserves the credit.
63. “Ken might be an annoying prat at the best of times, but at least he isn’t a Tory prat.”
I like it!
68. The other factor in May’s election will be the pay cut a million Londoners will have just had. The disappearance of the 10p tax band will have passed many people by, but they sure will notice in April if they are earning between 6 and 18 thousand a year. Do you think they’ll blame Boris?
69. Tories for years allowed their personal prejudices and dislikes to blind them to the strengths of New Labour.
PB.com’s Labour contingent may be making the same mistake - allowing their distaste for Boris - toff, adulterer, Tory prat, friend of crooks, poor haircut, larger salary than me, more successful, funnier, more attractive to women, etc. - to colour their betting judgement.
Boris still has the capacity to screw up between now and May, but, at the moment, the numbers should make him the favourite in a two-round contest.
I’m not a huge fan of Ken in Labour party terms (I would have voted for Frank!) but I agree that he shows a remarkable resilience in the face of press criticism.
Dispatches, Nick Cohen etc etc strike me as being like progressive goo-goo reformers complaining about a Huey Long, a Mayor Curley or a Jimmy Walker. It’s likely to be ineffective as long as it doesn’t effect how well Ken delivers as mayor (and the Drinking stuff menetioned is coverage of Dispatches is just tawdry- swabbing the guys glass? Jesus that’s low.)
If Boris Johnson was Fiorello LaGuardia, it might be more effective, but he ain’t.
60. Mike- I’m not willing to take on your bet (I expect yougov could well put Boris ahead- he’s had next to no coverage and Ken’s had a lot of negative), but when the 1% lead poll came out Ken’s campaign claimed that yougov had Norris neck and neck with him just before 2004, are they right?
They used this to say yougov understate Kens support butI couldn’t find the poll.
7 — Rod Crosby, that is a pretty serious accusation. Either you are saying that Mike is trying to alter the betting market for political reasons or to make a quick buck. That is very unfair. We know Mike better than that and I think you should apologise.
71. Very good point and one I would have made had you not done so first! The amount of denial in Roger and Jonathan’s posts (and Coldstone, who I think is a Lib Dem?) is really quite amusing.
The media agenda has moved on. The post about the Tory party chairman waiting for the Sunday papers is symptomatic. When was the last time a Sunday lead with a Tory scandal? The people being hit in the Sundays are Hain, Harman, Wendy Alexander and so on. The issues are Iraq and Northern Rock. The scrutiny and the criticism is of Labour, no matter how much their cheerleaders might want it to be 1995 again. Those days won’t return until there’s a Tory government.
68. Absolutely right about Oyster. For comparison, the Navigo system in Paris really is intrusive. In order to get a card you have to fill in an application form and give them a photo and documentary proof that you live or work in Paris…
Hmm, well on 19th October I post news of Ken losing the job. It’s old news to an astrologer
As Mike has often commented, you have to separate out your personal likes and dislikes for any particular candidate from an objective analysis of what will happen.
As you know, I hate Livingstone. I really don’t care what he’s done as Mayor. As far as I’m concerned, he crossed a particular moral threshold when he acted as cheerleader for Sinn Fein, and I could never bring myself to vote for him under any circumstances. So, while I’m not hugely enthusiastic about either Johnson, or Paddick, I’d support whichever of the two was best placed to beat Livingstone. In this election, that means Johnson.
But, I must always remember that Livingstone is a past master at US style identity politics. Muslims are much more numerous as a proportion of London’s electorate than they were in the 80’s. So, he’s willing to offend gay voters, in order to get hardline Muslim voters, and that’s probably a shrewd political calculation. Also, it means he can heal the rift with the Islamist section of Respect. He’ll also get the lion’s share of London’s large number of public sector workers, and probably most of London’s black voters too (although their turnout tends to be poor).
