#VoteBike - 2012 London Mayoral elections

Oops I just neg repped Oliver when I meant to give him rep! The consequences of a slip on the ballot paper (or the modern capitalist equivalent that is the iPad in this case)

Apologies

Livingstone is devisive. He cares only about a segment of the community. The Mayor should be for all Londoners.

I've long admired Ken Livingstone's previous success with the busses and the congestion charge. As a student around 2001 / 2002 my dose of daytime telly included the UK parliament channel, which sometimes showed the London Assembly meetings and their questioning of Ken. Compared to the national parliament it was a breath of fresh air, and it was always clear there was a lot of positive change happening.

I was only dimly aware of other aspects of his political identity, and have been finding people's cryptic condemnations of him confusing. Trying to understand has been like swimming though mud of claims and counter claims, vapid arguments and attacks on the validity of sources i lack the time or language skills to unravel.

It is clear though from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vF-VHemlE
speech that Ken is a firm supporter of the Palestinian people. So at last i begin to understand what's divisive about him. I can't find much to argue with in his speech, but i can see a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable with their Mayor holding such a forthright position on such a polarising issue.

It's clear he cares for London's Muslims, but i don't for a moment believe they're the only segment of London he cares for.

Presidential style personal politics = idiots voting for candidates who can play the PR game best. This plus naked self-interest and a media shit storm vilifying Livinstone. What a surprise.This is why that gobshite bufoon got elected.
4 more fucking years.
Sorted out the congestion zone expansion did he? so that's al right then.
Anyone who's a cyclist and voted for that shite should feel fuckin ashamed. End of.

Exactly my point - the personalisation of campaigning allows you to see the poin where a candidate will draw the line, and how far they will go across that line to get the power they crave.

Just because someone gets personal with you, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to their level. Again to the apolitical bystander Ken dug himself a grave with his Tax mumblings

Actually I don't think missmouse shares your point. By PR machines, missmouse was suggesting that personal shit slinging isn't a function of how much shit there is to sling, but who slings it loudest. Ken's "gaffes" were not gaffes in the traditional sense, rather an unashamed refusal to play media political game.

While most see Boris winning after basically phoning in an entire 4 years in office as either a measure of his genius, or of Ken's poor campaign, I see it as evidence of an electorate which deserves no better. Boris brazenly doesn't give a shit and twats lap it up.

I voted 1. Ken, 2. Jenny as I figured the 2nd place for Ken vote would just give us Boris.

I had a chat with Ken at a Road Peace conference last year re the danger of lorries sharing the road with cyclist. We asked if he would back a removal of the night time lorry ban due to noise restriction and bring in a day time restriction/permit access instead. He agreed it was a good idea and was working with Road Peace to come up with a strategy.

When chatting to Boris he thought ladies were too timid on bikes and we should wear our hair up....
4 more years of the dick head. Gutted.

I voted 1. Ken, 2. Jenny as I figured the 2nd place for Ken vote would just give us Boris.

I had a chat with Ken at a Road Peace conference last year re the danger of lorries sharing the road with cyclist. We asked if he would back a removal of the night time lorry ban due to noise restriction and bring in a day time restriction/permit access instead. He agreed it was a good idea and was working with Road Peace to come up with a strategy.

When chatting to Boris he thought ladies were too timid on bikes and we should wear our hair up....
4 more years of the dick head. Gutted.

They wanted to vote for ken. You're assuming everyone who voted 2nd for green preferred them. If you prefer Ken you might prefer express it in the 1st round of voting.

That's not what they implied though and if that is the case [preferring one of the obvious top two], then there is no point having a second vote as it is not counted.

The second vote is for people who would prefer someone who isn't going to win but would still like to have a say in the eventual winner.

The facepalm is for the logic of not voting ken 1st = giving Boris a boost.

Precisely.

I got that, obviously Ufrasia didn't think long and hard about it and voted with a heavy heart, they preferred Ken and green in that order. I suspect if they thought through the preference options they would just leave 2nd blank, or put green anyway.

Also it isn't an absolute certainty, for example if more than half the ken votes did vote 1. green 2. ken, then green would be second, with no 2nd preference votes to compete with boris. Obviously that's very unlikely but you never know, especially if you're not all that au fait with the history.

As far as I can tell, the only issue that played a real role in this election was the tax stuff. The key mistake that Livingstone made was not to use different arrangements and then trying to get to Johnson on the personal level. The gap was relatively small, and accusations of hypocrisy are the worst thing that can happen to any politician. I'm certain that Livingstone would have won if it hadn't been for that.

While it's endearing that you think people think this much about policies Oliver I'm just not sure it's true. Boris didn't come out of that looking good either, especially when he lost his cool (which he has a habit of doing) in the lift after that LBC interview with Ken. Most people essentially felt that Ken had a cheek standing again after being voted out 4 years ago. They see him as a spent political force (which he now certainly is) and they didn't like him that much in the first place. They don't feel that Boris has been disastrous, so why would they turn to Ken again?

