#VoteBike - 2012 London Mayoral elections

Two introductory points.

I would never vote for Johnson or Paddick.

That said, I cannot vote for Livingston.

Livingston is decisive.

That, indeed, he is. Interesting typo. :)

He stood against the official Labout candidate 12 years ago thus turning his back on the party which he purports to follow.

You do remember what actually happened, don't you?

While Livingstone reneged on his promise not to stand as an independent if he didn't get the party nomination, he made that promise before Blair reneged on his promise to have a 'one member, one vote' ballot. Blair then decided to stitch him up with an 'electoral college' system. In the ballot, Livingstone got more individual votes than Dobson, but the electoral college votes of MPs were more heavily weighted and Dobson scraped in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#First_mayoral_term:_2000-2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/480477.stm

Note also this peculiarity:

The former health secretary currently trails the independent candidate, Mr Livingstone, by around 40 points in the polls and there has been much media speculation that the prime minister had been keen to distance himself from what looks like a Labour defeat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2000/london_mayor/703709.stm

So where did all those people come from who suddenly gave an independent candidate a 40-point lead over the Labour candidate?

Now, I hope you'll forgive me for quoting the Socialist Worker, but it's the first source I found with stats from Labour's ballot (and I can only assume that the stats given are correct):

"I DID very well in the ballot of Labour Party members in London." That was Frank Dobson's amazing claim after it was announced that he had beaten Ken Livingstone to become Labour's candidate for mayor of London. Livingstone did not lose the election. He was robbed. If the vote had been conducted using one member one vote (OMOV), the system Tony Blair claims to prefer, Livingstone would have easily won. He won an estimated 74,646 votes in all three sections, compared to 22,275 for Dobson and 11,185 for Jackson. The election was a stitch-up from start to finish. The electoral college was divided into three sections, each worth just over 33 percent of the vote. The election was rigged, allowing Dobson to scrape home with 51.3 percent. Livingstone came second with 48.7 percent.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/archive/1685/sw168512.htm

Basically, the selection of Frank Dobson was a political scandal into which this decent man was dragged quite against his will. He came under heavy political pressure to stand despite not wanting to stand at all.

Most recently he campaigned against an official Labour candidate in the Tower Hamlets election.
I don't know much about what happened there, so I won't defend him on that, but I'd be surprised if he didn't have his reasons.

I do not think that the Labour Party should support him. I most certainly won't.

His various antisemetic rants, however couched as "jokes", are intolerable.

He is dismissive of the very type of person that he himself is. He deplores middle class white people and excludes them at every turn. His is a London for the marginalised not a ondon for all Londoners. I believe strongly that every minority must be embraced because I believe that every individual must be embraced. Livingston does not. He divides. He rejects middle class white people (and Jewish people and probably a few other categories of people) and just embraces those that he wishes to embrace. The pick and mix of harmony.

Livingston is, in reality, just about himself and he will harm anyone, harm London, to promote himself.
Where on Earth do you get the idea that Livingstone 'deplores white middle-class people'?

How could Livingstone possibly only do something for 'the marginalised' when his main powers as mayor were/would be in transport, planning, and policing? Can you name one single transport, planning, and policing policy of his two mayoral terms which unfairly favoured 'the marginalised' over white middle-class people?

I really don't know where all of this comes from other than personal dislike--are you relying mainly about the anecdote about Livingstone you once told me?

As for 'all about himself', Livingstone is always quite clear that he wants to 'run things'. He often overtly and publicly claims that he is good at 'running things'. All I can see is evidence of a strong drive and will to govern. I don't think anyone has ever really successfully attacked him on that--it would seem to be part any mayor's job description. He's also a well-documented workaholic with a strong focus on policy and strategy. Boris Johnson is clearly far more 'about himself', albeit without evidence of any will or drive to govern.

NB I have no brief to defend Livingstone and I disagree with a number of his policies. I just find many of the attacks on him unfair and unfounded, and I don't want an election to be based only on emotion, but more on facts and policies.