Now, people who are as hostile to Johnson as I am to Livingstone will find it hard to believe that anyone can vote for someone they see as an upper class twit. However, first bear in mind that the Conservatives led Labour by 7% across London in 2006. Johnson is not saddled with Jarvis, as Norris was, and is very well known to, and popular with, Conservative voters. I think there will be very little slippage in Johnson’s vote, compared to the Conservative vote. If (as I expect) the Conservatives win 35% or so in the constituencies, that will be the floor of Johnson’s support.
And he has other advantages. He is known to, and popular with, more uncommitted voters - some of whom will vote for him out of name recognition, and he is a teflon politician. Comments which would sink other politicians’s chances are just laughed off when he makes them. So, he’s a formidable opponent - something which I think Livingstone realises, but which some of Livingstone’s supporters don’t.
73 Yougov slightly overstimated Norris in 2004, although not so early on into the campaign IIRC.
O/T. By far the biggest gainer today on the stock market (which is down over 200 points on the FTSE-100, btw), is Northern Rock. No prizes for working out who the financial markets think is picking up the risk.
80 A cowards version of nationalisation using taxpayers money to pretend its a private sector deal, but then what else did we expect.
80 Let me guess, David - is it you and me, and a load of other taxpayers?
71. 75. I’m interested Baskerville- while I can certatinly see that Boris is better value than 2-1, why would you describe him as favourite when we’ve not yet seen a poll with him ahead and incumbents usually do better in closing weeks of a campaign?
82. Hmmm. Looks like it might be. I see that Vince Cable is still all over the media scoring good points on the issue. Where is George Osbourne / some other Tory spokesman?
84 - GO was on the Today show this morning, he got a better time slot than Cable but didnt seem to do as well (to my ears anyway).
84. Becuase If he does, what can he say?
Last week it was “nationalisation’s bad” - So any interviews would go like this…
“OK, so this isn’t nationalisation., is it bad?”
“Yes”.
“Why?”
“Because Gordon Brown and Labour suck”
“OK, what would you do?”
“Different things, and we’d do them better”.
“What things?”
“Oh, you know, just.. different. and better. Also, Labour sucks.”
“Can you be more precise?”
“…”
63. High standard of comments today.
Livingstone is in trouble this time. He is now no longer the outsider, the little guy, and he is tied in to the negatives of new labour. That’s before you get to his own negatives, the two things I despise, corruption and negativity, Livingstone epitomises both and I hope that the public realise that matters.
Now that the sensible left has started to ask questions about him his time is up.
86 how about he says
” Why didnt Brown just agree to lend the 30bn to Lloyds before the run on NRock even happened and prevent the enormous damage done over the past 4 months?”
86.
Being serious, I’d have thought “we wouldn’t have allowed it to get to this situation in the first place and would have favoured a sale in the Summer, when it was possible” might be a possible line. I know there are arguments about whether the EU rules allow that, but frankly, a done deal is a done deal.
90. Leaving aside the fiscal and economic merits (which I don’t pretend to be an expert on), I don’t think that lines politically tenable for the Conservatives for two reasons-
First, because they supported the government at the time.
Second, they’d in effect be saying the government should have offered a sweeter deal to banks 4 months ago, so you’d immediately get into how much would that have cost.. (neatly summed up by SPs post, where the crucial words are “lend the 30 bn to Lloyds…”). To my untrained ears, that doesn’t sound like that much better a deal….
52 - Roger, Martin Bright has absolutely not taken the same journey as Melanie Philips. He can see organised islamism for what it is but he remains on the left; she hasn’t. So, question your prejudices.
74 - Sean Fear, good points on Johnson’s base. The Yougov poll for the London Policy Institute in November suggested Paddick would come top of the second preferences at 28%, Johnson second at 21% and Livingstone last 16%. Obviously, this was before voters even knew who Paddick but it does suggest something about the polarisation of Livingstone support.
This was the YouGov poll that appeared in the Evening Standard on the day before polling in 2004 -
See http://tinyurl.com/2h2ah3
Totally agree with you Sean. Anyone who would seek to act as an apologist for Sinn Fein as Livingstone did whilst many Londoners were being murdered will never ever receive my vote under any circumstances.How quickly all that has been swept under the carpet, Livingstone is a disgrace to his party.