I don't think the policies came into it, in fact I can think of few elections where manifestos have affected the outcome any less. I don't think anyone really cared that much about the tax situation, the general public think politicians are all crooked and as bad as each other anyway. They just don't like Ken and many of them think Boris is a 'good bloke' (see the wisdom of Mr Jolly) or whatever platitude they choose to describe him.

It's all about personality and national politics. Ken got a huge boost from the poor performance of the Coalition Government and Boris successfully managed to distance himself just enough from the Tories on a national level to scrape through.

On preferences and so on, I voted Ken to try and keep Boris out, very much through gritted teeth. Anyone who voted Green, Independent or anything other than Ken as first preference helped Boris get back in, and now we still have a Mayor who has suggested that cyclists are typically dreadlocked, Lycra-clad racers who jump red lights and believe themselves 'morally superior'. Personally I find that quite frustrating and think it's a shame people can't separate personal ideology and personality politics from political pragmatism and what would (in my opinion) have been best for London.

I think Ed Milliband's quote summed the situation up quite nicely for me:

"Boris Johnson's strategy for these mayoral elections is based on pretending he is not a Tory. He tries not to be seen in public with David Cameron and most of his election literature makes no reference to him being the Conservative candidate. But Boris Johnson has proven to be a typical Tory as mayor, raising fares, cutting services and standing up only for the powerful or wealthy in London."

And now we have another four years of Boris, during which it is quite possible that he will swing further towards his true right wing colours.

Just because someone gets personal with you, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to their level.

Oops I just neg repped Oliver when I meant to give him rep! The consequences of a slip on the ballot paper (or the modern capitalist equivalent that is the iPad in this case)

Apologies

Now you just lowered yourself to my level. :)

Exactly my point - the personalisation of campaigning allows you to see the poin where a candidate will draw the line, and how far they will go across that line to get the power they crave.

I don't understand this argument at all. Personalisation to me means that policies, content, and meaningful discussions about what the candidates would bring to the job recede into the background. I think that leadership qualities and political understanding are naturally tested if the issues are on the table.

Just because someone gets personal with you, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to their level. Again to the apolitical bystander Ken dug himself a grave with his Tax mumblings

Yes, that was his big mistake. I'm sure the Tories were only waiting to unveil the personal attack based on tax arrangements, but first they needed a hook on which they could hang the charge of hypocrisy, and he gave it to them.

Actually I don't think missmouse shares your point. By PR machines, missmouse was suggesting that personal shit slinging isn't a function of how much shit there is to sling, but who slings it loudest. Ken's "gaffes" were not gaffes in the traditional sense, rather an unashamed refusal to play media political game.

There were certainly many incidents that conform to your description, except, I think, for the tax thing. That was different, and perhaps the first time Livingstone had made such a mistake.

While it's endearing that you think people think this much about policies Oliver I'm just not sure it's true.

I thought I said the opposite? While I do think that people would think more about policies if things were clearer and there were fewer problems, I think generally (in this country) there's very little awareness of policies.

(NB I didn't think that Livingstone's policy package was very convincing, either, although it was better than what little we heard about policies from Johnson. There were no really big ideas.)

Boris didn't come out of that looking good either, especially when he lost his cool (which he has a habit of doing) in the lift after that LBC interview with Ken.

Yes, but he didn't come out of it looking like a hypocrite. You lose your cool and it's just your passion speaking; as various commentators have suggested, Johnson knew what he was doing when he swore. The minimal requirement that most people have of politicians is their honesty, so when that's compromised, it's over.

I don't think the policies came into it, in fact I can think of few elections where manifestos have affected the outcome any less.

That's what I think, too.

I don't think anyone really cared that much about the tax situation, the general public think politicians are all crooked and as bad as each other anyway. They just don't like Ken and many of them think Boris is a 'good bloke' (see the wisdom of Mr Jolly) or whatever platitude they choose to describe him.

I disagree. I'm convinced that the accusations of hypocrisy are what made the difference in the campaign. It even turned people against Livingstone who would otherwise have supported him.

It became received wisdom that livingstone was a billionaire gay muslim racist marxist homophobe. And people preferred Johnson only slightly to that.

Randomly I bumped into to Neil Kinnock last night in a car park on the way to Royal Opera House - he was of the opinion that peoples dislike of Ken was preventing a lot of swing voters from voting Labour - he was convinced that had they had a less divisive candidate they would have won.

On preferences and so on, I voted Ken to try and keep Boris out, very much through gritted teeth. Anyone who voted Green, Independent or anything other than Ken as first preference helped Boris get back in

I'm sorry, but I have to pull you up on this single statement.

I've done a lot of looking at this over this campaign, and this statement is one of the biggest misnomers from those who do not truly understand the voting system.

You have read the full details of it on London Elects haven't you?

The system that the Mayoral elections are run on is the 'Supplementary Vote' system. Counting works like this:

If a candidate receives more than half of all the first choice votes they are elected immediately. If this does not happen, the top two candidates with the most first choice votes go through to a second round. All other candidates are eliminated, but the second choice votes on their ballot papers are calculated. Second choice votes for either of the top two candidates are added to the totals for those two candidates from the first round.

The candidate with the highest combined total of first and second choice votes will be elected as Mayor of London

That's direct from the London Elects site.

