• First, I don't know whether the SWP are correct or not.

    I only quoted that source for the stats. I wanted an official source but couldn't find it quickly. This is probably a more reputable source but comes at a cost:

    http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/4/737.extract

    Perhaps he has reason to feel agrieved but he should have dealt with that within the Labour Party and not fought against the Labour candidate.

    Against Blair and blatant gerrymandering? You have to be joking.

    He cannot pick and choose when he should support the party and when he should stand outside it.

    I doubt very much that he would have done this had the selection process been handled fairly.

    He is devisive. I apologise for my iPad's spell check and my fat fingers.

    'Divisive', but you're getting there. :)

    He does not want white middle class people to have any role in London. He sees no electoral base among them. He is interested only in being elected and gaining power. I would be interested if you could find one statement by him that in any way indicated a willingness to allow the white middle class to feel part of London.

    Indeed, all you will find is against the socio economic and ethnic group into which I was born. It was not my choice to be white or middle class. I believe that I have as much right to live in London as anyone else. Not more but the same. You will find nothing from Livingston supporting this. Instead he says that people are "too rich to support Labour".

    I'm afraid I still don't see any evidence for this claim. He didn't say what you attribute to him. Instead, he said that voting intention is to a large extent, although not exclusively, governed by people's income levels. You're an exception, but I personally have no doubt that in general he is correct and that wealthier people are much more likely to vote Conservative.

    Again, I'm no partisan of Livingstone's, but I don't accept that he's divisive.

About