Mike
I have been contacted by “the Observer” who is interested in taking up your offer.
How about £500 at evens ?
91 it would have a MUCH better deal in that Rock would have been sold to Lloyds BEFORE the run on the bank and the enormous damage done to teh financial system that resulted. Lloyds would have just absorbed Rock and sorted out the problems and repaid the treasury in full. The delay now means you have a broken institution that is worth zilch and can ONLY be sold by offering massive sweetners (ie subsidy)and retaining masses of rick.
[63] Timothy, are you a Londoner? Fares have not gone down, a one-day bus pass has just gone up from £3 to £3.50 (17%) and the cost on Oyster of a day pass on zones 1&2 from £4.60 to £4.80 (5%). Boris is at least right about bendy-buses - though I don’t expect him to deliver on his promise, or any other on public transport - Tories don’t care about public transport, never have, never will, never use it. (Well, I once saw a Tory councillor on the tube in the 1970s, but he wasn’t a real Tory - he believed in PR and his wife was a Liberal…)
[92] There’s a simple test for Islamophobia. It’s this. Ask yourself, “are you willing to live under Sharia law?”
If the answer’s “no”, you’re an Islamophobe. Sorry.
On the NR farrago, frankly I am worried as it appears the government are hell-bent on handing it to Virgin on a plate. The point that concerns me is if Virgin cannot turn the Rock around, and frankly Branson has always been better at publicity than actual performance. I’m concerned that he isn’t the knight in shining armour he is portraying himself as.
91. Lloyds would have paid the money back. This way, the taxpayer will almost certainly get screwed for billions - NR’s mortgage book will not provide proper coverage for the government debt (for that is what it is) being issued to replace the BoE loans.
So Lloyds’ deal was far better value. Rapid administration would have been better still.
94: Did you ever vote for New Labour? Blair let all the IRA murderers out of jail no questions asked. No moral difference in my book.
98 I’ve never understood how objecting to a particular religious viewpoint can be a “phobia”.
101 Whether or not one agree with that, (and I thought the IRA was treated too leniently) that was done as part of an overall settlement endorsed by Northern Ireland’s voters. Livingstone acted as Sinn Fein’s cheerleader at a time when the IRA was still letting off bombs.
93. Thanks for finding that Mike- got to say, that unless I’m missing something (eg change in methodology), the Ken campaigns point on the polls looks wrong- if the headline was 55/45 then and 51/49 now, we should surely be comparing those, not the “likely to vote” versus the headline. Do you agree?
I have no love for Livingstone, but I agree that the Oyster card was a shrewd move. I have never used one, but I have used the original: the Octopus card on the Hong Kong MTR. Now that is a good system.
Just to be clear, Livingstone didn’t invent the Oyster card, he merely copied the Hong Kong’s Octopus card. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s right for him to copy the ways of a good capitalist SAR.
I have a question to the Tories posting here about the London Mayoral election. If as the campaign develops it becomes clear that Boris will not be able to overtake Ken on first preferences, what is the likelihood of switching their first preference to Brian in order to topple Ken. If Brian can overtake Boris on first preferences IMO he will win.
106 And if pigs could fly, Scotland Yard would be London’s fifth airport.
106. No, because he would still be way behind Livingstone on first preferences, and while he might gain ground on second preferences, they wouldn’t be enough to close that gap.
What has Ken done to improve the tube?
Before Ken, the Tories that have no time for public transport, approved the Docklands Light railway,the Jubilee line extension,the Heathrow Express and the further extension of the DLR to Lewisham & Beckton.
I am being unfair,Ken did approve the DLR extension to City airport,not much to brag about after 8 years.
re 95. Please tell “Observer” that I would be delighted to accept. My stake is the £500 he still owes me so it is a sort of “double or quits”. I do need proper contact details.
107 Augustus - I saw some flying pigs recently in New Hampshire!
[109] I think you’ll find all those routes improved communications between the City, the well-known Tory wet dream that is Docklands, and foreign parts. If you lived anywhere else or wanted to go anywhere else, proper Tories expect you to get behind the wheel of your Chelsea Tractor.