This actually means that anyone who didn't vote for Boris in the first round helped stop him getting in, unless their second preference was for Boris. If their second preference was for Ken, they helped stop Boris getting in. If they voted $notKenorBoris then $notKenorBoris they helped force it to the second round, but didn't change the final outcome.

Failing to understand the voting system is understandable, the ones used for this are rather opaque*, but if you can do the maths, easy to work out and understand, but your maths comprehension does need to be good. If you haven't bothered to look into it properly and understand it, don't pass on your incorrect knowledge, it only makes things worse.

*At one point, I found myself in the fun position of having to explain the way that the assembly voting worked to the green party (via a third party), they had got it wrong, that's how tricky it is.

TL;DR? Go back and do so. It's important you know how your vote counts.

I do understand how the voting system works, I was making a broader point which stills stands, but thanks anyway.

Randomly I bumped into to Neil Kinnock last night in a car park on the way to Royal Opera House - he was of the opinion that peoples dislike of Ken was preventing a lot of swing voters from voting Labour - he was convinced that had they had a less divisive candidate they would have won.

That's just begging the question. You could just as much argue that anyone would be a divisive figure against the E.Standard smear machine.

The last few posts explaining the rules was quite helpful for me.

If voters, as the majority did, voted for one of the big two as first choice, and working on the premise the big two are polar opposites and voters naturally didn't put their non first choice as second choice (when choosing from the big two) then their second choice becomes irrelevant if their first choice doesn't get 50% of the vote first time round.

It's only those voters who didn't vote for one of the big two as first choice but did as second choice that made the difference when the counting went to second preferences following the big two not getting 50% after the first vote count.

Therefore with hindsight, for this election, if you voted:

Ken Livingstone or Boris Johnson as first choice and an another as second then you your first choice meant something but your second choice didn't.

If you voted an another as first choice and Ken Livingstone or Boris Johnson as second choice then it tipped the balance in this election if your second choice was Boris Johnston, or not Ken Livingstone.

er what?

sorry that video answers very little.

It seems to me it answered the question asked.

If he knew nothing about the man then his publishing of a bloody great big dossier defending the man after bigging him up in public so much obviously shows that he did it for nothing but a promotion of his own 'multi-ethnic' sensibilities. It put him on the big stage and it appealed to certain parts of the electorate. He didnt even for a minute consider whether it was appropriate to promote such a horrific scumbag, and then defend him to the hilt in full public.

Its all about Ken

Surely if he was just shallowly trying to promote his multi-ethnic credentials he'd stay well clear of anything controversial; he'd just be kissing brown babies and eating spicy food. I think he got tangled up in all the controversy because it was a genuine attempt at political engagement.

That in my mind is divisive and a disgraceful way for an elected politician in our country to behave. Apparently you think its fine though and that answer to a question in a press conference is easily enough. Weak

He didn't just answer a question in a press conference though, as you point out he also produced a dossier explaining his position.

But maybe you're counting Ken Livingstone's dossier as discredited and so a further failure to be atoned for?

OK, so most of this story was new to me and i'm playing catch-up. It seems to be:
(For years?,) Quaradawi had been coming to Britain and saying moderate things when talking in English.
Livingstone invited him to conference on religous tolerance.
A dossier was circulated claiming that when speaking arabic in other countries, Quaradawi supports unacceptable positions on anti-semetism, homosexuality and womens rights. (I haven't yet found this original anti-Quaradari dossier.)
Ken responded with another dossier - the press release page is here:
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/mayor-responds-dossier-al-qaradawi
the links to the actual content are broken now, but google found the dossier here:
http://static.london.gov.uk/news/docs/qaradawi_dossier.pdf

Peter Tatchell's response to Ken Livingstone's response is here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/qaradawidossier.htm
and again the links to actual content (a 10 point rebuttal) are broken, but google found me
http://www.galha.org/briefing/qaradawi.html
Which is a 10 point rebuttal, so possibly the same one? All its links to primary sources on islamonline.net are broken too, but assuming galha are who they say they are (or at least were - they don't seem to have done anything for a while) i can probably trust they were acurate.

I've only had time to skim through all this content so far, but basically both sides are accusing each other of distorting things and making stuff up or using sources that have done that. As i don't speak arabic and so much seems to be slipping from the Internet's mind, i'm not able to satisfy myself of the facts.

Ken's dossier says:

• Quaradawi is the target of a smear campaign designed to make him look much more radical than he is, and so scupper any engagement between moderate islam and western politics.
  
• Dispite the differences between main-stream islam and the progressive west, it's better to engage than square up for a clash of civilisations.
  
  

The rebuttal mostly just attacks Ken's first point with more specific examples of things Quaradawi has said. I don't have the time or language skills to assess Quaradawi's postion for myself. (Should i trust the translated subtitles of your video? The man clearly says 'hitler', but beyond that, how faithful are they to his actual meaning and the context of his words? Who made the video and what's their angle?)

The israeli - palestinian conflict is nasty and bitter with no easy answers and not much moral high ground. Ken has a position on the issue so becomes infected by it's division. Does Boris have a view on it?