[112] I didn’t expect that to get past the spam filter!
110
I am sorry Mike, it was just a joke.
I am sure though he just lurks and reads the site.
Surely if you won you wouldn’t really expect £1000 from someone as trustworthy as the ” Observer “, would you ?
[102] If Islam was only a religion, Sean, you’d be spot on. But it isn’t - it’s also a legal system. And, in my opinion, because I believe that Islam is what Muslims do, it’s also a cultural identity. (For example, in the recent TV reconstruction of an “honour” killing, the perpetrator gave his ethnic origin as “Muslim”.)
Muslims in Europe are deeply discomforted by their status as immigrants, when the history of Islam is one of conquest. It is this dissonance which is the fuel of radical Islamism (which, of course, is not the same as Islam) - “mainstream” Muslims don’t have an equally cogent narrative to set against it. They’ve seen what’s happened to Jewish culture in our society - assimilated almost to death - and they don’t like it.
[97] - I use London public transport on the occasions that I visit my family who still live there.
My reference to “fares down” is based on a few data points:
1. In 2001, not long after Ken first became Mayor, bus passes decreased in price.
2. Last September the Oyster bus fare decreased from £1 to 90p.
3. #2 prompted me to have a nose around on the tfl website, on which they had an analysis of inflation adjusted prices which showed they had gone down (slightly), in real terms, over the last five years or so.
[109] - The hands of the London Mayor, whoever he is, have been well and truly tied over the tube by none other than Gordon Brown, who imposed the PPP scheme, leading to massive bureaucratic waste, and an increase in weekend line closures (which are cheaper than night-time maintenance for the private companies involved).
Yet another example of the damage done by ‘Labour’ leaders out-Torying the Tories.
If Boris is possibly going to get ahead in thr polls, might be worth having some cash on him in the hope of a flip flopping favourite situation, if you havent already done so.
115. A very shrewdly observed post. Is there any chance that our leaders might at some point grasp the realities expressed therein, or will they continue to hand out public money to groups which reinforce the tendencies you identify?
95.110. Have I missed something? What offer?
105. “Octopus” card? You mean they’ve actually got a thing in HK called the “Octopus card”? But that’s what I’ve always called the Oyster card, purely satirically! Can I sue for retroactive plagiarism like in HHGTTG?
116
Whatever excuse you want to use Livingstone’s record with London Underground over the past 8 years is simply abysmal.
Mike - will happily bet you a tenner on the Yougov poll.
Will hopefully be at the party on Friday so can grab you then to give you my phone number.
Cheers, Rob.
PS this bet is largely based on my faith in Boris either making a huge mistake in the interim and / or failing to do much.
(Declaration of interest - an open supporter of Paddick)
re 121. Agreed - I’ll see you then.
Methinks Gord is not very happy occupying No 10
I suppose time will tell.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3356200.ece
Brown: Hostile Question Time turns off voters
By Nigel Morris and Ben Russell
Published: 21 January 2008
After just 14 appearances at Prime Minister’s Question Time, Gordon Brown has expressed his growing disillusionment at what he considers the poor quality of the weekly battle of wills across the despatch box.
Mr Brown fears the 30-minute sessions have become so noisy and bad-tempered that the public will be increasingly repelled.
Although he has made it clear he has no plans to change the event, the Prime Minister has told colleagues that he believes the Commons exchanges are now of little use in discussing the issues of the day.
I am not so sure the public find QT, per se, repellent.
I, for one, find it most rewarding to watch.
“noisy and bad-tempered”
Hahahahaha.
That’s rich following the High Command’s order that all loyal minions should scream “More!” at the end of the Opposition Leader’s six, and Brown’s exemplery impersonation of a dancing bear being prodded with a sharp pointy stick whenever Cameron mocks him.
Perhaps if Brown answered questions (or even evaded them properly) instead of asking them he might find the experience more rewarding.
124. Anyone else think that if he was doing well at PMQ’s he wouldn’t be whinging? It sounds like sour grapes, he’s not any good at it so he decides he has to rubbish it.
124. Yes, utterly pathetic. Most likely the prelude to another act of ‘courage’ which will involve Brown trying avoid his weekly humiliation.
33. You are metamorphosing in front of my eyes Aaron from a shrewd poster on the finer points of gambling to a blue rinse cheer leader. Where did it all go wrong?
Roger I am far from a “blue rinse cheer leader” and have no problems with people arguing from their own political perspectives.
Your thoughtless diatribes annoy me, however. It is clear you have a decent mind so why do you post such lazy drivel on occasion? Try to look at situations objectively rather than relying on the spurious “I don’t know anyone in their right mind who would vote XXX”…
Brown is giving the impression of someone who has scrimped and scraped all his life to buy his dream car - only to discover when he finally sits behind the wheel that it is a really uncomfortable ride….
124. I can see Gutless Gordon eventually cancelling QT, and just remaining holed up in his Downing St Bunker 27/7, such is the out and out cowardice of the man.
Interesting poll in the ES today has Boris on 44% and Ken on 38%, its intriguing because it surveys the voluntary, business government and media sectors which one wouldn’t have thought were natural Boris territory.
Good afternoon.
GOP watchers might find this ‘Time’ article instructive on possible post ‘Super Tuesday’ confusion for Republicans.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1705538,00.html
130, no, not even Gordon would be that stupid. There were rumours a few months ago that he was ducking out of PMQs and putting up Harman (Harman Vs Hague would be hilarious, like a donkey against a lion) but when it became apparent the contempt for such an idea Gordon magically appeared.
83. Hopi Sen, sorry for the delay in replying, had to pick up Baskerville Junior from playgroup.
My point was subjective, but as follows.
Add to Norris’s Conservative score a better national picture, a better known and likeable candidate without the Jarvis negatives, strong Tory organisation and morale; minus those Tories/undecideds who think Boris a buffoon. Result: Up 10% on 2004.
Take off Ken those weary of this one-trick newt, those angered by his religious lobby tricks, those concerned by alleged corruption at City Hall, those impoverished by another four years of massive tax rises, those core Labour voters who’ve just had a pay cut courtesy of Brown ending the 10p tax band, poor Labour organisation and morale; add to his score those who like buses, oyster cards and a CPSOs. Result: Down 7.5% on 2004. [The balance goes to nice-but-dim PC Brian.]
Mix in a decent chance of picking up a majority of second prefs and I’d say Boris is the favourite. Please feel free to disagree.
‘why do you post such lazy drivel on occasion?’
On occasion???
O/T. Looks like the US markets are going to open well down, seemingly as investors are underwhelmed by Bush’s package of measures to stimulate the US economy.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17df8940-c7fd-11dc-94a6-0000779fd2ac.html
The South Carolina exit polls at the weekend already seem to be picking up the economy/likely recession as the “big” issue in the coming election, and Romney in particular seems to be pushing this following his Michigan win. Which candidates look best placed in both parties to capitalise?
131. Here is the link:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23433317-details/Boris+wins+London+influentials‘+backing+with+6+per+cent+poll+lead/article.do
Paddick’s large percentage in second preferences is encouraging for LDs. If he chips away at both Ken and Boris’ vote and Boris commits a few gaffes pigs could well appear flying over Scotland Yard.
136. US markets actually closed today, but futures prices down…
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/stocks/futures.html
From Drudge Report: “RASMUSSEN Florida poll to be released: Romney 25, McCain 20, Giuliani 19… Developing…”
Place your bets on Romney now, quickly?
134 I keep adding to my Boris position because I agree with your analysis
main risks are Boris does something stupid ( not impossible but he is looking much more focussed on the job at the moment ) - and /or voters ignore the negative stuff about Ken and feel they are safe with him . I dont sense a positive attitude towards Ken at the moment whereas it was there last time round - time for a change / clean sweep is more the mood now
I really try not to comment on other MPs, but can’t let the ‘razor-sharp brain’ that Mike believes he has detected in Boris to pass. As someone who has sat with him in committee, I’ll just say that maybe he does have a sharp brain and can’t be bothered to use it, but it is really not evident in practical politics.
That doesn’t mean it’ll be a bad thing if he’s elected - I quite like the idea of his being the most prominent elected Conservative.
As for Ken, I think most people decided a long time back what they thought of him, and are fairly immune to reports that he has advisers with far-left views (No! Well I never…). Quite a lot of Londoners will be quite pleased to hear it.
I don’t want to bet on a YouGov poll, but I’m happy with my 4-6 charity bet on Ken in the recorded wagers section.
137 Sorry, Goupillon, but it doesn’t work like that. Second preferences are just that - secondary. It’s a bit like me saying that if I wasn’t married to Mrs Carp, my second preference would be Nicole Kidman. No matter how well intentioned the desire, there is simply no way of bringing it about.
124 - Gordon could easily improve PMQs by telling the whips to put a stop to the cringe-worthy questions along the lines of “Would the PM like to agree how marvellous the new school/hospital/whatever in my constituency is?”
Having some “friendly” criticism, debate and questioning, would go some way to force the Opposition to grandstand a bit less and concentrate more on the issues, though with Northern Rock, etc, these hardly favour the PM at the moment.
re 131 & 137. I agree with Ken’s spokesperson on this. This poll is meaningless because it is nor a representative sample of the London population as a whole.
What a complete waste of money - why did not the ES pay for a proper poll? Were they worried that it might show in a good light?
136, I’d watch for Romney. He has a story to play with on the economy.
Huckabee is interesting because of his economic populism which may well have an audience and often does in tougher times. It looks like he cant reach much beyond the evangelicals and even then doesnt have that group sewn up but can still garner interesting percentages.
I suspect for Huckabee, he will want to get to Super Tuesday were some bastions of the religious right are on the voting slate. His problem is the continued presence of Big Fred who if you believe the conspiracy theorists is going to hang on a bit more to help out McCain. If Fred drops out however. Huck has a bit of a lifeline, however short before the almost inevitable.
Its already been seen that Romney & McCain do have some interchange as well as with Guiliani. Unless Guiliani shows proper winning signs shortly then its down to two and have no doubt the economy issue will be used heavily by Romney against McCainb who freely admits he’s not a genius on it.
Oh and on the Democrat side. Hillary has Bill, who all in all seemed to do ok especially in the eyes of Democrats. She;d be looking to corner that mantle.
There are two aspects to PMQs, though
The first is the one that we obsessives see - the whole performance; a good outcome is measured by how well you’ve managed to perk up your own benches. If the opposition doesn’t manage to land a real blow, the PM can be considered to have won.
The second aspect, though, is how the country sees the fight, as interpreted by the media.
Brown’s getting increasingly good at the first. He no longer stammers, his hands don’t visibly shake, he’s started looking at the opposition benches rather than at the speaker, etc. Moreover, he doggedly refuses to get drawn into arguments (which means that Cameron has no opportunity to trip him up).
The Labour back benchers must be gaining some heart from Brown’s recent performance at PMQs, and the Tories can no longer look forward to a firework display every Wednesday lunchtime.
The opposite is true, of course, of the second aspect. Cameron wins here every time; he plans his questions around the soundbites that he wants to feed to the media. He doesn’t get distracted by Brown’s questions or respond to his tractor production figures - he keeps his eye firmly on how the session will play on the evening news, rather than how it goes down in the house.
So should Brown really feel so despondent about his performances? After all, we’re two years from a general election, so avoiding a collapse in the moral of his backbenchers is surely a more important goal for him at the moment.
139. Already on him in a number of areas, including FL on the basis of what Caveman pointed out, the economy. Plus he’s going to be the establishment man.
Having said that, 25% is a vulnerable number and its all to play for there.
re 139. The last Rasmussen poll had McCain 3% ahead. As a heavy Romney backer I’m quite pleased.